aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 843 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  72

  Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

  by SydBarrett in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

  that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

  but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Oh mama, not again ... 🙄
• 
  72

  Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

  by SydBarrett in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

  that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

  but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  It is important to distinguish very carefully between individual Catholic figures expressing personal opinions about the end times and the official, authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, as a divinely instituted guardian of the deposit of faith, has never officially endorsed or dogmatically proclaimed any specific date for the end of the world or Christ's return. Individual Catholics, even prominent ones such as Hippolytus of Rome, Irenaeus, or later figures like Pope Sylvester II and Pope Innocent III, have at times speculated about eschatological matters based on their interpretations of Scripture, current events, or popular apocalyptic expectations of their era. However, these personal speculations were not, and have never been, presented as binding teachings of the Church. They did not proceed from the Church’s magisterial authority, and certainly were not issued ex cathedra, that is, infallibly and universally binding on all the faithful.

  To suggest that human fallibility among individual Catholics undermines the Church’s position is to misunderstand Catholic ecclesiology. The Catholic Church fully recognizes that individual believers, even saints, scholars, and popes, can err in their private theological opinions or personal judgments. This is precisely why the Church differentiates between the private views of individuals and the official exercise of magisterial authority. The consistent teaching of the Church, grounded in the words of Christ Himself (Matthew 24:36), is that "no one knows the day or the hour" of the end, and any attempt to pinpoint it has always been discouraged at the doctrinal level. In contrast to movements like the Watchtower Society, which has repeatedly and institutionally fixed dates for the end (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975) and tied these to their theological identity, the Catholic Church has never formally or doctrinally staked its credibility on end-times predictions. When the Watchtower’s dates failed, it triggered massive disillusionment among its members because these predictions were presented as part of God's revealed plan. No such institutional scandal or doctrinal error attaches to the Catholic Church in this regard. Thus, the distinction remains clear: Catholicism, at the level of official teaching, has been faithful to Christ’s warning not to seek after "times or seasons" which the Father has set by His own authority (Acts 1:7), even if individual Catholics, like all human beings, have sometimes fallen into speculative excesses.
• 
  72

  Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

  by SydBarrett in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

  that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

  but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Yes, for example, she's two thousand years old and has never endorsed false end-time dates, and by the way - among other things - you can thank her for not living in a cave right now :-)

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5siHd1P5zk&list=PL57857981F3CC5D78&index=1
• 
  125

  What does the Catholic church think of JW?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

  he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

  is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  By the way, it is entirely possible — and perhaps even likely — that she did not intentionally fabricate her story, but rather experienced a form of confabulation, which is common in later life. This isn’t lying, but rather a phenomenon where the mind fills in gaps in memory with reconstructed impressions that feel emotionally real, even if they are not factually accurate.

  Considering her background in Bavaria, it’s plausible that she had distant cultural awareness of the Ratzinger name or even the family, and after decades of living abroad — and possibly facing age-related cognitive decline such as early dementia or Alzheimer’s disease — those fragments could have reassembled into a narrative she truly believed. The election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope in 2005 may have triggered those associations and given them shape, especially in the absence of direct familial ties.

  Moreover, what she claimed the Pope supposedly told her — "You are doing the work we should be doing. Your halls are full, our churches are empty" — follows an almost identical rhetorical formula frequently found in Watchtower publications, where priests, ministers or even bishops allegedly express admiration or envy for Jehovah’s Witnesses’ door-to-door efforts. These anecdotes are never independently verified, but serve a powerful internal narrative purpose: to reinforce the idea that even outsiders, even high-ranking clergy, know "deep down" that the Witnesses are right. This narrative pattern makes her testimony even more suspect, not because of malice, but because of the very familiarity and emotional appeal such stories hold within JW circles.

  In this light, Mrs. Brzakovic’s account — while emotionally sincere — appears to be a blend of confused memory, subconscious borrowing of narrative tropes, and perhaps a deep human desire for significance and recognition. From a Catholic standpoint, this interpretation allows us to respect her dignity as a person while clearly affirming that theological truth cannot rest on sentimental or unverified personal anecdotes.

  After all, Pope Benedict XVI was a deeply orthodox theologian and staunch defender of the Catholic faith. It is inconsistent — even inconceivable — that he would privately affirm the mission of a sect that denies the Trinity, the Real Presence, and apostolic succession.
• 
  72

  Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

  by SydBarrett in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

  that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

  but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The slow unraveling of a religious empire often begins not with a bang, but with the death of a voice that once held together its illusions. One such figure, revered by his followers yet increasingly exposed by history, presided over a movement that claimed divine authority but could not withstand the scrutiny of time or intellect. His eccentric literary style—marked by breathless exclamation points, bizarre prophetic reinterpretations, and tortured grammar—once enchanted his faithful, masking the inherent contradictions and failed prophecies embedded in their theology.

  After his death in the early 1990s, the movement's literature visibly changed. Those who remained inside described a clear shift: from the feverish, verbose style of their fallen leader to a simplified, almost childlike tone designed for the most basic comprehension. The complicated "types and antitypes," the Cold-War-fueled doomsday scenarios, and the smug pseudo-intellectualism gave way to watered-down, repetitive platitudes. It was as if the intellectual engine had been removed, and all that remained was a clumsy machine sputtering along on inertia. The faithful noticed: no longer were there grand, if bizarre, theological constructions. Instead, came a steady diet of reprints, half-hearted experiences, and shallow illustrations fit for teenagers, hardly the "spiritual feast" once promised.

  The once-central notion of a select, heavenly class—the "anointed remnant"—faded into obscurity as theological embarrassment forced a quiet retreat. With the number of professed "anointed" rising unexpectedly, the leadership resorted to dismissing many of them as mentally unstable. This astonishing admission, dressed in diplomatic language, only highlighted the movement's inability to sustain its own doctrine without contradiction. The supposed "faithful and discreet slave" morphed from a collective body into a handful of men who had crowned themselves as the sole interpreters of God's will, conveniently brushing aside the theology they once preached.

  Compounding the decay, the aftermath of failed prophetic expectations—especially the dramatic redefinition of the "generation" doctrine in the mid-1990s—struck a devastating blow. Many realized then that the promise of imminent deliverance was nothing more than a cynical mechanism to ensure loyalty and obedience. Those awake enough to see the betrayal either fled or hardened into a hollow compliance, while the institution itself sank deeper into irrelevance, slowly transforming into yet another aging, shrinking sect clinging to past glories.

  What becomes clear through the recollections and reflections of those once inside is that this was never the work of divine inspiration. Rather, it was the handiwork of fallible men driven by personal ambition, cloaked in theological jargon, sustained by a never-ending deferral of accountability. The proud claims of superior biblical knowledge, once wielded against the historic Church and her sacred Tradition, now lay in ruins, exposed as little more than recycled human speculation polished with the occasional proof-text.

  This sect arrogated to itself an authority it neither possessed nor could sustain. It turned sacred Scripture into a malleable tool, bent to fit the changing needs of a self-appointed "faithful" class. The result has been theological chaos, moral disillusionment, and the slow crumbling of confidence among its own members.

  Ultimately, the tragedy of this movement lies not merely in its failed prophecies or its clumsy literature. It lies in the countless souls misled by men who spoke loudly in the name of God but carried none of the marks of His Church—unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. As the once-enthusiastic proclamations now fade into an increasingly irrelevant background noise, one is reminded that Christ promised to build His Church upon the rock, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. No such promise was ever made to the founders of human sects, no matter how fervently they declared themselves His exclusive channel.

  Their writings crumble, their followers dwindle, but the true Church endures—her voice steady, her teaching unbroken, her mission secure until the end of time.

  The 1992 funeral talk delivered by Albert Schroeder for Frederick W. Franz is a fascinating window into the theology, ideology, and internal mythology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is, at the same time, a tragic display of spiritual delusion and doctrinal error. While the tone is reverent and filled with nostalgic admiration, the content of this lengthy eulogy testifies not to the glory of God, but to the self-validating structure of a theological system built on sand. The praise heaped upon Franz is not the celebration of a saint but the veneration of a false prophet.

  Schroeder's address elevates Franz to near-apostolic status—calling him a "big tree of righteousness," likening him to the Apostle Paul in stature and ministry, and crediting him with spiritual oversight over millions. But what is never addressed is the fundamental question: was he right? Did he teach truth? A true prophet must speak consistently with the deposit of faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). Franz, by contrast, presided over a religious organization infamous for its doctrinal reversals, failed prophecies, and unbiblical innovations.

  The eulogy praises Franz’s involvement in the 1914 doctrine—that Christ began to reign invisibly that year—and boasts of his connection to the so-called “anointed class.” Yet this teaching is not just absent from Christian history prior to the late 19th century; it contradicts both Scripture and the historic witness of the Church. Nowhere does the Bible teach that Christ’s Kingdom would be established invisibly in 1914, or that such a date should be calculated from the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.—a date which itself is demonstrably false, as every serious historian and archaeologist agrees the destruction occurred in 587/586 B.C. The Watchtower’s 607 date was invented to prop up a failed prophetic system stemming from Charles Taze Russell’s original 1914 prediction of the end of the world.

  Franz’s legacy is inextricably tied to this theological fraud. Though Schroeder frames his “spiritual insight” as evidence of divine favor, we must view his long tenure as one of persistent error. Franz is lauded for defending the use of "Jehovah" as God's name, yet he helped propagate a translation (the New World Translation) that has been widely condemned by scholars of every background for its distortions of the biblical text. The removal of explicit references to the divinity of Christ, the mutilation of John 1:1, and the insertion of “Jehovah” into the New Testament where no Greek manuscript ever contains it—these are not the works of a faithful steward of the Word, but of an ideologue crafting Scripture to match dogma.

  More troubling still is Schroeder's triumphalist theology of death. Franz is declared to have already been resurrected “to incorruptible life in heaven,” in accordance with 1 Corinthians 15:52. Yet Scripture teaches that the general resurrection happens at the end of time, not at the moment of death (John 5:28–29; 1 Thess. 4:16–17). The Watchtower’s teaching that only 144,000 go to heaven, and that Franz is among this elite spiritual caste, is an arrogant twisting of Revelation’s symbolic numbers. Heaven is offered to all the faithful who die in a state of grace, not just to a select remnant of organizational elites.

  Schroeder’s sentimentalism masks the deeper problem: the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not mourning a humble servant of Christ, but a builder of a theological empire based on deception. Franz, along with his predecessors, led millions away from the Eucharist, from the Trinity, from the communion of saints, and from the Church founded by Christ. He is said to have had a "hunger for God's Word," yet he refused the Bread of Life (John 6:51), the Body and Blood of Jesus offered in the Holy Mass, and denied the divinity of the very Savior he claimed to serve.

  We must not be deceived by eloquent speeches or charming anecdotes. The measure of a Christian life is not institutional success or personal charisma, but fidelity to truth. Franz’s legacy is not one of holiness, but of heresy. His decades of influence entrenched millions in false doctrine, discouraged higher education, prohibited blood transfusions at the cost of innocent lives, and led many to shun their own families for the sake of organizational loyalty.

  Catholics pray for the dead, trusting in God’s mercy and justice. We do not pretend to know the eternal fate of any soul. But we are bound to judge teachings and fruits. And the fruit of Franz’s labor is schism, error, and spiritual blindness. If he is remembered, let it be as a warning of how easily charismatic leadership and pseudo-biblical rigor can lead souls astray. Let it move us to pray not only for those who die in error, but for the countless still living under its sway. May they come to know the Church that Christ built—not in 1919, not in Brooklyn, but on the rock of Peter, in communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
• 
  125

  What does the Catholic church think of JW?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

  he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

  is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  You are correct that geographical proximity, by itself, does not prove or disprove kinship unless the genealogical links are established. However, when we look carefully at the geographical movements of Pope Benedict XVI’s maternal ancestors, it becomes evident that they do not align with Stefanie Brzakovic's account.

  Pope Benedict’s maternal line — the Riegers, Reisses, Peintners, and Taubers — is well documented. His mother, Maria Peintner Rieger, was born in Oberaudorf, in southern Bavaria, near the Austrian border. Her father, Isidor Rieger, was born in Welden, near Augsburg in Bavaria, and later moved south toward the Chiemsee area (Rimsting), remaining firmly within Bavarian territory. Her mother, Maria Tauber-Peintner, was born in Raas (Naz-Sciaves) in South Tyrol, part of the Austrian Empire at the time (now Italy), a German-speaking region closely connected to Bavaria both culturally and linguistically.

  The Peintner side (Anton Peter Peintner and Elisabeth Maria Tauber) lived in small German-speaking towns such as Aicha, Mühlbach, and Natz (all in Tyrol). They later moved into Bavaria (Rimsting) by the late 19th century.
  The Rieger and Reiss sides remained rooted in Welden and Günzburg in Bavaria for several generations.

  Thus, their pattern of movement shows:

  • A concentration in Welden–Günzburg (Bavaria) for the Rieger and Reiss lines.
  • South Tyrol origins (Aicha, Natz, Raas) for the Peintner and Tauber lines, who eventually moved into Rimsting in Bavaria.
  • Movement is mostly northward or westward from Tyrol into Bavaria, not toward the Weilheim area.

  Now, Stefanie Brzakovic claimed that her family lived in Weilheim in Oberbayern, about 50 kilometers west of Oberaudorf, and that they often “hung out” with the Ratzinger family.
  However, this is geographically unlikely for several reasons:

  • The Ratzinger family lived in Tittmoning, Aschau am Inn, and later Traunstein, all in southeastern Bavaria, much closer to the Austrian border, not near Weilheim.
  • Weilheim is located west of Munich, while Tittmoning, Aschau, and Traunstein are east of Munich — on opposite sides of Upper Bavaria.
  • In the early 20th century, with limited transportation and strong local social structures, regular family interactions over such distances (about 100 km) were rare unless absolutely necessary.

  Moreover, there is no documented evidence that any branch of the Rieger, Peintner, Reiss, or Tauber families ever lived in or near Weilheim. Their movements were mostly between Tyrol and southeastern Bavaria, not across Upper Bavaria.

  Thus:

  • Geographically, the Pope’s maternal family stayed in a southeastern corridor (Raas → Rimsting → Oberaudorf → Tittmoning/Traunstein).
  • The Brzakovic/Blabst family claim about living in Weilheim is disconnected from the Ratzinger family’s real geographical history.
  • No migration patterns, no baptismal or civil records, and no family testimonies link the Ratzinger maternal relatives to Weilheim.

  In short, when we map out the real historical movements, Stefanie Brzakovic’s claim does not fit the known facts of where the Pope’s maternal ancestors lived and moved. The discrepancy further undermines the credibility of her account.

  Nevertheless, in this case, the issue is not simply the geography, but the complete absence of any documented genealogical connection between Stefanie Blabst (later Brzakovic) and the Ratzinger or Peintner family lines. Pope Benedict XVI’s maternal ancestry is well preserved and thoroughly documented, spanning multiple generations. His mother's side—the Riegers, Reisses, Peintners, and Taubers—were firmly Bavarian and Tyrolean German-speaking families, with no evidence of South Slavic or Moravian branches entering the line in the last several generations.

  There are also some factual corrections that must be made to the family details you mentioned. For example, Maria Tauber-Peintner, was born in Raas, in South Tyrol, which was at that time part of the Austrian Empire. The Peintners and Taubers were established German-speaking families from Tyrol, not Moravia.

  Moreover, the claim that Elisabeth (Betty) Tauber was born in Mährisch-Weißkirchen (today Hranice, Czech Republic) is not substantiated by the primary genealogical sources. In fact, Elisabeth Maria Tauber was born in Natz (Naz-Sciaves) in Tyrol in 1832, as shown by the baptismal and civil records. Therefore, there is no direct Moravian ancestry influencing Joseph Ratzinger’s immediate family.

  The point about Josefina Knopfelmacher’s nickname being "Peppi" is interesting from a human perspective but does not support the claim about Joseph Ratzinger himself. Josefina Knopfelmacher (1819–1886), a great-great-grandmother figure, would have had little to no direct influence on the everyday speech habits or nicknames used by Bavarian children in the 1920s and 30s. Nicknames arise organically in the living culture of a place and time, not from ancestral memory two or three generations removed. In rural Bavaria, the affectionate form for Joseph was, and remains, "Sepp" or "Sepperl," as contemporaneous witnesses, including Pope Benedict’s own cousin Erika Kopper, consistently attest. "Pepi" is recognized primarily as an Austrian or Viennese diminutive, and would have been highly unusual among children in Traunstein or Tittmoning at that time.

  In addition, the serious genealogical problem remains: Isidor Rieger, Pope Benedict’s grandfather, was an only child, and the maternal lineage of Maria Tauber-Peintner is equally well documented without any unexplained branches. Without a shared great-grandparent, the alleged "second cousin" relationship simply cannot be true. Stefanie Blabst’s maternal line (from Katharina Berger) remains unconnected to any branch of the Pope’s known family tree.
• 
  125

  What does the Catholic church think of JW?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

  he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

  is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Yes, nowadays, after the significant immigration of the Yugos during and afther the Cold War period...

  I meant the second possibility, assuming, but not accepting, that the story was true, then he was just polite. As you can see, the family tree has not been able to confirm it, and there are many circumstances that make it improbable.

  You would be a terrible lawyer, I write several arguments, you get hung up on one, and you turn a deaf ear to the rest. It doesn't work that if you point out the weakness of just one of my arguments, you have the right to do a hateful dance of joy, but you should definitely refute all of them, but since you can't, instead you just carry on with foul-mouthed hatred and mockery.
• 
  125

  What does the Catholic church think of JW?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

  he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

  is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  I know how much you hate me, but, but it's almost touching how aggressively you defend a tissue-paper story, but unfortunately sentimentality is no substitute for historical accuracy. You accuse me of lacking "common sense," but common sense actually demands skepticism when a story riddled with cultural, linguistic, and genealogical absurdities presents itself. Nicknames are indeed peculiar, but they are not random noise — they emerge from linguistic patterns, regional traditions, and family habits. In 1930s Bavaria, "Sepp" and "Sepperl" were standard diminutives for Joseph. "Pepi" is an Austrian variant, occasionally heard in Vienna, not in the rustic dialects of Traunstein or Tittmoning where Ratzinger grew up. Pretending otherwise is an exercise in wishful thinking, not common sense.

  As for the surname issue, your sarcastic triumph about married names completely misses the point. Yes, she could have married into the name "Brzakovic" — and I explicitly acknowledged that possibility, if you had actually read the argument instead of reacting emotionally. The real problem is not the married name but the complete lack of any genealogical connection between Stefanie Blabst (her maiden name) and the Ratzinger/Peintner family trees, which are thoroughly documented. No amount of huffing and puffing about "relatives with Slavic names" changes the simple fact that the Blabst family is nowhere to be found among the Ratzinger maternal or paternal lines. So much for your supposed "common sense" defense.

  And let’s not kid ourselves: the idea that Benedict XVI would seriously endorse Jehovah’s Witness missionary methods — in a private phone call to a long-lost cousin after fifty years of total silence — strains credibility to the breaking point. The man who spent his entire life defending Catholic orthodoxy against precisely the kind of sectarian errors JWs embody would not, in a moment of candor, suddenly congratulate them for leading people away from the Sacraments. He may have been polite (because he was a gentleman), but to interpret a passing kindness as some hidden theological endorsement is naive at best and deceitful at worst.

  The real irony here is that you accuse me of wasting time with "logical nonsense" when you're desperately clinging to a feel-good anecdote whose entire purpose is to score an emotional point against the Catholic Church. Your protestations reveal more about your loyalty to this Stalinist-style (the five-year plan was fulfilled 200%!) Watchtower triumphalist success propaganda than about any real concern for historical truth. If you find this conversation a waste of time, feel free to step aside — truth has never depended on the approval of those unwilling to follow evidence wherever it leads.

  Do you know how many Muslim polemicists I've heard boasting about similar anecdotes? "Many bishops secretly know that Islam is the truth, they're just afraid of their status!" - when I ask him to name a few, there's silence. It's all just wishful thinking propaganda, which reveals a desperate need for celebrity endorsers.
• 
  125

  What does the Catholic church think of JW?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

  he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

  is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  To determine whether Stefanie Blabst Brzakovic was truly a second cousin of Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), we need to establish a familial link between their mothers, Katharina Blabst (née Berger) and Maria Peintner Rieger, respectively. Second cousins share great-grandparents, so we must trace both maternal lines back to identify any common ancestors.​

  ✅ Established Information

  Maria Peintner Rieger (Pope Benedict XVI's Mother)

  • Born: 8 January 1884, Oberaudorf, Bavaria, Germany
  • Parents:
  • Isidor Rieger (b. 22 March 1860, Welden, Bavaria; d. 29 May 1912, Rimsting, Bavaria)
  • Maria Tauber-Peintner (b. 29 June 1855, Raas, Tyrol, Austria; d. 17 June 1930, Rinsting, Bavaria)
  • Grandparents:
  • Paternal: Johann Reiß and Maria Anna Rieger
  • Maternal: Anton Peter Peintner and Elisabeth Maria Tauber

  These details are well-documented in genealogical records.

  ❓ Missing Information

  Katharina Blabst (née Berger) (Stefanie's Mother)

  • Born: 20 August 1894
  • Married: Philipp Blabst (b. 22 September 1897; d. 19 February 1978)
  • Died: 17 June 1962; buried in Weilheim in Oberbayern, Bavaria, Germany
  • Child: Stefanie Blabst Brzakovic (b. 7 February 1927; d. 5 February 2013)

  Currently, there is no available information regarding Katharina's parents or grandparents. Without this data, we cannot ascertain whether she shared any ancestors with Maria Peintner Rieger.

  To confirm or refute the claim that Stefanie Blabst Brzakovic was Pope Benedict XVI's second cousin, it is imperative to uncover the identities of Katharina Berger's parents and grandparents. Only with this information can we determine if there is a shared lineage with Maria Peintner Rieger. Until such genealogical evidence is obtained, the assertion remains unverified.

  Weilheim in Oberbayern, where Stefanie Blabst Brzakovic's mother, Katharina Berger, resided, is situated in Upper Bavaria. To assess the plausibility of a familial connection to Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), it's pertinent to examine the geographical proximity of Weilheim to the birthplaces of the Pope's maternal ancestors:

  📍 Geographical Distances

  1. Weilheim in Oberbayern to Oberaudorf (Maria Peintner Rieger's birthplace):

  • Distance: Approximately 90 km (56 miles) southeast.
  • Travel Time: Around 1 hour and 15 minutes by car.

  2. Weilheim in Oberbayern to Welden (Isidor Rieger's birthplace):

  • Distance: Approximately 100 km (62 miles) northwest.
  • Travel Time: About 1 hour and 30 minutes by car.

  3. Weilheim in Oberbayern to Raas, South Tyrol (Maria Tauber Peintner's birthplace):

  • Distance: Approximately 190 km (118 miles) south.
  • Travel Time: Roughly 2 hours and 45 minutes by car.

  Contextual Analysis

  In the 19th and early 20th centuries, these distances represented significant separations, especially considering the transportation means of the time. Regular interactions between families from these regions would have been less common unless there were strong familial ties or economic reasons necessitating travel.

  Given the lack of documented connections between the Blabst family and the Ratzinger maternal lineage, as well as the geographical distances involved, the likelihood of a close familial relationship, such as second cousins, appears low.

  Conclusion

  While geographical proximity alone doesn't confirm or refute familial ties, the combination of significant distances and the absence of documented genealogical links suggests that the claim of Stefanie Blabst Brzakovic being Pope Benedict XVI's second cousin is improbable.
• 
  125

  What does the Catholic church think of JW?

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

  he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

  is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Usual offended grumbling and unfounded insistence to an unverfied story.

  Based on the detailed genealogical research, there are several strong reasons to doubt the authenticity of the story claiming that Stefanie Brzakovic (née Blabst) was a second cousin of Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope’s maternal ancestry is well documented: his mother, Maria Peintner Rieger, was born in Oberaudorf, Bavaria, to Isidor Rieger and Maria Tauber Peintner. Both sides of this family — the Riegers and the Peintners — were firmly rooted in Bavarian and Tyrolean German-speaking traditions, with no evidence of South Slavic ancestry. Isidor Rieger was born in Welden, Bavaria, and his parents, Johann Nepomuk Reiss and Maria Anna Rieger, were also Bavarian. There are no records of siblings for Isidor Rieger, making it highly unlikely for second cousins to have descended from his side. Maria Tauber Peintner came from Raas in Tyrol, Austria, and her family too was entirely of Tyrolean German origin.

  Furthermore, the name Brzakovic is of South Slavic origin, and although Stefanie’s maiden name was Blabst — a German name — there is no documented link between the Blabst family and the Rieger, Reiss, Peintner, or Tauber families. No Blabst relatives appear in the Ratzinger maternal genealogical records. The geographic detail also weakens the story: the Ratzinger family lived in Tittmoning, Aschau am Inn, and later Traunstein in southeastern Bavaria, far from Weilheim in Oberbayern, which was mentioned in Brzakovic’s version of events. In early twentieth-century rural Bavaria, a distance of 100 kilometers would have represented a significant social separation, making regular family interactions unlikely without documented ties. Thus, from both genealogical and geographic standpoints, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Stefanie Brzakovic was a cousin of Pope Benedict XVI.

  The narrative is the same self-congratulatory triumphalism as you can find in any Watchtower: "even X and Y praised us, in fact every true man knows in his heart that we are the truth!"

  You don't have to be an "expert" for this, it's enough to know German, I note that I know the Austrian and South German dialects quite well, and I've never heard anyone called "Pepi," it can be known what Ratzinger's childhood nickname really was.