More breadcrumbs from Benedict, demand for the Blue Pill remains high, and Flyers hockey

By now I’m sure you’ve seen the letter attributed to Pope Benedict on the publication of an eleven volume set of writings on the theological prowess of Jorge Bergoglio. While at first the text of the letter did not sound like Benedict, accusing critics of Bergoglio of “foolish prejudice” and praising Bergoglio’s theology as “profound”, now an additional portion of the letter has been released that was not shown until yesterday. The additional text at the end of the letter makes it nearly certain that it was indeed written by Benedict, and it also reveals the real intent of the letter:

However, I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them because throughout my life it has always been clear that I would write and express myself only on books I had read really well. Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already made.
I am sure you will understand and cordially greet you.

The original Italian HERE. Here is the entire thing in English:

February 7, 2018
Rev. Monsignor;
Thank you for your kind letter of 12 January and the attached gift of the eleven small volumes edited by Roberto Repole.
I applaud this initiative that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice in which Pope Francis is just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today.
The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.
However, I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them because throughout my life it has always been clear that I would write and express myself only on books I had read really well. Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already made.
I am sure you will understand and cordially greet you.
Yours,
Benedict XVI

So what that last paragraph shows is that Benedict is actually rebuffing a request to write a deeper reflection or recommendation on the books, because he hasn’t really read them. The way the Vatican had originally released the partial letter made it look like the letter itself was the (positive) response that had been requested. Also noteworthy is Benedict twice referring to the books as “small volumes”, almost dismissively, and then at the end saying, totally dismissively, that he still doesn’t have time to read them, because he has more important things to do. SO BUSY! It’s almost as if he isn’t really retired??? So yes, the last paragraph indeed says a lot, and it also shows that Benedict meant it as a private response, never intended to be used publicly.
Today, the Vatican was forced to admit that they intentionally obfuscated the last paragraph, which completely changes the meaning of the entire thing. We now live in an age where the Vatican is constantly shown to be lying. Remember transcriptgate, when Bergoglio’s claim that the “great majority” of sacramental marriages are null, but when the transcript was published, they had changed it to “a portion”.  HERE What about the time Bergoglio made the claim, easily verifiable as objectively false, that everything in AL was approved by two-thirds of the synod fathers? HERE Why do they lie even when they don’t have to, and when they know they are going to get caught? It’s explained in that last link.
But I want to focus on the passage that sounds like it has a double meaning, as Benedict continues to operate within his false construct of an Expanded Petrine Ministry:

The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.

Let’s touch briefly on the first part, the “profound” section, and the whole debate currently raging over the degree to which Benedict and Bergoglio are more alike or more different. By endorsing the theological formation of Bergoglio as “profound”, Benedict is refuting from the previous paragraph the “foolish prejudice” of those who suggest there is a juxtaposition between the theologies of the two men (while also defending himself against those who deem him a mere “theorist”). That’s really no surprise at this point, is it? Readers of this space know that I regard Benedict as always a Modernist, to a greater or lesser degree. He was part of the problem, not part of the solution, and he has been sitting in the background and done nothing while Bergoglio has now committed five years worth of wretched heresy. Whose side did you really think he was on? To this day, he is the one man who can call a press conference, admit he made a mistake in attempting to bifurcate the papacy, and POOF… the entire Bergoglian antipapacy is annulled and expunged.  However, his retention of the papacy via Substantial Error does nothing to solve the bigger problem of nuChurch. There is a whole lot more red pilling necessary to fix that. Understand the Matrix HERE and HERE.
Now I just wanted to point out something on this part:
“the inner continuity between the two pontificates”
“la continuità interiore tra i due pontificati”
The words “inner/interior” and “continuity” each have two meanings. Depending on the mix of the meanings, we arrive at different overall meanings of the two-word phrase. The first thing to know is that continuity is a noun, not an adjective. It doesn’t describe something else, but rather, continuity is a thing itself.  Got it?
One usage of continuity is within a linear notion of time, where we can look at two or more data sets over time and observe whether or not this thing called continuity exists between the data sets. Let me think of an example. Ooh okay how about the violent rupture of Vatican II and the setting up of nuChurch as juxtaposed to the nearly two thousand years of indefectibility that came before it. That’s NOT continuity. Contrast this with the Philadelphia Flyers hockey teams of 1973-74, and 1974-75. After winning the Stanley Cup in May 1974, the only roster move the Flyers made during the off-season was to replace defenseman Barry Ashbee, who had suffered a career-ending eye injury during the cup run. He was replaced with veteran Ted Harris, and the Flyers won their second straight cup the next season. That’s continuity.
Inner/interior can be meant in the sense of the spiritual; the interior life. If we put this meaning together with the previous definition of continuity, we get a meaning that could refer to a spiritual/theological continuity existing between two distinct, mutually exclusive pontificates, across linear time. Given the overall context of the letter, that seems plausible, except for the fact that we have a pretty well-defined data set informing us that Benedict doesn’t see it that way.
As luck would have it, the second way continuity can be defined is not across time but rather within the confines of a space. We observe that the surface of a sphere has continuity, in the sense that it is continuous. “A continuous or connected whole” is one definition HERE. We can also observe continuity between individual parts of a greater whole. The honeycombs of a beehive have continuity. The oxygen we breathe is actually composed of two atoms of oxygen, which naturally exist together through a covalent bond as a single entity wherein we can observe continuity. In order to save you from spending the rest of your day down a rabbit hole of molecular chemistry, just think of it as cracking a single egg and discovering a double yolk.
But wait there’s more! Not only can continuity be spatial, so can inner/interior. In fact the primary meaning of inner/interior is not spiritual, but rather physical/spatial, referring to the inside of some confining space.
So what do we get when we combine the spatial definition of “inner” and the spatial definition of “continuity” together in the phrase, “inner continuity”? Can you think of any other “whole” inside of which we might observe continuity between “individual parts”?
How about the inner continuity between two popes exercising their separate and distinct pontifical roles IN REAL TIME, within the faux Expanded Petrine Ministry, as already thoroughly explained by Ganswein.
You should have known I couldn’t help myself.