Comments on an open letter to the “Benedikt XI”: “Your Holiness, we are worried about the meeting in Assisi” Joseph Ratzinger alias “Pope Benedict XVI”, current visible head of the Group of the so-called “Second Vatican Council” (V2), is planning a third “interreligious peace prayer” in Assisi. his predecessor, Karol Wojtyla alias “Pope John Paul II.” had in 1986 and 2002 with such spectacles attention attracted. Some members of V2 Italy have now written an open letter to Ratzinger: “Your Holiness, we are worried about the meeting in Assisi” (published in the newspaper “Il Foglio” on the 11.01.2011; German transl. Ripple is likely to increase your knowledge. with katholisches.info, “Holiness, avoid the spirit of Assisi” , 12.01.2011). What is it about “Assisi” and the diesbzgl. Criticism on themselves? Very often is spoken by the “spirit of the Council” (concerning V2), and quite often of the “spirit of Assisi”. Actually it is one and the same spirit, i.e.
such spectacles as the Assisi are no “excess Strapazierungen” or even “Deviations” from V2, but its consistent flow. Ripple has many thoughts on the issue. Assisi is itself reason V2 texts. The V2-“Church” is * not * the true Church with their – infallibly defined – nature properties “agree, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, but significantly different from this. The V2 priest Johannes Dormann formulated to: the redefinition of the essence of the Church by the Second Vatican Council is a new dogma of the new Church, the “Council” (the theological way Johannes Paul II., vol. II, 1, Sitta 1992, p. 81). The studies by DCosta – at least initially – very strongly by the V2 publication “Theological” diffused, notably by Walter Hoeres, who wrote a very honorable Dormanns book review (“Theological”, June 1994, 303-308). Affiliated the V2 priest Manfred Adler wrote on the 29.09.1994 in an open letter to Hoeres: the extremely and worst rate in Dormanns book is cited in your book review. You have to write: “in any case, is not deny that the God of Assisi is not the Bible…” That is perfectly true, only you have made unfortunately aware the readers not the monstrous implications of this set.