Tuesday, 16 April 2019

Ad multos annos, Pope Benedict XVI - I truly mean that

It is the birthday today of Papa Joseph Ratzinger. May he have many more. I truly mean that. Many more. Many more so that we can know the truth. Many more so that he can find the courage to speak and to reclaim that which was stolen.

When the great announcement came back in 2005, we were gathered at work in the atrium. I work in a Catholic institution and when he came out, I was one of only two of about 50 who punched the fist in the air, "Yes!" Everyone else looked as if they had seen their worst nightmare.

I read much of what he wrote. I respected him and admired the man and his mind. When he became Pope, I slept well at night. He gave me and the Catholic faithful back something that was stolen to us by one of his evil predecessor, Montini and only niggardly restored to us by Wojtyla. 

Then, one day, he made it all about him. A selfish, narcissistic decision that has left us unsettled ever since.  

Happy Birthday Pope Benedict XVI. May you live many more years in order to testify to the truth of what happened and take back the throne from which you were pushed.

Then, I will say that I am sorry for being angry with you and for not praying enough for you lest you flee from the wolves. The wolves to whom you, in your cowardice, abandoned us.


Aqua said...

People like Skojec say we orthodox Faithful accept Benedict XVI as Pope because we selfishly favor his policy, his orthodoxy, his optics over Francis - who is what he so sorrowfully is. A selfish choice, they say.

No. Not at all. I accept whoever is validly seated as Pope. Good, bad, indifferent I support *the* (singular) Pope. And as Christians have throughout the ages, I will defend the true and valid Pope from anyone who would harm him, calumny him or try to dethrone him. To my dying breath I will defend the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, Cornerstone of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI, debate as we may about his failings, (he may well know far more than we can possibly imagine) is the true Pope because he never renounced the Office. There is no vacancy. There never was. The Seat is filled. Long live Pope Benedict XVI!

Kathleen1031 said...

I remember one thing he said when he abdicated, that God had told him to abdicate, that he had had a vision of some kind, or something similar.
I feel we did not really know the man, we only thought we did, as much as anyone can really know someone they never met, even a public person like the pope. Yet I find it pretty impossible to imagine he would say God told him to do something if he didn't completely believe that was the case.
He gave us Summorum Pontificum, and for that we are grateful. The current holder of the office would surely have stamped the Latin Mass out by now without it.

Peter Lamb said...

The Teaching of cursed Heretics:

The Teachings of John Paul The Great Apostate and Ratzinger/Benedict

John Paul II: "Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church. To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stresses that the Catholic Church 'recognizes that in many ways she is linked' with these Communities by a true union in the Holy Spirit." (See Ut Unam Sint # 11, 1995; Emphasis mine).

John Paul II: "Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity." (Ibid, # 14; Emphasis mine).

John Paul II: "The 'universal brotherhood' of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out..."(Ibid # 42; Emphasis mine).

John Paul II: In Oct. 1983, John Paul II, speaking of Martin Luther on the 500th anniversary of his birth stated in a Lutheran Church,"Our world even today experiences his great impact on history." (L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 14, 1983, p. 9; Emphasis mine)

Benedict XVI: "The Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches. A basic unity of Churches, yet remain Churches, yet become one Church--must replace the idea of conversion." (See Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Paulist Press: NY, 1966, pg. 61, 68--before "election" as "pope"; Emphasis mine).

Benedict XVI: "I would respond by saying that the first and most important thing for ecumenism is that we keep in view just how much we have in common, not losing sight of it amid the pressure towards secularization – everything that makes us Christian in the first place and continues to be our gift and our task. It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. The great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground and that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together, as we make our joint commitment to the Christian ethos in our dealings with the world, as we bear common witness to the God of Jesus Christ in this world as our undying foundation." ( See "Pope" Benedict XVI's address to the representatives of the German Evangelical Church , September 23, 2011.)

Peter Lamb said...

The elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other Communities, where certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized. Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity.

(Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, n. 14)

With this last sentence, John Paul II shows why this doctrine of ecclesial elements — sometimes called Frankenchurch or patchwork ecclesiology — was of fundamental importance at Vatican II: in order to enable and give a doctrinal foundation to ecumenism. Without this doctrinal change from Pope Pius XII’s clear and exclusive identification of the Church of Jesus Christ with the Catholic Church (see Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 13) to Vatican II’s “subsists in” heresy, the ecumenical program would have been impossible.

In fact, it was none other than Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (“Pope” Benedict XVI), one of the Modernist periti at the council, who admitted in 1969 that the “subsists in” doctrine of Lumen Gentium constitutes a “reduction in the claim of exclusivity” on the part of the Church (“Reduktion des Absolutheitsanspruchs” — see Ratzinger, Das neue Volk Gottes [Düsseldorf, 1969], p. 236). In other words, Vatican II relativizes or reduces the Catholic Church’s exclusive claim to being the sole true Church of Jesus Christ, and this was a necessary prerequisite for ecumenism.

Peter Lamb said...

Pope Pius IX had written a letter to the Puseyite Anglicans and reminded them that “all groups entirely separated from external and visible communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff cannot be the Church of Christ, nor in any way whatsoever can they belong to the Church of Christ” (Instruction Ad Quosdam Puseistas Anglicos, Nov. 8, 1865; italics added). So much for the Vatican II doctrine of “ecclesial elements” and “imperfect communion” that supposedly exists between the Church of God and the sects of man — but that’s another issue.

Assisting at the liturgical services of non-Catholics is a mortal sin and makes anyone who does so, suspect of heresy. This is clear from the Church’s Code of Canon Law (1917) and her moral theology:
It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics.

(Canon 1258 §1)
Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine [=assists at sacred rites] with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of heresy.

(Canon 2316)
It is unlawful for Catholics in any way to assist actively at or take part in the worship of non-Catholics (Canon 1258). Such assistance is intrinsically and gravely evil; for (a) if the worship is non-Catholic in its form (e.g., Mohammedan ablutions, the Jewish paschal meal, revivalistic “hitting the trail,” the right hand of fellowship, etc.), it expresses a belief in the false creed symbolized; (b) if the worship is Catholic in form, but is under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (e.g., Baptism as administered by a Protestant minister, or Mass as celebrated by a schismatical priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church.

(Rev. John A. McHugh, O.P. & Rev. Charles J. Callan, O.P., Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities, vol. I [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], n. 964)

Peter Lamb said...

The Catholic prohibition against worship with non-Catholics is clear, then, both from a legal-canonical as well as a moral perspective.
In 1948, this prohibition was underscored once more through a canonical warning issued by the Holy Office specifically in the context of a rising interest in ecumenical (ha!) religious gatherings, which for Catholics were (and still are) strictly forbidden:
Mixed gatherings of non-Catholics with Catholics have been reportedly held in various places, where things pertaining to the Faith have been discussed against the prescriptions of the Sacred Canons and without previous permission of the Holy See. Therefore all are reminded that according to the norm of Canon 1325 § 3 laypeople as well as clerics both secular and regular are forbidden to attend these gatherings without the aforesaid permission. It is however much less licit for Catholics to summon and institute such kind of gatherings. Let therefore Ordinaries urge all to serve these prescriptions accurately.
These are to be observed with even stronger force of law when it comes to gatherings called “ecumenical”, which laypeople and clerics may not attend at all without previous consent of the Holy See.
Moreover, since acts of mixed worship have also been posed not rarely both within and without the aforesaid gatherings, all are once more warned that any communication in sacred affairs is totally forbidden according to the norm of Canons 1258 and 731, § 2.
(Holy Office, Decree Cum Compertum

In the case of Francis’ practical endorsement of Anglican worship, there is more to it than a “mere” participation in false worship, however, because not only is the worship of Anglicans heretical, schismatic, and unauthorized, and therefore objectively odious in His sight (cf. Jn 4:24; Jude 11; Num 16), but any Anglican “Masses” are also invalid because all ordinations performed by the Church of England are “absolutely null and utterly void”, as declared by Pope Leo XIII in 1896:
Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
(Pope Leo XIII, Bull Apostolicae Curae, n. 36)

Thus, Anglican “priests” are nothing but mere laymen dressed in fancy clerical robes. (The same theological principles which prove Anglican orders invalid, by the way, also prove Novus Ordo ordinations [after 1968] invalid.)

Pope Leo’s pronouncement, we might add, is considered infallible:
It belongs to a class of ex cathedral utterances for which infallibility is claimed on the ground, not indeed, of the terms of the Vatican definition, but of the constant practice of the Holy See, the consentient teaching of the theologians, as well as of the clearest deductions from the principles of faith.
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Anglican Orders”)

Kathleen1031 said...

If Ben Franklin had been a Catholic, and somebody asked him what kind of church had been created, he may well have said "A Catholic Church, if you can keep it". You can't keep any organization of secular or sacred nature once the members no longer believe or ascribe to the tenets. This goes for the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, and even the Roman Catholic Church. It is not a matter of hoping for orthodoxy or men posing as believers now and then, even though we may prefer that to the destruction. When men no longer believe, how could it possibly go on in a similar form. The Catholic faith goes on, but the shell has been taken over by non-adherents to Catholicism.

In hindsight what these popes were saying was a departure from Catholicism, but apparently they were not called on it at the time. What was needed was radical devotion to Catholicism so they didn't get away with it. That didn't happen and by inches they remade the church.

Aqua said...

@ Peter Lamb

I just read a letter from Pope Benedict to the Catholics in Communist China dated 2007 (!) which establish all the conditions of betrayal of our brothers and sisters there, carried out in full by Francis.


That was stunning to me. Because I consider the betrayal of the Apostolic line of Bishops in China, and the Faithful under them, as one of the greatest (under sacrilege alone) crimes of this "pontificate".

I am not granting that the Seat is vacant. I am acknowledging the tsunami of heresy that is almost entirely unalloyed with orthodoxy emanating from the top.

From your perspective then,

When did the break from Tradition begin: (gradual, sudden, individual choice of one or the collective choice of many)?
When did the Seat become vacant?
What event preceded and caused the Seat to become vacant?

I am very interested to know, given the continuity of Tradition, if there is an objective event (starting reference point) from which every modern disconnect followed. I see the symptoms and signs (ref: II Thes 2 - the great apostasy). I am interested in whether you claim there was a before and after (a clear event, or not) in which the break can be identified.

Anil Wang said...

Peter Lamb, the bulk of the quotes you mentioned do have an orthodox interpretation.

The key problem for Vatican II, is that it tried to change the negative pre-Vatican II theology of Tradition into a positive theology. This is virtually impossible without creating room for ambiguity which modernists exploited to the maximum.

It's not unique to Vatican II. Look at the 10 commandments. It consists of two "thou shall" statements (keep the Sabbath holy and honor thy mother and father) and the rest are "thou shall not" statements. The "thou shall not" statements are clear and free from ambiguity. The "thou shall" statements, OTOH are full of ambiguity and Jesus repeatedly rebuked the Pharisees for selectively exploit this ambiguity to their advantage to replace God's law with man's law.

Once the ambiguity of positive theology becomes the norm, ambiguity becomes the norm and it becomes virtual impossible to say the words "anathema sit".

That is the Church we have today. I do believe that Pope Benedict XVI is honest that he believes that God asked him to step down, and it may very well have been the case. Had he stayed on for another 5 years, more of Tradition would have been restored and many of the St. Galen Mafia would be ineligible to vote at the conclave. But the rot from the abuse scandal would have festered under the hood. Notice that although Mccarrick was hit bit mild sanctions by Pope Benedict XVI, he refused to submit even to those and kept on being honored with impunity. Notice that despite Cardinal Burke's constant declarations that Canon 915 is law, few bishops cared, and despite the constant rebuke that the communion line is full but the confessional is empty that nothing was being done. The Church was a mess, even under Pope Benedict XVI and it was going to remain a mess with "orthodox approval" if Pope Benedict XVI stayed.

Only by handing this mess over to an arch-heretic like Pope Francis could this mess have any hope of being cleared up. Now in the minds of many bishops and Cardinals, Pope Francis can become the scapegoat upon which the sins of "The Spirit of Vatican II" can be laid upon.

With this scapegoat, real restoration can come. Because the fire of Pope Francis has thoroughly compromised so much modernist tainted (but otherwise orthodox) theology, the whole thing has to be tossed out and what remains must be built upon. All we need is a good and brave Pope to replace the current Judas in the chair of Peter.

Irenaeus said...


Peter Lamb said...

Sorry, I was in a rush when I posted these quotes and accidentally included a part of the correspondence I had with someone in the last post.

MyronM said...

The Olive Garden, in which the Lord Jesus was sweating with blood, was also a witness to the treacherous act of Judas Iscariot the Apostle. Church of St. Mary at Avenida La Plata 286 (Spanish: 'Avenue of Silver') in BUenos Aires, where Eucharistic Miracles appeared (1992-1996), is the contemporary of Jesuit Jorge Bergoglio (born 1936 and that church build 1936). Judas, Jesus' companion and perhaps His peer, assisted the birth of the Church and sold her Head, Jesus Christ, for thirty pieces of silver. The nightmarish Argentinean on the Holy See, also from the Society of Jesus - in his spiritual constriction even retained his Argentina passport - is the payment which Benedict XVI, the last successor of Saint Peter the Apostle, received for betrayal of the Mystical Body of Jesus, for adultery with the spirit of this world. Illusive argentum (silver) of worldliness, the mountain of silver over the Tiber' bank - man smells betrayal at a distance. Poor papa Benedict did not expect such a payment: he is now connected with this Argentinian "Living Silver" in the Vatican, like Judas with the pouch of silver in the courtyard of the Jerusalem'Temple. The Merciful Mother of our Church, however, will give, as She in Fatima foretold, to the "Bishop in White", the last Pontifex, an opportunity to show remorse and perfect grief, as She gave this grace to the first - Saint Peter the Apostle.
On April 16, was found a rooster that flew from the cross on the spire of Notre Dame de Paris. The cock crows to Benedict for his birthday.


Fr. D. R. Belland said...

Dear Administrator of this Blog,

I do not know your name, but this comment will hopefully lift your spirit's concerning Benedict, beyond wishing him "Ad multos annos."

Benedict's Renunciation has been the object of a four and a half year study, and the conclusion is that Benedict IS the true Pope. Basically, I show that the official Latin Text of his Renunciation announcement manifests his intention to maintain the Petrine Office, but resigning from the "exercise" of the Powers of Governing and Teaching while maintaining in an abbreviated way the "exercise" of the Power of Sanctifying. What he does is to place himself in an official way in a situation analogous to a Pope who is in hiding (Pope Caius), a Pope in exile (Pope Gregory VII) and a Pope in captivity (Pope Pius VII). These latter three were never declared to have lost the Petrine Office while having to exist under those conditions, whereby they were not able to "exercise" the Power of Teaching and Governing, perhaps one or the other being "exercised" partially or in an indirect way.

Why did Benedict do this? It was because he HAD TO KEEP the Petrine Office from the hands of one under the control of Satan. It is my contention that a vicar of Satan CANNOT be a Vicar of Christ! And no one, neither Dr. de Mattei nor Bishop Schneider, nor anyone has denied the veracity of this when I've put the question to them. Any comments are most welcome. Mr. Admin., please don't hesitate to email me at my login email.

Vox Cantoris said...

Dear Father Belland,

Your email is not accessible.

You may write me please at Voxcantoris@rogers.com

Thank you.

Tom A. said...

Fr, and why do you believe Ratzinger is any more Catholic than Bergoglio. Do you accept the ecumenical teachings of Ratzinger as authentic Catholic doctrine. Bergoglio is just an uncouth modernist while Ratzinger was more polished. But in the end, they are both modernists as defined by Pope Saint Pius X.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Aqua,

The break took centuries in coming, but it happened in a second with the coronation of roncalli as "pope."

The judeo-masons have been attacking and infiltrating the Catholic Church for centuries. Why? Because they literally worship lucifer, AKA satan. The battle is between Christ and the devil. satan is only concerned in overcoming the Catholic Church. Why? Because the protestant churches don't mean a row of beans and he already has them. Every sect is headed by a demon. The Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ. The Spanish Inquisition was to ferret out cryptojews posing as Catholics. It is generally accepted that the French Revolution was caused by masons. If I remember correctly, about 25% of Catholic Clergy in France were masons at the time. The stated aim of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita was to infiltrate seminaries. Seminarians would become Priests; Priests would become Bishops; Bishops would became Cardinals and please satan, one day a masonic cardinal would become "pope." Well, it happened. roncalli and montini entered the Grand Orient masonic lodge on the same day - thus incurring automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church. As non-Catholics, neither was eligible for election to the Papacy.

We are subject to two codes of Law: i. Divinne Law which is immutable; ii. Canon law which is man made and may be altered according to time and circumstance in the interest of good Church governance.

All authority comes from God. The Pope is designated and elected by men, but his authority is given to him by God.

A public pertinaceous heretic automatically excommunicates himself in terms of Divine Law.

Now we come to an heretic, (roncalli), who is nonetheless elected Pope - despite his not being eligible for election. Election is a process. The process was legally effected. His election is legal, but void. (Worthless.) He is legally pope IN TERMS OF MAN MADE CANON LAW. He is MATERIALLY pope. So in a sense the Chair is not vacant. It seats a legal pope who has zero authority of the office, because God who gives authority, has withheld His authority from an excommunicated heretic. So effectively the Chair is vacant of a true Pope. There is a pope materialiter, but no Pope formaliter. A lump of clay is not a vase, but when a potter gives the form, (shape,) of a vase to the lump of clay, then the lump of clay becomes a clay vase - it now has the form of a vase. A material pope is the lump of clay. A true Pope is the vase.
This is the Cassiciacum Thesis of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, a very distinguished Catholic theologian. This opinion is called "sedeprivationism." The Chair is depleted. Somebody is sitting on the edge of the seat, but it is not properly occupied by a Pope, as it is meant to be. Others say no, he is no pope at all. The Chair is vacant. This is called "total sedevacantism." In practice, there is no difference because both opinions agree the occupant is not a true Pope and has zero Papal authority. If he were to repent and convert to Catholism, then he would immediately become a true Pope. In the meantime he is nothing more than a judeo-masonic heretical imposter, void of any, or all authority. I hope I have helped you. :)

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anil Wang,

I am not a theogian so I like to keep it simple. Catholic doctrine is immutable and unambiguous. A heretic cannot be Pope. roncalli and montini were masons - therefore they automatically excommunicated themselves - therefore they could not be Popes - therefore vatican II and all that emanates from it, is null and void. ratzinger is a raving modernist heretic, only more intelligent and more devious than bergoglio. He made the odd orthodox noise and people thought he would restore the Church. That's old modernist tactics. Here is a perfect example: ratzinger was all for saying Mass ad orientem - Priest facing the altar - facing East. Conservative Catholics were overjoyed. Thank God. Pope ratzinger is going to restore the Church. Halelujah! Hah - fooled you poor suckers again! I'm a modernist and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker! I don't give a fig about Catholic tradition, doctrine or theology or your Mass. I'm doing it for the cosmos fools and for my master.
Let me instruct you from my book, "Spirit of the Liturgy,"
"Facing east" makes this cosmic dimension of the Eucharist present through liturgical gesture ... Where Priest and people together face the same way, what we have is a cosmic interpretation .. "facing the altar" was in reality expressing a view of the eucharistic celebration in the context of cosmos and parousia ... a tradition with strong associations, in former times, with the cosmic symbol of the "east" ... not only had the awareness of the liturgy's cosmic orientation been lost ... we need to be reminded that liturgy involves the cosmos ... Traditionally, the "east" and the image of the cross (i.e., the cosmic and soterological aspects of spirituality) were fused ..."
"And so we can now say that the goal of worship and the goal of creation as a whole are one and the same - divinization, a world of freedom and love. But this means that the historical makes its appearance in the cosmic. The cosmos is not a kind of closed building, a stationery container in which history may by chance take place. It is itself movement, from its one beginning to its one end. In a sense creation is history. Teilhard de Chardin depicted the cosmos as a process of ascent, a series of unions ... merged into a growing synthesis leading to the "Noosphere," in which spirit and its understanding embrace the whole and are blended into a kind of living organism ... Teilhard looks on Christ as the energy that strives toward the Noosphere and finally incorporates everything in its "fullness." From here Teilhard went on to give a new meaning to Christian worship; the transubstantiated host is the anticipation of the transformation and divinization of matter in the "christological "fullness.' In his view, the Eucharist provides the movement of the cosmos with its direction; it anticipates its goal and at the same time urges it on."
And you thought I was restoring the Church!! Ha Ha Ha - gullible fools!

Fr. D. R. Belland said...

Tom A. Do you believe in the power of Grace, especially when Fr. Malachi Martin says that knowing the contents of the Third Secret of Fatima is such that one would see people flocking to Confession?

Fr. D. R. Belland said...

This comes as a correction to my comment yesterday concerning Bishop Schneider not denying that "a vicar of Satan cannot be a Vicar of Christ." I have sent various letters out to many people not all of them having provided a question of agreement or disagreement with my position and my memory, although good, is SHORT. In going through my emails, I noticed that that question was not posited in my letter to Bishop Schneider. However, I do intend to present him with that question after Easter. My apologies for this mistake. God bless and Our Lady protect you always.

Neofito said...


No, it is not... the Catholic Magisterium has to be UNIVOCAL (this is: the teaching ONLY HAVE one sense... a Catholic Sense), not PLURI-VOCAL in a way that ANYONE could take it ON "HIS" whay

Stated in other words:
The Whole EXPLICATION OF THE HOLY DEPOSIT (because THAT is the Core Magisterium!) ONLY CAN BE IN ONE WAY

"A doubted Sacrament, its NOT Sacrament at all"... the same way, a doubted 'magisterium' is not magisterium AT ALL.

Well... the end is near! as Ratzinger is getting closer to his death... remember: According to St Malachi Prophecy he is the 'OLIVE'S GLORY' (so, he (and not the francis) is the LAST IN THE LIST (because St Malachi listed Popes AND anti-popes) BEFORE 'PETER ROMANUS'

and this is this way, because, as you know, Francis is just an 'appendix' UNCANICALLY ELECTED (not a 'legal pope')

Tom A. said...

I place no credibility in anything from Martin Malachi. Nor do I base my Faith on Fatima secrets. They may all be correct or not, it matters not for the salvation of my soul. What matters is professing the Catholic Faith, which cannot be found inside the Conciliar NO Church.

Aqua said...

@ Peter Lamb (and a thanks to Vox for allowing this conversation off topic ... of great interest to me).

Interesting. These are deep weeds indeed. I see there is speculation Roncalli entered the Masonic Lodge in 1935. I see there is also speculation that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in 1958, not Roncalli, but Masonic intervention prevented this and Roncalli was installed in his place. Siri is seen as the reigning Pope who passed the shadow-Papacy to another at his passing in 1989. Given the obvious apostasy, grave, sacreligious departure from De Fide, and the widespread acceptance of same, I have to admit suspicion. Something is deeply wrong and has been for some time.


I hope one day Vox can address this topic on his blog.

Anonymous said...

Cdl Ratzinger as Head of the CDF under PJP2 denied two admitted pederasts defrocking. One requested it himself along with his Bishop who used Ratzinger's three letters of denials in his own defense in court.

False piety reigns here on parade by posters, who in desperation, appear to making of him an air of sanctity.
Look up the case of Fr Kiesel, just for one, and tell me how transferring a rabidly possessed pedophile from one parish to another is for "...the good of the church"!
Benedict abdicated because as he said," "I am not responsible anymore.".......off the eternal fiery hook !

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Aqua,
For lasters please read Fr. Villa. Fr. Luigi Villa was sent to the Pope by Padre Pio. Pope Pius XII commissioned him to ferret out masons in the Vatican with Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci as mentors. Read about roncalli and montini; the satanic pallium the conciliar popes wear under our noses. Learn a bit about masonry.