Monday, 23 May 2016

Habemus Papam times two, how blest are we - Not!

Confusion and chaos reign in Rome. 

The UnHoly Trinity

Benedict's renouncement is valid because he says it is. Francis is Pope because the priests of the Diocese of Rome accept him as their Bishop, even if the election was manipulated by certain Cardinals. This is what we know and all we know, therefore, we cannot conclude anything else. The Law seems to have been followed.

There is no scriptural or ecclesiological reference that can justify any expression of two popes.

Let's be clear, if both these men think that they are Pope, then neither one of them is Pope. There is not shared papacy. There is no shared Petrine Office. There is no spiritual pope and practical pope. 

If they believe they are both exercising some joint form of the Petrine Ministry then they are both deluded and liars and even malefactors and will be judged by God for what they have done!

On a personal level, I've had about enough of both of them and their innovations and what I do know is this, this is not from God, though He is clearly permitting it.

Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry

Prefect of Pontifical Household also recalls "dramatic struggle" of 2005 Conclave.

 05/23/2016 Comments (30)
Archbishop Gänswein delivering his speech at the Pontifical Gregorian University, May 20.
In a speech reflecting on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has confirmed the existence of a group who fought against Benedict’s election in 2005, but stressed that "Vatileaks" or other issues had "little or nothing" to do with his resignation in 2013.
Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.”


C.J. said...

Another case of "My Two Dads"?

Someone is trying to tell us that that is rain we feel trickling down lur backs.

Anil Wang said...

Agreed but I do disagree that it wasn't God's active will. Look at the front runner in the Papal Enclave Cardinal Scola. He's shown his true colors. Had he been elected as a traditionalist Pope he could have done more damage than Pope Francis and his successor would continue the slide into decay. As such, I fully expect someone like Cardinal Sarah to be the next Pope and purify the Papacy of Hans Von Balthasar reverence and bowing to the Rhine mafia.

As for the "di-papacy", theologically it's ambiguous. If what Abp Ganswein said is accurate, the Pope Francis is not the pope, he's really just a papal legate that the Pope effectively rubber stamps all his decision. There is precedent for this throughout history but it does make infallibility ambiguous, especially when during the reign of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI has rebuked anyone who thinks that communion for the divorced and "remarried" is possible. It also makes all future papal elections ambiguous since once Pope Benedict XVI passes away, there would be no real Pope until the next papal election.

This sort of innovation isn't needed and IMO is theologically unsound. A future pope will condemn it. Pope John Paul II had the right solution to the problem Pope Benedict XVI allegedly stated. Pope John Paul II hung on 'til the end and effectively delegated the papacy to Cardinal Ratzinger. If Pope Benedict XVI wanted to innovate it would be theologically more sound for him to appoint a papal legate to handle his affairs and only intervene when infallibility is needed or the legate oversteps his authority.

christine said...

Me too! Had enough of both of them....what an unholy mess. Can no longer look at BXVI. I wondered for a while how he could live with himself watching what the other clown is doing. If I had been who I thought he was not only could I not live with myself, I would be ripping my hair out. But I was sorely mistaken as to who I thought he was.
Living through more profound disappointments and outright betrayals by political leaders as well. (I'm from US) The last 7+ years have been pure hell. And this is only the end of the beginning......God help us all.

Anonymous said...

-Benedict's renouncement is valid because he says it is.
NOT necessarily, because they took him... to that step, for that, coerced
although he said it, not wanted, because he -COULDNT- manage the disobedience

-Francis is Pope because the priests of the Diocese of Rome accept him as their Bishop, even if the election was manipulated by certain Cardinals.

NOT necessarily, because a progressive group against GOd, in charge, with a lot of money (germans etc), was preparing everything, you can not know what really happen in there. (they were in disobedience remember all the news -continuously- in the newspaper with Benedict

-There is no scriptural or ecclesiological reference that can justify any expression of two popes.

of course,
There is only ONE, the other is FALSE. the clear apostasy.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox, Thanks for posting my little notice. No takers yet. :(
If I'd known yesterday was Queen Victoria's and Canada's birthdays, I'd have celebrated with you! (Bontspan braai and Black label.)
This new amazing statement does make sense in so far as it explains Benedict's keeping his name, wearing a white cassock, residing in the Vatican etc. If they let this story stand, it will really expose them to knowledgeable Catholics very blatantly - almost as if they are throwing caution to the wind. Are things coming to a head?

Peter Lamb said...

P.S. The first thought that crossed my mind was - the Beast with two horns?

Charles D. Fraune said...

All the while, the Orthodox, ahead of their Pan-Orthodox Holy and Great Council in June, are reiterating that they are actually the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

As Rome burns anew, it makes one wonder...

Vox Cantoris said...


You may be correct, Schola would not have done us well, but I think the man that might have emerged was Ouellette. Reports are, he was second and Schola could not win and on the next ballot, Schola's votes would have made OUellette Pope but he directed everyone to Bergoglio. He knew him from his work in South America, or may have thought he did.

A friend of mine knows him well. He is described as "truly humble and holy" and was probably "shaking in his buskins" at the thought of being Pope.

I also agree with you about a Papal Legate.

Benedict need never leave the apartment. No WYD in South America, no big papal Masses. He could have stayed there, gave the direction, intervened when necessary, and speak every Sunday from the window to the assembled.

He was wrong in what he did. There was nothing mystical about it. Frankly, it was disgusting selfish. He abandoned his children to the wolves!

Vox Cantoris said...

At 3:49 Anonymous said...

-Benedict's renouncement is valid because he says it is.
NOT necessarily, because they took him... to that step, for that, coerced
although he said it, not wanted, because he -COULDNT- manage the disobedience

-Francis is Pope because the priests of the Diocese of Rome accept him as their Bishop, even if the election was manipulated by certain Cardinals.

NOT necessarily, because a ....

You may be correct. My statement, since clarified, is what we can know by what they said. Based on Benedict's comments and the acceptance by the priests of their bishop, Francis is Pope.

This is what we can know.

Michael Dowd said...

Welcome to the first BOGO papacy in history. If they have to resort to giving us two for the price of one what does it tell you about it's real value? We should all pass on this "opportunity" while praying for both of them. God cannot be amused by these shenanigans.

TLM said...

Vox, Benedict KNEW his own weakness. 'Pray that I do not flee for fear of the wolves'. Exactly what he did. Maybe we weren't praying hard enough for this, and also maybe we didn't take that public statement seriously enough. He fled, we are.

Ana Milan said...

I wonder what Bishop Fellay will have to say about this two-in-one Papacy? Hope he speaks soon and blasts the lot of them. It is now time for every Cardinal, Bishop & Priest to speak out against such a perverse change to the Papal Office & Papal Infallibility which is totally against the teaching of the CC & Tradition. Is this statement alluding to the ditching of Papal infallibility, as both cannot claim to have it - only one? If the second "part" of the Papacy (the active one) has not been canonically/properly installed, then this must be quickly and openly clarified for all time. There is a huge duty on the part of the Hierarchy to do so at the first opportunity - like to-day.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said..."He was wrong in what he did. There was nothing mystical about it. Frankly, it was disgusting selfish. He abandoned his children to the wolves!"

Vox, perhaps we should believe that Pope Benedict XVI did the best that he could as Pontiff. He was elderly when elected. After several years as Pope, he had become physically and mentally exhausted. He believed that his exhausted condition had rendered him incapable of serving effectively as Pope.

Vox, let us be at peace with Pope Benedict XVI. To the best of his abilities, Joseph Ratzinger, as a laymen and priest, has served God. We, his brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, should rejoice in that. Anything beyond that is not of great consequence in regard to perceived or real human weaknesses associated with Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. He is our brother in Jesus Christ.

Finally, let us recall always that Pope Benedict XVI gifted us with Summorum Pontificum. Would we trade that for a Pope who wouldn't have resigned, but may not have issued Summorum Pontificum? We don't know what we would have had in regard to a different Pope. But in Pope Benedict XVI, we had a Pope who issued SP. Therefore, if we could go back in time to elect a Pope other than Benedict XVI, would we take that risk? I wouldn't. Would you?


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said..."After gardening all back hurts from that and my head hurts from this."

Vox, I give thanks unto God for my love of gardening. I had a neighbor who had, for decades, loved to garden. Unfortunately, during the final 10 or so years of his life, his physical condition had thwarted his ability to garden. I keep that in mind. I am thankful and fortunate that I'm able to garden.

I see the face of God in my garden. I marvel at the miracle of planting, for example, a tomato seed...and then having the opportunities to eat garden-fresh tomatoes. The beauty of a flower is a miracle to me. I will stand for minutes at a time to observe bees pollinating plants. All of that is a miracle to me as well as a way to connect to God via his creation.

Vox, my point is that as you like to garden, the time that you had spent yesterday in your garden is far more important than worrying about the nonsense associated with the latest "controversy" from Rome.

Whatever Archbishop Gänswein may have said cannot possibly change the Faith. Whatever Pope Francis, or, for that matter, any Pope, may say or do cannot possibly overthrow the Deposit of Faith. Our Churchmen are incapable of altering the True Faith.

Vox, don't permit the endless controversies that flow from our Churchmen to drain your time and energy. The best response that you may offer, for example, to Archbishop Gänswein's comments in question, is to promote the TLM. Pray that God will increase the spread of the TLM throughout His Church.

Vox, continue to work to increase awareness of the TLM. That is the way to respond to the controversy related to Archbishop Gänswein's comments. Beyond that, we are better served spending time and energy to weed our gardens than allot one second of time and energy to fret about Archbishop Gänswein's comments.


Mark Thomas

Our Lady of Good Success-pray for us. said...

We have two popes? NO. We have no pope. (It's not for nothing that God permitted the counterfeit 'church' to be N.O. church - the Novus Ordo). 'We have no pope'; that comment, according to Louie Verrecchio, got me banned from his blog. But the truth is, the Catholic Faith has had its 'restrainer' removed circa 1958. For this reason the edifice that inhabits the former haunts of Catholicism is bereft of authority -'let Us depart'. Nonetheless, the Church continues.

Vox Cantoris said...


I will not ban you but I do not agree with you.

We have a Pope, it is Francis.

He is our Pope because he is the Bishop of Rome, period. Forget all the other stuff, that is what makes him Pope. The priests of the Diocese of Rome accept him as their bishop.

Benedict renounced the office.

Now, if there is more to this, a this point, we do not know. We can only know what we can see and Canon Law was followed, even if skullduggery took place in the Conclave, heck, it wouldn't' be the first time.

Truly, Habemus Papam.

Peter Lamb said...

Well I'd say you are both correct. Presuming that there was no skulduggery during Bergoglio's election, then we do have a material, legally designated pope Bergoglio in Rome - legally elected by the College of Cardinals, the proper electors of the pope. His designation and election come from men.
However his authority comes from God - not men. We know that all authority comes from God, but in the Pope's case his Papal authority - his "form" - comes directly and specifically from Our Lord to St. Peter and his successors.
Heresy, schism and apostasy are sins against Faith - they are not sins against Morals as theft, murder, adultery etc. are. If one denies one article of faith, one denies all the Faith. Catholicism must be accepted in its entirety, or not at all, just as if one breaks one commandment, one breaks them all.
It is accepted Catholic doctrine that a heretic severs himself (excommunicates himself) automatically from the Church, i.e. the Mystical Body of Christ. He is no longer a member of the Mystical Body and someone who is not a member, cannot be Head of the Mystical Body. This logic even applies at one's local golf club - if one is not a member, one can't be president of the club.
It is probably impossible for a valid Pope to BECOME a manifest (public) heretic and teach error, because the Holy Ghost would likely strike him dead before he could do so. To aver that a true Pope could teach error makes nonsense of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. There has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Church - Vatican I.
But, just for argument sake, let's presume a true Pope became a heretic:
The heretical Pope denies the Faith, thereby denying also Christ and Christ, from whom his authority came, removes/retracts his authority (his "form") and his office.
We would now have - a pope materialiter, (legal designation and election), who has no authority; is not protected by infallibility; who holds office fraudulently and invalidly - he is not Pope formaliter. If this man were to renounce his heresy, he would immediately revert to being Pope materialiter and formaliter - again a true Pope.
Now let's look at a man like Montini, a registered judeo-mason. Judeo-masons worship lucifer - the mother and father of all heresies. This man is excommunicated BEFORE he is even elected. He is not a member of the Church, i.e. he is a non-Catholic and non-Catholics are not eligible for election to the Papacy (See Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.) Well his fellow judeo-masonic Cardinals elect him anyway. - his election is VOID, but the Cardinals are the legal designators and electors and his election is LEGALLY VALID. We now have an heretical, but material pope. Roncalli to Bergoglio - all heretical judeo-masons before election - all anti-popes.
Actually, their acceptance by clergy or faithful as Popes, for no matter how long a time, does not signify:

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV, 1559.)

Anonymous said...

Pope Benedict wrote a trilogy on the life of Christ ,before he retired ,having read book one and two ,i skipped book three.In the description of Christ's death on the Cross ,where He says the words "Woman behold thy Son ,son behold thy Mother"Pope Benedict claimed it was likely Christ was committing His Mother to the care of St John ,and not appointing His Mother to be the spiritual Mother of all Christians redeemed by Christ.He recieved great acclaim for those books from the intellectuals ,thats enoughfor me,I do not mourn his retirement.Their attitude to the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin are the indicators of what they believe.

TLM said...

Vox, look at the new post on 1Peter5 about Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and her prophecies. She speaks about 'The relationship between the two Popes'. Really fascinating reading. I have been, coincidentally, thinking back about these prophecies this week seeing as though Benedict has been front and center in the Catholic news cycle, and then he comes out with an article today. I don't think Steve has covered all of her prophecies, but it's hard to dismiss them as though not being relevant to what we are going through. Another thing that struck me early on in reading them (a few years ago, but I don't think Steve covered this part) was that the 'Pope lives now in a different place, not in the Castle'. That 'he has very few visitors' because he is in danger. She goes on about how distressed he is, making him very weary, and praying so much of the time because of the demands being put on him.' And he has an elderly Priest friend who is his companion, a very simple and holy man who keeps him up to date on goings on.' And how 'they' (whoever 'they' is) decided he could stay with him as he is simple. (of course, this means 'not a threat') I am paraphrasing here, but if you dig them up and read them you will be amazed. I do believe she actually 'saw' what we are not living.

Anonymous said...

Paul Morphy :

We live in times of extreme disorientation. Planned disorientation, I'm certain.
We need to pray with all our heart. God help us.

One suggestion - if what this site is hinting at is accurate then we're in perilous times

Vox, I thank you for you continued ministry.

c matt said...

Reminds me of that old Certs commercial - two, two popes in one!

If I were one of those prophetizing types, I would note a remarkable coincidence between the current situation of the Church and our Lord's passion. Both had/have their Judas betraying and Peter abandoning. Curious.