Sunday, 13 October 2019

The imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI and the current state of affairs

There is an issue raised in this article by Laramie Hirsch at the Forge and Anvil and I have followed similar thinking.

Laramie discusses the "Bishop in white" statement in the Third Secret of Fatima by Sister Lucy. I have long had issues with the Vatican's 2000 interpretation that this referred to the a pope. How do people miss this. The statement is "we saw a bishop dressed in white, we had the impression that it was the Holy Father." If she was so certain that it was the "Holy Father," why did she not say, "we saw the Pope?" Because, she was confused, it was not the Pope! It was an impostor. Bergoglio even claimed for himself that title, "a bishop dressed in white."

On the night that Bergoglio emerged, I sat and watched and knowing nothing of the man, having never heard the name before, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I had a feeling of foreboding fall around me and I wanted to vomit. It was a warning to me no doubt fro my Guardian Angel at what had just happened. I have believed from that day that Joseph Ratzinger was a prisoner.

This is why the discussion on the validity of the resignation, the conclave and the election of Bergoglio is not going away. Too many people are now aware that something is wrong. Something is very, very wrong.   


From Rome has done exemplary work on the resignation of Benedict XVI and the canonical issues associated with it. In July, the published a chronology on "The Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI." The only point of disagreement I have is that they threatened to murder him. Perhaps Joseph Ratzinger was a coward but it seems hard to believe that. Would he not have embraced a personal martyrdom for the Church? No, it was not this. Oh, they threatened him all right, but it was not that they would kill him, or at least not only him. It was something bigger, much bigger. But what?4

This is an important read to see clearly, the timeline.

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/07/08/the-imprisonment-of-pope-benedict-xvi/

Know this though. Since that time, two of the perpetrators of this are dead. Carlo Martini and Godfried Danneels. Both are dead and their foul corpses are rotting in the grave. They have been judged by God and their eternity is only known to Him. Thomas J. Rosica, a malefactor if ever one existed, lionised Martini as he wrote here in the Tablet. Well, we think he wrote it but we can't be sure. Where is Rosica? Gone, his fame, his influence, all gone to a psychiatric couch north of Toronto. Who else? McCarrick, a filthy sodomite who bragged about his influence and willingness to be lobbied in the election of Bergoglio which I revealed here back in 2016 and the revelation of his time in St. Gallen, Switzerland.

We are in some of the darkest days of the Church. In the past, persecution of the Church and faithful Catholics came from outside, this persecution is from infiltration within. 

Keep the faith, God has already won this.






44 comments:

Vox Cantoris said...

No links to “popefrancisthedestroyer” or any other of that psychopaths blogs are permitted here.

Anonymous said...

Sorry,and thanks I won't be visiting that site again.

JMY said...

What psychopath? Assisi's prophecy is a real prophecy. I appreciate your blog, your attitude needs some work though.

Vox Cantoris said...

The psychopath behind that blog and at least five others. Whether the madman is correct about this quote is not the issue. The bulk of the blog attacks people such this writer, this writer's wife, Ann Barnhardt, Taylor Marshall, Steve Skojec and others. It is a series of calumny and bile.

I won't name the other blogs here lest I attract one reader to the nutbar behind it.

As for my attitude, I can think of two words to respond or a series of two words.

Anonymous said...

Poor Benedict?
He was the Head of the CDF under Pope JP2 and knowingly refused to laicize admitted serial pederasts. His letters of refsal have been used by bishops in their own defense .Read the Kiesel case.
Ever see the pics of this so called prisoner ( who could face extradition if he left the cozy protection of Vatican City)
Smoke and mirrors but some eyes have become adjusted to the smog of lies.

Suze said...

From the timeline article: "His Holiness Pope Benedict, XVI remains a prisoner in the Vatican waiting patiently that someone in the Catholic world will read this timeline and realize what it means." Will realize what it means and **do what**? What is anyone expecting to be done?

Anonymous said...



But lets remember the visit and prayers at the wailing wall in Jerusalem, the kissing of the Koran. All done by the bishop in white. Two different Bishops in white and now another Bishop in White at a pagan ritual on the grounds of the Vatican. the satanic actions in the Basilica itself. The falling down of parts of the ceiling during Mass by the Bishop in white. The Bishop in white who closed VatII and the start of the dismantling of the pre VatII Church which wasn't good enough to attract Protestants and non believers. The turning away from the Divinity of the groom of the Church.

TLM said...

No Vox, I don't believe you will attract any of us to his 'blogs', as I would say most of us trust your judgement, and, I have taken a look for myself..correct...full of calumny and garbage. All you have to do is glance at it to know. What I don't know is who he is...his blog profile he conveniently
gives a pseudo name for. No matter...thanks for all you do. And thanks for this very important post! Will be looking it and the links over carefully. Important info here...

Alexis Bugnolo said...

As head of the CDF Cardinal Ratzinger had no authority to laicize priests beyond that conceded by canon law at the time. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame those who advised John Paul II not to put in harsher penalities for such sins in the code of 1983. Ratzinger came to the Vatican in 1982, very little time to expect him to have had any major input into the formulation of the new Code of 1983.

Tom A. said...

Was that statement about the “Bishop in white made by the first Sr Lucy or the second Sr Lucy?

TLM said...

Tom A. That's what I'd like to know. It has almost been proven now beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were indeed 2 'Sister Lucys'. The Freemason/Lavenders have been working to overthrow the Church for longer than some people realize.

Anonymous said...

Alexis, stop defending the indefensible .Benedict showed up at Vat 2in secular dress himself.He DID have the authority to remove clerical pederasts from active Ministry and remove them ! That was HIS job as he had the duty to recommend signing off on the same to Pope JP2.
Yea he was great . Read and learn !

"Ratzinger's Dream for the Future Church"
https://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_002_FutureChurchRatizinger.htm
"Future pope refused to defrock area priest who admitted molestation"
https://www.sj-r.com/article/20100531/NEWS/305319968

Anonymous said...


I remember when the holy Benedict prisoner slapped reporter Jason Berry for asking him how the Maciel Case was coming along. The Vatican had in their possession reports from 12 young "seminarians" since the fifties .Drug addiction and repeated pederasty and Ratzinger did NOT move until it was made public in the Press.

"Pope ( Benedict) Directly Involved In Sex Abuse Coverup"
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/04/09/21731
Yes the above would be Fr Kiesel which Benedict refused his Bishop to defrock him........laicize.

Anonymous said...

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-ap-exclusive-future-pope-stalled-pedophile-case-2010apr09-story.html

They ALL swept it under the Vatican rugs.This is why
Benedict does NOT leave the protection of Vatican City. The Vatican hypocritically signed the "Treaty on the Rights of the Child" with the UN in the early nineties .

Anonymous said...

http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/09/tragic-disappearance-of-real-sister.html

Cam said...

The piece at From Rome is interesting. The Feb. 11 coincidence, for example: Is it really just a coincidence? The strange parallel makes the author's opinion about an assissination threat seem plausible.

But has Benedict only tried to fool his enemies with his resignation and signal to others he's under duress? Was his resignation just a clever trick? I think it's possible, but because there's so much counterevidence, I wouldn't recommend treating it as a fact right now.

A lot of the evidence indicates that Benedict really did attempt to hang on to the papacy while, in his mind, allowing for a legitimate successor --- e.g., Benedict's past involvmenet in theological discussions about the nature of the papacy, his comments on 2/27/13, and Ganswein's own comments about Benedict's views (it all corroborates Barnhardt's idea that Benedict is in substantial error).

In any case, there are definitely two theories circling about on the web right now regarding the nature of Benedict's putative abdication, and representatives from both camps have contributed a lot of helpful information.

Aqua said...

Vox: “Keep the Faith. God has already won this”.

If it were not for this crisis, I doubt I would have ever crossed the threshold of an SSPX Parish, due to my formation I suppose; my “conciliar” formation. The crisis, searching for anyone with answers, led me to read Archbishop Lefebvre’s own words and I found out I agree with him, word for word.

Now I have finally crossed the SSPX threshold. Tiny little Parish. Intimidating for me and my large brood of misfits. How would these spiritual elites deal with me and my merry band of noise makers?

How wrong I was to have doubted. God is there, on the Altar, in the Priest and his Parishioners. Filled with young life and noise (some other misfits, my people) and a big, smiling welcome. They have a family friendly place for us. And the Mass Of Ages is just a short distance away.
PI had not heard this comment from any child until that first day: “I like this Church!” And the first comment from the Priest when I met him? “How can we help you catechize your children”?

This Church and others like it are “the Faith”. Oh, yeah. This is the future.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

There are a couple of fundamental problems with this theory, and they’re huge problems:

1) Benedict, an 85 year old man, the pope no less, is afraid of being murdered?

Seriously? The Vicar of Christ Himself, who is specifically CALLED to imitate Christ in ALL things as the Shepherd of the Bride of Christ – ESPECIALLY by laying down his life for his flock if necessary – is AFRAID of dying?

And at 85 YEARS OF AGE? – An advanced age that is already 10 years beyond normal life expectancy?

So Benedict the coward didn’t want to forfeit his young life because he had so much living yet to do? REALLY?

If THIS WAS his mindset – then he was ALWAYS a horrid choice for the papacy.

2) In this modern age of instantaneous WORLD WIDE COMMUNICATION – Benedict somehow just COULDN’T quickly and REPEATEDLY warn the Church and the world at large that he was being threatened? AND – more importantly – that he was being threatened by a deeply entrenched thoroughly corrupt cabal of criminals who were wrestling control of the Church away from the papacy?

Because – see? He could have easily released this news by a variety of sources (INCLUDING)- and get this crazy idea – by actually SAYING SOMETHING HIMSELF into a microphone in his own public address to the world at St Peter’s square in front of a live audience with countless cameras rolling, OR by simply bringing it up in a homily at mass.

And the crazy simple thing about THAT obvious tactic is that he could have warned THE WORLD that in the event of his untimely death anytime soon – the good people of the Church should take that event as a VALIDATION that he was murdered. Oh AND (get this other crazy idea) he could actually start citing suspected names and crimes to add a thick layer of credibility to all of it.

Seriously. To ignore these two 8000 lb gorillas of rational logic in the conspiracy room – is itself a conspiracy against sound judgement.

DJR said...

Blogger Lazarus Gethsemane said..."There are a couple of fundamental problems with this theory, and they’re huge problems:

1) Benedict, an 85 year old man, the pope no less, is afraid of being murdered?

Seriously? The Vicar of Christ Himself, who is specifically CALLED to imitate Christ in ALL things as the Shepherd of the Bride of Christ – ESPECIALLY by laying down his life for his flock if necessary – is AFRAID of dying?

And at 85 YEARS OF AGE? – An advanced age that is already 10 years beyond normal life expectancy?

So Benedict the coward didn’t want to forfeit his young life because he had so much living yet to do? REALLY?

If THIS WAS his mindset – then he was ALWAYS a horrid choice for the papacy."


Where's the "problem"?

The history of the papacy is filled with old popes who tried to avoid being murdered.

In fact, one of them tried to avoid it so much that he sacrificed to pagan idols.

Papal fear of being murdered is nothing new at all.

Popes aren't supposed to be murderers or fornicators either. That didn't stop several of them from being such.

Popes are human, regardless of their job description.

Cam said...

@Aqua:

Thank you for your story about the SSPX. They have a chapel in my area and, I have to say, I've come to admire them more by the day. It's nice to hear you've had a positive experience with them.

@Lazarus Gethsemane:

Thanks for the refreshing criticism; it's good food for thought.

Cam said...

DJR: "Where's the 'problem'?"

Perhaps some wish to weigh the problem of Benedict's age differently than LG does, but how can it seriously be denied that, in fact, his age is a problem for Bugnolo's narrative? True, Benedict's age doesn't disprove Bugnolo's narrative, but it still casts doubt on it --- and that's a problem (at least if you want your narrative to be taken as true).

Anonymous said...

They've been gaslighting the laity for years, which is why no one knows what's going on. Saying one thing, doing another, condemning something while promoting it. They are running young men out of the seminaries for been pious and praying, and showing reverence to God. Their reaching the pinnacle of their pride, now its out in the open, and in our faces. It's been going on behind closed doors for the last six centuries, now it's time to initiate the public. The fact that the Church has survived and produced Saints is truly a miracle, and proves its Divine origin.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

DJR said "Where's the "problem"?

The history of the papacy is filled with old popes who tried to avoid being murdered."



None of the those popes had the power of 21st century instantaneous worldwide communication at their disposal to broadcast their plight far and wide.

That's the real problem

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

@ Cam

Thank you.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Another serious problem with this conspiracy theory comes from Ann Barnhardt's own research:


She laid out a convincing history of Ratzinger's own heretical pioneering efforts to rationalize a "bifurcated papacy"

Which then begs the question:

WHY would the conspirators even have to threaten Benedict with murder in the first place?

All they would have to do is gently prod him into going through with the very constructs of his own theory and Voila! Everyone is happy.

Benedict gets to be the retired "pope" that he's always dreamed of. And Bergoglio gets to usurp the Chair as antipope and do his utmost destruction through Benedict's "hermeneutics of Vatican II continuity" whose groundwork Ratzinger help craft back in the 60's

And that would actually explain everything we've seen thus far.

Bad VII heretic Pope + Bad VII heretic anti-pope = completion of Satan's Counter Church

Wolverine said...

Blogger Lazarus Gethsemane said..."There are a couple of fundamental problems with this theory, and they’re huge problems:

1) Benedict, an 85 year old man, the pope no less, is afraid of being murdered?

I believe the post below answers your question. There can be things a faithful, but weak, person could fear worse than death (ie Revelation of personal or institutional sin that would create GRAVE scandal to the faithful and the world).

https://www.thecampofsaints.com/2019/10/was-pope-benedict-xvi-blackmailed-out.html?m=1


Anonymous said...

I am laughing at all this speculation. 'Gaslighting " isn't the half of it.
"Gorgeous George " as he is known in Rome.aka George Ganswain OD Bishop now ,who services both Borgoglio and Ratzinger is responsible with his homosexual designer fashionistas and Dolan for that abomination at the Met Gala......Benedict knows what he is and never replaced him as his personal aide.
You have all been played including the FSSPX adherents. I'm sorry .

Aqua said...

Anonymous: “You have all been played...”

If the Faith depended upon the righteous deeds of the living to survive, then you may have a point.

The Faith does not subsist in the deeds of the living, however. We play a part, but Tradition and Dogma transcend our time. We submit to Jesus, the Blessed Mother, Dogma, Scripture, Tradition. And those don’t change, can never be changed. Righteous generations build up the Faith in union with God, the Angels and Saints.. Unfaithful generations merely stand outside, unable to damage what belongs to God Almighty.

I chose FSSPX because they were founded upon the premise of rejection of all that was a deviation from these in the Conciliar VII documents and declarations but retention and acceptance of all in it that was true.

Sinners within (even the) FSSPX do not change those facts. The Church remains pure and undefiled.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Acqua,

Archbishop Lefebvre"s "Letter to a Confused Catholic" was the very first thing I read on my journey after my Damascus moment! It greatly helped to open my eyes at the time. Keep reading ol' chap. Of course they welcome you with wide open arms. Think about the dogma of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church and then take a careful look at the teachings of bergoglio, your Pope. But no! I'm forgetting! That should not be a problem! Now you can sift your Pope's teaching to suit your idea of "tradition." Halelujah! :)

Aqua said...

Peter Lamb: Tradition is not up for definition by me. Or you. Or any of the Sede factions. It exists as a separate thing. As with the Apostolic Line, including the Popes, Tradition is directly connected to Christ and the Apostles before revelation closed with St. John on Patmos. Contradiction and change is by definition disconnected from it and can, must, be ignored (sifted).

Anonymous said...

Aqua,
Take a longer view of Tradition back to the beginning of the Christian Faith.
Pontifex Maximus existed only for Caesars.
The Bishop of Rome was initially called the First Among Equals to make the final decision at Councils in stalemate matters of Doctrine and Dogma between the Bishops.
FSSPX got it wrong with the "Filioque" which was restored to the original by Pope JP2 in the Nicene Creed.
Tradition seems to become tradition only after many years of the change.
Catholic Tradition did NOT start with the Council of Trent or with the Vatican Two Council. It goes back much farther.

Anonymous said...

In other words Aqua , when the See of Rome being the largest, decided it's Bishop was a Pope ,the Eastern Church saw a "change" in Tradition and criticized it.
Peter was first the Bishop of Antioch.
When Western Bishops decided to meet at the Fourth Council of Toledo and not invite representation from the Eastern Church , they changed the original 'Filioque' .
There were many other 'changes" to Tradition recognized as such by the Greek speaking Eastern Church which finally after the so called Fourth Crusade severed the Orthodox from Rome.

As far as Popes are concerned , pick up Malachi Martin's book published in 1983 , "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church" , for a more accurate historical view of the destruction of Tradition.

I am a pre V2 Catholic raised in the TLM but to my disgust I recognized strange concepts on what was considered Traditional pre V2 as compared to it's implementation in the FSSPX and in the minds of the poorly formed priests therein.

Islam_Is_Islam said...

@Anonymous per your statements on tradition and especially your citation of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church as a "more accurate historical view of the destruction of Tradition", is it your opinion that Martin's admitted work of fiction is a source to be taken with historical exactitude?

My take on that illuminating work was along lines of one of the sub-plots of Windswept House, namely that the hope of Martin was that the Bride of Christ will return to her pre-Constantinian entwinement which will enable her to shed her anti-Christ-like worldly focus on power and wealth. This strikes me as being much along the same lines of both Abp Fulton Sheen's and Fr. Ratzinger's visions for the future Church which are much cited of late.

Aqua's understanding of Tradition and one's sifting of it does not allow for sedevacantism while it seems as if your understanding of Tradition does. Please set me straight if I have read something between the lines of your commentary which is not there.

Aqua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aqua said...

Anonymous: My first comment was not up to my standards and thus deleted. I went back and re-read your info, and found I misjudged it. I will check out the book you recommend.

I get busy at home, at times, and don’t have the time to invest I need for certain thoughts. Speak less, think more. I will consider what you said.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Aqua,

The Sacred Tradition and Papal Succession are most certainly not "separate things". The Faith stands on three legs: Divine Revelation, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. The three legs are bound into ONE indefectible, infallible Faith which is whole and indivisible and NOT to be regarded in "separate" parts. Divine Revelation, not Sacred Tradition, ended with the death of St. John.

For a man who most wisely intended to proceed very, very carefully, you move with great speed and have leaped into the arms of the SSPX. Your move, your soul. :)

Please can you substantiate your claim that sedevacantism:

"From what I’ve seen on these forums, it seems to be acid, and like acid corrosive to one’s faith."
Please give me a single example of where you have seen sedeism corroding the Catholic Faith. Just ONE!

Please state for my elucidation and the salvation of my soul, the "MUCH that appears bad" to you. So there is "much badness" in sedevacantism - please make know to all, for the salvation of poor sede souls and their poor victims. Examples please.

Please dear Aqua I beg you! I was a committed sede - after much prayer and much reading and a solid Catholic schooling. It appears I must urgently alter my ways for the salvation of my soul! I urgently need to know exactly how sedevacantism is "a new rule of “modern” Faith" ? Please tell me what is NEW to the Catholic in sedevacantism?

Show me its "rabbit trails" of sedevacantism - even just one - pleeze!

Show me the "baseless assumptions of sedevacantism - just one pleeze!

You and your heretical Pope and magisterium-sifting ecclesiology may be the saving of my poor duped, misguided sedevacantist soul. Offer a Mass in union with your heretic Pope for the salvation of my poor soul pleeze!!!

(Trusting of course that my previous conviction that an heretic can't be a Pope and that the Catholic Church is indefectible and infallible, and that there is a hell and that Jesus Christ was True Man and True God is all now incorrect. Or if you think any of it is correct, maybe we can just sift it out and so ourselves solve the problem and thus be able to stay loyal to your Vicar of Christ?

I really look forward to you putting me right on all these important matters - important for the salvation of my currently bad, corrosive, acidic, novel, baselessly assuming, rabbit -trailing sedevacantist soul. :)

( You are still my pal, But now you are talking c... :) )

Aqua said...

Peter Lamb,

My decision to respectfully attend an SSPX Parish has been long; years in the making. Time has a way of making one pensive about all that led from there to here.

The Pagan Idol worship ceremony was the moment everything changed for me. I have been reading Bible stories about Jews who turned their back on Yahweh in favor of stone idols and false gods since I was but a Protestant lad. Amazing! I would always be amazed at the unfaithfulness of these hard-headed Chosen People who gave up everything for nothing. “Not me”, I would always say, “I would remain true to Christ my Savior, no matter the cost”. “I will never worship idols, only the one true God”. That desire to please God is what led me to convert into the Holy Roman Catholic Church; led me to the FSSP ... oh, the time I invested in knowing this Faith!

And this week, there is my (supposed) Pope, in the Vatican, worshipping stone and wooden idols. Such a moving demonic ceremony! With the most senior Cardinals. And no one in authority does anything to stop it. My Priest says nothing. No one. Silent as little bleating lambs. All my life has led me to this, the one thing I said I would never do.

That moment crystallized everything for me. Nope! No more! Didn’t sign up for that. I spit on (figuratively of course) all those in attendance there. Despise everything they stand for. Hate, is a better word.

I stand with Tradition and the Church’s Magisterial authority to lead me and my family to Christ through Dogmatic Truth. I don’t seek to change your mind on anything. I have enough problems of my own. I joined SSPX because they are the closest in fidelity to Tradition; were founded on principles of fidelity against modern heresy. I am uninterested in Sede arguments. Interesting. Not for me.

Vox Cantoris said...

Peter Lamb, I ask you to no longer attempt to dissuade Aqua from following his conscience. I note you do not attempt to dissuade me about attending and chanting at a Diocesan parish where the priest two hours earlier offers the modernist rite and the tabernacle will have the Blessed Sacrament from both. With respect. D.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox and Aqua,

I plead not guilty! Vox first: Vox, I am most certainly not, nor have I ever, tried to dissuade Aqua from following his conscience. Yours is a Catholic blog, where sincere Catholics discuss and debate the correct Catholic response to the judeo- masonic invasion of our Church.  It is my duty to defend our Faith to the very limits of my ability - to death if necessary. This, please God. I would gladly do subject to receiving the necessary grace. There is no such thing as an heretical Pope!!! This I have confirmed a thousand times by many quotes from Popes, Vatican I, three Doctors of the Church, several Saints, several Catholic theologians and the canon law! Yet you, my old pal insist against all odds that bergoglio is Pope according to the law. So be it. Amen. :) That's your opinion and you are sticking to it. You are a true Miles Christi and as you well know I have respect and affection for you although I do not agree with your theological opinion. As for your chanting, I know how much you love your church music and where and when you chant is entirely your business. :)

Now Aqua, I was attracted by your obvious sincerity and intelligence soon after you began commenting here. Your account of the aetiology of your Damascus moment is interesting, inspiring and spot on. You said you had left NO and were carefully going to explore and study your way forward. This approach I acclaimed because that's what we do here - we try to follow Catholic Truth in a crazy situation. Next day you are SSPX. That is fine. Entirely your own business. I was surprised by the sudden change in course, that's all and again none of my business. But then, the next day you start slandering and calumnating and sprouting numerous untruths and ignorant lies about sedevacantism! This is my business! I am a sedevacantist, i.e. a pure unadulterated Catholic who stands by the Church's Tradition, Magisterial Authority and Dogmatic Truth as it always was and will be and you have the temerity to badmouth my Faith. You have not and cannot substantiate a single one of your untrue claims! At least you had the decency to remove your silly claims. You want dogmatic truth? Then start with he who is not a Member cannot be Head; the Catholic Church is indefectible - dogma cannot change; Catholics may not pray with heretics; and bear the following in mind before Pope sifting:

Peter Lamb said...

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.

(Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 263; underlining added.)

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302; underlining added.)

Union with the Roman See of Peter is ... always the public criterion of a Catholic.... “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 13; underlining added.)

Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair [of St. Peter]; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7)

All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 27:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.
Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants -- whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great -- to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17; underlining added.)

…the Church has received from on high a promise which guarantees her against every human weakness. What does it matter that the helm of the symbolic barque has been entrusted to feeble hands, when the Divine Pilot stands on the bridge, where, though invisible, He is watching and ruling? Blessed be the strength of his arm and the multitude of his mercies!
(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution to Cardinals, March 20, 1900; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 349.)

So, gentlemen let us be pals. Let us discuss openly in peace, but know that I will defend the Faith. :)
Peter Lamb.

Vox Cantoris said...

Peter, we're all on the same team. Team Catholic!

I've said it before, I have more in common with you than the Catholics of my own parish where I do not attend. We only have one issue of disagreement between us.

Yes, let us be pals, indeed!

Aqua said...

@ Peter Lamb: I suppose that reading about it on a forum post might appear rash to you. But it doesn’t matter, really. The thought and conversation that has occurred over *years* between wife, family, friends is known to me; not to you.

After the Pagan demon adoration in the Vatican, which followed the Muslim Grand Mufti election some months prior, and the Indifferentist elevation of all religions as the will of God .... there is nothing that can be more carefully considered than leaving that heretical sect with all due speed.

Careful does not mean slow. There are times when “speed and audacity” (a Civil War GeneralThomas Stonewall Jackson saying that I love) is being careful when applied to a current emergency. I am fully engaged in the current crisis as an emergency for the Church, my soul and that of my family. I intend to sort this out in the safe, Tradition loving, brave in fidelity to Truth FSSPX. I cannot any longer, in good conscience, participate in Conciliar Novus Ordo Mass that is the product of Protestants, Jews, Masons and (likely) heretical Catholics.

The Mass of Ages. The Catechism of Trent. Tradition. Only that. My days of blithely accepting innovation are over.

As to your decisions .... I heartily concur with Vox. God bless you.

Peter Lamb said...

Thanks Vox. And Aqua is part of our team. :)

Alexis Bugnolo said...

Vox, thanks for the compliments.

But, from the comments here I see a need to respond to a common error promoted by TIA, namely, that you should never defend the canonical rights of a cleric if he is a sinner. TIA folks originally followed a layman who ended up declaring himself to be the Immaculate Conception before he died and demanding personal pledges of loyalty on that score. Their entire organization was built in Brazil on the concept that holiness is the source of authority, not Apostolic Succession. They have a hard time still today breaking from the notion that if someone holds an ecclesiastical office or is ordained that he has rights that even the holiest laymen can never have. I do not defend Benedict because I think he is a Saint, just ask Rorate Caeli who nearly banned me for criticizing Benedict as Pope, on points of theology. But I am a Catholic, and no matter how much I disagree or fault a man for his personal theology, if he be legitimately elected, then I will defend his right to the office tooth and nail. To say I do so because of sentiments or illusions about the man is the lowest kind of ad hominem.