tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post627273670891413624..comments2024-03-27T11:26:55.051-04:00Comments on Vox Cantoris: The Ultimate Attack on the PapacyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-83694286223795872532019-02-14T17:07:49.845-05:002019-02-14T17:07:49.845-05:00Noticed you like speaking in the third person as y...Noticed you like speaking in the third person as yourself.<br /><br /><b>Yes, ABS likes to do that</b><br /><br />Could that have something to do with feeling the least mount of slander concerning Fr John Gallagher who you smeared along side your Local Ordinary ,Bishop Barbarito ?<br /><br /><b>ABS did not slander the mentally troubled priest but he did defend Bishop Barbaritos; handling of a bad the situation.</b><br /><br /><i>Real Catholics count Fr Gallagher as one courageous priest for blowing the whistle on a fellow priest pederast whom he caught in action and talked into turning himself in.</i><br /><br /><b>No. He did not do that but he lied that he did that. The perv priest was turned in by the father of the boy the perv priest was trying to seduce. The priest also did not notify the diocese about the perv priest as he was required to do and the priest was the one who invited the perv priest into active ministry there.<br /><br />ABS lives close to Holy Name Church in west palm beach and he has friends who are communicants there and they are all in agreement that the poor priest is mentally ill and had caused a LOT of damage and dissension there.<br /><br />Iti s clear you have no idea what happened at Holy Name.</b>Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-59366002818237587752019-02-14T12:12:46.129-05:002019-02-14T12:12:46.129-05:00I can only surmise that people refuse to accept se...I can only surmise that people refuse to accept sedevacantism because it is extremely inconvenient and unpopular. Tom A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13680594973982446985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-81560006214543959942019-02-14T03:48:23.652-05:002019-02-14T03:48:23.652-05:00Bingo Tom!!!
Why the simple, logical, infallible...Bingo Tom!!! <br /><br />Why the simple, logical, infallible Catholic teaching that an heretic cannot become, or be Pope, is so hard for so many to grasp, accept, or believe, is beyond my understanding.<br /><br />Who cares what Ann Barnhardt says, or thinks? Why will semi-trads not go to Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Magisterial Teaching and Canon Law for their guidance? How can anybody in their right mind think ratzinger is Pope? The truth is that after 60 years of devilish indoctrination, the vast majority of Catholic laity no longer know the Faith.Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-55445281528120675752019-02-13T17:08:45.721-05:002019-02-13T17:08:45.721-05:00https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/13/pope-benedict...https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/13/pope-benedict-still-gives-the-papal-apostolic-blessing-tell-me-more-about-how-his-attempted-resignation-wasnt-intended-to-be-partial-im-all-ears/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-36550412013870083412019-02-13T16:20:13.328-05:002019-02-13T16:20:13.328-05:00All this speculation on secrets and hidden intents...All this speculation on secrets and hidden intents. Do you resignationists actually listen to yourselves. You have created a warren of hidden motives and meanings, all done in order to avoid admitting we have no Catholic Pope. Not one of us has any knowledge what is going on in Ratzingers mind and what if anything those secrets mean. What we know is objectively what Ratzinger and Bergoglio have said and written. In both cases they have said and written heresy and have contradicted past teachings of the Catholic Church, most notably on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liberty, and ecclesiology. So much so, that the simplest diagnosis a layman can make is that they are heretics and cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church. Is that so difficult to admit that you invent Dan Brown plots of intrigue to avoid the simple conclusion? Tom A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13680594973982446985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-51245253002412994082019-02-13T15:36:15.862-05:002019-02-13T15:36:15.862-05:00Actually "unanimity" in electing an here...Actually "unanimity" in electing an heretic means nothing:<br /><br />Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 –<br /><br />“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman<br />Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff<br />(whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election<br />as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or<br />fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: —<br />“Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement<br />and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally<br />invalid and void. — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or<br />election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception<br />of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. —<br />“Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in<br />the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in<br />any way . . .— “Each and 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.”Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-24435539994304946052019-02-13T15:29:31.710-05:002019-02-13T15:29:31.710-05:00It's not just perfidious jorge. All of them fr...It's not just perfidious jorge. All of them from paul the sick on, were false "popes".<br /><br />We are sure of a few facts:<br />1. There has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Catholic Church. This we have on the authority of Vatican I and St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and prime authority on the Papacy.<br /><br />2. IF a true Pope became an heretic, he would immediately loose office and his authority and, just like any heretic, be excommunicated from the Church. This is Catholic doctrine.<br /><br />3. The Catholic Church is Infallible and Indefectible. Why? Because it is protected and guided by the Holy Ghost. This is Catholic dogma.<br /><br />4. The Holy Ghost never has, nor will he ever allow an heretical "pope" to lead the Catholic Church astray. He would drop him dead before He allowed the teaching of anything harmful to the salvation of souls by the Catholic Church. If this were not so, the Church could not be Infallible and Indefectible.<br /><br />5. We know ususual things happened at the Conclave of 1958 - white smoke for five minutes, by the clock and then black smoke etc. etc. One day it will be known what really happened. All things done in the dark, will be broadcast from the rooftops.<br /><br />6. From the above, it is obvious and definite that the judeo-masons HAD TO HAVE A FALSE POPES TO DO THEIR BIDDINGS. THE HOLY GHOST WOULD NOT ALLOW A TRUE POPE TO DO SO.<br />Whether a Pope was elected and then impeded, or whether no Pope was validly elected and the conclave was a judeo-masonic sham, we don't know. <br /><br />7. But, we do know that all the conciliar "popes" are equally sham, evil and minions of satan, including ratzinger and wotjyla.Peter Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952041193215971470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-67405941632554912812019-02-13T13:24:31.348-05:002019-02-13T13:24:31.348-05:00Charmine-
That is precisely why I said that Bened...Charmine-<br /><br />That is precisely why I said that Benedict should be hauled before an inquisition and forced to clarify his statements without any means of escape into ambiguity in a public trial. And also why I said that depending on circumstances it is entirely possible that Francis was validly elected.<br /><br />Benedict has always been a mixed bag. There is clearly a lot of heretical material of his to see. And it is more likely that his overtures towards Tradition were compromises that were more geared towards salvaging the Novus Ordo, and what we know were long term plans towards a hybrid Mass. A Hegelian synthesis between Novus Ordo and the Latin Rite, all in keeping with his heretical notions of Chardinian evolution towards the Church. Hence the motu proprio and the reform of the reform, inevitably where both would become one in the future.<br /><br />As for the 3rd Secret, you are also just wildly speculating just as well as Barnhardt. Benedict maintained its cover up. Then supposedly denied telling a friend of his that it had to do with a bad council and a bad mass through a blatant rant on an unsigned press release that the Vatican for some reason was so afraid of when published by Steve Skojec.<br /><br />All these actions are in the most charitable light, the doings of an inconsistent man, who favour politics over the Truth that risks a crisis. Benedict was helpful, but also part of the problems that he helped create. History will not look favorable on him outside of a few concessions.Johnnonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-47616174728432681532019-02-13T11:44:54.068-05:002019-02-13T11:44:54.068-05:00@ Charmaine:
Excellent, well thought out, informa...@ Charmaine:<br /><br />Excellent, well thought out, informative points. Much appreciated. Like so many comments on this excellent blog (even, or esp those who disagree on matters) there is much to chew on.<br /><br />As to your ideas on Pope Benedict and the opposition to him you describe: my take is that I merely need to know who the true Pope is. Normally that is not difficult. Once known, then I revere him as Father with a unique responsibility under God and spiritual conncection (Munus) to God in union with all the other Peters who have ever been. I do not expect him to be perfect or rule correctly every time. I see the *true Pope* every bit as human and flawed as St. Peter who almost became a Judas. He is servant to God first, and in conjunction, to Sacred Tradition; passing on the Truth to his living flock. But, still, human.<br /><br />Some Popes are better than others, but I will fraternally support my true Pope no less than my own Father, even if my father were a mean drunk. I would never insult him, no matter how he behaved. He is my dad. Same (more so) for the Pope. So: his goodness or badness does not affect my support or rejection. Is he true Pope? Or Anti Pope? That is all.Aquahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06691722006352014613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-24228717731249968432019-02-13T11:39:42.980-05:002019-02-13T11:39:42.980-05:00Fr Belland, according to your theory, one might de...Fr Belland, according to your theory, one might deduce that the overwhelming emphasis on the need for UNITY, the return of some relics absconded with during the phony Fourth Crusade including the '83 changes in Canon Law and the continues efforts of Rome to reunite with the Orthodox all ignited by Pope JP2 , that perhaps the unification of Christianity to what it once was in the first centuries also may be part of the Third Secret of Fatima?<br />I have also read that the alleged return of Russia to the Faith was emphasized by Sr Lucia to be a return to their Orthodoxy and not Roman Catholicism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-19294308935704681572019-02-13T11:29:56.434-05:002019-02-13T11:29:56.434-05:00@ jhonno:
You seem very sure of yourself. Fine. ...@ jhonno:<br /><br />You seem very sure of yourself. Fine. I do not share your confidence in this matter of revealing (demanding of the Pope) the Fatima secrets. They were given to Lúcia Santos who did not wish to share them at all. They were hers. She was not ordered by Our Lady to share them with the world. She was ordered by Bishop da Silva to put them in writing. She resisted, ("being not yet convinced God had authorized her to act") but ultimately complied with the order, insisting they remain sealed for a time (etc, etc).<br /><br />My point? I do not share your certainty that we as members of the Church have the right and responsibility, before God, to approach the true Pope (Benedict XVI) and demand he reveal the 3rd Secret of Fatima. They belonged to Sister Lúcia Santos, delivered to her by Our Lady. She was obedient to Our Lady; and to the best of her ability (apparently) also to the Church. <br /><br /> I defer and submit to our Pope in this matter. It is clearly in his discretion to decide.Aquahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06691722006352014613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-45272089353245724292019-02-13T09:58:42.362-05:002019-02-13T09:58:42.362-05:00https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6696977/E...https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6696977/Eighty-cent-Vatican-priests-gay-according-explosive-new-book.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-70975910893558474442019-02-13T08:06:29.498-05:002019-02-13T08:06:29.498-05:00Fr. David R. Belland - April 9, 2017
"The ne...Fr. David R. Belland - April 9, 2017<br /><br />"The new psychology so prominent today seems to have been unwittingly absorbed by society today, even by traditional Catholics. The idea of conversion appears to be totally abandoned. the avant-garde AA has been one of the culprits convincing the poor alcoholics that they have a "sickness" that can't be cured and by means of transferring dependency on the bottle to dependency on the group actually keeps them "sick". But practically for all modern psychology there is no sin (indeed no such thing as a soul even), only sickness, and that as long as sin (of which a large portion of all the psychosis and neurosis being but the symptoms) is not treated properly, that field is perpetuating the "sickness" and the "patient" rather the penitent keeps coming back to increase the psychologist's or psychiatrist's bank account--the poor patient comes to believe he can't be cured.<br /><br />And so goes society. Hence, Benedict, because he was a liberal can't be cured; he's always going to be a liberal. But anyone who has a conscience, while not involved with the B'ni B'rith (Cardinal Bea among others), Masons, Communism or some other secret society, cult, Lobby or Mafia, and is exposed to the 3rd Secret of Fatima IS going to be converted. Fr. Malachi Martin and Cardinal Luciani (the future Pope John Paul I) are just two examples of those who were directly acquainted with the 3rd Secret and converted; perhaps even John Paul II to a certain extent, for example, in his effort to consecrate Russia.<br /><br />I challenge anyone, therefore, to prove that his knowledge of the 3rd Secret of Fatima did not change Benedict. He freed up the Old Mass; had the humility to admit that it had never been forbidden; lifted the excommunications of the SSPX; changed the vernacular editions of the Consecration of the Chalice to the proper wording ("for you and for many") and many other things he would not have done back in the '60's and '70's; he went against the Party Line of Sodano and Bertone concerning the Fatima Message. Furthermore, no one can make the claim that they know more about what is going on in the Church than Benedict--indeed he has more first hand knowledge in his little finger than everyone in the streets or on the internet! I exaggerate a bit, of course, but he does know what is going on. And going around publicly proclaiming the past liberalism of Joseph Ratzinger is still present today, even by insinuation if not by direct accusation, is tantamount to calumny, if one cannot prove what he says--a most serious sin and a grave injustice, especially when one takes into consideration the honor due to Benedict.<br /><br />And only when one knows all the facts, all the circumstances and details of a situation can one make a proper decision concerning that situation. Lets face it, the work of the Devil HAS infiltrated the Church (Our Lady at Akita) and unless one understands how Satan works, and I mean has an in depth understanding of his tactics, he will never know how to handle the situation. And I can tell you that one man, even if he is Pope, will not be able to "clean up" the Church as it is today; it will have to be by a Divine intervention, such that there is a division within the Church so that the faithful Cardinals and Bishops can make the Consecration of Russia according to Our Lady's wishes--it's the only way. And under Francis, since it looks as if there is not going to be an effort to disinherit him, with all the Cardinals he's appointed it will be his modernist cohorts that will win any Papal election; the Consecration will NEVER be made under those circumstances! Let's face the FACTS.<br /><br />I think it is time we state divesting ourselves of the cultural psychological brainwashing we've been subjected to for the last 60 years.<br /><br />In the meantime we must be faithful to the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the last two remedies for us, as Sr. Lucia told Fr. Fuentes."Charmainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17581858164687841224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-78754696698888431732019-02-13T07:16:01.573-05:002019-02-13T07:16:01.573-05:00@Johnno -
Clearly you are having an emotional ra...@Johnno - <br /><br />Clearly you are having an emotional rant that gives the impression your mind is made up with regard to the 'sins' of Ratzinger, which you believe he carries forward to this very day. I don't care what discoveries were made from 40-50 years ago (and I'm not saying they should be suppressed), but it cannot be PROVEN that that was what Pope Benedict literally intended to do when he "resigned". This is not an airtight case. Even Barnhardt's co-blogger, Non Veni Pacem, understands this. He wrote in the combox on 2/11: "Now the fact remains that nowhere has it yet to be found that Ratzinger explicitly endorsed these ideas at the time, but he can be seen presenting them as plausible in open discussion. The point being that the idea of a bifurcated or even synodal papacy is not something he himself dreamt up — on the contrary, this was a high concept and something that’s been in his mind for 50 years.<br /><br />Keep in mind, it could also be a ruse. Benedict could have done this knowing that he would fully retain the papacy. He left us enough other clues in terms of remaining in the Vatican wearing white and being addressed as His Holiness, and of course he knows the contents of the Third Secret." <br /><br />Re: "a ruse"... see my comment above by Fr. Belland: "That it “looks” like bifurcating, or trying to set up a diarchy, could be because he was dissimulating in order not to resign the Office...", along with the last paragraph in my 2:22 a.m. comment. Charmainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17581858164687841224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-66378603959334902422019-02-13T07:14:21.135-05:002019-02-13T07:14:21.135-05:00Excellent point about Benedict's refusal to st...Excellent point about Benedict's refusal to step up to the plate, Johnno.Irenaeushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15432088067981270937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-66452543104050591822019-02-13T02:22:02.793-05:002019-02-13T02:22:02.793-05:00@Aqua -
Thank you for understanding where I'm...@Aqua - <br />Thank you for understanding where I'm coming from, and also for your additional support on another blog about a month or so ago. Much appreciated for speaking out and being a co-advocate of sorts in defense of Pope Benedict, who should at least be given the benefit of the doubt; because it's exactly as you say, there is so much we don't know. <br /><br />For nearly four years now (as my energy allows), I have been working to present the truth of the invalidity of Pope Benedict's resignation; therefore, he remains our one and only reigning Pope. It's been frustrating enough to have encountered so much resistance and indifference to hearing about this; either for fear of being labeled a sedevacantist (which makes no sense), and on the flip side, there are already plenty of "practical sedevacantists" in Tradland who have pretty much checked out on matters pertaining to the Papacy--they're not at all interested that Francis may be an antipope, because to them, he's not much different than the other conciliar popes. Benedict is very hated by the SSPXers, so they certainly don't want him back, no matter what is objectively true. They may pay severely for their lack of investigation into this matter. (I also read your comment on Br. Bugnolo's site, and point #2 you had made is entirely applicable. You get it.)<br /><br />The next level of frustration comes by way of those who DO have moral certitude regarding the "Benedict is still Pope" position, and yet at the same time are convinced he is some evil mastermind, when in reality, his faux abdication has preserved the indefectibility of the Church--all acts of the non-canonically elected "Destroyer" are officially null and void; although the utter destruction being carried out is beyond dispute (we ARE in apocalyptic times, but this has all been foretold). <br /><br />Fr. Belland posits that Benedict could have accepted the personal good of martyrdom, but instead "placed himself in a position, in an official way, that was analogous to a Pope in captivity (Pope Pius VII), a Pope in hiding (Pope Caius) or a Pope in exile (Pope Gregory the Great), in order to salvage the much greater Common Good of the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ. Nevertheless, he will still be martyred, as the Pope in the Vision of the Third Secret." We know there are multiple prophecies of a pope fleeing Rome and dying a cruel death in exile. How can this not be Pope Benedict one day soon? This is why I have a sense of urgency to defend him against those who, for whatever reason, have decided to turn their backs on him. God bless, and thanks again for the support.Charmainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17581858164687841224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-57964709562397425472019-02-13T01:37:49.080-05:002019-02-13T01:37:49.080-05:00Fatty -
Did you just wake up from your slumber re...Fatty -<br /><br />Did you just wake up from your slumber recently to tell us all about Benedict's abdication and funny titles? Because you're extraordinarily late to the party if you think your weak arguments haven't been addressed in detail before.<br /><br />Not only did Benedict completely invent out of wholesale cloth (probably cut from the same VII seamless garment, now on display at the MET Gala) the whole Emeritus nonsense in keeping with his long-held modernist desire along with Kasper and other German modernist morons who were his drinking buddies back when they wore suits and tie as clergymen to further make the Papal office more like the President of the USA - da greatest country evar with all dat freedom of religion and freedom of blasphemy... over and against the assumed path that Pope St. Celestine took of returning to Cardinal and intending to get the heck out of dodge.<br /><br />Benedict contradicted the early Vatican statements by precisely not returning to Cardinal, continued to wear the white, kept the Papal court of arms, the ring, the title of holiness and released some fuzzy speech about how he is always and forever a Pope, but now only contemplative and was only retiring the active part of the ministry, and would remain in the Vatican.<br /><br />And then Brandmuller and others go on about how Benecit has CHANGED the nature of the Papacy - how brave! How Avant Garde! How new and novel! Etc. etc. because this is some BRAVE NEW STEP THAT WAS NEVER DONE BEFORE! And then CDF Mueller, who poo-pooed the early discussion that Benedict somehow remained some kind of Pope, then speaks with him and later emerges singing the same tune.<br /><br />You actually think all that praise and wonder was over some mere 'emeritus' title?<br /><br />WOW! He calls himself Emeritus now! So brave! So deserving of such praise and recommendation by Brandmuller, Kasper etc. I know a lot of these men are fags and that means they love to swell the chorus and exaggerate, but considering all their early writings that Barnhardt has uncovered, for which you and others owe her a debt of gratitude - this isn't just some turn of phrase they are talking about.<br /><br />Also consider how this 'not-a-pope-but-a-pope-emeritus' somehow still gives out the Papal apostolic blessing, and how Francis himself for some reasons drags newly made cardinals to also receive Benedict's Papal blessings... gee... I dunno... is something going on here? Even if this is all some make-believe it-does-nothing going on here, all this is surely a bad example...<br /><br />I mean... it's not like the modernists excel at setting the groundwork for further exploitation somewhere down the road or something... Nope! Nothing to see here for Fatty-fat-fats and the rest of the 'dont-look-at-barnhardt' brigade.<br /><br />I mean, even when Francis himself refers to himself as just 'bishop of rome', keeps his Argentinian passport, uses Fatima to refer to himself as 'the bishop in white' for some reason, and even criticizes Benedict as someone who just 'half-leaves' for interfering from the side in whatever he's up to...<br /><br />And even when the blood of St. Januarius half-liquifies in his hands unprompted...<br /><br />Gee... I think something is up... Do any of you who understand Fatima understand Lucia's words that they saw a 'bishop in white' who they said 'gave them the IMPRESSION that he was the holy father'?<br /><br />Do words ever mean something to you? No love for precision and yes being yes and no being no?<br /><br />So shouldn't there be at least the necessity for some due diligence and the rightful frame of mind that Benedict should be hauled before an Inquisition and made to clarify on his past writings and his words about his retention of some parts of a whole Papal munus? Especially when he and his colleagues were precisely entertaining the very idea openly about a new kind of Papal Committee, where the Papal office could become democratized, and thus they could somehow even use this for ecumenical purposes, particularly regarding the schismatic Eastern orthodox???Johnnonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-26185321555504842742019-02-13T01:18:27.252-05:002019-02-13T01:18:27.252-05:00------------
Aqua - "Not for us to know eithe...<br /><br />------------<br />Aqua - "Not for us to know either way" "It is confidential for obviously important (perhaps mistaken) reasons."<br /><br />That's some way to spin what it obviously direct disobedience to God regarding the 3rd Secret, and also relatedly, the refusal to Consecrate Russia directly.<br /><br />Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was a modernist. This is well documented. Thus it is natural to see why he would be called a heretic, betrayer or other justifiable labels due to his words and actions.<br /><br />A Pope is to be respected. But you don't cover-up his sins. If you respect him, then confront him. Otherwise you are hiding your cowardice behind a veil of feigned piety towards the Papal office.<br /><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Charmaine -<br /><br />I like Socci, but Socci tends to always play nice with whoever the reigning Pope is. He also gave a LOT of leeway to Francis early on. This might be down to the fact that he is trained as a reporter, and by discipline you don't make accusations you can't substantially defend on the paper record.<br /><br />Barnhardt has strong opinions, and also has reasonably argued her case just as well for Benedict XVI being the 'worst Pope' and 'a quitter.' recently she has been backing that up with lots of paper documentation as to what Ratzinger and company were up to. And it does not paint a good picture and only further reinforces her point. Something Socci hasn't caught up with yet, and that nobody else save for her has been willing to put their ass on the line.<br /><br />Instead of taking shots at Ann, how about taking shots at who started this mess to clear up what Ann has laid out on the table - Ratzinger, himself. Who if he's not too busy, could please put down the big mugs of beer, and hold a press conference to reassure the faithful and deny in front of a camera all this papal diarchy stuff, rather than us only getting unsigned, photoshopped edited material, and selective quotations from the 'Vatican PR Office.'<br /><br />And -YES- he's bloody well obligated to all of us and our Lord Jesus Christ to do so.Johnnonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-42281207024901371562019-02-12T18:01:00.278-05:002019-02-12T18:01:00.278-05:00@ Charmaine:
I Agree with you 100%. I have nev...@ Charmaine: <br /><br /> I Agree with you 100%. I have never been among those calling Pope Benedict XVI heretic, betrayer, other various insults. Those bother me very much. He is Pope. Respect him. There is more there we don't know. He knows. Fatima. The words of Our Lady. The Secret. Not for us to know either way, but that is my suspicion. That is how I make sense of this unprecedented-in-Tradition situation.<br /><br />Our Lady appeared at Fatima. The Third Secret is known. It is confidential for obviously important (perhaps mistaken) reasons. That is, as you suggest, likely in the forefront of Pope Benedict's mind. We are on the edge of something apocalyptic. The Dual Papacy is just one of many markers.Aquahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06691722006352014613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-82640713045632242712019-02-12T12:22:26.427-05:002019-02-12T12:22:26.427-05:00What you say is true, but Francis is on full throt...What you say is true, but Francis is on full throttle. Its like a train reaching maximum speed before the crash. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-36098708426386320732019-02-12T11:47:19.940-05:002019-02-12T11:47:19.940-05:00I hope you mean that the silent one is no longer u...I hope you mean that the silent one is no longer undermining the Catholic Faith on a regular basis anymore. Ratzinger has had decades of undermining the Catholic Faith so he deserves a rest whole Bergoglio kicks the undermining into high gear. Do not fool yourself or anyone else into thinking Ratzinger was a Catholic. He was and is a modernist enemy of the Catholic Faith. Tom A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13680594973982446985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-76035520301848602582019-02-12T10:14:05.721-05:002019-02-12T10:14:05.721-05:00There's no getting around the fact there'...There's no getting around the fact there's two Pope's in the Vatican and one is undermining the Catholic Faith on a regular basis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-84351654999111242222019-02-11T20:55:00.130-05:002019-02-11T20:55:00.130-05:00@Lazarus Gethsemane -
My point was to make a chal...@Lazarus Gethsemane - <br />My point was to make a challenge and offer an alternate hypothesis differing from Ann Barnhardt's, which is based on conclusions that she herself has formulated with hubristic certainty with regards to Pope Benedict's motives in his resignation attempt. "He is a known quitter." "He's the worst pope ever for what he has done." And again: "I’m afraid that we all severely underestimate the role of PRIDE in the heart of Pope Benedict XVI... in one of the most massive displays of pride the Church has ever seen, Pope Benedict Ratzinger decided..." Agree with her at your own peril. You yourself are convinced of his so-called 'evilness', and if you have come to that position due to Ann Barnhardt's popularity and influence, then it would be a shame if that is the case.<br /><br />As for Antonio Socci, I don't know what his connections are, but he is no lightweight in his journalistic integrity. Can we at least entertain the following, instead of throwing Pope Benedict under the bus in what could perhaps be his greatest hour of need? (From the 1P5 book review):<br />"The present crisis – unprecedented in all of Church history – has called for an unprecedented response. Benedict’s “choice to become ‘pope emeritus’ represents something enormous and contains a ‘secret’ of colossal importance for the Church” (p. 111). There is clearly, in Socci’s analysis, something that Pope Benedict is holding back and not saying, “a true and personal call from God,” “a mystery which he guards” of which at the present time he can say no more (p. 131). Socci proposes that this “secret of Benedict XVI” is “exquisitely spiritual,” rooted in wisdom “according to God” which the present world – and also the present Church – cannot understand."<br />Charmainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17581858164687841224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-53099486363423405992019-02-11T20:40:58.131-05:002019-02-11T20:40:58.131-05:00To those of you who are questioning Ms. Barnhardt&...To those of you who are questioning Ms. Barnhardt's mental state (in the tone of Hilary White and Steve Skojec, no less), I submit this: https://www.barnhardt.biz/faqs/. Read all of it.Irenaeushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15432088067981270937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20981956.post-28916751537545665302019-02-11T19:35:46.845-05:002019-02-11T19:35:46.845-05:00Charmaine said..."The Secret of Benedict XVI:...<i>Charmaine said..."The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He is Still Pope". I recommend reading it and see if you come away with Ann's take on the matter -- that his resignation attempt was based on malice and pride.</i><br /><br />How can that possibly counter Ann's argument unless it ALSO presumes to know Benedict's motives? And IF his motives were influenced by Fatima - then why didn't he say so? Why did he lie and say it was merely because he wasn't physically able anymore?Lazarus Gethsemanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14418967879533026670noreply@blogger.com