Thursday, 25 August 2016

Benedict XVI resigned because of World Youth Day? Praises Raul Castro?


This Tweet by Antonio Socci was made on June 28, 2016, shortly before the public celebration of his priestly ordination. My  thanks to two readers for this.

"There is currently, heavy pressure on Pope Benedict XVI and to obtain from him, an act of uncritical submission (acritica sottomissione) to Bergoglio. Let us pray for him."

If this is true and it is known about by any men of faith left in that wretched Vatican, then they are obligated to come to his aid and to make public this evil to the Catholic faithful. If they do not, then they will be held accountable before God for this dereliction.  

As for Joseph Ratzinger, yes; let us pray for him. Let us pray that he will find the courage and a way to speak to us, his children who love him, his children, whom he abandoned! 

In a stunning report at La Stampa, Andrea Tornielli is reporting on an interview with Pope Benedict XVI, the Emeritus.

The question we need to ask is this, "was this really Joseph Ratzinger." 

If it was, "was he drugged to say such idiocy? Was he threatened? What could he be threatened with?

Or rather, "is it someone from Francis' cabal creating, for them and their Peronist, some kind of cover?"

Or is it even more clear. "Joseph Ratzinger was not the Pope we believed him to be?"

Oakes Spalding asks, "What new deviltry" is this? Indeed!

“There were numerous commitments which I felt I was no longer able to carry through, notably, the World Youth Day which had been scheduled to take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in the summer of 2013. I was very certain of two things. After the experience of the trip to Mexico and Cuba, I no longer felt able to embark on another very demanding visit. Furthermore, according to the format of these gatherings, which had been established by John Paul II, the Pope’s physical presence there was paramount. A television link or any other such technological solution was out of the question. This was another reason why I saw it as my duty to resign.”

“The visit to Mexico and Cuba had been a beautiful and moving experience for me in many ways. In Mexico I was struck by the profound faith of so many young people who communicated their joyous passion for God. I was equally struck by the great problems afflicting Mexican society and by the Church’s efforts to seek a faith-based response to the challenge posed by poverty and violence. I need scarcely remind you of how impressed I was in Cuba to see the way in which Raul Castro wishes to lead his country onto a new path, without breaking with the immediate past. Here too, I was deeply impressed by the way in which my brothers in the Episcopate are striving to navigate through this difficult process, with the faith as their starting point. However, during those visits I became acutely aware of the limits of my physical strength. Above all, I realised that I was no longer able to face future transoceanic trips due to jet lag. Naturally, I discussed these problems with my doctor, Professor Patrizio Polisca too. It thus became clear that I would not be able to take part in the World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro in 2013, there was the obvious jet lag problem. From that moment on, I had a relatively short amount of time to decide on the date of my withdrawal.”

If this is true, then it is quite clear to this writer that Joseph Ratzinger is not worthy of the respect which this writer previously gave him.

For World Youth Day he resigned and not even for "Wales"? Praising a murderous villain such as an unrepentant Castro? This was said by Joseph Ratzinger?

Joseph Ratzinger was wrong. He did not need to resign and he never should have. He made a prudential error and the reasons do not matter. What matters is that he plunged the papacy into chaos and the Church into crisis.

He could have stayed. He did not need to go to Rio, or Krakow. He did not ever need to do another trip. Nothing compelled him to ever offer a Mass in St. Peter's Square. He was not obligated to do an Easter Triduum for thousands. He could have stayed for the rest of his life in his apartment and garden. He could have offered Mass daily in his chapel and on Sundays, delivered an Angelus from the window and a homily every Wednesday to the masses in an audience below. He could have appointed a Papal Legate or Vicar to do everything he wanted at pain of arrest by the Swiss Guards for disobedience. He could have sanctified himself and us, the sheep, by doing this and offering up his suffering as Karol Wojtyla did - an action which may have saved his soul from his papal errors.

"Pray for me that I do not flee for fear of the wolves," he said, Well, he abandoned his children to those same wolves he feared and a father does not abandon his children.

God is truly punishing us.


Joy313 said...

There is absolutely no way that B16 said this or was of clear mind. No way. I do think that some things I thought about him were false -- and I think even that he is more of a Hegelian than I ever would have imagined. But the language of poverty and violence and praise of Raul -- this is not him.

Sixupman said...

If true, this would be a right kick in the testicles and appallingly dispiriting. What an absolutely banal reason for resignation - which defies logic. How will one be able to ascertain the truth?

Theresa said...

These men in the Vatican are such scoundrels, perpetrating lies and deceptions have become a way of life for them. I do no believe that Pope BXVI said any of this drivel. They are giving Soros his money's worth, that's for certain. Our Lady of Fatima, Ora Pro Nobis!

Peter Lamb said...

Bizarre Ratzinger claims about his resignation are nothing new. He previously explained why he decided to retain the white cassock after his resignation as "Pope":

"I continue to wear the white cassock and kept the name Benedict for purely practical reasons. At the moment of my resignation THERE WERE NO OTHER CLOTHES AVAILABLE. In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it..."
(Benedict XVI to Andrea Tornielli; quoted in “Socci: The Plot Thickens".)
We have a “Pope Emeritus” wearing white in the Vatican today, because three years ago they couldn’t find a black cassock for him to wear! It is presumably also not practical that he be referred to as "Cardinal Ratzinger", (as he was known from 1977-2005), in stead of "Pope Emeritus Benedict". The long-term effects of jet lag are just absolutely amazing!

Anil Wang said...

I do think that this excluse is plausible. Pope Saint John II did many great things, but he did harm the papacy by making the papacy such a public globe trotting figure that has little time for the corruption within the Vatican. As a result, all subsequent Popes not feel they have to live up to that standard. It's possible for a young Pope to do such globetrotting, but for an older Pope, it's too much, especially when there are serious reforms that needs to be done in Rome.

IMO, for now, the "solution" to this problem can be for the Pope to appoint a Papal Legate to be the public face of the papacy while the Pope focuses on the important internal work within the Church, or better yet, appoint a Patriarch of the West which can be changed frequently and leave the important work of restoration to the Church. In both cases, the Pope would never need to retire due to the demands of the office and the public face of the Pope could be replaced with he isn't able to live up to the demands of his position.

Kathleen1031 said...

This is completely bizarre. He was not obligated to do World Youth Days and it would have been much preferred if he ended them permanently. They are nothing but emotional spectacles resulting in questionable fruit. No, this explanation leaves us cold, it is not nearly reason enough to abandon the sheep. Not even close. When one considers the way we are in the grip of these Marxist pagans, one is taken aback by the moral responsibility of such an action on his part. We are now in the hands of evil men, there is no other way to look at it. May God deliver us from them. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with you. This is not his style, which is scholarly, didactic.

c matt said...

A Pope has one job - to defend the faith from heresy so it can be passed on untainted to the next generation. Everything else is secondary, and no matter what else he "accomplishes," his papacy would be a disaster if he does not do his only duty. No trips to Rio required.

Jacob said...

Back there in that monastery with handlers and such all around, it's totally unsurprising that what purportedly comes out of the mouth or from the pen of the former pope is more or less Francis-speak.

This is the lesson and the nature of the beast of a papal abdication.

M. Prodigal said...

I doubt I will read this book. What is done is done. He quit and fled from the wolves even if he continues to put forth other excuses. But I did think highly of him and it did seem for a while that the Barque of Peter was turning in the right direction and I trusted the pope to do and say and write things that gave glory to God and help to souls. I know longer have such trust.

Woody said...

Vox, please say this is not true. Please.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said..."Benedict XVI betrayed us. He was a coward who fled. Time to remove his picture from this blog and replace it with someone righteous."

Vox, I believe that Pope Benedict XVI did the best that he could as Pope. Unfortunately, the Church's collapse (Mass attendance plummeted, millions continued to leave the Church)continued during his Pontificate as he remained committed to liberal policies that have, for decades, failed the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI worshiped in a Lutheran Church, prayed in a mosque, and prayed in a synagogue. He praised the Arab Spring. He replaced the ancient and holy Good Friday prayer for the Jews (he declared, incredibly, that the prayer "wounded" Jews). He pursued one liberal policy after another.

But alongside that, he gave us Summorum Pontificum. He acknowledged that Tradition had rights. He promoted diligently the Culture of Life. He led by example in the promotion of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of communicants. There are many additional positive examples that I could cite in regard to his Pontificate.

Pope Benedict XVI, I am certain, did his best to serve God and His Church.


Mark Thomas

Liam Ronan said...

@M Prodigal,

Sad spectacle. I will not read the book. I will however wait for the movie.

Woody said...

You know, Mark, what you say is very true. But that is the problem. We need popes that are 100% orthodox, not 99%. It's that 1% of unorthodox heresy that can send us to a life of eternal damnation. Thank goodness for the internet and the availability to look up orthodox dogma. It's very easy to fact check the pope these days.

JayBee said...

Benedict formerly said he would not give interviews, going into quiet seclusion and prayer, etc. Now when the new pope needs a respected and beloved person to boost up the new papacy, we have 3 interviews in less than a year, no doubt given "under obedience."

The tone, language, even topics, are not the Benedict we know and love. Compare this with the erudite, lovely and profound interview he gave to the von Balthasar Institute last year. The difference almost warrants the phrase "sublime to absurd." The "real" Benedict shone through in the deeper discussion.

The people who control Benedict's hearth and home are prodding and encouraging him to speak about "poverty and violence," the benefits of life under a dictator, the rigors of jet travel... and the angelic qualities of his successor. Prepping and persuading preceded the interview. More to the point, Benedict clearly feels obligated to support the pope, to strengthen the faithful.

The subjects and the omitted ones, the simplified style, the "teleprompter-like" delivery, the excessive praise of Francis -- all point to a frail old man pressured by others, who feels beholden to help the current pope stem the tide of criticism.

So, Benedict at 90, in a state of dependency (and perhaps feeling regret over resigning), is not capable of forcefully presenting his own ideas in an interview. The purpose is to tamp down anxiety throughout the Catholic world, not explore theological or liturgical ideas. That would be the preference of Benedict... if the agenda were not set by Francis.

This interview is a FAVOR to Francis. He appealed to Benedict to help rescue him from mounting disapproval, and Benedict complied. Of course Benedict would agree, now Francis is actually pope, it's best to build harmony.

Here is the clue, the very first line. Benedict: "Obedience to my successor has always been unquestionable."

Why say that (yet again)!? Here we see a glimpse of the subtle intelligence of Benedict still gleaming. He has reached out to the smart folks, in essence saying:

"I realize I'm rambling on in this interview with hackneyed phrases and emotional reasoning while gushing over Francis. However, let me state foremost, I'm doing this to help out the new guy. Those who know me will not be deceived."

Brilliant... as usual.

Aqua said...

That's not him. I've read his books. Saw him in person. Admired him so much, that he was a big reason I became a Catholic. I'm no expert, but I've read a lot of his stuff. That's NOT him. Not remotely him. Evil. Flat out.

Unknown said...

Jet. Lag. That has to be the lamest excuse ever given for the resignation of any position, let alone the office of the Pope. News of the Church is looking more and more like an episode from the satirical Onion, every day.

Elizabeth said...

Bizarre beyond belief. I was at WYD in Madrid, and it was wonderful. The Spanish loved BXVI because he was intelligent, orthodox and dignified. People - not just youth, btw - turned out who hadn't been to church since a few years after VII and we all sat on the hillside and listened to his every word. Then a terrible storm came up (this was held at an airstrip outside of Madrid, and there were over 1,000,000 people there) and the whole place began to shake. The tents for communion were blown down and the Hosts were scattered, and there was thunder and lightning and people were terrified. But he just sat there on his throne, praying, even though the "handlers" were trying to get him to leave because it seemed that the back of the stage might blow over on top of him. And his steadiness prevented a panic and stampede, which would have resulted in deaths and injuries, because most people just stayed in place, in the rain and wind, and prayed with him.

I can't believe that this same man said these things that are being reported now. Either somebody else wrote this, or he's drugged or he's had a stroke and is not the same person he was.

As for Raul Castro, it's well known that BXVI went out of his way to avoid doing anything that could be construed as encouraging the brothers Castro. IIRC, Raul did go to see him; Raul was a little more moderate than Fidel at that point, and was trying to ingratiate himself with the outside world. I think BXVI got some concessions out of him, but now that we have a Marxist in the Chair of St Peter, the persecution of Catholics has resumed - with the difference that the Francis bishops are now all on the side of the Castros.

This is too weird for words and I cannot believe that BXVI said these things willingly; and if he did, I cannot believe that he is in his right mind.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said..."What matters is that he plunged the papacy into chaos and the Church into crisis."

Vox, how did Pope Benedict XVI plunge the Papacy in chaos?

Vox, when has the Church not been engulfed in a crisis? From Her beginning to date, the Church has been hit with crisis upon crisis. But Holy Mother Church continues to preach Jesus Christ to the world.

The True Church stands alone in preaching to the world the fullness of Truth. She stands alone in her defense and promotion of the Culture of Life.

Let us give Pope Benedict XVI the benefit of the doubt in that he served Holy Mother Church as best as he could. Vox, we should not be tough on him. He was elderly, tired, and believed that he could not continue to serve the Church well as Pope.

Vox, we should that from our brother, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.


Mark Thomas

Praypraypray said...

I agree with Elizabeth. This is not Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI! It's not the way he thinks or talks or acts. Heaven only knows what's really going on there. Drugging, strokes, etc...? It makes one wonder if there was drugging going on before he left! There seem to be handlers all around him. May God help us all and deliver us from the evil doings and doers in the Vatican. May God expose the evil and may the Truth reign.

Sandpiper said...

Jay Bee,

(Sigh!) I guess I did not collect enough "Papal Pops" cereal box tops to get my free decoder ring.

Fatimite said...

On June 28, 2016, shortly after the dog and pony show that was the celebration of the 65th anniversary of Benedict XVI's ordination to the priesthood, the reputable Antonio Socci posted the the following on his twitter feed:

"E' in corso un pesantissimo pressing su Papa Benedetto XVI per ottenere da lui un atto di acritica sott omissione a Bergoglio. Preghiamo per lui."

We must pray for Benedict, who is being controlled and manipulated like a puppet for the praise and glory of Fr. Buenos Aires.

Zachary said...

I'm sad to say that I don't find this in the least bit surprising. Remember what Ganswein said about the "expanded Petrine ministry" with its "active" and "contemplative" members? He certainly made it sound like Benedict XVI was an active participant in this scheme, if not the chief brain behind it. It strikes me that Ratzinger is more or less cut from the same cloth as the other post-conciliar popes.

Maudie N Mandeville said...

Vox, This says so much about the Church, at least in Ireland; the obvious lax screening process (or is it complicit screening?), the fact that whistleblowers are booted, and most of all, that the sodomites are now rewarded and protected by being moved to Rome (much like moving the pederasts of yesterday to other parishes and dioceses). But Francis still can't find the gay lobby.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Zachary, Some bed time reading. The Miter of the "Coronation" of Benedict XVI. A miter without ANY Christian symbols but instead bears occult symbols, glorifying the Man-God and the Satanic, Masonic Triple Trinity. NO Crucifix. Note the unmistakable figure of PAN!

"Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger was elected Pope on April 19th, 2005 under the name Benedict XVI. Since November 13, 1964, Paul VI permanently deposed
the Papal Tiara. While altogether abandoning the Tiara along with the Keys as a symbol of the Holy Apostolic See, he then, began the current use of “crowning” a new
pope with a simple “miter” for which this ceremony is today known simply as the “solemn inauguration of his Petrine Ministry,” as was the case with Benedict XVI,
April 24, 2005. But as the “Tiara”, personally prepared for the ‘“coronation”
of a new Pope, and took its solemnity in attributing to the Pope with the three powers of the three crowns, so does the “Miter”, which replaced it, despite its
stated claims of a more “modest simplicity.” Nonetheless it assumes its solemnity through the uniqueness and importance of the ceremony of the “solemn inauguration of
the Petrine Ministry of the new Pontiff.” The “Tiara”, or “Triple Tiara”, despite some slight variations always represents the three crowns. Those three crowns are clear and unmistakable symbols of three powers attributed to the new Pontiff and their divine origin from our Lord Jesus Christ. [Teaching, Sanctifying, Governing.] The “Miter” however, does not have a clear and precise historical coded symbolism, and may be subject to the risk of being corrupted or even perverted, in the sense of the divine origin of the powers attributed to the Pope. The absence of a codified symbolism for the “Miter” then, would throw all of the responsibility of the symbols used onto the Pontiff who approves, receives and welcomes it upon his head. The ceremony of “the solemn inauguration of his Petrine Ministry” in addition,represents a moment of enormous symbolic importance for the Universal Catholic Church and yet one cannot ignore that this solemnity takes on an equal importance for Her arch-enemy as well!

Mark Thomas said...

In regard to Archbishop Gänswein:

He offered the following during an interview with CNA/EWTN News:

-- Certain statements attributed to him about their being "two Popes" were false.

-- The "two Popes" conspiracy theory is nonsense.

An 'Expanded Petrine Office?'

Question: "There are a number of cardinals, Paul Badde said during the interview, that are “upset when hearing that the Church currently has two living successors to Peter. Recently you spoke about an expanded petrine office, that Pope Benedict is said to have introduced. Could you explain that a bit further?"

Archbishop Gänswein: "I saw from among the reactions that I was imputed to have said a number of things that I did not say. Of course, Pope Francis is the legitimate and legitimately elected pope," Archbishop Gänswein said.

"Any talk of two popes, one legitimate, one illegitimate, is therefore incorrect."


Mark Thomas

TLM said...

Benedict is being DRUGGED!!!!!!!!!!! I would pretty much bet my life on it. I watched the video of him PRAISING Pope Francis at his 'Anniversary Mass Celebration', and his eyes were not even the eyes of Benedict. They were glassy and DILATED BIG TIME! He was also looking over at Fr. Gaswein and getting 'cues' from him. Didn't even have the same voice as Benedict......any idiot could have seen it easily!!!

My Blog said...

All this is meant to happen: Ratzinger's resignation and Bergoglio's papacy. It could have been worse. Think about it.

By the way, something else to ponder over:

Vatican II was not convened and attended by Martians. And the clergy that we have today -those who are in their 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s- are not Martians.

The filth (sexual, moral, social, atheism, heresy, etc.) that is going on right now in the Catholic Church is not done by Martians.

The current status of the Church is the result of PRE-Vatican II.

So to say that Vatican II caused harm to the Church is forgetting or deliberately not acknowledging that the same people who did Vatican II and the same people who are living right now among us and who are damaging the Church have lived during and had a pre-Vatican II formation.

In the 1950s, 60s or even 40s, there wasn't a strong social media where news are instantaneous and easily widespread. But the filth existed for many, many years in the Church and it is not the result of Vatican II.

Vatican II and the years thereafter just put this filth on the surface and exposed it for the world to see.

Rose said...

Click on the about above link and scroll down to the video. Then notice how Archbishop Ganswein makes the diamond Masonic sign with his hands. Then Benedict makes the same sign and Ganswein immediately stops the hand signal.

TLM said...

Yes, I saw that too Rose, in this video immediately following Benedict's Anniversary Celebration. Forgot to mention that in my post above, but I still say he is being drugged.

Peter Lamb said...

How can a man sell his soul to the devil? They know what judeo-masonry is. They have extensive backgrounds in Catholic doctrine. They are intelligent. How can they say mass and desecrate the Blessed Eucharist? They know what is waiting for them. I just don't understand how any human can do what they do!

Vox Cantoris said...

Peter, the only explanation is that they do not believe but they hate Christ. They have gone through the motions for decades in accord with Bella Dodd's work and Stalin's orders. They have worked for nearly a century now to destroy from within, all while enjoying a good life in secret. To Hell, with them all!

Johnno said...


Whay Mark THomas doesn't tell you, either deliberately or because he has demonstrated a lack of understanding whenever it comes to certain controversies is that Ganswein actually dodged the question.

The question on everyone's mind is what did Pope Benedict XVI and subsequently Ganswein mean when asked about Pope Benedict XVI retaining some spiritual marks of the Papacy; contemplative, non-active, etc. as described in Benedict XVI's resignation that somehow remain with him.

NOBODY asked him about what HE meant via claims of one "legitimate, one illegitimate" Pope, ie who we accept as the man in charge and the current visible Pontiff.

We want to know PRECISELY what the heck he and Benedict meant when he brought up the 'expanded' ministry in his own words of the Papacy. But Ganswein didn't answer the question instead referring to some vague claims of legitimacy/illegitimacy.

So Ganswein dodges the question we are asking, and answers a question nobody asked.

The question we want to know is what Ganswein and subsequently Benedict meant when they refer to an 'expanded ministry' with regards to the Papcy that has changed and is UNLIKE any previous resignation. And where he refers to Benedict XVI and Francis 'sharing' the ministry, which it seems according to his own words still means Francis is the Head with Benedit somehow sharing a portion of the work load in this 'ministry' of being Pope.

Johnno said...

Perhaps Mark Thomas would like to read Ganswein in his own words and providing the full context which he has a habit of deliberately avoiding.

Read Ganswein for yourself and not Mark Thomas' interpretation of Ganswein ---

NCRegister: Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry

"Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: "cooperatores veritatis", which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”

Archbishop Gänswein pointed out that the motto is not in the singular but in the plural, and taken from the Third Letter of John, in which it is written in verse 8: "We must welcome these people to become co-workers for the truth".

He therefore stressed that since Francis’ election, there are not “two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.”

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”

Archbishop Gänswein repeated that Benedict’s resignation was “quite different” to that of Pope Celestine V.

“So it is not surprising,” he said, “that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel, while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.”"

Aqua said...

Johnno, interesting points.

Ganswein doesn't mention "legitimate/illegitimate". He mentions "active/inactive". IOW, both legitimate; different sides of the same coin. Do not be thrown off by the appendage "emeritus". It means nothing. It is not possible to attach such a word to a Pope. And they do not, They insist on TWO: Active / Contemplative

It's hard for me to understand how a faithful Catholic can accept this new definition, much less a Traditionalst. To me, this is worse, or at least as bad as, the profonation of the Eucharist, since we are admitting a polygamous Papacy, at the head of Christ's Brde.

So many otherwise traditional Catholics deny the clear words of these two Popes and ascribe to these Popes a reality the Popes themselves clearly deny. The vast majority of Catholics try to draw reality out of unreality; orthodoxy out of revolution. They try, because the alternative is almost incomprehensible ..... AS MOST REVOLUTIONS ARE! And this is REVOLUTIONARY. And it must be responded to on those terms.

If you read plainly the words of these men, and take them at face value, you must accept their assertion that Christ now has two Popes. I, for one, will not.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Brian,
"So many otherwise traditional Catholics deny the clear words of these two Popes..."
"The vast majority of Catholics try to draw reality out of unreality;"
"orthodoxy out of revolution."
"They try, because the alternative is almost incomprehensible..."
"...this is REVOLUTIONARY."

Truer words have not been spoken. This IS our reality! The truth is becoming more and more obvious to more and more Catholics and after Lund it will be emblazoned in giant neon lights across the heavens! I hear the patter of hordes of little sedevacantist feet acoming down the path from Lund. :)

Aqua said...

Peter Lamb,

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what "Lund" means. Could you explain that reference?

Johnno said...

And to stir the pot some more, here's the recent news from the fools over at CRUX.

Hey everyone! Two Popes are normal! After all the majority have spoken and applauded! Including Mark Thomas! Nope, no problems here! Perfectly normal! All so very 'Catholic'!


Francis says the people have spoken: ‘Two popes are just fine’


Better to read the nonsense for oneself! Basically the new set-up of the expanded Papal ministry is that Francis is the chief visible Pope, and occasionally Benedict does other limited Pope prayer stuff like a Pope lite, or break-in-case-of-emergency Pope you keep by the stairwell, and occasionally they get together to hug in public for the spectacle of the people who love having two Popes!

No clarifications about what this actually means for Benedict to hold on to any even minimal aspect of a Papacy. No insight into the theological nature of such a possibility even existing and how. Nope! That's just for uppity 'theologians, ecclesiologists and bloggers', but for Francis & Crux, 'the people have spoken, and what they’ve said is that having two popes around is just fine'!

Theology of the Pope via democratic appeal! Hooray!

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

The pan icon on Ratzinger's mitre (mentioned above), is on every Novus Ordo Catechism I have ever seen - right on the front cover - you can't miss it.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Brian, It's the city in Sweden where Bergoglio is going to celebrate the 500 year commemoration of the protestant reformation of Luther, with the lutherans in October.

Aqua said...


Could you please explain your reference to the "pan icon"? I would very much like to know what you mean by that. And I google searched Catholic Catechism covers, and am not sure what you are referring to.

Maudie N Mandeville said...

Heavy pressure? Man up!, Benedict. Go out like a man! One last chance.

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


You will notice this icon has been a standard on Novus Ordo Catechisms for decades.