Burden of proof is on the person trying to imply Benedict is a liar. ;-) Benedict decided he was physically too weak to fulfill his duties as Pope I speculate he refused to become a puppet, the way Saint John Paul II was near the end of his papacy. Watching that happen to a close friend must have infuriated Benedict like nothing else. Understandable why he resigned while he was still strong enough to enforce that much and wasn't totally dependent on subordinates and caretakers.

Benedict was 85 when he resigned. Most men his age are either dead or already in a nursing home. I'll tell you, volunteering in those places is an education. Nursing homes are the closest thing to Hell on earth we have in the West outside of prison.

You'll see elder-abuse by the staff that's heart-breaking. Oh, it isn't punches or slaps (at least not while volunteers are around) but the staff will exert utterly unconscionable levels of control no adult would tolerate if they had the physical "agency" to resist. As Pope, Benedict didn't want to be subject to that.

Agreed, you're not @Live Mike. Nor did I write that you were. Checkin' mah comment I used the word "implying" and that pretty much covers qaulifications like, "the implication was that there was most likely more going on behind the scenes..." Occam's Razor suggests the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the most likely. Mine has none because it takes Benedict at his word. He was getting very old and his health was declining. He'd seen how JP II was treated at the end of his papacy (something apparent even to the laity). He didn't want to end up the same way.

The alternative is a variation of Bro. Bugnolo's "he wuz pressured to resign" gimmick. In this case, claiming his supposedly-premature resignation is an inplication of an ulterior motive.Benedict has repeatedly insisted he resigned of his own free will, which disproves that supposition.

As for the Muslims and Russians, why would they? The entire EU has flung open their doors to the Muslim hordes and our pontiff is currying favor with their leaders. Russia is entirely pre-occupired consolidating their position in Eastern Europe with the eventual goal of re-taking all its former satellites.

It's unlikely God was chastising the Jews of Judea in AD. 70. @Live Mike That was a chastisement from Caesar and ironically enough, religion had little to do with it on either side. ;-) The First Jewish-Roman War got started because Judean Jews refused to pay Roman taxes and began attacking Roman citizens. That guaranteed a harsh, typically Roman, response. As for various mystics and their private revelations, well... ;-) Predictions are easy to make when one doesn't offer any collateral as surety the way GTV's Self Appointed Official Seer does.

I'm not particularly impressed by an author who has the hubris to correct The Son of God when his own pet interpretation doesn't fit the Gospel. Like so:

"But Jesus said , &c. One stone shall not be left upon another. This is a hyperbole, meaning,"

Since sections of the Temple still stand (The Wailing Wall), Lapide's interpretation of Christ is incorrect. So, he simply claims Jesus exaggerated, "This is a hyperbole, meaning,..."

An exaggeration is, by definition, a falsehood.. The author is accusing Christ of being false simply to suit his own "take" on what Christ said..

What Christ said and what Lapide claims Christ meant are two different things.

"The Romans did not spend so much time upon the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple as not to leave a stone upon a stone; but..."

...BUT...that means, since Christ said, "One stone shall not be left upon another." and Lapide concedes this was not the case, then his interpretation of Christ's statement wass incorrect. Unfortunately for Christ, Lapide has the advantage of getting in the last word and tries reconciling the two with his fatuous "; but..." But nothing. Christ was omniscient, Lapide was not.

If that wasn't bad enough, the man even has the nerve to put words in the Son of God's mouth via his interpretation, "And this is what Christ here indicates." That isn't what Christ indicates. What Christ said is not supported by Lapide's interpretation, nor even by the history the author cites.

"Listen to Josephus ( l. 7, Bell. c. 18), "Titus bid them utterly destroy the city and the Temple. But there was left standing the three towers."

And that flatly contradicts "One stone shall not be left upon another."

So either Christ was wrong, which naturally He was not. Or Lapide's interpretation of Christ was wrong.

"The Syriac has, between themselves and Him. For it was a matter full of danger to prophesy, indeed even to speak about the destruction of the Temple, on account of the Scribes and the Magistrates."

...and we all know how terrified Jesus was of offending Scribes and Magistrates, eh? :P HOW many times did He antagonize those groups during His ministry? Lapide's claim is directly contradicted by Jesus who used the destruction of the temple as a metaphor right in front of them in John 2 18-20

"Tell us : the Disciples here ask two things; the first, that Christ would tell them when Jerusalem was to be destroyed;"

...except that's not what the disciples asked in Matthew 24:1 and neither they nor Christ mention Jersualem. This guy... He's doing what all agenda-peddlers do: re-writing what was said into what was NOT said to suit his position.

I'm not going to fact-check the rest of his nonsense commentary.

Surprised to see that. Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide wrote one of the finest Scriptural Commentaries ever produced and is widely respected among most biblical scholars and exegetes. However, his thoughts are indeed at variance with modern scripture scholarship subsequent to the Second Vatican Council. Perhaps therein lies the rub.
Incidentally, you are mistaken regarding "the Wailing Wall" as it is nothing more than a retention wall of the platform upon which the Temple used to stand... the foundation was underground - unseen by the people when Jesus Christ walked the earth. One needs to get into "Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine" to comprehend the truth of the matter.

@Live Mike. "...with modern scripture scholarship subsequent to the Second Vatican Council." Not so. Lapide's interpretation is directly contradicted by the Evangelists and by the writings of the historian Flavius Josesphus who was an eye-witness at the Siege of Jerusalem, which Lapide was not. ;-) Neither source was written "subsequent to the Second Vatican Council". Lapide's interpretation was contradicted by a historical account written by someone who was there.

Being respected does not prove one is correct. That's a Fallacious Appeal to Authority. Like so: Father James Martin, SJ is a highly respected author as well. I doubt either of us will accept his writings because of that. ;-)

"...as it is nothing more than a retention wall of the platform upon which the Temple used to stand..."

...because the foundation of your house isn't part of the house. ;-) Christ was explicit and I must emphasize, He did not exaggerate or tell falshoods (which is what hyperbole is). If anything, the fact this remnant still stands to this day (ignoring the towers that were left standing in Josephus's account) shows the totality of Lapdide's error in "re-interpreting" Christ to suit his own argument.

@Steve D "why did God send fire bursts forth from the foundations, along with a great earthquake,"

That's what you get for reading The National Vanguard catalog during Earth Science class, Steve. :P Earthquakes release underground pockets of methane gas, which is flammable. Little wonder there were bursts of fire at a time when there were cooking-fires, torches, and oil lamps everywhere.

If you wish to show an earthquake was "sent by God", the burden of proof is on you. What am I saying? You backing up a claim with sources? You? Hoo boy... :P

@Chat Chartreux

BXVI believes in both.

ALL of his teachings are Modernist heresy. If you understand the teachings of the Catholic Church then you would understand Benedict XVI doesn't have the Faith. He is a modernist. That is why he was suspect of heresy by the old Holy Office traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm
He should have been defrocked as he is a perjurer as well. He took the Oath Against Modernism before Almighty God each year up until Paul VI ended it (for obvious reasons). Here is more proof of his faithless and immoral teachings:

1. He praised the formally condemned heretic, apostate and Freemason Teilhard de Chardin (condemned by the Holy Office on June 30, 1962 for his work) traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_120_RatzTeilhardl.html - De Chardin is a man who was an occultist who died while fornicating with his mistress on Easter Sunday. Is that someone a Catholic Pope would or should praise?

2. He was 'blessed' by a witch doctor publicly as 'pope' traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A272rcBlessedRatz.html - This is clearly a scandal and apostasy. It shows he has no Faith in Christ.

3. He has sat in Jewish Synagogues and Lutheran assemblies. Giving both of these faithless and immoral sects the appearance of being on the same level as the One, True Faith. Again this shows his faithless and immoral actions. traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A116rcRatzingerSynagogue.htm
traditioninaction.org/religious/m007rpRatzingerTrueColors_May05.html

4. He has never condemned or excommunicated any pro-abortion or pro-sodomy politicians. He helped aid pedo-homo priests

There is much more I can share if you are interested.