Traditional Triduum in Toronto

Saturday, 9 February 2019

The Ultimate Attack on the Papacy

You may have seen the interview conducted by Michael Voris with Milo Yiannopoulos. Leaving Milo's continuing desire to continue as a sodomite and Voris' missed opportunity to call him out more directly (who would be better to do it), Milo did have much coherent thought and in particular where he comments that we must "endure" the Bergoglian papacy (16:45). His point being that another resignation of a pope would effectively destroy the papacy and create a precedent which other popes would be obligated to follow. 

Two days ago, I read this post by Robert Mickens, who declared himself as a practicer of sodomy stating, "They put us in closets and do all they can to keep us there," has written in La Croix about the planned resignation of Bergoglio, after he has effectively destroyed what he can of the Church to a point that it cannot be reversed. We have heard this before, of course, by the kissing bishop who Mickens refers to and which many have written about, including this writer. 

On this point, they are both wrong. Bergoglio cannot bind his successors and one Pope filled with the prayer of "zeal for Thy house, O Lord," and filled with the Holy Spirit can and will undo all the damage of Bergoglio. He will do it and he can do it in one day. Whatever this Bergoglio is, Pope, Antipope, apostate or heretic, his actions have been evil, make no mistake about that, he cannot succeed no matter how bad it will look, no matter what happens. That which he creates will ape the Church, it will be a fraud, it is a fraud. One holy pope can and will fix this. He will do it in one day. Those who do not follow the Truth will simply find themselves outside of the Truth and those who remain faithful, will know who to follow to find their way to the Lord. Mickens and Fernandez are both wrong.

Ann Bardhardt, whatever you think of her, has made a powerful argument that Francis is not Pope and Benedict remains Pope. Her latest post is a must-read and she dives into these thoughts further

Everything we suspected about Bergoglio is coming to the fore. We felt it when he came out on the loggia. Now, with his recent trip to the Middle East, the apostasy and heresy is there for all to see.  

What remains is for the Cardinals to do what history and truth demands.


60 comments:

Anonymous said...

https://spiritdaily.org/blog/news/cardinal-burke-launches-his-own-website

Anonymous said...

Any chance that the good pope of the future will forbid the singing of Lord of the Dance and Gather Us In? Please say yes.

Anonymous said...

I have felt for a long time that Cardinal Bergoglio was not canonically elected Pope. The Sankt Gallen Mafia interview first tipped me off. It was confirmed by Bishop Henry Gracida, and re-affirmed even more incisively by Ann Barnhardt's work. I take away from her last video presentation the following: 1. Benedict never said he was renouncing or leaving the papal office. Rather, he said he was retreating to a kind of "Mary" kind of position, while Francis would take on the Martha aspect of the papacy. 2. The papal office was bestowed by Christ on ONE man. Those who look at it as merely a ministry which can be shared are misleading everyone away from the truth of the Office of Peter - an OFFICE, not a ministry. I have come to the realization that Bergoglio has systematically and insidiously sown seeds of doubt into Catholicism's foundational beliefs around Christian marriage, human sexuality, and now on Jesus as the only Way to the Father. I believe he is the false prophet of Revelation, identified as the non-canonically elected pope in the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi. Benedict admits he did not leave the papacy. And there can only be one Peter. Wake up people and use the power of reason God gave you. Follow Jesus. Follow the teaching of His Church. But be wise as serpents, yet gentle enough to be led by the Spirit. Pray the Rosary, read God's word. Be fed by the Sacraments. And cling to faith in Jesus Christ as you never have before, and do not be swayed by a worldly Gospel.
Brother Anthony

Tom A. said...

The destruction of the Papacy is a modernist goal from the beginning. It must be destroyed in order to usher in the new ecumenical world order. The modernists began the destruction of the papacy by promoting synodality and regional conferences. The traditionalists wing has done even worse by justifying their resistance to the man they consider Pope. Both attacks have the same result of creating an irrelevant Papacy.

Justina said...

It is a shame when people have to qualify every reference to Ann Barnhardt with something like, "whatever you think of her." This only goes to show that she has been the target of Alinksy tactics such as isolation and polarization, which have nothing to do with the person involved and everything to do with manipulating the narrative to slant it towards the left. The arguments Ann puts forth should be evaluated on their own merits rather than on whether or not Ann herself has come to be regarded as radioactive. Kudos to Vox for objectivity and for courage.

TLM said...

I agree with you Justina! Ann has a solid argument with very persuasive facts behind her conclusions. The point being, it's not Ann herself that's the question. Certain people want to paint her as a 'nut job'. She is anything but. Whether she's RIGHT is the question. I'm convinced that her contacts in Rome are just as solid as Voris' or Skojak's or any other blogger who has contacts that they obtain information from. Personally, it would not be very far off to consider Bergoglio the false prophet of the Bible. No one knows for SURE, but it looks like maybe St. Francis might have been correct and we are living it now. Time will tell and God will reveal all in His good time. Ann Barnhardt is a very intelligent and very reasonable woman and it angers me to see people of 'faith' attack her as if she has no idea what she's talking about and the faithful should dismiss her for being too far 'out there' and having no knowledge to back up her claims. All untrue.

Tom A. said...

Br Anthony, if you study the situation closer, you can only conclude that all the Conciliar popes are heretics, not only Bergoglio. Bergoglio is simply taking V2 and modernism to its ultimate goal at a quicker pace than his last two predecessors. He does not hide behind a false veneer of orthodoxy like Ratzinger and Wojtyla.

TLM said...

As a side note to my original post: IF Ann Barnhardt is correct, and the big word being 'IF', then Benedict is still the Pope. Another 'Conclave', with Benedict still alive would be invalid. IF her theory is correct, then she would be absolutely right about this. ....Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for us!!

Aqua said...

@TLM: Agree with all you say above.

Objectively, Ann Barnhardt IS correct. By the law itself, a conclave is not required to decide. All we need is reason and a set of eyes.

Pope Benedict XVI still reigning.

The issue is not *Sedevacante*. The issue is *Sede Duae*. Christ established *Sede Una*. We now have Sede Duae and that is objectively impossible.

What Bergoglio does is not relevant. For the sake of the Church he must be removed and not allowed to resign. But the Seat Of Peter remains occupied until Pope Benedict XVI either dies or abdicates fully and properly.

Kathleen1031 said...

Tom A., I don't know, at this point I might prefer a false veneer, knowing the reality has made life a tougher row to hoe. Usually I prefer the unvarnished truth of things, but this is a toss up.
I don't care who is pope at this point. That sounds awful, doesn't it, but even if it's Benedict, we have a man who we clearly didn't know, who appeared to be one thing and was another. He abdicated, enough said.
And he had funny ideas about the papacy.
I'm with you actually, I now fully believe that since VII, perhaps even before, these men left Catholicism behind and we are just seeing it brought of full fruition with Bergolio. Whether or not they are popes, it's above my pay grade and I don't worry about it. The faith is the faith no matter who is pope. I am completely fed up with apostates wrecking my day. I'm trying to stay Catholic and I let God worry about His church. I'm not saying I don't care, I sincerely do, but we have to stay in our lane. If I keep hoping and waiting for some Cardinal somewhere to do something, that is obviously pointless and it's not going to happen. We can stay Catholic anyway.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Bullets Barnhardt is a female convert who is leading men into error.

ABS thought trads were tough men who refused to let a woman lead them around by the nose.

Heh...

Well, she was wrong, is wrong, and will continue to be wrong as even a brief perusal of True of False Pope Blog constantly proves.

She imagines herself a genius but she is factually ignorant when she his not factually in error.

Go on though, follow her straight into sedevacanstm hell

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/aresponse-to-ann-barnhardt-by-paul.html

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Vos. She is both wrong and ignorant of Catholic Truth


Please stop promoting her diabolical blathering

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/is-francis-or-benedict-true-pope.html

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

The Gallen Mafia openly admitted that they campaigned for Bergoglio, which of course invalidates his "papacy" by violating the Conclave Laws. But that's hardly a consolation - because NONE of this rot would have been possible without Benedict's full participation - and INSTIGATION - in this unique and heretical "bifurcated papacy"

Ratzinger was not an innocent victim here - he was the instrumental mastermind behind all of it.

Irenaeus said...

I cannot deny Ms. Barnhardt makes a sort of sense in her piece. I am in agreement with what Justina and TLM have said. While I am unable to make the same assertions she does, on account of not being "in the know," the attacks on Ann have no basis and we have to look at her argument objectively.

The bottom line is that this is speculation, something we are permitted to do as Catholics.

However, I do have to wonder if the reason why the papacy is under attack in this way is if because we have exalted to the point beyond which Christ Himself had intended it.

Is anyone the same?

Miron said...


Ann Barnhardt's brilliant arguments are based on the erroneous assumption that B16 is still the pope. You have to take into account, that B16 dissolved the papacy in Rome (effectively Feb. 28, 2013, 8 p.m. CET). Father Joseph Raztinger for 40 years nurtured the heretical idea of ​​the collegial office of Saint Peter and finally made it real by partial abdication and admission of a certain Argentinian to power in Vatican. B16 disassembled the visible head of the Roman church into two parts. The head cut in half is a dead head, and therefore I say that the papacy in Rome has come to an end (according, indeed, to he prophecy of saint Malachi of Armagh).
There is no turning back. Cardinals are unable to reverse this. They can not elect a new Pope because B16, the last Roman Pontiff, dissolved the Saint Peter's Office with the power of binding and dissolution granted Him by The Lord Jesus himself. What is happening now in the Roman Catholic church is not a crisis, but an epochal breakthrough.
The church of Jesus Christ has grown out of the dying body of Judaism. The church of the Holy Spirit grows out of a dying Roman Catholic church. Jesus Christ watches over his warring Church on earth.

Charmaine said...

@Lazarus Gethsemane @Miron - I sent the following email to Ann Barnhardt on January 14:

"Beware of Ann Barnhardt who, IMO, has become a loose cannon. In her quest to prove Pope Benedict as "the worst pope ever" (something she frequently states, even though she is determined to prove he is still the one true pope), and also in an effort to defend herself from attacks for holding to the position that Benedict is Pope (and not Bergoglio)... she now believes that with the discovery of liberal German writings/discussions of the '60s and '70s re: transforming the Papacy (of which Ratzinger was involved with at the time), is PROOF that Benedict *still* holds to these erroneous ideas. Therefore, Barnhardt asserts it was with *these* specific ideas in mind that were the driving force in his decision to "resign" -- i.e., the "master plan" has been officially initiated, if not completed!

Ann B. has a large audience, and unfortunately, I am witnessing what her claims (to know Benedict's mind and heart with regards to his resignation attempt) are doing, and it's NOT positive. Her vision is quite myopic, to say the least, and with her influence, this has caused Catholics to have even more contempt for Benedict, or they are just becoming indifferent to the truth -- they don't care too much anymore that he really is the true pope, because he's a "heretic", so who cares? Hardly inspiring anyone to PRAY for him when he needs it the most! God help her."

Charmaine said...


Fr. David R. Belland - January 8, 2018
"That it “looks” like bifurcating, or trying to set up a diarchy, could be because he was dissimulating in order not to resign the Office. For, if he had resigned the Office, Satan would then have official control of the Church, which would make a mockery of Christ’s promise to Peter at Caesarea Philippi. It is becoming more and more evident today than it was when Benedict “resigned”, and I firmly believe that it was what was said in the Third Secret that made him realize that he had to retain the Petrine Office. And if this is the case, there is no way that he would intent to bifurcate, or set up a diarchy. It is also why he can say that he was completely free in his resignation; that is, he was told to resign the Papacy, but he didn’t—he freely kept the Petrine Office, and by dissimulating a “shared Papacy” those who did believe in the modern theological teaching of the “Bologna School” could not really complain. It should be noted that in certain situations it is lawful to “dissimulate”, especially during war, and we certainly are in a spiritual war today."

*******

“In an article by Fr. Joseph Schweigl, S.J. entitled Fatima and the Conversion of Russia which appeared in 1956 in a journal issuing from the Russicum College in Rome, where the Commission for Russia instituted by Pope Pius XII was operating, Fr. Schweigl states the following: ‘The Third Secret [of Fatima] deals with a victorious, triumphal decision by the Pope, triumphal, yes, but also difficult and heroic.’"

Aqua said...

@ ABS:

Where in Church history have you ever seen two Popes living within the Vatican walls (Holiness, White, Popes, Vatican location)?

Where have you ever seen such a thing as Pope "Emeritus"? Do we really allow that to be a new thing? Just like that? Based on ...... what?

Where have you ever seen an abdication in which the abdicator insists he remains firmly and forever within the enclosire of St. Peter and by no means gives that up?

Why do you use "Sedevacante"? That is dishonest, because no one is making that point. The issue is Sede Duae. For a resignation to be accepted, it must be full and complete without error. Two Popes sitting in the Vatican is the definition of error. It doesn't get any more error-filled than that.

*Sede Duae*. Please explain where Tradition allows for that.

Johnno said...

ABS -

I also am in line with Salza's and True and False Pope's warnings about due prudence and process.

But that is all their book and the article you posted addressing Barnhardt come down to - "advising prudence" - and do absolutely NOTHING to disprove what she is pushing other than to state that Barnhardt shouldn't act so sure about it without waiting for the Church to rule on the things she brings up.

it comes down to repeating the usual catchphrases - "so and so isn't the authority" - "the actual authority has said nothing" - "anything else is therefore speculation."

Gee.. thanks, that's all absolutely correct, but unhelpful. Following this rationale the entire idea of having a prosecutor in any court system is made irrelevant.

That's all basically it. The article itself undermines their point by stating - "That his resignation was valid is the public position of the Church, and Catholic moral theology allows an individual to deviate from the Church’s public judgment only when probable doubt in the external forum exists. There is no such doubt here; all “doubt” relies on speculation and hearsay outside the public forum or on sources other than the subject."

This is absurd - by this rationale there would be no reason for anyone to suspect any number of conspiracies that occurred in their time that have since been vindicated by history and the availability of more data. And Barnhardt has provided plenty more data, and we can all see what is occurring with our own eyes. And just dismissing evidence piecemeal, cut off from the greater context as if the accumulation of all parts put together doesn't paint a bigger picture is, well, typical of the isolationist interpretations that Protestants enjoy levelling on Scripture.

So for example taking "Benedict wants to wear white and call himself emeritus" in isolation, naturally doesn't by itself prove anything. But taken together with the larger accumulation of data, particularly Ratzinger's own writings as well as the rest of the cadre of crooks such as Kasper etc. on changing the Papal office, expanding the ministry, democratizing the Papal office into committees etc. etc. all add up to something that cannot be dismissed.

Johnno said...

ABS contd>

True, out of due prudence and process, it must be Church authorities who must examine and rule on all this definitively. But the Sedes are correct - none of these morons who are in position to do so are going to bother to unless there are finally a million Barnhardts out there that will force them to do so. They can't just tweet that 2 + 2 = 5 in theology and presume that some mysterious cloud-like wispery jedi force that is probably God is tinkering in the backdrop pf the fabric of reality and reason to make any of their dreams, hopes and modernist liberal wishes come true.

So too for the Papal office. For all we know, in the end, Ratzinger was a formal heretic, and as a formal heretic, renounced a portion of the Papal ministry, imagining he retains some part of the Papal Committee with Frank as the chairman, and he as the contemplative observer staring out a window overlooking the Tiber, and thus that alone would've been enough to cast him from all of the Papacy, and thus Francis was validly elected.

So, instead of just hiding under a bush because you're frightened of Ann Barnhardt who regrettably does have more balls than you and Salza and the entire Novus Ordo 4 Life crowd put together forever waiting for some cleric to finally wake up and do something, or maybe you are just waiting for fire to fall from the sky and wipe out 3/4s of the planet, how about we actually deal with all the new thigns Barnhardt an many other contributors have brought to light and are accumulating with many others, including other bishops and cardinals and priests that all continue to undermine the bullshit point "3) Canonical issues become moot by the acceptance of Francis as Pope by a moral unanimity of the Church, which did occur" - because that unanimity is changing with every passing day, and once the 'democracy' you are relying on as your sole soapbox vanishes like sand under your feet, where are you going to go?

Was there some magical cut-off date as to the unanimous acceptance of Francis as Pope? Was the solution over the Papal-trifecta of the past determined by facts or the democratic popularity over who was the correct Pope then? Frankly, what stock do you even put into the Catholic population at large? The ones that don't go to Church, and would overwhelmingly accept Ocasio-Cortez as Papess if the grand USA thought they could just by fiat overthrow the Papacy as they can an elected Venezuelan president?

Salza needs to update his position based in light of the new accumulation of evidence, or just follow his own advice and sit back and just wait for authority to rule about it someday.

fatty said...

ABS,

Thanks for the link. I could never attach much significance to the ravings of Miss Barnhardt and Folbrecht provides a more than adequate fisking. Her entire position is based upon her interpretation, insight and nuance. Why would anyone be satisfied with that when it amounts to only opinion not fact?

fatty said...

1-Where in Church history have you ever seen two Popes living within the Vatican walls (Holiness, White, Popes, Vatican location)? -We don't. We have one pope and another pope who gave up his office.

2-Where have you ever seen such a thing as Pope "Emeritus"? Do we really allow that to be a new thing? Just like that? Based on ...... what?- Emeritus because he withdrew from the office, he retired.

3-Where have you ever seen an abdication in which the abdicator insists he remains firmly and forever within the enclosire of St. Peter and by no means gives that up?- So write him a letter maybe he'll move to Tampa, but then he'd be the first living pope residing in hell.

So the crux of the concern of the Barnhardts is they don't like the color of Papa Ratzinger's clothes, where he lives or the title used to address him? Seems like a few quibbles we should be able to work past.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Aqua said:

Where in Church history have you ever seen two Popes living within the Vatican walls (Holiness, White, Popes, Vatican location)?

Where have you ever seen such a thing as Pope "Emeritus"? Do we really allow that to be a new thing? Just like that? Based on ...... what?

Where have you ever seen an abdication in which the abdicator insists he remains firmly and forever within the enclosire of St. Peter and by no means gives that up?


EXACTLY. I've been asking these very same questions. WHERE exactly in the Deposit of Faith/Church history have we EVER seen this insane novelty of a bifurcated papacy with a "Pope Emeritus" as if that is even a valid thing? Because I can find no evidence of it, unless of course Our Lord told Simon Son of Jonah:

"Thou art but one of many pebbles, and upon this gravel I will build my Church."

The fact that Benedict just pulled this entire heretical paradigm out of whole-cloth and everyone just accepted it as something perfectly normal is baffling.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Question: What would the AntiChrist do any differently to destroy The Church than what Bergoglio's been doing?

Anonymous said...

ABS,

Noticed you like speaking in the third person as yourself.
Could that have something to do with feeling the least mount of slander concerning Fr John Gallagher who you smeared along side your Local Ordinary ,Bishop Barbarito ?

Real Catholics count Fr Gallagher as one courageous priest for blowing the whistle on a fellow priest pederast whom he caught in action and talked into turning himself in.

Miron said...

Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, wanting to transform the Peter's Office into a synodal two-headed hybrid, he dissolved - by virtue of power given to him [Matt 16, 19] by Jesus Christ - the same office on February 28, 2013 at 8 p.m. (CET), so no he may already be a Roman pope neither himself nor anyone else. The dissolution of the papacy does not mean that the gates of hell have overcome the Church [Matt 16, 18] - after all, the Lord Jesus spoke about the Church, not about the Roman Catholic church.
By the act of Feb. 11, 2013, Benedict XVI, the Last Roman Pontiff, left behind the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven entrusted by Our Lord to Saint Peter The Apostle. These Keys are the Apocalyptic Woman and the Paraclete - only now the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church will shine with full splendor. The best before us!

The end of the papacy in Rome is precisely described in the St Malachi's Prophecy:

Gloria Olivae - Benedict XVI; the glory / finial of the Roman Catholic church are two olive trees [Rev 11, 4], which will blossom only now at the end of times - the Paraclete and the Virgin of the Apocalypse.

In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit - this is the phenomenon of Jorge Bergoglio, the destroyer of the Roman Catholic church. Jorge Bergoglio, aside from the B16's dissolution of the papacy, as an apostate, could not be the vicar of Jesus Christ, and therefore Saint Malachi does not name his name among the Pontiffs but only characterizes the effects of his actions.

Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur & Iudex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis.
Saint Peter the Apostle was not a Roman (citizen of Rome). Peter the Roman is the Son of a Roman Catholic church (means a Roman) and is identical to a terrible Judge, the same as the Paraclete.

TLM said...

Charmaine..... I happened to listen to her last podcast. At the end of it she implored people to pray for Benedict and for Bergoglio. She in fact emphasized the fact that these two Churchmen needed prayers more than anyone else! Reminded people that God is desiring that ALL souls be in Heaven with Him and that He grieves when any soul is lost. It is our DUTY to pray for them that they might not be lost. Just FYI.

Anonymous said...

Benedict aka Ratzinger sits in Vatican City because he can be extradited for being complicit in covering up for the the clerical pederasts anywhere else but in Uruguay or Paraguay.
He wrote letters to Bishops as head of the CDF refusing to defrock or remove credibly known and admitted pederasts .See the Kiesle Case.
In '93 the Vatican knowingly signed the Treaty on the Rights of the Child with the UN. There are more pederasts hanging out in Vatican City than any other city on the planet.
Really who gives a darn if there are two three or four Popes claimants or Emeritii at this point ?

Aqua said...

@ fatty:

Your comments ignore objective reality. We do not have one Pope. We have two. Everything you say bends reality to the way you *want* it to be, but it is not that.

Pope Benedict XVI is *not* Living in Tampa. He is, in fact living in the Vatican, in Papal whites and insists on being called "His Holiness". He still insists that he remains firmly and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter.

We have never had an "Emeritus". We have a Pope. Or not a Pope. I am curious why you dismiss this clear objective reality. Sarcasm does not change the facts.

All other abdications in Church history left the abdicated Pope in his prior state in his prior location: gone. They abdicated and left completely, thoroughly and permanently, like King Edward VIII Of England who lost all titles, rights and royal location - he lived in France, in an apartment ... in disgrace.

Abdicated Popes are remembered as disgraced and separated from the Office: fully, completely, clearly. Ever millienia or so. This thing we have is not that. It has never been seen before. You trying to make it that, no matter how much you wish it were so, does not fit objective reality.

They are trying to normalize this thing that has no precedent in Tradition or Scripture. And you, by arguing as you do, bending objective reality to fit your held premise, support it.

Popes are Peter until death or until the rare, every millennium or so abdication. And then we have another Pope, the prior one gone home (*literally* to Tampa as Priest). *That* is Tradition.

fatty said...

Benedict is not pope, what is so hard about that? He said he's resigning, Ann Barnhardt said he didn't; I'll take him at his word. The bishops of the world respond to the directions of Francis, not Benedict and most surely not Ann Barnhardt.

If Francis said Benedict is writing the next encyclical or leading the next synod I might start buying the argument, but the fact that Benedict wears white, lives in the Vatican and honorarily is referred to as emeritus pope causes the overwhelming number of Catholics no concern.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

fatty said: "1-Where in Church history have you ever seen two Popes living within the Vatican walls (Holiness, White, Popes, Vatican location)? -We don't. We have one pope and another pope who gave up his office."


Yeah uhm - that's still TWO popes- yes? A pope is a pope for life - yes? And you just listed TWO of them currently living - yes?

2-Where have you ever seen such a thing as Pope "Emeritus"? Do we really allow that to be a new thing? Just like that? Based on ...... what?- Emeritus because he withdrew from the office, he retired.

Where exactly did Our Lord give Peter the option of retirement? Where in Church history has mere retirement EVER been an option for a pope? Cite it for me.

3-Where have you ever seen an abdication in which the abdicator insists he remains firmly and forever within the enclosire of St. Peter and by no means gives that up?- So write him a letter maybe he'll move to Tampa, but then he'd be the first living pope residing in hell.

So instead of answering the question by citing any sustainable Church history or theological reality - you merely obfuscate with snark and stupidity.

So the crux of the concern of the Barnhardts is they don't like the color of Papa Ratzinger's clothes, where he lives or the title used to address him? Seems like a few quibbles we should be able to work past.

Ah yes - so in your willfully diluted mind - the clothes don't make the pope, his residence doesn't make him the pope, his actual TITLE doesn't make him the pope, and apparently the indissoluble appointment for life no longer makes him the pope - yes?

So tell me - WHAT exactly DOES make him the pope?

How many retired "popes" can we now have at the same time? 2?.... 3?..... 12?

Hell, why do they have to all be retired? Why not have a committee of "popes" all at once in the Vatican? Since we're just allowing new rules to be made up out of whole-clothe - why limit anything?

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

fatty said...

"Benedict is not pope, what is so hard about that?"



If he's not Pope then why does he and you refer to him by his papal name of "Benedict"?

And when has "retirement" ever been a valid option for any papacy in Church history?

"The bishops of the world respond to the directions of Francis, not Benedict and most surely not Ann Barnhardt."

You've just described the power paradigm of the typical political system. What exactly is supernatural about that?

"If Francis said Benedict is writing the next encyclical or leading the next synod I might start buying the argument, but the fact that Benedict wears white, lives in the Vatican and honorarily is referred to as emeritus pope causes the overwhelming number of Catholics no concern."

All of the anti-popes in Church history have led their misguided followers by the sheer force of command - yes?

And now your litmus test of authenticity seems to be the majority opinion of people who call themselves Catholics. Again - you've just reduced the papacy to a mere power paradigm of pure political constructs based upon the current popular fads of the day.

Why stop at this? Since we're now playing by the rules of novelty (and to hell with the timeless Deposit of Faith) - Why not just make the "papacy" a political parliament ruled by the self-interests of the dominate modernist party's interests?

Aqua said...

".... causes the overwhelming number of Catholics no concern".

That is no argument. They are not necessarily wrong because of their numbers. But neither are they correct, as I'm sure you know.

Regardless, you are not responding to the issue. If Pope Benedict XVI is no longer Pope, why is he still living in the Vatican? Can I live there? You? Can any Priest who chooses, live there? Can any Priest go about Rome dressed in a white cassock? "Nice to meet you, Your Holiness, Pope Martin"! I thought he was no longer Pope? He is just like any other fellow, about Rome then. Many would love to live there. *Only one can*.

You are conveniently omitting that he specifically retained the spiritual Munus of prayer and suffering and that he, by no means, resigns from that, remaining firmly and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter. You omit that.

The resignation must be full, free and without substantial error. This is not that. This is a nasty deviation meant to become normal. I reject it. It is not in accord with Traiditon or Scripture. And, not least, the fruits of this bizarre Sede Duae are evil; a neverending stream of heresy and sacrelige. And that is plain to see by anyone with eyes and reason. That, by itself, is proof this is not of God.

Charmaine said...

@TLM -
Ann Barnhardt asks for us to pray for Benedict and Bergoglio as if they are equally wicked and in need of conversion. She has JUDGED Pope Benedict and attributed motives for his resignation attempt that she can't possibly be certain of. She has stated: "I’m afraid that we all severely underestimate the role of PRIDE in the heart of Pope Benedict XVI in this massively erroneous mess." Also: "As a German, I think Joseph Ratzinger wanted to be nothing less than the man who “fixed” the German schism, that is to say, the Lutheran schism. And, if you bring the Lutherans back in, the Anglicans will eventually follow, because both schisms revolved around the Papacy. And so, in one of the most massive displays of pride the Church has ever seen, Pope Benedict Ratzinger decided that he could change that which is IMMUTABLE – that he could change the unchangeable."

Again, regardless of this newfound information from 40-50 years ago, she has absolutely NO way of knowing his intentions, and so it is wrong, if not an outright act of calumny, for her to assume that she does. Ann writes next to nothing about Fatima, and so this could be a big enough clue that she is missing a major component in what led Benedict to do what he did; not to mention that she apparently discounts any possibility that he has undergone a conversion due to his knowledge of the Third Secret. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=posrESkEAp0

1P5 recently reviewed Antonio Socci's book: "The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He is Still Pope". I recommend reading it and see if you come away with Ann's take on the matter -- that his resignation attempt was based on malice and pride.
https://onepeterfive.com/in-new-book-antonio-socci-speculates-on-the-secret-of-benedict-xvi/

Tom A. said...

ABS, re: Ann Barnhardt, we finally agree on something.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Charmaine said..."The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He is Still Pope". I recommend reading it and see if you come away with Ann's take on the matter -- that his resignation attempt was based on malice and pride.

How can that possibly counter Ann's argument unless it ALSO presumes to know Benedict's motives? And IF his motives were influenced by Fatima - then why didn't he say so? Why did he lie and say it was merely because he wasn't physically able anymore?

Irenaeus said...

To those of you who are questioning Ms. Barnhardt's mental state (in the tone of Hilary White and Steve Skojec, no less), I submit this: https://www.barnhardt.biz/faqs/. Read all of it.

Charmaine said...

@Lazarus Gethsemane -
My point was to make a challenge and offer an alternate hypothesis differing from Ann Barnhardt's, which is based on conclusions that she herself has formulated with hubristic certainty with regards to Pope Benedict's motives in his resignation attempt. "He is a known quitter." "He's the worst pope ever for what he has done." And again: "I’m afraid that we all severely underestimate the role of PRIDE in the heart of Pope Benedict XVI... in one of the most massive displays of pride the Church has ever seen, Pope Benedict Ratzinger decided..." Agree with her at your own peril. You yourself are convinced of his so-called 'evilness', and if you have come to that position due to Ann Barnhardt's popularity and influence, then it would be a shame if that is the case.

As for Antonio Socci, I don't know what his connections are, but he is no lightweight in his journalistic integrity. Can we at least entertain the following, instead of throwing Pope Benedict under the bus in what could perhaps be his greatest hour of need? (From the 1P5 book review):
"The present crisis – unprecedented in all of Church history – has called for an unprecedented response. Benedict’s “choice to become ‘pope emeritus’ represents something enormous and contains a ‘secret’ of colossal importance for the Church” (p. 111). There is clearly, in Socci’s analysis, something that Pope Benedict is holding back and not saying, “a true and personal call from God,” “a mystery which he guards” of which at the present time he can say no more (p. 131). Socci proposes that this “secret of Benedict XVI” is “exquisitely spiritual,” rooted in wisdom “according to God” which the present world – and also the present Church – cannot understand."

Anonymous said...

There's no getting around the fact there's two Pope's in the Vatican and one is undermining the Catholic Faith on a regular basis.

Tom A. said...

I hope you mean that the silent one is no longer undermining the Catholic Faith on a regular basis anymore. Ratzinger has had decades of undermining the Catholic Faith so he deserves a rest whole Bergoglio kicks the undermining into high gear. Do not fool yourself or anyone else into thinking Ratzinger was a Catholic. He was and is a modernist enemy of the Catholic Faith.

Anonymous said...

What you say is true, but Francis is on full throttle. Its like a train reaching maximum speed before the crash.

Aqua said...

@ Charmaine:

I Agree with you 100%. I have never been among those calling Pope Benedict XVI heretic, betrayer, other various insults. Those bother me very much. He is Pope. Respect him. There is more there we don't know. He knows. Fatima. The words of Our Lady. The Secret. Not for us to know either way, but that is my suspicion. That is how I make sense of this unprecedented-in-Tradition situation.

Our Lady appeared at Fatima. The Third Secret is known. It is confidential for obviously important (perhaps mistaken) reasons. That is, as you suggest, likely in the forefront of Pope Benedict's mind. We are on the edge of something apocalyptic. The Dual Papacy is just one of many markers.

Johnno said...



------------
Aqua - "Not for us to know either way" "It is confidential for obviously important (perhaps mistaken) reasons."

That's some way to spin what it obviously direct disobedience to God regarding the 3rd Secret, and also relatedly, the refusal to Consecrate Russia directly.

Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was a modernist. This is well documented. Thus it is natural to see why he would be called a heretic, betrayer or other justifiable labels due to his words and actions.

A Pope is to be respected. But you don't cover-up his sins. If you respect him, then confront him. Otherwise you are hiding your cowardice behind a veil of feigned piety towards the Papal office.


----------

Charmaine -

I like Socci, but Socci tends to always play nice with whoever the reigning Pope is. He also gave a LOT of leeway to Francis early on. This might be down to the fact that he is trained as a reporter, and by discipline you don't make accusations you can't substantially defend on the paper record.

Barnhardt has strong opinions, and also has reasonably argued her case just as well for Benedict XVI being the 'worst Pope' and 'a quitter.' recently she has been backing that up with lots of paper documentation as to what Ratzinger and company were up to. And it does not paint a good picture and only further reinforces her point. Something Socci hasn't caught up with yet, and that nobody else save for her has been willing to put their ass on the line.

Instead of taking shots at Ann, how about taking shots at who started this mess to clear up what Ann has laid out on the table - Ratzinger, himself. Who if he's not too busy, could please put down the big mugs of beer, and hold a press conference to reassure the faithful and deny in front of a camera all this papal diarchy stuff, rather than us only getting unsigned, photoshopped edited material, and selective quotations from the 'Vatican PR Office.'

And -YES- he's bloody well obligated to all of us and our Lord Jesus Christ to do so.

Johnno said...

Fatty -

Did you just wake up from your slumber recently to tell us all about Benedict's abdication and funny titles? Because you're extraordinarily late to the party if you think your weak arguments haven't been addressed in detail before.

Not only did Benedict completely invent out of wholesale cloth (probably cut from the same VII seamless garment, now on display at the MET Gala) the whole Emeritus nonsense in keeping with his long-held modernist desire along with Kasper and other German modernist morons who were his drinking buddies back when they wore suits and tie as clergymen to further make the Papal office more like the President of the USA - da greatest country evar with all dat freedom of religion and freedom of blasphemy... over and against the assumed path that Pope St. Celestine took of returning to Cardinal and intending to get the heck out of dodge.

Benedict contradicted the early Vatican statements by precisely not returning to Cardinal, continued to wear the white, kept the Papal court of arms, the ring, the title of holiness and released some fuzzy speech about how he is always and forever a Pope, but now only contemplative and was only retiring the active part of the ministry, and would remain in the Vatican.

And then Brandmuller and others go on about how Benecit has CHANGED the nature of the Papacy - how brave! How Avant Garde! How new and novel! Etc. etc. because this is some BRAVE NEW STEP THAT WAS NEVER DONE BEFORE! And then CDF Mueller, who poo-pooed the early discussion that Benedict somehow remained some kind of Pope, then speaks with him and later emerges singing the same tune.

You actually think all that praise and wonder was over some mere 'emeritus' title?

WOW! He calls himself Emeritus now! So brave! So deserving of such praise and recommendation by Brandmuller, Kasper etc. I know a lot of these men are fags and that means they love to swell the chorus and exaggerate, but considering all their early writings that Barnhardt has uncovered, for which you and others owe her a debt of gratitude - this isn't just some turn of phrase they are talking about.

Also consider how this 'not-a-pope-but-a-pope-emeritus' somehow still gives out the Papal apostolic blessing, and how Francis himself for some reasons drags newly made cardinals to also receive Benedict's Papal blessings... gee... I dunno... is something going on here? Even if this is all some make-believe it-does-nothing going on here, all this is surely a bad example...

I mean... it's not like the modernists excel at setting the groundwork for further exploitation somewhere down the road or something... Nope! Nothing to see here for Fatty-fat-fats and the rest of the 'dont-look-at-barnhardt' brigade.

I mean, even when Francis himself refers to himself as just 'bishop of rome', keeps his Argentinian passport, uses Fatima to refer to himself as 'the bishop in white' for some reason, and even criticizes Benedict as someone who just 'half-leaves' for interfering from the side in whatever he's up to...

And even when the blood of St. Januarius half-liquifies in his hands unprompted...

Gee... I think something is up... Do any of you who understand Fatima understand Lucia's words that they saw a 'bishop in white' who they said 'gave them the IMPRESSION that he was the holy father'?

Do words ever mean something to you? No love for precision and yes being yes and no being no?

So shouldn't there be at least the necessity for some due diligence and the rightful frame of mind that Benedict should be hauled before an Inquisition and made to clarify on his past writings and his words about his retention of some parts of a whole Papal munus? Especially when he and his colleagues were precisely entertaining the very idea openly about a new kind of Papal Committee, where the Papal office could become democratized, and thus they could somehow even use this for ecumenical purposes, particularly regarding the schismatic Eastern orthodox???

Charmaine said...

@Aqua -
Thank you for understanding where I'm coming from, and also for your additional support on another blog about a month or so ago. Much appreciated for speaking out and being a co-advocate of sorts in defense of Pope Benedict, who should at least be given the benefit of the doubt; because it's exactly as you say, there is so much we don't know.

For nearly four years now (as my energy allows), I have been working to present the truth of the invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation; therefore, he remains our one and only reigning Pope. It's been frustrating enough to have encountered so much resistance and indifference to hearing about this; either for fear of being labeled a sedevacantist (which makes no sense), and on the flip side, there are already plenty of "practical sedevacantists" in Tradland who have pretty much checked out on matters pertaining to the Papacy--they're not at all interested that Francis may be an antipope, because to them, he's not much different than the other conciliar popes. Benedict is very hated by the SSPXers, so they certainly don't want him back, no matter what is objectively true. They may pay severely for their lack of investigation into this matter. (I also read your comment on Br. Bugnolo's site, and point #2 you had made is entirely applicable. You get it.)

The next level of frustration comes by way of those who DO have moral certitude regarding the "Benedict is still Pope" position, and yet at the same time are convinced he is some evil mastermind, when in reality, his faux abdication has preserved the indefectibility of the Church--all acts of the non-canonically elected "Destroyer" are officially null and void; although the utter destruction being carried out is beyond dispute (we ARE in apocalyptic times, but this has all been foretold).

Fr. Belland posits that Benedict could have accepted the personal good of martyrdom, but instead "placed himself in a position, in an official way, that was analogous to a Pope in captivity (Pope Pius VII), a Pope in hiding (Pope Caius) or a Pope in exile (Pope Gregory the Great), in order to salvage the much greater Common Good of the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ. Nevertheless, he will still be martyred, as the Pope in the Vision of the Third Secret." We know there are multiple prophecies of a pope fleeing Rome and dying a cruel death in exile. How can this not be Pope Benedict one day soon? This is why I have a sense of urgency to defend him against those who, for whatever reason, have decided to turn their backs on him. God bless, and thanks again for the support.

Irenaeus said...

Excellent point about Benedict's refusal to step up to the plate, Johnno.

Charmaine said...

@Johnno -

Clearly you are having an emotional rant that gives the impression your mind is made up with regard to the 'sins' of Ratzinger, which you believe he carries forward to this very day. I don't care what discoveries were made from 40-50 years ago (and I'm not saying they should be suppressed), but it cannot be PROVEN that that was what Pope Benedict literally intended to do when he "resigned". This is not an airtight case. Even Barnhardt's co-blogger, Non Veni Pacem, understands this. He wrote in the combox on 2/11: "Now the fact remains that nowhere has it yet to be found that Ratzinger explicitly endorsed these ideas at the time, but he can be seen presenting them as plausible in open discussion. The point being that the idea of a bifurcated or even synodal papacy is not something he himself dreamt up — on the contrary, this was a high concept and something that’s been in his mind for 50 years.

Keep in mind, it could also be a ruse. Benedict could have done this knowing that he would fully retain the papacy. He left us enough other clues in terms of remaining in the Vatican wearing white and being addressed as His Holiness, and of course he knows the contents of the Third Secret."

Re: "a ruse"... see my comment above by Fr. Belland: "That it “looks” like bifurcating, or trying to set up a diarchy, could be because he was dissimulating in order not to resign the Office...", along with the last paragraph in my 2:22 a.m. comment.

Charmaine said...

Fr. David R. Belland - April 9, 2017

"The new psychology so prominent today seems to have been unwittingly absorbed by society today, even by traditional Catholics. The idea of conversion appears to be totally abandoned. the avant-garde AA has been one of the culprits convincing the poor alcoholics that they have a "sickness" that can't be cured and by means of transferring dependency on the bottle to dependency on the group actually keeps them "sick". But practically for all modern psychology there is no sin (indeed no such thing as a soul even), only sickness, and that as long as sin (of which a large portion of all the psychosis and neurosis being but the symptoms) is not treated properly, that field is perpetuating the "sickness" and the "patient" rather the penitent keeps coming back to increase the psychologist's or psychiatrist's bank account--the poor patient comes to believe he can't be cured.

And so goes society. Hence, Benedict, because he was a liberal can't be cured; he's always going to be a liberal. But anyone who has a conscience, while not involved with the B'ni B'rith (Cardinal Bea among others), Masons, Communism or some other secret society, cult, Lobby or Mafia, and is exposed to the 3rd Secret of Fatima IS going to be converted. Fr. Malachi Martin and Cardinal Luciani (the future Pope John Paul I) are just two examples of those who were directly acquainted with the 3rd Secret and converted; perhaps even John Paul II to a certain extent, for example, in his effort to consecrate Russia.

I challenge anyone, therefore, to prove that his knowledge of the 3rd Secret of Fatima did not change Benedict. He freed up the Old Mass; had the humility to admit that it had never been forbidden; lifted the excommunications of the SSPX; changed the vernacular editions of the Consecration of the Chalice to the proper wording ("for you and for many") and many other things he would not have done back in the '60's and '70's; he went against the Party Line of Sodano and Bertone concerning the Fatima Message. Furthermore, no one can make the claim that they know more about what is going on in the Church than Benedict--indeed he has more first hand knowledge in his little finger than everyone in the streets or on the internet! I exaggerate a bit, of course, but he does know what is going on. And going around publicly proclaiming the past liberalism of Joseph Ratzinger is still present today, even by insinuation if not by direct accusation, is tantamount to calumny, if one cannot prove what he says--a most serious sin and a grave injustice, especially when one takes into consideration the honor due to Benedict.

And only when one knows all the facts, all the circumstances and details of a situation can one make a proper decision concerning that situation. Lets face it, the work of the Devil HAS infiltrated the Church (Our Lady at Akita) and unless one understands how Satan works, and I mean has an in depth understanding of his tactics, he will never know how to handle the situation. And I can tell you that one man, even if he is Pope, will not be able to "clean up" the Church as it is today; it will have to be by a Divine intervention, such that there is a division within the Church so that the faithful Cardinals and Bishops can make the Consecration of Russia according to Our Lady's wishes--it's the only way. And under Francis, since it looks as if there is not going to be an effort to disinherit him, with all the Cardinals he's appointed it will be his modernist cohorts that will win any Papal election; the Consecration will NEVER be made under those circumstances! Let's face the FACTS.

I think it is time we state divesting ourselves of the cultural psychological brainwashing we've been subjected to for the last 60 years.

In the meantime we must be faithful to the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the last two remedies for us, as Sr. Lucia told Fr. Fuentes."

Anonymous said...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6696977/Eighty-cent-Vatican-priests-gay-according-explosive-new-book.html

Aqua said...

@ jhonno:

You seem very sure of yourself. Fine. I do not share your confidence in this matter of revealing (demanding of the Pope) the Fatima secrets. They were given to Lúcia Santos who did not wish to share them at all. They were hers. She was not ordered by Our Lady to share them with the world. She was ordered by Bishop da Silva to put them in writing. She resisted, ("being not yet convinced God had authorized her to act") but ultimately complied with the order, insisting they remain sealed for a time (etc, etc).

My point? I do not share your certainty that we as members of the Church have the right and responsibility, before God, to approach the true Pope (Benedict XVI) and demand he reveal the 3rd Secret of Fatima. They belonged to Sister Lúcia Santos, delivered to her by Our Lady. She was obedient to Our Lady; and to the best of her ability (apparently) also to the Church.

I defer and submit to our Pope in this matter. It is clearly in his discretion to decide.

Anonymous said...

Fr Belland, according to your theory, one might deduce that the overwhelming emphasis on the need for UNITY, the return of some relics absconded with during the phony Fourth Crusade including the '83 changes in Canon Law and the continues efforts of Rome to reunite with the Orthodox all ignited by Pope JP2 , that perhaps the unification of Christianity to what it once was in the first centuries also may be part of the Third Secret of Fatima?
I have also read that the alleged return of Russia to the Faith was emphasized by Sr Lucia to be a return to their Orthodoxy and not Roman Catholicism.

Aqua said...

@ Charmaine:

Excellent, well thought out, informative points. Much appreciated. Like so many comments on this excellent blog (even, or esp those who disagree on matters) there is much to chew on.

As to your ideas on Pope Benedict and the opposition to him you describe: my take is that I merely need to know who the true Pope is. Normally that is not difficult. Once known, then I revere him as Father with a unique responsibility under God and spiritual conncection (Munus) to God in union with all the other Peters who have ever been. I do not expect him to be perfect or rule correctly every time. I see the *true Pope* every bit as human and flawed as St. Peter who almost became a Judas. He is servant to God first, and in conjunction, to Sacred Tradition; passing on the Truth to his living flock. But, still, human.

Some Popes are better than others, but I will fraternally support my true Pope no less than my own Father, even if my father were a mean drunk. I would never insult him, no matter how he behaved. He is my dad. Same (more so) for the Pope. So: his goodness or badness does not affect my support or rejection. Is he true Pope? Or Anti Pope? That is all.

Johnno said...

Charmine-

That is precisely why I said that Benedict should be hauled before an inquisition and forced to clarify his statements without any means of escape into ambiguity in a public trial. And also why I said that depending on circumstances it is entirely possible that Francis was validly elected.

Benedict has always been a mixed bag. There is clearly a lot of heretical material of his to see. And it is more likely that his overtures towards Tradition were compromises that were more geared towards salvaging the Novus Ordo, and what we know were long term plans towards a hybrid Mass. A Hegelian synthesis between Novus Ordo and the Latin Rite, all in keeping with his heretical notions of Chardinian evolution towards the Church. Hence the motu proprio and the reform of the reform, inevitably where both would become one in the future.

As for the 3rd Secret, you are also just wildly speculating just as well as Barnhardt. Benedict maintained its cover up. Then supposedly denied telling a friend of his that it had to do with a bad council and a bad mass through a blatant rant on an unsigned press release that the Vatican for some reason was so afraid of when published by Steve Skojec.

All these actions are in the most charitable light, the doings of an inconsistent man, who favour politics over the Truth that risks a crisis. Benedict was helpful, but also part of the problems that he helped create. History will not look favorable on him outside of a few concessions.

Peter Lamb said...

It's not just perfidious jorge. All of them from paul the sick on, were false "popes".

We are sure of a few facts:
1. There has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Catholic Church. This we have on the authority of Vatican I and St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and prime authority on the Papacy.

2. IF a true Pope became an heretic, he would immediately loose office and his authority and, just like any heretic, be excommunicated from the Church. This is Catholic doctrine.

3. The Catholic Church is Infallible and Indefectible. Why? Because it is protected and guided by the Holy Ghost. This is Catholic dogma.

4. The Holy Ghost never has, nor will he ever allow an heretical "pope" to lead the Catholic Church astray. He would drop him dead before He allowed the teaching of anything harmful to the salvation of souls by the Catholic Church. If this were not so, the Church could not be Infallible and Indefectible.

5. We know ususual things happened at the Conclave of 1958 - white smoke for five minutes, by the clock and then black smoke etc. etc. One day it will be known what really happened. All things done in the dark, will be broadcast from the rooftops.

6. From the above, it is obvious and definite that the judeo-masons HAD TO HAVE A FALSE POPES TO DO THEIR BIDDINGS. THE HOLY GHOST WOULD NOT ALLOW A TRUE POPE TO DO SO.
Whether a Pope was elected and then impeded, or whether no Pope was validly elected and the conclave was a judeo-masonic sham, we don't know.

7. But, we do know that all the conciliar "popes" are equally sham, evil and minions of satan, including ratzinger and wotjyla.

Peter Lamb said...

Actually "unanimity" in electing an heretic means nothing:

Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 –

“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman
Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff
(whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election
as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or
fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: —
“Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement
and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally
invalid and void. — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or
election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception
of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. —
“Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in
the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in
any way . . .— “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. — “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

Tom A. said...

All this speculation on secrets and hidden intents. Do you resignationists actually listen to yourselves. You have created a warren of hidden motives and meanings, all done in order to avoid admitting we have no Catholic Pope. Not one of us has any knowledge what is going on in Ratzingers mind and what if anything those secrets mean. What we know is objectively what Ratzinger and Bergoglio have said and written. In both cases they have said and written heresy and have contradicted past teachings of the Catholic Church, most notably on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liberty, and ecclesiology. So much so, that the simplest diagnosis a layman can make is that they are heretics and cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church. Is that so difficult to admit that you invent Dan Brown plots of intrigue to avoid the simple conclusion?

Anonymous said...

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/13/pope-benedict-still-gives-the-papal-apostolic-blessing-tell-me-more-about-how-his-attempted-resignation-wasnt-intended-to-be-partial-im-all-ears/

Peter Lamb said...

Bingo Tom!!!

Why the simple, logical, infallible Catholic teaching that an heretic cannot become, or be Pope, is so hard for so many to grasp, accept, or believe, is beyond my understanding.

Who cares what Ann Barnhardt says, or thinks? Why will semi-trads not go to Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Magisterial Teaching and Canon Law for their guidance? How can anybody in their right mind think ratzinger is Pope? The truth is that after 60 years of devilish indoctrination, the vast majority of Catholic laity no longer know the Faith.

Tom A. said...

I can only surmise that people refuse to accept sedevacantism because it is extremely inconvenient and unpopular.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Noticed you like speaking in the third person as yourself.

Yes, ABS likes to do that

Could that have something to do with feeling the least mount of slander concerning Fr John Gallagher who you smeared along side your Local Ordinary ,Bishop Barbarito ?

ABS did not slander the mentally troubled priest but he did defend Bishop Barbaritos; handling of a bad the situation.

Real Catholics count Fr Gallagher as one courageous priest for blowing the whistle on a fellow priest pederast whom he caught in action and talked into turning himself in.

No. He did not do that but he lied that he did that. The perv priest was turned in by the father of the boy the perv priest was trying to seduce. The priest also did not notify the diocese about the perv priest as he was required to do and the priest was the one who invited the perv priest into active ministry there.

ABS lives close to Holy Name Church in west palm beach and he has friends who are communicants there and they are all in agreement that the poor priest is mentally ill and had caused a LOT of damage and dissension there.

Iti s clear you have no idea what happened at Holy Name.