Again: Italian Version of Ratzinger/Sarah Book Disproves Gänswein

"which begs the question how Benedict XVI has been happily sending mail and book drafts back and forth to Cardinal Sarah all these months."

House arrest is a light form of imprisonment often accompanied with privilidges etc.

If happily why was it concealed from his gaoler, the thoroughly obnoxious and poisonous Ganswein?.

The mentally unbalanced antipope can not stand the slightest deviation from his mad programme of church destruction and must , like a dirty old hog trample underfoot the slightest stirrings..

"House arrest?" Zero proof supplied, as usual.

...and, as yet, zero explanation how a man under "house-arrest" is allowed to collaborate on a book in the first place!

...much less the various audiences he's given since his retirement.

If Pope Emeritus Benedixt XVI was under "house arrest" this book would not even be an issue.

His mail would be screened and his "gaoler" would simply inform Cardinal Sarah the ageing former pontiff "wasn't feeling well" and that would have been the end of the matter.

Yes. The current Vicar of Christ pope Benedict XVI is under a form of house arrest since his failed abdication. He is not a free man able to come and go and as he pleases.
His gaolers antipope francis and thugs of course seek to maintain a fiction hence as I said before , but you failed as usual to understand it, Benedict is allowed liberties as decided and restricted by his immediate gaoler the sinister Gänswein.

"He is not a free man able to come and go and as he pleases."

Proof remains absent, even when asked for.

"His gaolers antipope francis and thugs of course seek to maintain a fiction hence as I said before , but you failed as usual to understand it"

I fully understand you have a distressing habit of:

a.) making wild claims.

b.) repeating a.) endlessly.

c.) refusing to supply evidence for a.) and b.) when it is asked for.

d.) claiming a critic fails to understand "as usual".

Oh, I understand you perfectly, Thor. I understand you can't and won't support your claim.

Protip: "the current Vicar of Christ" does not pledge "fillial obedience" to a subordinate. Benedict XVI retired and pledged his "fillial obedience to a man who is, sadly, the real "current Vicar of Christ".

Attacking the character of an individual is no proof of the accusation you made.

That's like trying to prove a man robbed a bank because you can prove he's a racist.

You claimed Benedict is under house arrest. More precisely you claimed he's under a "form" of house arrest. You're clever at always qualifying your accusations in such a way they're deliberately vague. In this case the "form of house arrest" just happens to be one that shows no evidence of actually being house arrest.

But you did claim, "He is not a free man able to come and go and as he pleases."

So prove it. You must show Benedict XVI wants to go places and is denied this freedom.

Finger wagging at the people around him is not proof they're denying him anything, particularly when he's still giving poignant interviews like this earltier this month.

cruxnow.com/…/busy-benedict-x…

There's a reason, Francis isn't globe-trotting all over the world the way you stupidly seem to expect. The man is dying. :(

"I note as you lose more and more arguments your levels of ad hominem also increase."

At present, number of "losses" against you stands at zero. :)

Protip: if you know what "ad hominem" means, then you should also understand "ad nauseam". Repeaing your claims isn't an adequate substitute for proving them.

...which is why you still haven't explained how a man under a "form" of house-arrest has full access to the press.

Speaking of lost arguments, I've always wondered how you 'score' all of the arguments where you simply run away in favor of repeating the same claims eslewhere on GTV, literally the next day.

To Ultraviolet
Looks like you are not going to present even one single argument of your own that proves a sitting pope promulgated formal doctrinal heresy on a matter of faith and morals.

It is clear now therefore that you are a product of the unthinking www that browses bits of websites and allows them do all your thinking for you on matters of faith related to Catholicism.
Amazing.
But then again you are no different to the large masses of unthinking sheep lead astray by Bergoglio and his gang.
And when confronted you refuse to accept the reality of the mans deceits and dangers.

There is little point in me arguing further with you until you present a passable case of your own concerning your wild unfounded assertions that many sitting popes committed doctrinal heresies on matters of faith and morals.

"Looks like you are not going to present even one single argument of your own that proves a sitting pope promulgated formal doctrinal heresy on a matter of faith and morals."

I'm still waiting for you to refute the ones presented far more ably by others. :D

I've linked them repeatedly. That hasn't happened. Why is that? For someone who seems to fancy himself such a scholar it should be an easy task, yes?

I'm also still wating for your "proof" of Benedict being under house arrest. That is where we started, Thor. Like usual, you're abandoning your claims precisely when you should be supporting them.

"It is clear now therefore that you are a product of the unthinking www that browses bits of websites and allows them do all your thinking for you"

It's clear you're a hypocrite who willingly ignores numerous doctrinal heresies advanced by the previous four popes and focus only on the ones you believe committed by Francis.

It's clear you misuse and pervert the teachings of the Church into a base political tool without any genuine regard for their spiritual guideance. Otherwise, you'd applying them uniformly to all the Popes.

My argument is entirely my own. If you wish to claim I'm "letting others do my thinking for me", fair enough.

Prove it. You must show not only that my stance on canonical uniformity was previously developed but also that I derived my own position from it.

...and you won't. That's all you ever do on this site. You make empty accusations and never back any of them up.

When I link evidence found online during an argument online, that surprises only someone like you.

If you spent half as much effort refuing the evidence of heresy as you do inventing airy dismissals to describe it, you might be half way through... oh, maybe... John Paul I by now.

And I'm being generous. We both know you looked over the bill of particulars against John XXIII and flounced off in a huff. :D

Those "bits of websites" are something you simply aren't clever enough to knock down. You know it and so do I.

"And when confronted you refuse to accept the reality of the mans deceits and dangers."

When confronted with evidence of doctrinal heresy committed by the previous four popes, you refuse to counter them. All of them, like you should.

...and you're still wrong. I do accept "the reality of the mans deceits and dangers". I also trust in the Lord to guide His Church safely on the path He has set. You don't.

Somehow, your laughably high opinion of yourself has convinced you that God needs your help deposing Francis. If that is God's will, rest assured. He won't dispatch the angel Gabriel to Leinster, Ireland begging assistance from the likes of you..

"There is little point in me arguing further with you until you present a passable case of your own concerning your wild unfounded assertions that many sitting popes committed doctrinal heresies on matters of faith and morals."

I already have presented a case. My case is one for canonical uniformity. Canon Law and Church Magesterium are constants. Either they apply to all Popes or we simply trust in God to allow temporal matters to unfold accordingly.

You keep confusing the argument, the case, with the evidence supporting it.

What you should say, is I haven't presented the evidence others researched as though it were my own. For starters, that's plagiarism.

Nor have I re-written years of painstaking work in a condensed manner that allows you to argue and debate and qualify it endlessly the way you'd like to.

Obviously not! There is no reason for me to gild the lily. They've found extensive evidence of doctrinal heresy for all four Pope prior to Francis.

They did a masterful job as evidenced by your inability to disprove their work.

At this point, there's nothing "wild and unfounded" except your invariable rhetorical retreat into hyperbole.

"Several popes promulgated doctrinal errors is patently false ."

...said the man who's been accusing Pope Francis of precisely this. Remember what I said about uniformity, Thor? If it's possible for one Pope to lapse into such error, it is equally possible for others.

I'll be fascinated to read your explanation of how "anti-catholic nonsense" is being advanced by staunchly pro-Catholic sites.

They truly care about the Church and her teachings in a way you do not. For them, an indictment of heresy against a pope, even a former one, is a serious matter. It's more than petty political tool to spray mud on an unpopular Pope the way it is for you.

"If it were true you could point to one single doctrinal heresy but you can't."

Others have done a much better job than I could ever hope to. Conversely, if all their accusations of heresy were false, you'd be able to refute them. A man of your talents? Oh, to be sure! :D

End of argument? For you, it appears to have ended in a CAPS LOCKED and b adly-sp aced tantrum. Somehow, I'm not suprrised.