Thursday, 23 June 2016

It's not up to us to make declaration, it is up to us to stay on the boat and right it until He awakes

Many of you have no doubt read, or at least heard of, Ann Barnhardt's recent essay on Pope Francis and that he is an antipope because, in her opinion, Benedict XVI is still the Pope.

Ann is wrong.

First, Benedict XVI says he is not, he has renounced the papacy according to Canon Law. Until such a time he declares that he was wrong or felt forced out and has come to his senses, he is not the Pope. Should that day ever arise, it will be the greatest crisis in the Church in Her history.

Second, no matter what machinations happened behind the scenes, and no doubt, there were plenty, Jorge Bergoglio was elected and is the Bishop of Rome accepted by its priests and making him Supreme Pontiff.

Thirdly, it is not up to us. If he is an antipope only history can decide because only history can determine it. 

He is not an antipope, he is the Pope and he has, and we have because of him, many, many problems.

Ann is wrong. Do not take the lazy way out. 

Hilary White's column lays this out clearly. We are in big, big trouble friends and there is no easy way off the boat. In fact, getting off the boat is exactly not what we should be doing. 

The LORD is asleep, it is our fault, where do we go?

We stay on the boat, we battle the storm, we do not lost faith and we stay with our Mother until He awakens; and when He does, I want to be in the boat working to keep her afloat because those who have done this will be cast overboard.



Ana Milan said...

The only ones who know if PF was elected according to the instructions laid down by JPII are the Cardinals who elected him to the Pontificate. Only they know also if PB Emeritus's abdication was allowable. Their obstinate silence is damning on both counts. Everyone has large question marks concerning these two events and I don't think throwing Ann Barnhardt to the wolves in sheep's clothing is the Catholic or correct answer. She is a journalist with a strong Traditional faith which has been violated (as the rest of us have) by the devastation caused by the Modernist popes of the past half century. She, like the rest of the Catholic laity, has a right to air her views on her own blog site without all other Catholic websites baying for her blood & possibly endangering her source of her income. Her researched view is conjecture, of course, but better to have an open discussion on these matters than to hide behind a mulberry bush, or stick oneself in a closet like the Hierarchy.

Antonio Socci gave a shocking account of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI receiving an ultimatum in his office to either get behind an agenda for incorporating all religions into a NWO religion or resign. His reply (according to Socci) was that wouldn't happen as long as he (Benedict) was around. There were no hysterics about that disclosure nor Antonio Socci's journalism questioned yet when Ann Barnhardt gives her researched opinion everyone is up in arms about it. She didn't pressurise her readers into agreeing with her but simply stated where she was coming from.

Even the most Traditional websites with hard-hitting writers/authors & upholders of TLM, SSPX & Traditional priesthoods, whose posters constantly tell those who have no other choice but the NO Mass that they will be deservedly damned if they attend it, have come up with a solution. No-one has been told if The Remnant Petition was even sent to PF & Cardinals & if a follow-up was underway. At least VeriCatholic are trying to get something going but because they have not enlisted (paid) high profile names to address their conference, it hasn't got the space it should have from Catholic media as a whole.

I often wonder what our dead parents/grandparents would have to say about our collective inability to put the fear of God into PF & his Modernist St. Gallen Group & Mafia Cabal most of whom are of the lavender variety & would soon get the message. What are the Knights of Columbanus & Malta doing?Someone once suggested we subscribe to get PI investigators on the job but even this wasn't openly discussed yet, if covertly carried out, could provide an answer for us. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has been acted on to put wind up the sails of the Cardinals & Bishops and this is very disheartening. Too much misplaced obedience to a devilish set-up, irrespective if PF is pope or not.

Unknown said...

I have to wholeheartedly agree with you here Vox. No matter what is happening and how hopeless and impossible this whole situation seems to us, we are not seeing the supernatural aspect of it. Just as the apostles who were on the boat with Jesus. They felt abandoned, why was the Lord sleeping, didn't He care that they were about to be drowned by the storm? Yet one instant, one moment, He calmed the storm. WE, all of us need to remember, He is in charge, nothing happens without Him willing it. We must conform to His will, if we are here, we need to weather this storm, knowing, trusting, believing and remaining Faithful. We must stay on the boat even when it appears to us it is about to sink. When the Son of comes, will He find faith on earth?

Vox Cantoris said...

I am not throwing Ann under the bus. I understand her fully. I am saying that she is wrong because only history can determine the classification of "antipope."

Ronald Sevenster said...

So in your position the ordinary magisterium of the Church can teach evil for a very long time — actually since Vatican II — and yet it remains true that Catholics following this ordinary magisterium will end up in Heaven?

It is a de fide doctrine of the Church that the teachings of the ordinary magisterium are always reliable enough to keep you away from heresy and serious moral deviations. This de fide teaching must obviously be true in all circumstances, for otherwise it would be worthless.

So the conclusion must be that following the teachings of the post-Vatican II Popes and the bishops in union with them will lead us to Heaven?

If the post-Vatican II entity is the Catholic Church, this conclusion must be correct, since the Church in her ordinary magisterium — even if it isn't infallible in all respects — cannot teach evil or lead us into mortal sin.

But in my opinion this conclusion is not justified because the post-Vatican II institution teaches many evil things, either explicity or by neglecting the truth.

So please explain how the post-Vatican II entity can still be the Catholic Church, if it doesn't lead us to Heaven.

Vox Cantoris said...

I am not going to try to explain that which you cannot accept. That notwithstanding the evil and error, which has never been infallibly declared because it cannot be, the Church is the Church. Hilary's article is probably the best work she has ever done. It explains in rational thought why Ann (a friend of hers, Hilary is known to me from her days at a parish in Toronto as Secretary and I was Schola Master), is wrong even though her beliefs are more than justified.

Our Lord said, "the gates of Hell shall not prevail." The sedevacantist position is that it has prevailed, to think otherwise is simply, illogical.

The LORD will fix this in His time.

Our job is to remain faithful to the faith of our fathers and to do the work placed before us.

Sandpiper said...

I agree that Hilary's article is her best ever. Still love Ann and don't fault her for the stand she takes. Love your blog, Vox. God bless you. Keep fighting the good fight!

Anonymous said...

Bergoglio is not the pope because he was an heretic before was invalid elect by a mafia Galo

Mark Thomas said...

Ann Barnhardt made the following claim, (which she attempted to justify via a reference to the Great Western Schism...try again):

"...for me to receive Holy Communion in a Mass in which I know that Bergoglio has been commemorated as Pope is NOT an act of hypocrisy on my part...I am still very much in the Church, and went to Mass and received Holy Communion this morning from a priest in a community 100% in unity with the See of Peter. Antipope Bergoglio was commemorated in the Canon..."

Barnhardt's above claims oppose the reality that during Mass, the congregation is 100 percent united to the priest's actions, participate in the Mass, and offer their assent to prayers offered by the priest.

Therefore, Ann Barnhardt is mistaken to claim that it is acceptable for her to reject the Canon prayer that commemorates Pope Francis as the True Church's legitimate Pope.

In #93 of Pope Venerable Pius XII's Encyclical Mediator Dei, he noted the following:

"The people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving
with the prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself..."

Therefore, how can Ann Barnhardt claim that while Pope Francis is not the Pope, she remains united during Mass to the prayers and intention of the priest who, via the Canon, commemorates Pope Francis as the true Roman Pontiff?

By having expressed her "amen" during Mass, Ann Barnhardt participated in and offered her assent to the prayers, which, included obviously, the commemoration of Pope Francis.

When Ann Barnhardt assists at a Mass that commemorates Pope Francis, she has assented to the following teachings of the True Faith:

1. Pope Francis has membership in the True Church.

2. Pope Francis is the one and only Roman Pontiff of the True Church.

3. Jesus Christ has authorized Pope Francis to teach, govern, and sanctify the People of God.

4. Pope Francis "is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful".

Ann Barnhardt is very confused in regard to her claims in question. The teachings of the True Church demonstrate that. Therefore, as her brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, we must pray that Ann Barnhardt embraces the above Church teachings.


Mark Thomas

Aqua said...

I would be more likely to agree with your assertion if Pope B XVI had moved to a quiet little village in Bavaria, dressed in a Black Cassock, hearing confessions in the local Parsh, and was referred to as Fr. Ratzinger at his own insistence. He sure looks like a Pope. He sure sounds like a Pope, and is very protective of his remaining Pope "emeritus" privilege.

This sounds clearly like an altered Papal role and an expanded Papal Office with two Popes, not one; It doesn't sound like any resignation I've ever heard of. When one resigns or is fired, one gives back the key card and is escorted off the premises in civilian clothes. Pope BXVI (emeritus) still wears the white. He is still referred to as Pope (emeritus). He still lives within the Vatican. They may call it a resignation because Canon Law demands it.. I do not. And if Pope Francis wished to retire In like manner tomorrow, what would stop him from doing the same thing? I could see him happily wearing the White into the barrios of South America as the Pope Emeritus of Active Charity and filling the "emeritus" role in a much more visible and active way. Then we would have three Popes.

We may think of Pope B XVI as resigned because he is a "contemplative" and quiet, and not seeing him too much.. What of a latter Pope Emeritus, unconstrained by responsibility and who likes the spotlight, who perhaps spans the globe as "emeritus rock-star Pope" with all the trappings but none of the bureaucracy to slow him down from media adoration, retired as he would be from "active" ministry? How does an elected, actual boring Pope compete with that? He sits in his office, filling out forms, while Pope Emeritus Francis interviews with Rolling Stone in NY City, prior to a concert at Yankee Stadium, after which he will host a reception in Los Angeles for movie stars and literati to fund his favorite "family planning" charity, (to great acclaim from President Hillary).

I think such an "emeritus" Pope of the future would reman closely connected to the Papal Office in their own individual ways. They will claim they have resigned, but as so often happens these days, their words will not match reality. They wIll remain. Each in their own, individual ways.

Peter Lamb said...

"...better to have an open discussion on these matters than to hide behind a mulberry bush, or stick oneself in a closet ..." - Spot on Ana Milan!

"... No matter what is happening and how hopeless and impossible this whole situation seems to us, we are not seeing the supernatural aspect of it... " - I agree with every word Anna Sze, up to: "We must stay on the boat even when it appears to us it is about to sink."
Here you mistake identity.
1. We know that the Boat which Christ captains, CANNOT and will NEVER sink.
2. BUT the boat which appears to be sinking, is NOT Christ's boat! It is the judeo-masonic boat captained by a string of heretics and it WILL sink - all the way down to hell!

Ronald Sevenster, you are so right! If only we could get people to see!

Peter Lamb said...

Ronald Sevenster's comment got me thinking. I wonder how many young Catholics who have grown up in novus ordo land really know what the Magisterium of the Church really is?

The Magisterium of the Church is the Teaching Authority of the Church. (Magister = teacher.)
The Magisterium presents Catholic Truth by teaching, preserving, protecting and transmitting the Faith and governing the Church, from generation to generation. It exercises the Authority of God, given to Christ and by Him to St. Peter:
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock ..."
"What you bind on Earth, is bound in Heaven ..."
"He who hears you, hears Me ..."
"feed my lambs, feed my sheep ..."
"I have prayed for your faith ..."

The teaching Church, the Magisterium, is composed of the episcopal body which continues the work and mission of the Apostles. Christ grouped His Apostles in the form of a college, or social body and likewise the episcopate exercises its mission to teach as a social body. At the head of this body is the supreme authority, the Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter - the Pope.
Doctrinal infallibility has been guaranteed to the episcopal body as it was guaranteed to the Apostles, but with a difference. Each Apostle was personally infallible by virtue of his extraordinary mission as founder and the plenitude of the Holy Ghost received on Pentecost by the Twelve and later communicated to St. Paul, whereas only the episcopal body of bishops is infallible and not each bishop individually. An individual bishop is only infallible when he teaches in union with the entire episcopal body. When all the bishops of the Universal (world wide) Catholic Church are assembled in council, that council is called oecumenical. Note that this term has nothing to do with the protestant term "ecumenical" which they invented to describe different religions coming together.

Doctrinal decrees of an oecumenical council, subject to the approval of and promulgated by authority of the Pope, are infallible, as are the ex cathedra definitions of the Pope. (

Peter Lamb said...

The Solemn Magisterium is infallible and was defined by Vatican I :

"…we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church." (The First Vatican Council's Dei Filius, under Pope Pius IX's authority.)

For a pope's statement to be ex cathedra, four conditions must be met. He must: 1. speak for the whole (universal) Church; 2. invoke all his authority; 3. intend to definitively DEFINE DOGMA; and 4. speak regarding the Faith and/or Morals.

Note that the Solemn Magisterium only applies to the DEFINING OF DOGMAS, which is a rare occurrence. Many misunderstand this and are under the false impression that only ex cathedra statements are infallible. This is absolutely incorrect. This misunderstanding has worsened among traditional Catholics since Vatican II:

"What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an ecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops, whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei [“deposit of faith”] committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an ecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff." ("Clergy Review", April, 1935, Canon George D. Smith, Ph.D., D.D.)

Peter Lamb said...

Dom Paul Nau makes the same point: "By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy [in 1870], it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church which seems to have been lost sight of. It is as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognised; we might almost say as if the definition of the infallibility of solemn judgments made these henceforth the exclusive method by which the Sovereign Pontiff was to put forward the rule of faith ... The theological mark of heresy has to be applied, not only to what contradicts a defined truth, but also to what conflicts with a truth clearly put forward by the Ordinary Magisterium." (Dom Paul Nau: The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered, Solesmes, 1956.)

"Even limiting oneself to the submission made by the act of divine faith, this could not be restricted to those things that have been defined by the express decrees of ecumenical councils and by the decrees of this See, but must be extended also to what is passed on as divinely revealed by the Ordinary Magisterium of the whole Church spread over the world… (Denzinger 1683)
"Thus the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium” designates the teaching power of the pope and bishops of the whole world together. No special kind of teaching is required. Nor is it necessary for the teaching to be given over a lengthy period of time. If the universal teaching authority, i.e. the pope and the bishops with moral unanimity, pass on to the faithful a teaching as revealed, the faithful are obliged under pain of heresy to believe that doctrine with divine faith. The Church’s infallibility also extends ... to matters connected with revelation but not included therein, and which are to be believed with ecclesiastical rather than divine faith ... We must simply retain the fact that when the pope and the bishops agree in communicating to the faithful certain statements about faith and morals as belonging to the Church’s teaching, the Holy Ghost protects this doctrine from any danger of error and all Catholics are quite as bound to embrace this teaching as if it were taught by a solemn ex cathedra judgment." (
Vatican I declared: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792.)

Peter Lamb said...

"In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith."But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24.)
Although the solemn and ordinary magisteriums constitute the primary object of infallibility, there is also a secondary object and the Church is no less infallible with regard to it:
"The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them. The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith ... One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility ... the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1.theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints. (Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2: Christ's Church [Newman Press, 1957.)

To summarize: Catholics must believe and adhere to by Divine and Catholic faith those things: 1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, and 2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s authority, either through: (a) Solemn pronouncements (by ecumenical councils, or popes ex cathedra) (b) UNIVERSAL ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM (teaching of the bishops together with the pope, either in council, or spread throughout the world). 3. Teachings held by theologians to belong to the faith. 4. Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican congregations. 5. Theological truths and conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some theological censure short of “heresy.” Acceptance of the above is not optional, or a matter of opinion, they define the object of faith and belief therein is obligatory. Further, they are de fide definita – infallible, unchangeable, solemn pronouncements. (Vatican I (Dz 1792) and Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter, 1863 and also in the Syllabus of Errors, 22.)

Peter Lamb said...

"Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)

To believe that because the Novus Ordo Church is not teaching heresies contrary to Dogma, its teachings are "pastoral" and not doctrinal and binding upon adherents, is grossly erroneous in view of all of the above.
The claim that Vatican II was "pastoral" and not dogmatic, is a lie. That council met all the conditions for a dogmatic council - IF the judeo- masons Roncalli and Montini had been true Popes.

Montini himself invoked the authority of his faux "ordinary magisterium" for the documents of Vatican II at his Audience of 12 Jan., 1966 :
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogma endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”

Sure, the Council did not invoke the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM, but Paul VI states, quite unequivocally, that the Council provided its teaching ” …WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM …” In other words the Council DID invoke infallibility – the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium! The teachings of Vatican II are binding upon all who regard Montini as a true pope. Pope-sifting is heretical!
Bergoglio recently stated : "Look, I have written an encyclical and an apostolic exhortation, and I continually make declarations and give homilies, and THIS IS MAGISTERIUM" There you have it from the horse's mouth! (<a href=""Chiesa)
The novus ordo waffle about their deviations being "pastoral" and therefore not infallible, dogmatic, doctrinal, or binding, is just another of their infernal lies!
There is an inordinate reliance on infallibility among the SSPX and novus ordites, who commonly take the attitude, "if it's not infallible, we don't have to believe it."
This view is false and not Catholic!

Christ has entrusted the office of teaching all men to the Catholic Church: "Going therefore teach ye all nations…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” [Mt 28:19-20].
Herein lies the source of the obligation to believe what the Church teaches. The Church possesses the divine commission to teach, and hence there arises in the faithful a moral obligation to believe, which is founded ultimately, not upon the infallibility of the Church, but upon God's sovereign right to the submission and intellectual allegiance (rationabile obsequium) of His creatures:
“He that believeth...shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned” [Mk 16:16].
It is the God-given right of the Church to teach, and therefore it is the bounden duty of the faithful to believe... But the infallibility of the Church does not itself render belief obligatory. It renders her teaching divinely credible. What makes belief obligatory is HER DIVINE COMMISSION TO TEACH.
(Canon George Smith, "Must I Believe It?", The Clergy Review, vol. 9 [April, 1935], pp. 296-309)

Peter Lamb said...

The position of the SSPX and other "Recognise & Resisters" on papal authority and submission to the Pope is an inconsistent, confused, and confusing mess that is not backed up by any traditional Catholic teaching. They arbitrarily reduce everything to a question of infallibility, which, although related, is really not the issue at all. Here is a perfect example of their uninformed, non-Catholic stance:
"Francis is the first Pope in Church history who is literally a font of error, and thus a dramatic continuing demonstration of why the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic definition of papal infallibility is so carefully hedged with qualifications that severely narrow its scope precisely to dogmatic definitions."
(Christopher Ferrara, Remnant, 10 June, 2016.)

There you have it! ONLY the solemn magisterium counts! Ignore the ordinary magisterium and the teaching authority of the Magisterium!
(Of course all the conciliar "popes" were fonts of error - not only Bergoglio.)

Even long before the definition of papal infallibility by Vatican I in 1870, the Church required submission to the Pope under pain of mortal sin and schism.
infallibility and Authority are not the same thing - as though nothing were authoritative unless it were also infallible, or as though anything were authoritative only to the extent that it is infallible. Such an idea assumes as true the misconception, very widespread today, that the Church’s or the Pope’s authority derives from their inability to be wrong, but this is not the case. Rather, the Church and the Pope are authoritative because they are the divinely-appointed teacher, infallible or not. Thus, the Pope has the right and the power to bind his subjects’ consciences, not because he is infallible, but because he is the Vicar of Christ.
(Canon Smith.) This is something continually ignored and denied by the SSPX and the various “resistance traditionalists.”

Twenty years before the declaration of papal infallibility and therefore not at all connected with the issue of infallibility, Pope Pius IX taught:"In fact, Venerable Brother, you are not ignorant of the truth that nothing should be nearer to a Catholic Bishop, nothing is more obligatory for him, than heartfelt respect for the supreme power of this Chair of St. Peter, whence flows sacerdotal unity, the ordination of bishops, and the government of the Church; than to defend with all his strength the rights of this See and to honor them, splendid as they are with an authority, not human, but divine; than to attach himself firmly to the Sovereign Pontiff, to recognize him, faithfully to render to him all respect and obedience, this Pontiff, placed in this See, who has received from Our Lord Himself in the person of the Blessed Prince of the Apostles, all power to feed the sheep and the lambs, to confirm his brethren, to rule and govern the whole Church throughout the world." (Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Redditae Sunt, Jan. 6, 1851. Excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 153.)

nazareusrex said...

Benedict is Still the Pope those who join the anti-church of Bergoglio join a concubine a fase church and are out of the Real Church Catholic Church.
I dont have time to made this translation but here is why?

1.Universi Dominici Gregis' promulgated in 1996, and whose Article 79 reads:
"Also Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I forbid anyone, even if the dignity of Cardinal, while long live the Pope, and without consultation, make agreements on the choice of his successor, promise votes or make decisions in this regard in meetings private '.
In Article 81, these commitments are punishable by excommunication.

Sankt Gallen One last note about the alliance between the Argentine pope and the progressive wing of the German hierarchy: Cardinal Kasper, together with his countryman and comrade Karl Lehmann, had an important part in that handful of cardinals which in the decades before and after 2000 met periodically in Sankt Gallen, in German-speaking Switzerland, and from which finally emerged the election of Bergoglio as pope.

2.The code of law and the dogmatic teaching and perpetually declared that the election of a heretic is null And there is ipso facto excommunication for their supporters of the heretic. Bergoglio was a heretic before the invalide conclave.

3. When there are two popes only one can be the pope as San Vicente Ferrer warns

This is also some information in Spanish
3. Privación ipso facto de todo oficio eclesiástico por el pecado de herejía y cisma
5. Excomunión ipso facto para los que favorezcan a los herejes o cismáticos
6. Nulidad de todas las promociones o elevaciones de los desviados en la Fe.
7. Los fieles no deben obedecer sino evitar a los desviados en la Fe.

Sexta. Es verdad de fe que el papa tiene potestad plena sobre todos; por lo cual dijo Cristo a Pedro: Cuanto atares en la tierra será atado en los cielos, u cuanto desatares en la tierra será desatado en los cielos (Mt. XVI, 19). Si hubiera dos papas a la vez, o el uno tendría más potestad que el otro, o no. Si uno no tuviera más potestad que el otro, ninguno de los dos sería papa, porque el papa tiene potestad sobre todos, como queda dicho. Si la tuviera, el inferior no sería papa. Así prometió el Señor, hablando por Ezequiel: Yo salvaré a mi grey, y no será jamás presa de las gentes; suscitaré para ella un pastor único, que la apacentará (Ez. XXXIV, 28 y 31). Por todas estas razones aparece claro que no es lícito creer que los dos elegidos en cuestión son verdaderos papas. Por consiguiente, yerran muy gravemente quienes, con el afán de obtener gracias y dispensas, o por alcanzar cualquier clase de privilegios, acuden a uno y otro, reverenciándolos como papas auténticos. Pues siendo cierto que no pueden ser papas los dos, sino que uno de ellos es apostático y antipapa, es evidente que quienes en sus súplicas reverencian a los dos como tales, no escapan a las penas y maldiciones prescritas en aquel canon del Decreto que comienza: En el nombre del Señor... (J. Gratianus, Decretum (Concordantia discordantium canonum) 1, dist. 23, e. 1 : 44 In nomine Domini"). Y nadie puede ser excusado en esto por ignorancia, como se verá en lo que sigue.

Aqua said...

Mark Thomas, It sounds Catholc to say we assent to the one visible head. But we have two men with the title of Pope; two men referred to as Your Holiness; two men wearing white. Pope Benedict insists that he has"expanded the Petrine Ministry for all time. He remains n the Vatican and his Archbishop spokesman has detailed his participative role.

Pardon my confusion, but I'm with Anne on his one. I see two Popes. All the evidence points to it, including the very bad fruit emanating from this new "expanded Petrine Ministry"; a new ministry unconstrained by Canon Law that will express itself in unpredictable, likely more destructive ways in the future as new Popes Emeritus take up the practice.

The Papacy depends on one occupant, a sole head, as ordered by our Lord,as you say. I do not see that. said...


What does the text of the so-called resignation say? Is the following not a faithful paraphrase?

"I do not resign the Petrine Office, only the active exercise thereof."

The onus is on Pope Benedict to explain exactly what this means and what power he possesses to enact this resignation of active exercise.

If he intends to somehow remain Pope in some way, while another is elected, then the Papacy is no longer a monarchy. No pope however, has the authority to alter the nature of his office. The Pope has no power to bifurcate his rule.

Benedict has attempted to enact something outside the scope of his authority.
He cannot (as in unable, and not possible)alter the papacy. The only possible conclusion from his attempt at the impossible is the fact that Benedict is Pope.

Aqua said...

Ben.quivenit said it well. The Papal Office is clearly "bifurcated", and this must be explained. We must not allow this to pass and be accepted as the new normal. They have no authority to do this thing. It will quickly spiral out of control and destroy the Papacy until such time that the Office and Seat of St. Peter is restored to that intended and authorized by Our Lord, and only that.

Future Popes Emeritus will not be as quiet and contained in their unconstrained, personally chosen role and the appearance of normality will be forgotten as multiple Popes Emeritus stride the world stage, in Papal Whites, in their various chosen "Emeritus" roles. Benedict chose solitary contemplation. I don't see Pope Emeritus Francis choosing that path.

This was well said by Ben.quivenit. Benedict is Pope. Not Francis. Benedict did not completely resign the Petrine Ministry, by his own words. We must insist on this until such time that Pope Benedict COMLETELY abdicates and returns to Bavaria in a black cassock to Parish ministry as Fr. Ratzinger and there is only one Pope once again.

Mark Thomas said...

Brain, if you are with Ann Barnhardt on this one, then so be it. Conversely, I am with the True Church on this one. Holy Mother Church proclaims that Pope Francis alone is the Vicar of Christ. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is not the Vicar of Christ.

The True Church, for example, via Her various liturgies, declares daily and each Sunday that She has but one Pope — Pope Francis. The True Church teaches via Her Sacred Mysteries that She commemorates Pope Francis alone as Her Pope.

Brian, I don't understand as to why you are confused about that.

Anyway, Ann Barnhardt has proclaimed something that is contrary to the True Faith. Ann Barnhardt has presented a false Gospel. She has presented a different Faith.

Therefore, Brian, I am compelled to reject her unorthodox claims in question.

The Sacred Liturgy, not Ann Barnhardt, contains and proclaims the True Faith. The True Church's Sacred Liturgy, Eastern and Western, proclaims that Pope Francis alone is the Vicar of Christ.

Brain, that is all that I need to know when it comes to whom I should accept as Pope. Again, if you wish to throw in with Ann Barnhardt on the question at hand, then so be it.

Conversely, I will throw in with True Faith...the True Church.


Mark Thomas

Aqua said...


Just curious how you deal with the question of two Popes and an expanded Petrine Ministry. Both Popes refer to this expanded and transformed Petrine Office and acknowledge each other's role in it. Pope Benedict quite specifically retained the title of Pope. He only resigned from active ministry; not in full, only in part. He remains a Pope in white with the title of Holiness. Two Popes. Nothing at all prevents Pope Francis from doing the same, guided by his own lights in the use of his future emeritus status, which would then give us two Popes Emeritus and an active Pope. All three wearing white. All three with the title of His Holiness.

Where in the history of Holy Mother Chirch has there been more than one Pope? How does She guide us down this path? Her Liturgies declare one thing, true, but the reality of today declares something else. I appreciate your sentiments. I share them. They don't answer the current two Pope dilemma.



nazareusrex said...

St. Vincent Ferrer O.P:

«Sixth. It is true of faith that the pope has full authority over all. As Christ said to Peter: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.(Mt. XVI, 19). If there were two popes at once one would have more power than the other, or not? If one did not have more power than the other, neither would be pope because the pope has authority over all, as stated above. If the lower had it he would not be pope. So the Lord promised speaking by Ezekiel: I will save my flock, and will never be prey to the nations; I will raise up for her only one pastor, who will shepherd them (Ez. XXXIV, 28 and 31). For all these reasons it is clear that it is wrong to believe that the two chosen in question are true popes. Therefore, erring very seriously who, in an effort to obtain graces and dispensations, or achieve any kind of privileges, go to each other, revering like real popes. For being true that both cannot be popes one of them is an apostate and anti-pope. It is clear that those in their pleas revere both as such; they can not escape to the penalties and curses prescribed at the canon of the Decree begins in the name of the Lord ...(J. Gratianus, Decretum (Concordantia discordantium canonum) 1, dist. 23, e. 1 : 44 In nomine Domini"). And no one can be excused in this ignorance, as will be seen in what follows.»

nazareusrex said...

“A pope emeritus is impossible.” Pope John Paul II

No one can depose a pope. Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope.
Socci.: Benedict XVI “did not intend to renounce the pontifical munus” which “is irrevocable”
By canon law Pope Benedict XVI would need to formally resign without being forced.

Anonymous said...

Vox, you are completely correct, as usual. Thank you for stating the case so clearly without fluff and hyperbole!

Aqua said...

That is what I have come to. What nazareusrex quoted from Socci: "Benedict did not intend to renounce the pontifical minus which is irrevocable".

Pope Benedict did not fully resign his Office. He did something less. He partially resigned. Not fully and unreservedly. Partially. There can be no second Pope. There can be no partial Pope of a whole. There is an exceedingly high bar that must be met before St. Peter's successor can vacate his seat n even the smallest way: death or a willful resignation in FULL. No one else can occupy, or partially occupy that seat. Only one at a time, as ordained by Jesus Christ, directly, at the foundation of the cornerstone of our Church.

That truth must be resolved by those who see Pope Francis as true Pope, while ignoring the reality living at Mater Ecclesiae in the Vatican, still holding the title of Pope. Letting it side by for future generations to deal with, or someone of higher rank to deal with, or for a miracle to do our work for us, while claiming to be obedient to Christ, is not appropriate to this emergency. This is a mortal threat at the Church's heart and it must be seen clearly for what it is, and then dealt with as such.

Anonymous said...

Benedict cannot go back to Bavaria! Get a clue; he cannot go anywhere outside of Vatican City State. He surely would prefer to live out his final years in his beloved homeland, as formerly planned.

If Benedict sets one foot in an EU country, he will be descended upon by police, commanded to appear before the International Criminal Court. A warrant for his arrest stands; he's accused of accessory to child abuse for virtually every priest that has mistreated any child anywhere on the planet.

These absurd and unjust charges are the work of the same global-atheist totalitarians that Brexit (and Trump) seek to depose.

Hasn't it ever occurred to any trad that the big mystery over the Resignation is not so big after all? It's not the goofy yarns spun on these blogs for 3 years! Would Pope Benedict risk having an active living pope dragged into court, if not thrown into jail?

is own safety would not matter to him as much as the irrevocable damage to the Church in all of her spheres. In a position as a ruling monarch and the vicar of Christ, he would feel obligated to thwart that even at sacrifice of his own prestige and power.

But life is unpredictable and even at 90 Benedict may someday have to step out of his retreat of self-imposed exile.

Now, think:

If you were living with the threat of unjust arrest and certain conviction by a Kangaroo Court in Brussels (and accompanying total humiliation and degradation for the Church on earth), and you thought wearing white and having formally-recognized diplomatic standing might just cause some gendarme to hesitate or some judge to waver, would you not wear white?

If your ability to fight the evil in the Church that YOU HAVE SEEN, but even most of your devoted followers do not perceive, and the only way to fight it was as an Emeritus, what is God asking of you?

Mark Thomas said...

Brian, I don't know anything about a so-called expanded Petrine ministry. All I know is that the True Church teaches that His Holiness Pope Francis is the one and only Pope.

All I know is that Pope Benedict XVI declared the following: "I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."

All I know is that Pope Benedict XVI declared his resignation, the See of Saint Peter had fallen vacant, and that the True Church elected Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio as Her Pope.

The Catholic Church isn't confused by that. Should Ann Barnhardt find herself confused by that...well, then she has deal with that.

Anyway, Ann Barnhardt has made a claim about the Papacy that is contrary to the teaching of the True Church. Ann Barnhardt has established herself as a false prophetess.

We need to pray that she will cease her persecution of Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church.


Mark Thomas

mazara said...

Aqua said...

Mark, I hear what you say, but it is not convncing because you fail to address the key contention.

Pope "Emeritus" Benedict's spokesman, Abp Ganswein, stated that Benedict considers himself to be a participant in the Petrine ministry, which he expanded by his resignation. He is the Contemplatve part. Francis is the active part. He also stated he sees his "resignation" as quite DIFFERENT from that of Pope Celestine V AND that it is for THAT reason Benedict chose not to revert to his given name; is referred to as His Holiness; wears the Papal White; and lives inside the Vatican walls. Benedict's words (through his Archbishop spokesman).

They key here lies in Canon Law, specifically Canon 188.

Canon 188
"A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, SUBSTANTIAL ERROR, or simony is invalid by the law itself."

The substantial error is obvious. It is contained in the idea of an expanded Petrine ministry, evidenced by his words, title, papal garb, actions, and residence. Canon 188 requires that any resignation be made without error, and it is perfectly clear to me that substantial, fatal error infects this resignation.

Therefor, I do not agree with you that "the Catholic Church teaches that Pope Francs is the one and only Pope". Quite the opposite, actually. This is not speculation. There are clear, cold facts that must be judged in this matter for the good of our beloved Church, and our own eternal souls. These facts do not support a proper resignation under the clear, concise, specific conditions required by Canon Law as a bar high enough to compare to the gravity of such an epochal event like a Pope resigning his commission from Christ our Lord Himself.

Mark Thomas said...


The comments that Archbishop Ganswein offered are his alone. They do not represent in any fashion the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

Brian, you said that you don't agree that the Church teaches "that Pope Francs is the one and only Pope". Quite the opposite, actually. This is not speculation."

-- Please cite the Church teaching that informs us that Pope Francis is not the one and only Pope.

-- Please cite any liturgy of the True Church that commemorates Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI as co-Popes.

-- Please cite Pope Benedict XVI's declaration that he resigned the Papacy under duress.

-- Pope Benedict XVI declared that "I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."

-- Brian, please explain how Pope Benedict XVI has claimed (supposedly) that he remains Pope while he declared the exact time and date upon which "the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant..."

-- How could the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, had fallen vacant when, supposedly, Pope Benedict XVI never resigned the Papacy?

Thank you, Brian.


Mark Thomas

Aqua said...

I refer you to Ab Ganswein's speech of May 28, 2016. This is Pope Benedict's personal Secretary, his speech left uncorrected. There he refers to the expanded Petrine ministry and why Benedict refused to relinquish his titles and honorifics.

Then there is this from Benedict himself: "Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any private dimension. […] My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter."

Then this example from Pope Pius XII who understood clearly the line between Pope,many NOT Pope: "when he prepared his letter of resignation that would go into effect in the event that the Germans should come to arrest him, said to his closest collaborators: “When the Germans cross that line, they will find not the pope, but Cardinal Pacelli.

But this was not at all the case for Benedict XVI. In resigning, he had no thought of being able to go back to being “Cardinal Ratzinger.” It was and is his firm conviction that there is something of his election as pope that remains “forever.”

This is hashed out more fully in an article by Sandro Magister here:

You can make of that whatever you wish. I only will say there are two men with the title of Pope, Holness, wearing the white, and there is nothing to stop Francis from doing the same thing. The future, thus, is populated by multiple Popes Emeritus and a Pope; future Popes Emeritus spanning the globe in their own chosen way. Nothing constrains future Emeritus Popes to a life of quiet contemplation. Nothing prevents multiple personalities and programs from populating the Petrine Ministry.

This is what happens when we depart carefully defined and developed Tradition and make things up. You cannot deny this is new and will lead to great, revolutionary change within our Church of the future.

Last word goes to you, if you wish.

Mark Thomas said...

Brian, you and I disagree with each other about the issue of "co-Popes". But we have had a respectful give-and-take with each other. I thank you for that. Please take care.


Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

This ridiculous two popes nonsense is just another calculated masonic ploy to denigrate the Papacy. They have been doing it since day one when Montini gave away the Papal Tiara and his ring. The SSPX and R&Rs are aiding and abetting them in destroying the authority, dignity and supreme importance of the papacy, by subjecting the teaching and pronouncements of the conciliar "popes", whom they RECOGNIZE AS TRUE POPES, to sifting by their own opinions. If we have a Bp. Fellay, Salza and Hiliary White to do the sifting for us we don't need a Pope anyway!

Aqua said...

Mark Thomas, Respect? Yes, I respect those who are doing their damndest to make sense of it all, are of good will, being led by Christ in exceedingly dark times. Absolutely.

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers. I am just an earnest schmuck trying to make sense of the inexplicable, I really want to go to my judgement with a clean conscience, and be with Jesus in eternity, with no regrets for opportunities wasted.. Like yourself, I suppose.

Yes, respect. We are on the same team.

susan said...

sorry, but Ann is spot-on in her analysis....not a flaw in the whole presentation.