Thursday, 28 May 2020

Benedict Ratzinger's journey. Sorry, I'm not going with him.

I had a conversation the other day with a friend and fellow blogger about Francis. One of our points of discussion is that a far as the Law is concerned, Francis Bergoglio is the Pope. He is the pope according to Canon Law, he is the pope because the priests of Rome accept him as bishop, as to the bishops and cardinals in the world and the faithful. We may not like it, he may be a heretic and an apostate and an evil man and while I may think it and believe it, it is of no consequence. None of us have authority to declare and remedy it. 

We further agreed to agree that the real culprit in all of this is Joseph Ratzinger. We recalled discussions seven years ago that "he must have cancer," or, "he knows he has Alzheimer's and does not want to lead the Church in such a condition." Truly, did you not think there was something serious?

He did this to us. He ran away, he was and remains a coward. There was no "mystical" reason for his departure. He bailed out. If he was being hounded from within to leave he could have gone to the window at his Sunday Angelus and told us, we would have risen up. Italians loved him, they would have stormed the palace to save him. This is how a Catholic would act. 

No, instead he left us and did not finish his job. 

I'm not interested in this book, I'm past interest in anything Ratzinger writes or says. I loved him. Now, I am nothing but indifferent towards him. Reading this makes me even more indifferent.

We have truly been abandoned. It is this abandonment by our Shepherds, sorry, our Hirelings, that has led to the theories by Ann Barnhardt and Brother Alexis. Someone will be culpable for all of this, I have to believe that our merciful God will not lay the blame on those who question and come to conclusions that may be wrong because of the crimes of those who lead.

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/peter-seewalds-spiritual-and-historical-journey-with-the-pope-emeritus





19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent conclusions Vox.
God knows all and He knows our hearts, minds and souls. We worship Him as best we can and where we are at during these most confusing times when everyone everywhere seems to be a self righteous canon lawyer and theologian. No one can condemn you for exiting a parish or Diocese filled with homosexual priests and /or those who teach heterodoxy , especially if you have children.

TLM said...

One of your best posts Vox! I myself as most of us have gone back and forth: He is the Pope...No he's not....Yes he is....No he's not. But your conclusions have been formed by REASON. We just have to do the best we can with what we've been given. And yes Benedict has abandoned us...FULL...STOP, and not only has he abandoned us, but he has left us in the hands of a terrorizing abusive father, or step father, however anyone wants to look at it.

Barona said...

Vox, your assessment seems to me the most rational explanation, given the facts we have before us.

I have just re-read Pope Benedict-Ratzinger's Letter of Resignation. There, he informs us that his resignation was due to physical and mental incapacity to execute his Papal Ministry: "... both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity...".

After 7 years and nearly four months we now can definitely know that this was false.

Either Pope Benedict-Ratzinger lied, or he really believed he was going to die imminently. If Vatican physicians lied to him, he has had 7 years plus to leak this out. But certainly we know one thing: he did not resign due to ill health.

If the Vatileaks scandal was used to drive him out, he should have said so... again, he has had 7 plus years to let us know. What is just one more "leak"?

Perhaps Benedict-Ratzinger was forced out, not in fear of himself, but a threat to the City of Rome. Here, I am wildly speculating, but at least one could argue that he was prepared for martyrdom, but backed out to spare perhaps (e.g.) a major act of terrorism by the Masonic-Homosexual Cabal that control the Vatican City State. But based on the evidence that we have, he fled from the wolves.

There is one thing however Benedict-Ratinger could do for us: he could pen another one of his articles, but this time asking Pope Francis-Bergoglio what has become of that enormous dossier that featured so prominently on the coffee table in 2013?

We have to see the mystery of iniquity in all of this. Christ does not will evil but He can allow it to draw a greater good. The Church is being scourged for Her adulterous infidelity with the world the flesh and devil. We have to see this as Divine purification.

"For they that will become rich, fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and into many unprofitable and hurtful desires, which drown men into destruction and perdition" 1 Timothy 6:9.

Is this not a near perfect description of the state of the Church in the decadent West?

MaryP said...

Read Universi Domenico Gregis. Even had Ratzinger validly resigned, the conclave was invalid.

utahagen said...

I suspect that Ratzinger was blackmailed, but that we'll never learn during this life what really happened. I, too, have no interest in this book because I do not believe it will contain the truth. Ann Barnhardt's theory seems the most persuasive: Bergoglio is not really the Pope because he deliberately bungled his resignation. In any case, even if Bergoglio was the true Pope at some point, he has worked tirelessly to convince all of us that he despises the Catholic faith. I'm neither a theologian nor a canon lawyer, but I have enough common sense to know that someone who flatly rejects the Catholic faith and works to undermine it and to wreck the Church cannot be the Pope -- no matter how many celebrities skip how many Climate Change Conferences to meet with him at the Vatican.

Justina said...

I remember discussing some disputed points of theology with an Evangelical Protestant friend a number of years ago. When I pressed him to defend what he had presented, he said that he and one of his buddies had hashed out the point together and agreed on a solution. My observation that what he and a buddy conclude does not a doctrine make, did not sit well with him.

Why, Vox, would you put forward the contention that what you and another person privately speculate should be considered the basis of recognizing or rejecting someone's claim to the papacy itself?

As UD Gregis states, "if you want to know who the real Successor of Peter is, to Hades with Canon Law, the meaning of Latin terms, and whether or not the rules for conclaves as set down in this document are properly observed. Just ask Vox and his pal; what they say, goes!"

AMalek said...

No matter who the true pope is now, RATzinger is, in my mind, the worst pope in the history of the papacy. He lied and he gave us this horrible Jesuit.

MyronM said...

"Benedict XVI" by Seewald: an eerie cover like the lid of a casket; the Pope shrouded in darkness. And this title placed vertically: 'Benedict XVI' flowing down in the depths of bottomless darkness. Dominant black and red - flagship colors of Nazi Reich. A nightmare!

Vox Cantoris said...

Justina,

What is your problem? Why I put forward any "contention" on this blog is because it is MY BLOG. I don't like Bergoglio. Frankly, I despise him. But no cardinal is prepared to come out and say the conclave was rigged. I have read, which may come as a surprise, UDG. I agree, there is much suspect, but until someone comes out with proof, Bergoglio is the Pope. I have no doubt that he has, if he ever had, lost the grace of office by his actions, particularly the Pachammama worship.

Others take a different view, such as Br. Alexis and Ann Barnhardt. They may have lost their minds but they are victims as are you and I of this rotten man and the coward Joseph Ratzinger.

This post is about the coward Joseph Ratzinger, the book and his misleading of us seven years ago and his turnover of us to a filthy, pervert-protecting, heretic and apostate - an evil stepfather.

If you think what Vox and his friend and what we say "goes" then you give this writer far too much power. Or maybe not. Maybe I do have power and you are afraid of the truth. Tell me, do you dress down Br. Alexis or Ann Barnhardt or the racist tolerant at The Eponymous Flower for having too much power?

Take my advice, Justina, don't read my blog.

Unlike Frank Walker, Steve Skojec and a few others, I don't beg for money here and I don't depend on hits. You'll notice that these I mention are all gone from my blog roll as is Rorate Caeli.

You see, I have the right to write what I wish and you have the right to disagree.

You do not have the right to mock me in my combox and not be dressed down for it.


Anonymous said...

Dear Vox,
I appreciate your remarks regarding the 'papal problem' very much. I am of the very same mind. I am too old to decide who is or who is not pope. God has not asked me to weigh in on this. As that very horrible, current meme goes, "It is what it is". We get what we deserve, as the old saw goes. For me, I have to work at saving my soul, for God can call me at any time. We also have to pray for the conversion of Francis and so many others who seem content to lead everyone to hell in these very sad days.

God bless you and your loved ones and the apostolate of this blog.
Jeannette

Justina said...

That's pretty much how my Protestant friend reacted, too.

Vox Cantoris said...

So, Justina, I am now a “Protestant?”

This was your last comment.

Begone.

Peter Lamb said...

Guys, All the politics and speculation and intrigue. What for??? Why not just accept the Catholic doctrine that an heretic cannot be Pope? Must Our Lord appear to each of you individually to tell you that he who is not a member cannot be head? Must He confirm to each of you individually that a public, pertinacious heretic suffers self-excommunication from the Church in terms of Divine Law? The canonical declaration is merely official notification of something which has already happened long before.

At the risk of me losing friends let me briefly quote what I have quoted umteen times before to stone deaf ears:

The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, BEING DEPOSED BY GOD HIMSELF ...  If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I;
St. Francis de Sales: – “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he
falls IPSO FACTO from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

St. Robert Bellarmine: – “A Pope who is a manifest heretic
AUTOMATICALLY CEASES to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases
automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore,
he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of
all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately
lose all jurisdiction.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should
fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If,
however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and
contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the
APOSTOLIC CHAIR WOULD BE VACANT.


Peter Lamb said...


St. Antoninus: – “In the case in which the Pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without
any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a
body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body
from which it was cut off.”

Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 –
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as
an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman
Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff
(whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election
as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or
fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: —
“Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement
and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally
invalid and void. — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or
election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through receptionnd all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments
of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows
therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability
and legal power to anyone whatsoever. — “Those so promoted or elected,
by that very fact and without the need to make any further
declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title,
authority, office and power.”–

Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950 – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III
expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation
would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, BY DIVINE LAW, fall from
office without any sentence, indeed, WITHOUT EVEN A DECLAROTORY ONE.
He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church,  Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess
heresy, BEFORE ANY CONDEMNATORY SENTENSE (which would be impossible
anyway) he would lose his authority.

Peter Lamb said...

Coronata — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1950 – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Suchimpeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III
expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation
would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from
office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.
He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church,  Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess
heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible
anyway) he would lose his authority.
Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927 – “Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a
pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without
hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power,
insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be
cast outside the body of the Church.”

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943 – “Through notorious and openly divulged
heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very
fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of
jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A
Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a
member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the
Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”
A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949 –
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as
a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any
declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he
would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no
longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”
On the general topic of admonition, The Catholic Encyclopedia writes, among other things, the following:
“Since contumacy implies obstinate persistence in crime, in order to become liable to these punishments a person must not only be guilty of crime, but must also persist in his criminal course after having been duly warned and admonished. This warning (monitio canonica), which must precede the punishment, can emanate either from the law itself or from the ecclesiastical superior or judge. Contumacy can therefore occur in one of two ways: first, when the delinquent does not heed the warning of his ecclesiastical superior or judge, addressed to him personally and individually; second, when he violates a law of the Church with full knowledge of the law, and of the censure attached, in the latter case the law itself being a standing warning to all (Lex interpellat pro homine).”
 the Encyclopedia’s statement that a pope would become a public heretic “were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ“.

Ana Milan said...

There should be no question as to which of these men is the Pope. It is not in keeping with Christ’s Church on earth to keep the faithful groping around canon law, tradition, queries regard the mindset of a pope who resigns, etc. in order to know the answer. It should be clear, unequivocal & incontestable as to who rightfully holds the highest office of the Church. Many canon lawyers come to different conclusions when the actual position isn’t spelt out for them at the highest level. Canon law was always the litmus test for all dogmatic teaching of the CC to be followed in all respects. Since AF’s ascendency, however, it is being overtaken by the ordinary magisterium, making a dubious claimant to the Holy See of Peter able to overturn the rules to suit himself.

There must be a final authority in the Vatican to end this disastrous dual papacy. As it all began with the dubious resignation of PBXVI leading to an election that didn’t follow the rules set down by PJPII & an extra vote which hasn’t been explained by the invigilator making AF the winner, it seems to me that PBXVI has a duty before God to come forward to say what he wanted to achieve. He cannot bifurcate the Papacy. He either resigns properly according to canon law & retires to Bavaria, or he repents his iniquitous decision & takes up his cross, denounces AF & all his exhortations, betrayals, idolatry etc. & retrieves the status of the OHC&A Church. There is no other way forward until this action is taken.

Barona said...

Vox and his friend, as I understand it, were discussing the Papal Resignation, and its implications. They were not making doctrinal "private judgment" pronouncements on the occupant of the See of Peter. They are well aware as Catholics that they have no Authority to declare the Papal See vacant. Or, for that cherry pick who is the pope. Benedict-Razinger on numerous occasions, after his formal resignation, has made it abundantly clear that he is not the reigning Pontiff, and that he accepts Francis-Bergoglio as Pope. He also mentioned in his first letter of resignation that the See of Peter was vacant. Go and read it. You cannot get clearer than that. This private judgment of setting Benedict-Ratzinger up as the "pope" is just a fudge.
The result is the very accusers themselves have long ago fallen into the trap of private judgment and taking upon themselves an Authority they do not have. This is PROTESTANTISM. In the very name of the Church that these people are claiming to be loyal to, they a priori (without any Authority) declare this or that Conclave is invalid (or valid), and this or that Pope, is Pope(or not pope). They take upon themselves the very Authority they deny the legitimate Pastors of the Church, in the process contradicting the very doctrine they claim to uphold.
Those who no longer hold Francis-Bergoglio as Pope have to answer serious questions. They are not infallible, they have to admit could be wrong. Further, where do they go to Mass? To whom will they Confess. They cannot attend any church in Union with "Antipope" Francis as they give witness to a blasphemous lie, and commit a very grave mortal sin. And to claim that Benedict-Ratzinger is Pope and attend, still does not wash, as the Canon includes the 'una cum" for Francis. So they are trapped in their lies and confusion.
It is a question of Mind over Feelings. NOT Feelings over the Mind. I may not like the present occupant. I may feel this or that about him. But it doesn’t matter. As to history, there have been far worse Conclaves (even assuming the very worst accusations made in 2013 are true), yet these evil Popes were accepted as popes, and never declared Antipopes by future Popes. For example, let us consider Boniface IV, Alexander VI or John XX. God does not allow a headless Church. Once these men, through murder, or simony (or both) etc. seized the Papal Throne, were accepted the clergy, God accepted them as Popes. Read your Catholic history. Vox makes a very important observation: when the clergy of Rome accept the man elected, he is the Pope. As to his spiritual condition, trust in God, He is far, far more powerful than mere man, even men who sit on the Throne of Peter. "It is good to confide in the Lord, rather than to have confidence in man" Psalm 118:8. Do we forget that St. John Chrysostom told us that the floor of Hell is lined with the skulls of bishops? And popes are bishops. The fact is, it can be very uncomfortable being in the Catholic Church, just as it was very uncomfortable for Our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross. But it was the Mind over feelings. The Church is not a country club or a chocolate factory. It can hurt a lot. It hurt the martyrs. So let have more confidence in God, knowing that He is the Master, He is in control, not these wayward, evil churchmen......





Barona said...

...Friends, if you have been misled by these protestants, please come back to Catholic Unity. Do not let the scandals and sins of evil churchmen drive you from Unity with the One, Holy Catholic Church. The Church cannot be headless, She must have a head. Consider Caiaphas: as High Priest he was the visible head of the one, true religion, but he fell into blasphemy and heresy. Was he deposed? Was the Seat of Moses declared vacant by an disciple or one of the holy women? No. Caiaphas remained as High Priest until Our Lord deposed him on the Feast of Pentecost through the Holy Spirit. Caiaphas received his authority from God and God took it away. It was not taken away by man, because man had no authority to do so. Neither you nor I can take away something that is not ours in the first place.

During this mysterious time of iniquity, we have to decide. I have to, you have to. Do I leave or remain in the Church? Do I focus on growing in personal holiness, or do I get bogged down in things that are out of my control? David warned us in Psalm 37 to not become worried about the advances of evil men. God, in His time, and way, will dispose of them. Do we have faith like David? Or, do we place our trust in princes? Princes of the Church? I say let them cast us out, let them do their worst. Let us stand on the doorstep, shivering if need be, but we are not going anywhere. We are staying faithful to the end. The Church is our Mother, we have none other. In Her time of need, in Her agony, Her illness, we MUST stay by Her bedside and NOT abandon Her to evil men. We must follow the holy women I Jerusalem who did not abandon Christ on the Cross but stayed faithful in His darkest hour, in His hour of need for love.

Let us not forget, that the Bride belongs to Christ. She does not belong to men, even churchmen, even pope. We must trust in God. "Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me" (John 14:1).

Paul Dale said...

Our Blessed Lord prayed for Peter that he would not lose the faith. So does that make Him a liar? Cause that is the implication here. I subscribe following the wise investigation of Brother Alexis that Benedict, deliberately or otherwise, failed to renounce the munus but the ministry. He failed canon 332,2. The canon came from JPII, and many canonists are remiss in studying it. Deliberately or otherwise, he handed the back door key to Bergoglio. B16 retained the papacy, the Keys, to keep the wolves from the office. The cardinals failed their due diligence to verify, so they are complicit in this anti papacy that is Francis.They are not in union with the true Pope. That is the true horror that unfolds before us.

Respectfully