Please consider supporting this campaign to support a Seminarian from Toronto at the ICRSS

Please consider supporting this campaign to support a Seminarian from Toronto at the ICRSS
Click on photo for direct link to secure donation page

Wednesday, 24 May 2017

"Two popes, active and emeritus"

More and more, the questions are being asked and hints are being dropped, leading many to wonder, is Ann Barnhardt's hypothesis correct? Is Benedict still the Pope, the real, Pope?

When a publication in the conservative Catholic world, solid and orthodox in the Novus Ordo world publishes an article stating, the following, one cannot just conclude that Ann is wrong, or a nut; she may, in fact, be on to something.

Image result for francis benedict pope



"And so the two popes, active and emeritus, speaking and silent, remain at odds. In the end, it does not matter who comes last or speaks most; what matters is who thinks with the mind of a Church that has seen countless heresies come and go. When Benedict’s enraptured words are compared to the platitudes of his successor, it is hard not to notice a difference: One pope echoes the apostles, and the other parrots Walter Kasper. Because this difference in speech reflects a difference in belief, a prediction can be made. Regardless of who dies first, Benedict will outlive Francis."

Francis is the Pope because he is the Bishop of Rome. Ratzinger renounced the papacy in accord with Canon Law. Francis was elected by scoundrels and manipulators, but he has been accepted as bishop by the priests of Rome and the Catholic faithful. From all we can see, Father Bergoglio is the Pope.

But what of that which we cannot see?

18 comments:

Barbara Jensen said...

There is an article on 1P5 at present in which it is asserted that Padre Pio knew the contents of the full third secret of Fatima. Long ago Padre Pio relayed this knowledge of the third secret to Father Amorth, head exorcist of Rome for many years. Father Amorth requested that this information be made public after he died. What Padre Pio told Father Amorth is that there would be a false pope who would lead a false church. We are here and there is no doubt about it. It is happening before our eyes. There is a great deal of denial regarding this painful reality, but it does not change the fact that we have an antipope on the throne of S. Peter. Most likely he is the false prophet.
We can all wait until the very essence of the Church is trashed by this devil at the top in Rome, or we can face reality and proceed from there. Prayer is needed--deep prayer and intimacy with the living Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The Church is where the fullness of the Faith is upheld. Each of us will have to decide either to follow the false pope or the true Church. There will be no middle ground, and those who are unwilling to make this decision will find that not to choose is to choose. God help us all.

Vox Consolatoris said...

Hello Vox! Long time...

Honestly, and I mean honestly, it further HAS to be admitted that Bergoglio is only Bergoglio - he is a flaming heretic on so many levels. That fact makes him not a Catholic...and not a Pope.

Pope Benedict, provided the sedevacantists are not right, is the Pope.

c matt said...

Maybe I am too legalistic, but the way I see it is a question of authority. For example, one might see another commit a crime; but only the properly constituted authority can judge that person to be criminal. Ann may be right; she may be a witness to the crime. But she does not have the authority to pass judgment on Bergoglio's status. She is free, however, to present her case, and it is not without some force.

Chad H. said...

I speak as a historian (in-training) here: Francis will not be well remembered in the history books. If that sounds pre-emptive of me, that's because history learns from great men, and we ordinary people from great men. Pope Francis is not such a man. The people whose names we know made their mark in history because they had something to impart to the world. I - and I suspect many others - don't find Pope Francis to be someone who imparts a lot to the world.

Ade said...

CHRIST IS RISEN!!

Dear Vox,

If the papacy is a charism because elected, and not indelible like ordination, it would stand to reason that Pope Benedict's charism of the papacy would not have been rescinded by God if Benedict resigned only in writing and not in his actions - he's still wearing the papal whites, is addressed as His Holiness, etc. That would make it likely that Francis does not have the papal charism...and...(draw your own conclusion).

Domina Nostra de Fatima ora pro nobis!!

Anonymous said...

Because I can do this anonymously, I'm going to say what has been in my spirit for a long time. As He has so many others, God has given me a certain discernment of people. It has proven correct over and over. It happens more with the visual, as in seeing a person or picture. For instance, when I first saw the above picture, it felt to my spirit as a serpent embracing a dove. Anyone who knows, loves and lives the Catholic faith can understand the meaning of that impression. I cannot know for sure if Bergoglio is THE false prophet, A false prophet, or merely a bad pope, because we have had bad popes before. But I know one thing for certain: he is an enemy of Jesus Christ and all that is good. I continue to pray for the intentions of Pope Benedict and the conversion of Bergoglio. God is using this man to separate the sheep from the goats so it will be very clear who is on the side of Christ and who is not. And the persecution of the faithful, which Bergoglio is doing his utmost to bring about, will be very much attributable to this man's words and deeds. And Pope Benedict is fully aware of this and being obedient to God.

susan said...

"....Ratzinger renounced the papacy in accord with Canon Law"

That is a false statement if what Barnhardt asserts is true....and more and more she is looking to be undeniably accurate. And this doesn't even address the FACT of bergoglio being 'elected' in total opposition to canon law, ala the campaigning, arm twisting, and pressure from the faggot-riddled St. Gallen group/mafia.

Have you heard of Cd. Burke's call for a true consecration of Russia?....eyes are being opened.

nazareusrex said...

Why you don't want to understand is that Bergoglio is not a valid pope because he was already a formal heretic in Argentina. He is an heretic he does not belong to the Church. https://enraizadosencristo.wordpress.com/2017/04/08/en-marzo-del-2013-el-profesor-argentino-antonio-caponnetto-atestiguo-y-admitio-publicamente-que-bergoglio-era-un-hereje-formal-en-argentina/

Ana Milan said...

Having two living popes in the Vatican precincts is unprecedented & requires rectification. The only feasible action would be to cremate VII, throw the ashes in the Tiber & return to Tradition. The soft peddling of the SSPX towards AL & their seeming willingness to accept PF’s intermittent handouts makes such a prospect very unlikely.

With the recent five new appointments to the College of Cardinals it seems that, bar a miracle (like the consecration of Russia being carried out explicitly according to Our Lady’s instructions) we shall have enough Modernists to fill the Papal Office for many years to come. Such a pity the four Cardinals got cold feet!

JMJT said...

Ann Barnhardt sounded reasonable to me but some say she went too far to prove her point. With that I can agree, that flashy pink machine gun was going too far. She should have chosen a more traditional color.

Seriously though, I thought Ann did not go far enough to prove her point, but who knows? How can one prove something like that?

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Barbara Jensen, You put it most excellently! "The Church is where the fullness of the Faith is upheld." Spot on!
"We can all wait until the very essence of the Church is trashed by this devil..." No fear. This he cannot do. The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ - Infallible, Indefectible, Indestructable. They can usurp the trappings, but they cannot destroy Christ's Church.

Dear Vox Consolatoris, The sedevacantists are right. :)

Dear C Matt, You are not too legalistic. You are perfectly correct in all you say - in terms of canon law. A formal trial and Declaration of Deposition of bergoglio, by the proper Authorities, i.e. the College of Cardinals, is required to depose bergoglio for the crime of heresy against (man made) canon law. A formal Declaration is required in terms of good Church Governance.
However, bergoglio is long deposed by God for the sin of heresy against Divine Law. So say Vatican I, Doctors of the Church, Saints and theologians.

Dear Anonymous @ 1:21, "God is using this man to separate the sheep from the goats so it will be very clear who is on the side of Christ and who is not." Absolutely spot on. So says Holy Scripture. The Abomination of Desolation to separate those who believe from those who do not believe.

Dear nasareusrex, " [What] you don't want to understand is that Bergoglio is not a valid pope because he was already a formal heretic in Argentina. He is an heretic he does not belong to the Church."
You are perfectly correct. He who is not a Member, cannot be Head. Roncalli and montini were registered judeo-masonic heretics and not eligible for election. JPII wore the insignia of the high priest of the jews - the ephod, the symbol of the anti-divinity of Christ. Benedict and bergoglio wear the satanic pallium of the second member of the third trinity of lucifer. All heretics. All anti-popes. All sons of satan.


Peter Lamb said...

P.S. Dear Anonymous @ 1:21, Sorry. I meant the "Operation of Error", not the "Abomination of Desolation". :)

Justina said...

Ann is definitely on to something. She is brave, thoughtful, and relentless. The problem of how there could be two living "popes" is as urgent as the Dubia, if not more so, and she is virtually the only one sounding the alarm. For if Bergoglio is not the legitimate successor of St. Peter, the problem of Amoris itself evaporates. The real drawback to Ann's approach is simply that it doesn't go far enough. To accuse Bergoglio of being a mere "anti-Pope" is not only implausible; it is profoundly insulting to upstanding anti-Popes throughout Church history. An anti-Pope is an individual who, lacking canonical legitimacy, aspires to occupy the Holy See. Conversely, Bergoglio is a man who, with credentials or without, aspires to destroy it. An anti-Pope seeks to exercise papal authority, if inauthentically. Bergoglio seeks only and ever to pervert it. An anti-Pope contests the official identity of the true Pope, claiming to have supplanted him--resulting in an unfortunate situation which can be, and occasionally has been, sorted out. This is not what Bergoglio is doing at all, nor what the former Cardinal Ratzinger is mystifyingly permitting him to do. Never before has one man purported to "share" the Petrine ministry with another, an arrangement as manifestly contrary to Our Lord's stated institution of the papacy as Amoris is to the Genesis account of matrimony. The real reason we shouldn't refer to Francis the First as an anti-Pope is that, even so, we would still be letting that unspeakable scoundrel off the hook.

Wsyzr Lazer said...

A co-adjutor bishop might be doing the active work of the bishop… but he isn't the Bishop!

Anonymous said...

Neither Bergoglio, nor Ratzinger before him are/were worth a dime. Neither of them cares for those of us harmed by the practices and canon law of the Catholic Church, nor did Wojtyla.

I simply could not envision Simon Peter, at his worst, behaving like these sad examples of clerics.


Karl

Anonymous said...

To Chad, "Historian in training" I guess sadly, the reality is that history as we might define it and recall it, is irrelevant because there is no attempt any longer to accurately record it. Francis has had one and only one objective, and that is to erase the history of the church, and replace the memory with almost everything that is opposite. The tragic, most tragic, irony is that even among those who have always professed to be devoutly Catholic, the new script has gained more and more acceptance, as "New Church" becomes the norm, and Bergoglio's spell is cast. Yes he is separating the sheep from the goats gathering followers from among those who in my wildest imagination would never fall under the spell, which only further validates the reality of his mission to prepare the way to perdition. Mother against Daughter, Father against Son, Good is evil, and evil is Good. There is no turning this clock back, or putting the genie back in the bottle. Bergoglio has already succeeded ...the damage is irrevocable, and prophetically accomplished.

Johnno said...

There is an interesting post, I can't recall where, but it looked into the statements of Benedict and those cohorts like his Secretary and a thesis seems to be that:

- Benedict XVI as the sovereign announced a 'State of Emergency'

- Such a 'State of Emergency' (so the sovereign believes at least according to secular states) states that certain laws and regulations may be relaxed in order to get the situation under control (ie Martial Law etc.)including a relaxation of the rules of the Papacy, temporarily.

- Using this, Benedict split the Papacy between the spiritual and active ministries in order to run the State during this emergency.

- It has been pointed ironically that this supplied jurisdiction is precisely the argument the SSPX makes, and Benedict entirely justified the actions of the SSPX who themselves saw a 'State of Emergency' allowing them to consecrate Bishops.

- Given Benedict XVI has read the real 3rd Secret of Fatima, could this be a desperate action on his part? Could in some way he be trying to make Francis the target, who perfers just being 'Bishop of Rome' and even referred to himself as the 'Bishop in White'?

- Let us recall that the interpretation of John Paul II being the Bishop in White (purported to be the secret or a part, or a separate vision of Jacinta's) was a private interpretation of the Vatican Secretary of State which is non-binding as per Ratzinger. It simply has the appearance of being an official Vatican interpretation to the uninstructed. A favourite game the modernists like to play.

- This Papal diarchy creation of Benedict's was therefore a result of some internal crisis. It may or may not be something he has authority to do. Most like not, considering it's novelty and that it makes zero sense. Like attempting to fool God based on some technical legality.

- The idea that the Papacy itself is some indelible mark like Baptism or Holy Orders, is completely novel. St. Celestine certainly didn't think so. Neither did the Theologians who debated what to do over a Pope who falls into Heresy or if a Pope could fall into Heresy. They never debate whether anyone loses the indelible mark of Baptism or Ordination. But they debated the Papacy. This indicates that Benedict simply pulled this idea out of nowhere.

- it is said that the Church as a whole, the people of God are infallible if they accept someone by large consensus as the Pope. But I've never understood this. What about during the tri-papal era? What if at some intermission the people of God, the Church as a whole increasingly fall into doubt over the consensus on who is the Pope? Certainly the visible head of the Church can be known obviously by the consensus. But if the consensus should slowly shift into doubt, then what? Is this only guaranteed in light of history if no controversy should emerge? Does this only apply when the Pope is dead before the election of another?

- One thing's for sure, what we are witnessing today will be the topics of discussion under a future council who will by the help of the Holy Spirit settle these matters once and for all. I don't know whether I'll live to see it. But we have no choice but to suffer through such times.

- If any fools think Amoris Letitia is legit, then those same fools must concede that according to Amoris, Conscience trumps over all and can 'do more', even make me unable to appreciate Church rules about everything, this must therefore include the Papacy and all regulations therein, and therefore if I wish to exercise my conscience rights and declare Bergolio to be an Anti-Pope, Amoris Letitia is on my side. So these chumps will have to deny Amoris if they wish to defend against my position, but in doing so will also therefore have to admit Francis is in grave error which opens up the possibility of him being an apostate.

Chad H. said...

To the anon. at 12:04 pm ...

Sadly, I have to agree. The damage PF has done is so much and so severe it may very well take decades to undo ... if it ever is. He's just the latest pope to do damage though. It's a sobering thought my future profession may become obsolete.