Tags
#fakenarratives, #fakenews, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Dr. Curt Doolittle, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, FrancisChurch - In Liquidation, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, James O'Keefe, Jesuits, Jesus Christ, Joseph Ratzinger, Jozef Pilsudski, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Miracle on the Vistula, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Nassim Taleb, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, Net Neutrality, new springtime, New York Times, Nigel Farage, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Polish Bolshevik War 1920, Pontifical High Mass, Pope Pius VI, President Andrzej Duda, Project Veritas, r/K Selection Theory, Raymond Burke, Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "c"atholicZombie, s "theological structuring", s ABC News, s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s Ann Corcoran, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Associated Press, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Bio-History, s Boris Johnson, s BREXIT, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Catholic Church, s Chapel of the Holy Trinity, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, sCatholic Church in Poland, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Tags Black Lives Matter, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Work of Human Hands, Zombie, ZombieBishop, ZombieChurch
Today we continue with our conspiracy theory quickly transitioning to conspiracy fact theme. The reason behind this continuation is the question of the “resignation, that wasn’t” of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
The question (on Twitter) has quickly turned to “INTENT”.
Now personally, in the humble opinion of this humble blogger, INTENT is not an issue in the “resignation, that wasn’t'” since the issue is in essence a question of PROCESS. In other words, the PROCESS did not produce a resignation.
Specifically, it is visibly observable that there are two individuals who live inside the Sacred Vatican Walls. Further, Pope Benedict continues to wear the white tunic, continues to sign himself “Benedictus XVI, pope emeritus,” continues to live “in the enclosure of Saint Peter,” continues to have himself called “Holiness” and “Holy Father.” And finally, Pope Benedict claims that he and Francis, the bishop of Rome “share” the PONTIFICAL OFFICE, “One “Active” and One “Contemplative”. (See here)
Which raises the question: Could Pope Benedict do this and by WHOSE AUTHORITY!
Now, the Papal Office was instituted by Our Lord, when turning to Peter and mandating:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Now, this passage is significant on a number of levels, i.e. historical, psychological, philosophical and naturally theological. One of these levels, by far the most significant and the one that “REGULATES” the “resignation, that wasn’t” can be termed as the philosophical/theological level, or that point where the natural and the supernatural meet.
Drilling down into the theological level, the passage represents what is known as an ontological reality. Here is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for ontology:
1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being. Ontology deals with abstract entities.
2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence.
Now, according to definition #2, the Petrine Office that Our Lord instituted, i.e. gave it EXISTENCE, as per Matthew 16:18-19, was given to Peter as an office that would be exercised SOLELY.
Once again: “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church,…”
In other words, it was not given to Peter and some other apostle, but ONLY to Peter. Coming at the problem from a definitional perspective, a Petrine Office that is occupied by ONE descendent of Peter is one of the kinds of things that have existence, while a multi-occupant (multi-nodal) Petrine Office does not have existence.
Which places the Petrine Office into the category of a BINARY OPPOSITE. In other words, it either exists as an office occupied by ONE descendant of Peter or it does not exist.
So therefore, a Petrine Office occupied by ONE descendant of Peter and ONLY ONE descendant of Peter at any given time, is in fact an ONTOLOGICAL REALITY.
Anything else that is called a “Petrine Office” and does not have exactly those attributes as explained above, is not a “Petrine Office” and is a product of what psychologists term as: MAGIC THINKING!
Now, hold that thought…
Yet according to Archbishop Gänswein, here is what he claims Pope Benedict did:
And most recently the archbishop in closest contact with him, Georg Gänswein, has told us that Benedict “has by no means abandoned the office of Peter,” but on the contrary has made it “an expanded ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member,” in “a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a quasi shared ministry”: (h/t Non Veni Pacem for catching the mistranslation.)
Now, the question is: BY WHOSE AUTHORITY?
Naturally, not by the AUTHORITY of Our Lord who CREATED the Petrine Office (an Ontological Reality) as one where only Peter, and ONE descendant of Peter would OCCUPY at any given time.
Now, Pope Benedict, not being a person of the Triune God, but only the vicar of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, not only doesn’t possess the AUTHORITY to change the Petrine Office, but more importantly, does not have the capability to change the ONTOLOGICAL REALITY.
Therefore, if Benedict attempted to resign, which is an observable reality, but he only resigned a part of the Petrine Office, regardless of whether he did it intentionally or unintentionally, that resignation is NULL AND VOID. And the reason this resignation is null and void is because a “bifurcated” Petrine Office does not exist as an Ontological Reality.
Now, there will be those who say: hey Armaticus, times change and therefore the Petrine Office needs to change and Pope Benedict is not bound by the Canon Law because he can change Canon Law, as the current bishop of Rome is doing, and so forth, and so forth…
The answer to the above observation, and why this humble blogger thinks that Our Lord was correct when he instituted a SOLELY OCCUPIED PETRINE OFFICE is that Our Lord was familiar with what is known as the process of FRACTIONALIZATION.
To illustrate a fractionalization process, think of the present situation…
We have two men dressed in white, both claiming that they possess part or all of the Petrine “teaching office”.
In other words, we have a “bi-nodal” papacy.
Further, both men have Faithful and less-than-faithful Catholics who are claiming that one or the other is the REAL POPE.
And given that a “teaching office” is in large part an “interpretive construct” at present (real harm done by the Modernist revolution), i.e. a text is written in intentionally ambiguous language which the adherents than need to filter through their individual “perspectives”, defined by their temperament, along with a whole host of individual biases, such as confirmation bias, normalcy bias, etc. and given that the post-Modernist post-conciliator church does not “do rules” but allows each individual to “discern his conscience” individually, what has resulted is the complete DIVORCE of the moral/doctrinal/theological framework of the post-conciliar church and OBJECTIVE OBSERVABLE REALITY itself.
Carrying this reasoning forward, and given all the chaos that has resulted from just the abandoning of the post-conciliar church’s mooring in objective reality, and with only one pope, we are now in a situation where it is claimed that there are two popes. Which means that now, each pope will have his own teaching office and by extension a personal magisterium, that his adherents will claim is the one true papal magisterium.
Let’s go further and say that Francis, the bishop of Rome resigns while Pope Benedict is still alive. He then will claim that he too still has a papal teaching office. A new “conclave” will elect another “successor” of Peter. So now in this hypothetical world, there will be three “popes” with three “papal” magisteria that the lucky “catholic” can choose from.
And here comes the fractionization problem…
Now, even if all three use intentionally ambiguous language to produce their “god of surprises” inspired magisteria, which is the result of a cognitive process derived through the filters of each individual’s “perspectives”, defined by their temperament, along with a whole host of biases, such as the confirmation bias and the normalcy bias, and even if they will produce it in such a manner that the ambiguity masks the internal contradictions, it will soon become literally impossible to reconcile that which all three teach. And that will be on account of the cognitive filters/individual biases of the target audience. And the reason being is that there will be no single point of reference that can provide the context for that which the listeners are hearing.
Think of it as: no way for the Faithful to calibrate their cognitive filters to correct for their individual biases.
Now going further, let’s say that it is decided that one “active pope” is not enough since.. you know… two brains are better than one… (which is objectively correct) and the Petrine Office “evolves” into the Petrine Politburo, with 15 “popes”. Now, the case can be made that a committee can make better decisions than a single entity within that committee. Yet, every member of that committee will now have the “god of surprises” inspiring magisteria which will be the result of a cognitive process derived through the filters of each individual’s “perspectives”, defined by their temperament, along with a whole host of biases, such as the confirmation bias and the normalcy bias. What this means is that without a pre-defined framework, it will be virtually impossible to reconcile these 15 magisteria.
Now, for the more prescient readers, you will notice that this is not something that is new. And it isn’t. What I have just described is the FRACTIONIZATION PROCESS that the protestant sects underwent post-Luther.
Yes?
Luther became a “pope” and then Cranmer became a “pope”… and then Jim and Tammy Bakker became bi-“popes”. You get the drift… Anyways, by last count, there are 35,000 registered protestant sects in the United States alone.
Concluding, I would like to leave you dear reader off with this thought. Our Lord, being God, knew full well about the NATURAL PROCESS known as FRACTIONIZATION since he created it. This is most likely the reason why He instituted the Petrine Office as an office that is occupied by ONE individual, i.e. the descendant of St. Peter.
The proof that Our Lord instituted the Petrine Office as one that is SOLELY occupied by ONE individual is the chaos that ensued with the protestant sects post the Luther rebellion and their current 35,000 registered “religions”.
The scientific restatement of the above would be: FRACTIONIZATION PROCESS contains a FATAL FLAW!
Therefore, regardless of whether Pope Benedict intentionally resigned or unintentionally resigned, because he continues to wear the white tunic, continues to sign himself “Benedictus XVI, pope emeritus,” continues to live “in the enclosure of Saint Peter,” continues to have himself called “Holiness” and “Holy Father.”, is PROOF POSITIVE that he has not resigned the Petrine Office and still occupies it.
For those who still need more convincing, at the top of this post is embedded a video explaining the FRACTIONIZATION PROCESS that is at the root of the problem of the “intersectionality” disciplines at the universities.
Same problem, same results…
And the problem is FATAL!
I will have more to say on this in a follow up post.
Have a nice weekend.
The Deus Ex Machina Blog 
the reason this resignation is null and void is because a “bifurcated” Petrine Office does not exist as an Ontological Reality.
To be devil’s advocate – it is a given that a bifurcated Petrine Office does not exist. But why does the invalidity of the resignation attach to the portion relinquished rather than the portion retained? For example assuming object A cannot be split, why does “I give you A, but retain x portion of A” (knowing or being mistaken that A can be portioned) invalidate the transfer of A, rather than merely invalidating the retention of x of A? There are only 2 possibilities: (1) A is transferred in whole, and no portion of A is retained, or (2) none of A is transferred. So why 2 rather than 1?
LikeLike
To give a somewhat analogous situation – it is (or was) very common in deeds in the southern US to contain restrictions on transfer to persons of particular races. However, those restrictions or covenants are no longer valid – which is another way of saying, they do not have existence. If I transfer a piece of land, but wish to “retain” the power to restrict future transfers only to persons of a certain race, that power does not exist – it cannot be done. However, the transfer occurs, including the power to later transfer without restriction. The purported “retention” is invalidated, not the transfer of the property.
LikeLike
To play devil’s advocate devil’s advocate (and maybe answer my own question):
What is purportedly being transferred itself does not exist. Unlike the property example (where the land itself does exist but the prohibited restriction does not), a binodal Petrine office itself does not exist, i.e., there is nothing to transfer and therefore the transfer itself is invalid (or maybe more accurate to simply say nothing was transferred). To transfer the “active ministry” of a non-existent binodal papacy is similar to transferring the rainbow farts of a non-existent unicorn. Nothing is transferred because what was transferred has no existence (or is purely imaginary).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll take a stab at this. The components of the papacy do exist, including the Active Ministry of the papacy. It’s part of what a pope does. So the thing purportedly being transferred does exist, but it can’t be split off and transferred on its own, as part of an imagined “expanded petrine ministry.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That makes sense. My struggle (because I simply do not know canon or ecclesiastical law, or how or by whom it is interpreted, or sufficient Latin) is whether the prohibition on “splitting and transferring on its own” invalidates the transfer or the retention. One or the other is invalidated. I suppose it depends upon how the resignation is characterized – as an attempted transfer of a part of the ministry or a transfer, and then an attempt to retain a portion. If the former (which I am beginning to lean towards) then it would make sense the attempted transfer is invalid. If the latter, then a transfer could be effected, and what is invalidated is the attempted retention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the law itself, the result of any invalid act is that the situation reverts to the status quo. Benedict is pope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The Catholic Blogosphere 12/2/18 – The Catholic Maniple
2018.06.28 Concistoro CPF
The ontological reality is that there can only be one
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pope.
Viva Il Papa Benedetto!
¡Viva!
It’s First Saturday Good Folks which reminds me not only that I gotta get Mass—but that. . .
It’s Francis or Fatima!*
* You know as in the Fatima prophecy of a False Pope—an apparent pope—leading the masses into Hell—which, of course we know from the neuveaux-faux-papal teaching, doesn’t exist. !
Thank goodness Francis came along after two millennia to let the Church know.
LikeLike
The language is very simple…….cannot confuse, nor deceive.
Dear TIA,
Does your monthly Traditional Mass includes Pope Francis in the Canon?
Many thanks,
L.D.
______________________
TIA responds:
Dear L.D.,
Yes, it does. The priest prays by name for Pope Francis: Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Francisco
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_M092_Life.html
https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2018/9/18/finding-peace-in-the-crisis-part-i
https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2018/11/9/finding-peace-in-the-crisis-part-ii
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hilana1954–What do you think it means–relative to the discussion here–that TIA recognizes Pope Francis in the Traditional Mass?. It seems to me this action is merely a legal and official position required by Canon law. What we are dealing with in this discussion is speculation on who is the valid Pope, Benedict or Francis. Since we have no authority to render a valid judgement on this issue we must accept that Pope Francis is the official Pope, which is what his mention at Mass means. Naturally, in good conscience we need not personally and privately accept him as Pope–but officially and publicly we must. Do you agree Halina? Do you agree Sam?
LikeLike
No Michael I cannot agree to that. Are you willing to assent to in any way or follow one step a man with a Stang in his hand?
As Aqua says you must discern and follow the truth. While you and I may lack the official wherewithal to declare Francis Anti-Pope we needn’t fret about that. We’re sheep who can and must discern the voice of the Shepherd.
And it ain’t Bergoglio.
There’s a stubbornness to truth. Just state it in all humility and let the chips fall where they may. That’s why the Vatican Politburo and Bergoglio hisself wigs out when anyone simply states the truth in any way regarding his false teaching preaching and office.
Rejoice O Virgin Mary alone thous hasta destroyed all heresies!
LikeLike
“No Michael I cannot agree to that. Are you willing to assent to in any way or follow one step a man with a Stang in his hand?”
Perhaps you misunderstand my position. The fact I admit that Pope Francis is the legal and official Pope has nothing to do with my own judgement that is a bad Pope and not to be followed. Of course, I am not “willing to assent to in any way or follow one step a man with a Stang in his hand?”
LikeLike
Francis is not legal.
That’s the whole point of the ontological reality. This man is not the true pope.
He’s occupying the Seat via a usurpation. He is a de facto pope but not a de jure pope. ‘Pope’ in fact as in acting pope but not by right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BrotherB–Pope Francis is the official Pope That is a fact. In a court of law and in the court of general public opinion he is the Pope. Seems to me this point cannot reasonably challenged. You are only making a claim that Pope Francis is not the Pope. It is your personal opinion and perhaps shared by others. You may be correct, as I think you are, but what I think and you think is irrelevant to the official legal position that Pope Francis was elected Pope. It yet to be officially proved that he is not Pope even though “ontologically” he is not. In other words, when the Pope is blessing during Mass he is blessed as being the official Pope. Everyone should agree he is the official Pope as it is merely a recorded fact.
LikeLike
Ontology is the only thing that matters. We are talking about the nature of a thing. To focus on acceptance, “official pope until proven antipope”, or anything else, has zero bearing on the reality on the ground in real time. Reality is reality.
LikeLike
The ontological reality of “Pope” Francis is the uncertainly about his legitimacy.
LikeLike
Exactly correct.
At the end of the day, the Benedict “resignation that wasn’t” will have to be reconciled with reality.
LikeLike
I suppose you could think of it this way – Francis is the putative Pope. Much like I can enter into a contract with a provision that is illegal (or unenforceable), I do not have to perform that portion that I know is unenforceable. However, the other party could take me to court, and until the judge (properly constituted authority) rules it is unenforceable, I have no way of forcing the other party to acknowledge the unenforceability of that provision. However, that does not mean I had to believe or act as though it was ever enforceable. Likewise, I do not have to believe or act as though Francis is Pope if I know him not to be – but i can’t really force others to acknowledge that (yet).
Or, say you had actual hard evidence that Obama’s election was illegal (i.e., you have his birth certificate showing he was born in Thailand). Regardless of the fact he won more votes and was sworn in, it does not change the fact he is not legally the president. Even if everyone acts as though he was; even if they ignore your evidence.
LikeLike
C’mon Michael. Use logic. If there can only be one Pope; and Benedict never renounced the papacy but just some of the trappings—the appearances and accidents of the papal office to use Thomist & Aristotelian terms—
Ergo Benedict is still pope. To say you agree that that is the ontological reality is to say you agree. Ontological means being—at root; at the level of being; the deepest reality.
So if Benedict is the Pope, no othe man living may be the pope.
Ergo, Francis is not the pope. Whatever you dress him up like.
And thank the good God for that!
LikeLike
It is best to stop this discussion. I agree with you on your terms as part of a philosophical speculation. Nonetheless, Pope Francis is the official de facto Pope of the Catholic Church in the mind of most folks. I agree he may not be the rightful de jure Pope.
LikeLike
Christ promised that the inheritor of St. Peter was granted the grace to “bind and loose” between heaven an earth …. for the Pope. Not an antipope.
I completely agree with you on the objective, legal status of Pope Francis “in the eyes of Canon Law*. That is why I still call him Pope. The Church would have to rule in the negative for that to change. That may not happen for generations. Likely not in my lifetime. In the eyes of the Church, it is so (as you say).
But …… *In the eyes of God*.
Well, I cannot believe that God and heaven above is held in the powers of an antipope; subject to his personal and infernal will, whether declared formally antipope by the Church yet or not. God sees an antipope, or valid Pope ruling His Church infinitely better than we ever can. Grace is withheld from one – bountifully bestowed upon the other; “binding and loosing” a product of that Grace-filled relationship between St. Peter’s heir and Almighty God.
*An antipope binds and looses nothing*; which is what I care about as a faithful Catholic. Heaven remains pristine as antipope declares heretics to be Saints and commands heresy be devoutly followed among the living on their way to judgement.
My job as a Catholic is to determine: according to my properly formed conscience and the Holy Spirit inspired light available to all Catholics, and subject to Scripture and the Deposit of Faith: In the eyes of God Pope or antipope. It would be *helpful* for the Church to declare his antipope-Pope status correctly. It is *not essential* for me that it do so.
I can see what I see; know what I read and hear. I have no excuse before a God for following an antipope and submitting to antipope heresy, even if the Church declares incorrectly and proposes all subsequent heresy as sacred doctrine to be followed devoutly.
As in OT Times, there were Prophets and false prophets. No Jew had an excuse of following the False. They were judged like the False Prophets themselves. I choose Jeremiah, all alone, down there in the fetid cistern, as the whole nation and anointed King himself is against him in judgement. God was with him. Against them.
LikeLike
The key connection between the promise to St. Peter – binding and loosing, heaven and earth” – is that St. Peter is mystically connected to God in Heaven. How? Through the contemplative munus of prayer and suffering. The one portion of the Papal ministry Pope Benedict XVI refused to relinquish. Unlike any other human on earth, the Pope is spiritually connected directly to the angels, our Blessed Mother, the Holy Trinity – through that essential munus.
I have always felt this is the most important portion of the Papal Munus (physical/spiritual … government/prayer). Governance is important from the human, earthly level. It is obvious, practical. Of great importance to a leftist like Bergoglio. But without the contemplative munus, the Pope is a mere functionary; a (very powerful) bureaucrat.
Benedict kept that. By his words. By his actions.
Pope Benedict could have chosen to return to Bavaria as Fr./Cardinal Ratzinger and lived out his remaining years in *private prayer and contemplation* in his mountain villa. He insisted that he publically remain in prayer and contemplation within the enclosure of St. Peter, his connection to the contemplative munus an “always and forever” that “he was by no means revoking”. He insisted he keep it *as Pope*.
And so: that explains the disaster of the Bergoglian “pontificate”. He is disconnected from heaven above. He is binding and loosing nothing. He is signing papers and commanding action from a human level, not mystical, not guided by the Divine. His is a constant stream of heresy emanating from the Vatican, promoting perverts and sodomites around him to carry out his programs (objectively true).
And we are thus left with two options:
1: Resisting and rebelling against every one of our Pope’s heretical innovations as spiritually deadly poison; perhaps making fun of our “Holy Father” for doing so, and calling him horrible names (as some do).
2: Recognize the reality that he is no Pope but antipope and is just doing what comes naturally to any antipope led by infernal forces rather than heavenly.
I have chosen option 2. And I will promote it as the only sane and effective way to return to reality grounded in heaven above.
This disastrous Papal bifurcation must be recognized now and condemned, for our sake but also for the future. It is doing violence to the order of the Kingdom of God to have a bifurcated dual-role Papacy. And if we do nothing, it will be passed on and replicated. This is for *us* to do, *now*. Not some future unfortunate generation of uncatechised “Catholics” drowning in the heresy we bequeathed to them. Who wants to let generations of kids go to hell waiting for Clerics to figure this out someday (if ever)? Not I. My own soul hangs in the balance too.
It is acedia to say it is a job for someone else to recognize, declare, do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Awesome analysis. . . . I’m going to study on this.
It’s Acedia, Fatima or Francis.
Viva Il Papa! Viva Benedetto!
LikeLike
Indeed. Viva Il Papa! Viva Benedetto!
He who is connected to heaven in prayer and suffering as Pope is, as it has always been, Il Papa.
LikeLike
Verdad.
LikeLike
Non Veni Pacem was kind enough to forwarded this doc to yours truly. It is very informative and supplements your analysis.
Aside, if we look at ontological reality as being comprised of the natural and supernatural, the supernatural analysis is what you provide in your comment above. If I had to make a bet, it would be that this will be the prosecutorial line of reasoning at the future trial and condemnation of Bergoglio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxeIwML8J8roZmljNWxEMUEtSGF0RlpvZnJURndOWEJkeXpj/view
LikeLike
Yes. I read that from another blog discussion as well.
I concur, responded in some detail along those lines to Michael Dowd, above.
Thanks!
LikeLike
Aqua……I have send your comment (above) to a ‘soldier of Jesus Christ’, who has been in the ‘trenches’ of fighting the good fight, from the time of the ungodly Vietnam War…….his response is for the ‘humble’ not ‘proud’……nevertheless…….
“This is more diabolical disorientation from trad ranks intended, by the Devil who inspires it, to further confuse, divide, unhinge, discourage and neutralize Catholics who should all be united in the faith and in the same combats for the faith instead of off “chasing rainbows.”
…… who are somewhere in between these others who now claim they KNOW with dogmatic certainty that Benedict is still pope and Francis an anti-pope.
“All of the above have this in common: they are Protestants and liberals inasmuch as they put private opinion above Church teaching.
“We should be wise, prudent and firm enough in our faith to reject all of the above and to have NOTHING to do with them. They are not friends of God, no matter how orthodox or holy they pretend to be. They poison people’s minds with their ridiculous theories. They are a serious threat to the cause of Christ the King and Mary our Queen. They have become bored following the “straight and narrow path.” They are casualties in this great war between God and Satan.”
Jesus Maria Joseph I love You, save souls!
LikeLike
“They are not friends of God, no matter how orthodox or holy they pretend to be. ”
Yet those who deny the 2000 year continuous teaching of the Church and every Pope up to B16 on adultery, Hell, eternal damnation, Jesus sinning, Mary doubting God, etc. ARE friends of God? I guess then for God the old saying is true, with Friends like tem, who needs enemies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly.
We know False Prophets (OT versions of antipopes) by their fruits.
Jews had no excuse to follow False Prophets into error from Law and sacrelige.
Catholics have no excuse to follow antipopes into error Fromm Law, profanation and sacrelige.
LikeLike
You and your friend are as wrong as can be.
Pope Francis does not equal Church teaching.
Sacred Tradition stands objectively outside of any Pope. Pope Francis is responsible for guarding, promoting advancing Sacred Tradition. That is his only job. I stand *squarely, securely* inside Sacred Tradition. I care only about that and all the collected Saints who stand with me in accord with it, passing it on to those who follow us.
By Pope Benedict XVI’s own words and demonstrated by his own actions he has remained within the enclosure of St. Peter in the contemplative Papal munus of prayer and suffering. He “by no means revokes that”, which “is always and forever”.
That is impossible. There can only be one Pope at a time with one Munus which combines governance and contemplation.
I do not accept a bifurcated Papacy. I do not accept a Pope “Emeritus” in possession of the essential Papal munus of prayer and suffering. I challenge you or your friend to show where in Sacred Tradition anything like this has occurred. Where is the justification in Sacred Scripture in the words of Christ? Where have we seen two Popes co-consecrating Cardinals?
I would say in reverse: any who depart from Sacred Tradition are the Protestants. That would include antipope Francis. It would also include those who accept him, his alterations and departures. You, Not I, have to explain how a Pope can advance a praxis which promotes Popes Emeritus and now sodomites and unrepentant sinners into communion with our Lord.
Stand firmly within Sacred Tradition, trust me. That is all I care about. Because that is where God is.
LikeLike
Pingback: Canon212 Update: St. Newman and St. Lev: Would You Lie Down For the False Resistance? – The Stumbling Block
“Tunic”?
LikeLike
It’s a translation from Italian.
LikeLike
Sam, your quote from Ganswein contains a common mis-translation that I see quite often. He did not say, “almost a shared ministry”, he said “a quasi shared ministry. Quasi = Seemingly. The fuller context of this passage is here: (Diane Montagna translation, with the wording in question also in the original German):
“Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst); as though, by this, he wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then Joseph Ratzinger took as archbishop of Munich and Freising and which he then naturally maintained as bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis,” which means “fellow workers in the truth.” In fact, it is not in the singular but the plural; it is taken from the Third Letter of John, in which in verse 8 it is written: “We ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers in the truth.””
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. The “almost a shared” ministry never fit, but I didn’t want to go down the subjective interpretation route.
Aside, great work. I would just point out that, as per my post, INTENT is not an issue.
I went down this route initially due to +Ganswein’s Greg speech and his citation of the “state of exception” (necessity). But after thinking about it, the ontological explanation is bullet proof.
Thoughs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In a certain way, intent doesn’t matter. Vis, whether or not Benedict intended to split the papacy, and whether or not he thought it possible, and whether or not he thinks he succeeded, and whether or not he even intended to succeed (he may have devised the plan specifically in order to retain the papacy in secret to protect the office from the wolves)… in all of these scenarios, the effect is the same: Benedict is Pope. But that is not the same as saying intent doesn’t matter; whether he did it out of error or on purpose doesn’t change the end result, but it is not meaningless.
LikeLike
Correct. I meant it strictly as to whether it affects the status quo.
LikeLike
I agree with you entirely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, very good Sam.. So Ann the Barnhardt is correct. Benedict is still Pope but his thinking is at odds with Christ’s teaching. Nice to know but there is little we can do except pray and disseminate this theory.
This theory raises that question about the entire validity of the post-councilar Church. Maybe no Pope was validly elected since Pius XII. This is the sedevacnatist’s argument which is reasonable but not entirely persuasive.
Nonetheless, since Vatican II has been a catastrophe for the Church—and was intended to Protestantize the Church by it’s subversive elements–Vatican II should be abrogated in it’s entirety. That is my position. Few agree with me. Maybe I’m wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Little we can do” … except orient ourselves to the reality of the situation we are in, and act accordingly. No, we cannot “solve” the problem. Yes, we can react correctly to the problem; after first correctly diagnosing what the problem is.
Fail to first diagnose properly, then the cure cannot be correct.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry. This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.”
“Cardinal Brandmüller rightly judged as unintelligible the attempt to establish a sort of contemporaneous parallelism of a reigning Pope and a praying Pope. “A two-headed Pope would be a monstrosity”[11], says Cardinal Brandmüller, who adds: “Canon Law does not recognize the figure of a Pope Emeritus” (…) “The resignee, consequently”, “is no longer Bishop of Rome, not even a cardinal.”[12] (Dr. Roberto de Mattei)
https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2018/4/10/tu-es-petrus-true-devotion-to-the-chair-of-saint-peter
Tu es Petrus: True Devotion to the Chair of Saint Peter
http://www.jesus-eucharistie.org/en/serm/satan_saint_siege.htm
Father Huang (FSSP) said during the sermon that if we said that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not the Pope, then from now on,
“I ask you not to come back here anymore”.
In every SSPX Chapel hangs on the wall the picture of Pope Francis……
‘Resistance’ (Bp. Williamson), says Pope Francis is the pope……
Are all of the above idiots???
Should Catholics still doubt, and seek the so-called ‘wisdom’ of Ann Barnhardt, or Jordan Peterson, or perhaps ‘sedevacantists?……Miserere, Domine!
LikeLike
halina1954. Would you accept the idea that Bergoglio might be an illegitimate Pope to whom we own no obedience to his heretical musings and statements? This would be based on his flawed election and due to the coercion placed on Benedict to resign. To me this theory makes more sense supporting that Bergoglio is not the Pope. Comment?
LikeLike
Michael, the above links (people worthy of trust) that I provided are my guide……Francis is a Pope, regardless…..
Do I think that Pope Francis is a good pope…..NO!!!
…… but I do pray for him…..God is his Judge!
I have to work out my own salvation in fear and trembling…….
LikeLike
He is Pope who does not retain the contemplative munus of prayer and suffering.
Pope Benedict XVI specifically retained that. That is why he remains where he is. It is not that he can’t afford his own place. He remains there for mystically profound reasons.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Can’t figure it out how did I click ‘like’ on your comment…..for I do not believe what you do.
LikeLike
The first quote you cited is wrong. I have not seen one person advocate that the Petrine office is sacramental and therefore indelible. In fact, if that were the case, why would provisions for Papal resignation exist in Canon law at all? It’s a straw man.
Cardinal Brandmuller’s quote deals with intent, not process, which is adequately refuted by this essay in my opinion.
Father Huang is impetuous and should spend some time with a more seasoned, wise, older priest. You don’t stand at the pulpit and instruct your sheep to leave. That’s the exact opposite of his vocation. If he believes that certain of his flock are confused or wrong headed about an issue of import, it is his duty to invite them for consultation and genuinely pastoral guidance, not tell them to hit the road. His presentation was appalling and impeaches him as an authority.
What hangs in SSPX chapels is irrelevant as it has no bearing on what is or what isn’t the truth. Neither does the opinion of Bp. Williamson. Not every opinion he has is accurate, which could be said of us all.
You’re appealing to authority.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The first quote that Halina posted is from Dr Mattei. What he is saying is that the only way it makes sense what Benedict did and continues to do, so it would seem, is that Benedict himself believes that the papacy confers an indelible character… something that is clearly erroneous but would indeed explain many words and actions from Benedict.
LikeLike
Yes Benedict’s Thinking is at odds with reality.
Meanwhile Hallina I wouldn’t advise you follow a so-called pope with a Stang in his hand. Pray for Francis yes. Even AntiPopes need prayers. But for his conversion not his intentions. And if that works, and Francis converts, Lord be praised.
But that still wouldn’t make him Pope.
Fr. Huang does not speak for the FSSP and is respectfully way out of his depth. I have FSSP priests here in New York/New Jersey who were saying Bergoglio’s an anti-Pope five years ago.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I believe that when one has no more argument to make and stands perplexed as their logic and base premises lie shredded and tattered at their feet, is to raise their voice in anger, sometimes resort to profanity, declare the debate decided and over, ask their interlocutor to leave and not return.
A confident person, in command of the facts and the base premise, is willing to go on forever for the sake of a confused person; for the sake of a “lost” person. In the case of a Catholic, they can literally carry on forever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Truth is an objective (ontological) reality. It defends itself. The observability of Truth is what makes it fatal to the existance of error.
That is why Pope Benedict did what he did in the humble opinion of this humble blogger. He knows that Truth will defend itself… eventually.
All else is theater…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes. Have always believed that. More, lately.
And whether he did or did not, does not change the basic fact that Truth defends itself eventually.
History belongs to God. We are just actors in the play.
LikeLike