Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: “Juridical Validity” of Pope Benedict’s Attempted Partial Resignation  (Read 2460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4283
  • Reputation: +1963/-236
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How is there any ambiguity in this:
    I guess it's another example of people seeing what they want to see.
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +39/-4
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    How is there any ambiguity in this:

    "For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."

    Except from the comment I copied above, the person has put in bold what they claim is "a more precise translation" of Benedict's Declaratio (not saying I'm certain either way):

    Quote
    8For this reason well aware of the seriousness of this act with full freedom I declare that I abdicate with regard to the ministry (Abl. of Respect)/I excuse/exempt myself from the ministry (Dative)9-10 of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th day of April 2005 in such a way that from the 28th day of February 2013, at the hour 20:00, the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter could be vacant [provided/if the See of Peter be vacant]11 and that a Conclave would have to be convoked12 by these whose competence it is.


    However, the main point being made is, one cannot validly resign an office by renouncing only its ministry (active exercise of the duties of the office), and that is what Benedict attempted to do.



    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +39/-4
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • [Reposting this since I noticed the author has included additional information and hyperlinks within.]

    https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/

    The Validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation must be questioned
     
    by The Editor

    by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

    Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Bux publicly opined that the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI should be studied in regard to the question of what appears to be substantial error in the formula of resignation.

    Msgr. Bux was not the first to raise this issue. There was a very noteworthy study published by a Professor in canon law at the Theological Institute of Legano, Switzerland, in 2014 by Fr. Stefano Violi, which discussed canonically the renunciation: The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience, without, however, raising the question of its invalidity. (Its a must read on account of its rich citation to the canonical history of papal resignations.)

    However, on June 19, 2016, Anne Barnhardt raised specifically the question of a doubt arising from canon 188, which cites substantial error as sufficient grounds to establish the grounds for a canonical determination of invalidity in any resignation. She did this following the remarkable comments by Pope Benedict’s personal Secretary on May 20th earlier, in which he claimed that Benedict still occupied the Papal Office.

    Msgr. Henry GracidaBishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, in the United States, and a former member of Opus Dei, has also sustained this same doubt and others regarding the validity of the resignation. I understand that the Bishop has written many members of the Sacred Hierarchy and Curia about these matters urging action be taken (He suggests a public declaration by 12 pre-Bergoglian Cardinals).

    According to Ann Barnhart, in the following year, Attorney Chris Ferrara and Mrs. Anne Kreitzer also sustained this same doubt. The historian Richard Cowden Guido opined the same on May 11, 2017. And, the famous Italian controversialist, Antonio Socci quoted Violi at length on May 31, 2017 and sustained the same thesis.

    Finally, Pope Benedict XVI in his private letters to Cardinal Brandmueller openly asks for suggestions for a better way to resign, if he did not do it correctly.

    There being a number of notable Catholics sustaining this doubt, and since Msgr. Bux called for an investigation of this matter, I will add here in Scholastic Form, the arguments in favor of sustaining it, in course of which will refute all substantial arguments against it.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?[/font][/size]

    And it seems that he did not:

    1. First, because substantial error, in an act of resignation, regards the vis verborum, or signification of the words, as they regard the form and matter of the act.  But the act of renouncing a ministry regards one of the proper accidents of the office by which that ministry can be rightfully exercised.  Therefore, if one renounces a ministry, he does not renounce the office. And if he believes to have renounced the office, by renouncing one of the ministries, he is in substantial error as to the signification of the words he has used. But in the text, Non Solum Propter, Benedict XVI renounces the ministerium which he received as Bishop of Rome, when he was elected.  Therefore, to understand that act as a renunciation of the office is to be in substantial error as to the effect of the act. Therefore as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

    2. Saint Peter the Apostle exercised many ministries in many places. But no one is the real successor of Saint Peter except the Bishop of Rome (canon 331). If one renounces a petrine ministry, therefore, he does not renounce the office of Bishopric of Rome (cf. canons 331 & 332), who has other ministries in virtue of his office. Therefore, if one believes he has renounced the Bishopric of Rome by renouncing a petrine ministry, he is in substantial error, and thus as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

    3. According to Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 12) there are diverse graces, ministries and offices in the Church, inasmuch as the Church is the Body of Christ. Therefore, since the Bishop of Rome can exercise several of these ministries, it follows that one does not renounce the Bishopric of Rome if one renounces one of these ministries, since no one ministry is coextensive with the Bishopric of Rome. Ergo in such a renunciation, if one believes he has sufficiently signified the renunciation of the Bishopric of Rome, he is in substantial error. Therefore, as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.

    4. According to Seneca (Moral Essays, vol. 3, John W. Basore, Heineman, 1935), one must distinguish between benefices, offices and ministries. Benefices are that which are given by an alien, offices by sons, mothers and others with necessary relationships, and ministries by servants who do what superiors do not do.  The Petrine ministry is a service to the Church. But the office of the Bishop of Rome is a duty to Christ. If one renounces the ministry of a servant, he does not renounce the office of a son. Ergo in such a renunciation etc…

    5. The validity of an act of resignation cannot be founded upon the subjective definition of words, or the mere intention of the one renouncing. If that were the case, the interpretation would make the act an act of resignation. The act itself would not declare it. But the Church is a public society founded by the Incarnate Living God. Therefore, the renunciation of offices must be not only intentional but public, to give witness to the fact that the office was established by the Living and Incarnate God. But the office of the Bishop of Rome is such an office. Ergo in such a renunciation etc..

    6. As Msgr. Henry Gracida argues on his blog, abyssum.org: If Christ did not accept the resignation of Benedict as valid, because the act itself was not canonically valid per canon 188, then Christ would be obliged in justice to deprive Bergoglio of grace, so that his lack of being pope be MOST EVIDENT to all with Faith, Hope and Charity. But it is MOST EVIDENT to everyone, even non Catholics, that he has NOT the grace of God in him or in his actions. Ergo, either Christ is unjust, or Christ is just. He cannot be unjust. Ergo, Bergoglio is not pope!

    7. Christ prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail, and so that he could confirm his brethren in the Apostolic College. Now this prayer of Christ must be efficacious, since Christ is God and the Beloved Son of the Eternal Father, and because of the office of Saint Peter is not something merely useful to the Body of Christ, but necessary in matters of faith and unity. Therefore, Christ’s prayer for the Successors of Saint Peter must be efficacious in some manner as regards the faith and unity of the Church. But Bergoglio manifestly attacks both the faith and unity of the Church. Far be it, therefore, to judge that in this one man Christ’s prayer was not intended to be effective. Ergo, Bergoglio is not a valid successor of Saint Peter!

    8. From the text of the act of resignation. Pope Benedict admits in the first sentence that he holds the munus petrinum. But further down, he says he renounces the ministerium which he had received as Bishop of Rome. Therefore, he has not renounced the munus. But munus means office and gift of grace (cf. Canon 145 §1). Therefore, he has not stated that he has renounced the office and gift of grace. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

    9.From the sense of the Latin tongue, which lacks the definite and indefinite article. When you say: Renuntio ministerio, you do not say whether you have renounced the ministry or a ministry. Therefore, you leave unsaid what ministry you have renounced. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

    10.From the papal law Universi Dominici Gregison Papal elections:  One is not elected to the Petrine Ministry, but to be the Bishop of Rome.  Therefore, unless one renounce the Bishopric of Rome one has not vacated the See of Saint Peter. But in public statements Pope Benedict XVI after March 2013 says only that he has renounced the ministerium. Therefore, he is in substantial habitual error as regards what is required in an act of resignation of the office of the Bishopric of Rome.  Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

    11. From the Code of Canon Law:  Canonical resignations are valid if 3 things are valid: liberty from coercion, right intention, unambiguous signification. This is confirmed in canon 332, § 2 which expressly denies that the acceptance of a resignation affects is validity or non-validity. But Pope Benedict admits in his letters to Cardinal Brandmuellerthat his intent was to retain something of the Pontifical Dignity. His private secretary also publicly has affirmed that he occupies the  See of Peter. This is incontrovertible evidence that the act of resignation is ambiguous. For either it means he has renounced the See or has not renounced the See.  Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

    12. From Pneumetology, that is, from the theology of the Holy Spirit. After Feb 2013 the whole Church still recognizes and accepts Pope Benedict with the title of pope and with papal prerogatives. All call him Benedict, not Ratzinger or Joseph. But the whole Church cannot be deceived. Nevertheless, according to Divine Institution, the Papacy cannot be held by more than one person at one time. And he who holds it first, has the valid claim to the office. Therefore, the Church does not understand the act as one which renounces the office. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..

    13. From insufficiency of intention:  If a Pope renounces eating bananas, he has not renounced the office of Bishopric of Rome. Therefore, if he says, “I have renounced eating bananas, to vacate the See of Rome”, he is in substantial error as to the effect of his act.  But in his text of renunciation he says he has renounced the ministry so as to vacate the see of Saint Peter [ut sedes Sancti Petri vacet]. But that is a substantial error, since the ministry is only a proper accident of the Bishopric of Rome, for to be the Bishop of Rome is the first act of its being [esse primum], to exercise the ministries of the Bishopric of Rome is the second act of its being [esse secundum]. Therefore, since the second act of being is in potency to the first act, and potency is divided from act as accident to substance, to renounce a or all ministries of an office is an act regarding the accidents not the substance of the office. Therefore, one could just as well renounce any or all of its ministries and retain the office. Therefore, by renouncing a or the ministry he does not renounce the office. Indeed, in public statements, he explicitly affirms only to have renounced the ministry. Therefore, his insufficiency of expressed intention does not save the act from substantial error.  Therefore, in such a renunciation etc..
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    In summation:[/font][/size]

    Hence, it appears, that if a Pope were to intend to retire from active ministry, but retain the Papal Office in all its fullness, that he could just as well read out loud the statement made by Pope Benedict XVI, Non solum propter, since the vis verborum of that text is that he renounced the ministry of the office of the Bishop of Rome, but not the office. Herein lies the substantial error, and thus that act of Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 must be judged to be invalid, as per canon 188, if it be asserted to be an act of resignation of the office of Bishop of Rome. However, if one were to assert that it is only the act of renunciation of active ministry, not of office, then yes, it should be said to be a valid act, containing no substantial error.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    In Conclusion:[/font][/size]

    Though there can be many kinds of substantial error in an act of resignation, there is NONE more SUBSTANTIAL than the one which involves confusing the accidents of the office to be resigned as sufficient terms to signify the substance of the office itself. Now, according to canon 188, where substantial error is present in such an act, the act is invalid in its effect “by the law itself”. Therefore, the text of Non solum propter, of Benedict XVI does not effect validly his resignation from the office of the Bishopric of Rome. Wherefore, he is still the one and only and true Roman Pontiff.

    On which account, as a baptized Roman Catholic, Italian Citizen and legal resident of the City of Rome, I call upon the Italian Government to invoke its right, as a party to the Lateran Pact and its subsequent agreements, to convene the entire Clergy of the Diocese of Rome, to judge in tribunal, just as they did in A. D. 1046 at Sutri, at the command of the Germany King Henry III, the validity of the claim to office of Popes Benedict and Francis, namely, whether the act of renunciation of Benedict XVI was valid as to a renunciation of office, and if not, to declare the Conclave of 2013 canonically invalid ex radicibus.

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +39/-4
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/11/21/new-barnhardt-video-presentation-the-bergoglian-antipapacy/

    New Barnhardt Video Presentation: The Bergoglian Antipapacy
    (High Definition version will be available soon. See dedicated Top Menu page “Bergoglian Antipapacy” above.  More links and citations to come as the page is constructed.)



    TIMESTAMPS:
    0:00 Intro and acknowledgments
    01:42 Why make this video?
    03:25 If anything in this presentation is illogical, irrational or detached from reality, let me know
    05:03 THE False Premise: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope.
    06:48 WHY isn’t Bergoglio the Pope?  What happened?
    08:16 The principle of Reversion to the Status Quo
    11:37 Canon 188 – the text of the law
    16:09 The plain sense of the law is the last line of defense against tyranny
    18:04 SUBSTANTIAL ERROR: the key criterion
    19:51 Pope Benedict XVI in his own words: “Always and forever…I remain in the enclosure of St. Peter.”
    23:24 Essential precision: Pope Benedict’s mind is NOT the arbiter of reality, nor does his substantial error change the ontological reality of his status as Pope.
    25:47 We know from logic that a Pope can commit substantial error in the context of an attempted resignation and still retain his office
    27:18 Archbishop Georg Ganswein’s approved remarks from 20 May ARSH 2016 in his address at the Gregorianum in Rome
    35:02 There cannot be a “Pope Emeritus”.  Either a man occupied the Petrine See, or he does not.
    36:37 Yes, Popes absolutely CAN resign.  The issue here is the VALIDITY of the attempted partial resignation in February ARSH 2013
    37:44 +Ganswein. Who is this omnipresent guy that is playing both sides?
    38:35 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “But both Pope Benedict and +Ganswein are sub-verbal and don’t understand the words they are saying!”
    40:10 The most intelligent people (and angels) make the biggest mistakes
    41:13 The second invalidating criterion: FEAR
    43:00 Just vs. Unjust Fear
    45:28 Never underestimate the viciousness and violence of the sodomite.
    46:32 Satanism is real and its global nexus today is inside the Vatican
    48:41 Archbishop Viganò is in hiding for fear of his life.
    49:03 The Southern Italian Mafia: longtime mercenaries of the Freemasons and sodomites
    50:26 Fear of blackmail by the sodomite mafia using PAID false witnesses
    53:05 “Pray for me, that I may not FLEE for FEAR of the WOLVES.”
    54:22 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “The fact that Pope Benedict resigned is proof that he wasn’t coerced!”
    55:57 MASSIVE BODY OF VISUAL EVIDENCE, the conscious retention of visible signs of the Papacy by Pope Benedict XVI after 28 February ARSH 2013
    01:02:50 Prophecies: Apostasy from the Top
    01:05:17 Pope Benedict XVI, worst Pope ever, notorious for quitting.  The 300 page dossier on the sodomite/satanist infiltration of the Church, delivered to him on 11 December ARSH 2012
    01:07:15 Pope Benedict’s warped metaphysics of “meaning”, not “being”
    01:08:26 Pope Celestine V in the mind of Pope Benedict XVI
    01:09:12 Pope Benedict’s mind is NOT the source nor arbiter of reality.  He needs to be told this, not asked.
    01:09:54 VALID YET ILLICIT – an essential precision
    01:11:11 What anyone WANTS is not germane to the question. Binary objective reality.
    01:13:35 Charity should immediately cause us to ask, “Holy Father, what did they do to you?”
    01:14:55 What if Pope Benedict VALIDLY resigned tomorrow? It would confirm that the February ARSH 2013 attempt was invalid
    01:16:58 STUPID TROPE ALERT “We can’t know who the Pope really is, and it doesn’t matter anyway!”
    01:18:09 Why won’t people even discuss this? EFFEMICACY and SLOTH
    01:25:20 The Sedevacantism Red Herring
    01:30:00 “But what if Pope Benedict dies…?” Binary Objective Reality.
    01:31:58 “What is Bergoglio dies or goes away somehow?” Any “conclave” called while Pope Benedict is still alive and occupies the See will be invalid, just as the March ARSH 2013 conclave was invalid
    01:33:27 We MUST get thi 100% right.  Half-right won’t cut it. The Parable of the seven demons.
    01:35:00 Jorge Bergoglio
    01:36:33 Electioneering of ARSH 2013 “conclave” is completely irrelevant because THERE WAS NO CONCALVE IN ARSH 2013.  The only relevance the faux-concalve of ARSH 2013 served was to expose the corruption and criminality in the College of Cardinals and Curia
    01:38:43 Jorge Bergoglio: arch-heretic.  Informative but not germane to Bergoglio’s status as antipope. Only a confirming corollary.
    01:40:35 STUPID TROPE ALERT “There have been heretic Popes before!”
    01:44:17 Ann misspeaks – John the XXII, not John XXIII
    01:44:34 Bellarmine and Suarez believed that the Petrine Promise precluded a heretic or man who had lost the Catholic faith to be the Pope.
    01:46:27 Having faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and His promises is being viciously attacked on a daily basis by “conservative” and even “Trad Catholic” “thought leaders” as “papolatry”.  The only way to hold the false premise that Bergoglio is the Pope is to ruthlessly attack the Papacy, and thus the Virtue of Faith itself.
    01:48:20 Papolatry has NOTHING to do with the global cult of Bergoglio.  It is 100% ideological tribalism driven by the fact that Antipope Bergoglio RATIFIED PEOPLE IN THEIR SINS AND APOSTASY
    01:52:07 Attributes and characteristics of the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist
    01:53:30 MORE visible confirmations that Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope
    01:57:07 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “Papal Infallibility only applies to those things the Pope says that are true!”
    01:58:05 It is precisely the AUTHENTIC authority of the Papacy that will be needed to fix this mess – and everyday “conservative” and “Trad” Catholic “thought leaders” attack the Papacy in order to continue to hold their false premise that Bergoglio is the Pope.
    02:00:10 The concept of “Popular Acceptance”is NOT in play because the See was never vacant in ARSH 2013.  The Mob/Vox Populi can not change ontological reality.
    02:03:15 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “We believe that Novus Ordoism is a completely different religion to whose authority we MUST SUBMIT!”
    02:04:42 The mystery of how “even the Elect would be deceived…” We are living it. Right now. The Elect are being deceived.
    02:09:32 The greatest act of violence against the Papacy is to call a man who is not Peter, “Peter”.
    02:10:12 Antipope Bergoglio has ZERO AUTHORITY.  What will you do, Father, is Antipope Bergoglio tries to abrogate the Mass of the Ages?
    02:12:21 What to do? Speak up. Man up. Defend Pope Benedict! Fast and pray – Matthew 17:20 Initiative
    02:13:45 Deepen your relationship with Jesus Christ. “Jesus, I know that you love me.”
    02:14:57 Conclusion. Please mirror, copy and spread this video. Closing prayer.

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +39/-4
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I wonder...do you all think they will actually tell the world when Ratzinger dies?

    Good question. If Benedict is indeed the prophesied pope to flee Rome and die a cruel death in exile (prophecies of St. Pius X, Fatima, John of the Cleft Rock, etc.), then it's anyone's guess on whether or not we may actually know when he dies. However, in Yves Dupont's "Catholic Prophecy", it's worth considering his comment that was made in response to one of the prophecies listed in his book.


    Quote
    Comment: From this prophecy, it is clear that the true Church will be faithful to the Pope in exile; whereas, the new
    Pope in Rome will be, in fact, an anti-pope. But, since a
    number of other prophecies tell us that the true Pope will die
    in his exile, it follows then that the true Church will be lead-
    erless for some time. Then, it is not difficult to anticipate what
    the anti-pope and renegade hierarchy and clergy will say:
    "See, your so-called Pope is dead; and who can give you a
    new Pope now? Our cardinals have already elected the new
    Pope, he is here in Rome." And, indeed, since the true Church
    will be completely disorganized, and the faithful Cardinals iso-
    lated, no new true Pope could be elected, and thus a large
    number of Catholics will be misled into accepting the leader-
    ship of the anti-pope. Such a schism could not happen if the
    Pope followed A. C. Emmerick's advice "to stay in Rome".
    "But", she said, "the Pope is still attached to the things of the
    earth." And, as is said elsewhere, "He will want to save what
    he thinks can be saved." In other words, the true Pope, who-
    ever he is at that time, will use his human judgment and leave
    Rome, instead of remaining firm in the face of the invaders.

    I interpret "the anti-pope and renegade hierarchy and clergy" to be those leading the "false Church of darkness" (the coming One World Religion), distinct from the "new heterodox Church of Rome" (Vatican II sect) -- both prophesied by Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich.


    Also of interest:
    Quote
    |i 67. Helen Wallraff ( 19th century). "Some day a pope will
    flee from Rome in the company of only four cardinals . . .
    and they will come to Koeln [Cologne]."

    Comment: This prophecy lends credibility to what I have
    said before: only four cardinals will be with the Pope. The
    other faithful cardinals will be isolated in various countries,
    and unable to communicate because of the chaotic conditions
    prevailing then, and they will be in no position to elect a new
    Pope when the Pope of that time dies in his exile. As a result,
    the Roman anti-pope will be able to persuade many Catholics
    that he is the true Pope. This prophecy says that the Pope
    will come to Cologne (Koeln in German). There are others,
    too, which say that he will go to Germany; but many more
    insist that he will go overseas. Perhaps, he will go to Germany
    before going overseas.

    "Catholic Prophecy - The Coming Chastisement"
    https://archive.org/stream/CatholicProphecy/CatholicProphecy_djvu.txt


    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +39/-4
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://fatima.org/news-views/fatima-perspectives-1253/

    Thursday November 22nd, 2018
    Another Socci Bombshell on November 27
    by Chris Ferrara
    Fatima Perspectives #1253
    In my column of November 15 I noted the opinion of Monsignor Nicola Bux, no less than a former consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Benedict XVI, that it would be useful to “examine the ‘juridical validity’ of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation and ‘whether it is full or partial.’” This was Bux’s suggestion for addressing “problems that today seem insurmountable to us.’” Meaning the problems of a pontificate that seems to be devoted to undermining the constant teaching of the Church in several areas, flatly contradicting even the teaching of both Benedict and John Paul II.  How does one explain such a Pope given the promises of Christ concerning the indefectibility of His Church?

    Now, after months of almost total silence concerning this Pope, Antonio Socci emerges with a new book entitled “The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He is Still Pope” to be released on November 27 by Italy’s Rizzoli publishing house.  As Socci explains: “The Church is going through the most serious crisis in her history.  Why?  What really happened in 2013?  And what type of ‘renunciation’ is that of Benedict XVI? Why does he call himself ‘pope emeritus’? What is his current mysterious mission?”

    Rizzoli’s promotional blurb offers a tantalizing hint of the contents, suggesting that this will not be a mere rehash of the arguments that some, including Socci himself, have previously advanced for the invalidity of Benedict’s curiously worded resignation:

    Quote
    “The author conjectures that that there could be supernatural events at the origin of his [Benedict’s] decision. Then there is the deciphering of an ancient prophecy concerning Benedict XVI and finally a new revelation which arrives from Fatima. That regards not only the Church, but the whole world.”
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    What I said concerning the view expressed by Msgr. Bux I say as well concerning this new book of Socci’s, which I expect to review for The Fatima Center: I have no comment on the merits of the contention that Benedict is in some way or other still the Pope — a contention made possible only by the ambiguous and confusing manner in which he resigned the papacy by declaring “I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome” only to retain his papal title, papal garb, and residency in the Vatican.  Nothing like this has ever been seen in 2,000 years of Church history.

    What I would say is this: that sober and highly intelligent observers of the ecclesial scene like Bux and Socci are driven to such speculations, and driven as well to air them publicly, is symptomatic of the utterly astounding behavior of the current occupant of the Chair of Peter, who seems, incredibly enough, intent on attacking rather than defending the Church of which he is the earthly head.

    Both of these men are grappling in good faith with an historical realization of the hypothetical scenario described by Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, in response to the claim that a wayward Pope may be deposed by his subjects for the same reason that, in self-defense, they could kill a Pope who unjustly aggressed against them with deadly force:
    [/font][/size]

    Quote
    “I respond firstly by denying the consequent, because no authority is required to resist an invader and defend oneself, nor is it necessary that the one who is invaded should be a judge and superior of the one who invades; rather, authority is required to judge and punish. Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so is it lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter, and John de Torquemada. [Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press: 2015), p. 303.]”
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    To one who regards as outlandish the claim that Pope Francis is endeavoring to destroy or at least seriously harm the Church (no matter what his subjective intentions, which are for God to judge), I would respond by quoting Francis’ own words in Evangelii Gaudium (n. 27):
    [/font][/size]

    Quote
    “I dream of a ‘missionary option’, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation.”
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    When has the Church ever witnessed the spectacle of a Pope who sees an opposition between his “dream” and the Church’s self-preservation, which he openly declares he is prepared to risk for the sake of his “dream”? Perhaps Socci’s book will shed new light on how we have arrived at this absolutely unprecedented state of affairs — a state of affairs the Blessed Virgin cannot have failed to mention in Her still-suppressed explanation of the visional aspect of the Third Secret of Fatima.[/font][/size]

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +39/-4
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not on Twitter, but have been reading the "Veri Catholici" account for a few days now. Some may find it of interest in regards to the topic of this thread. 

    https://twitter.com/vericatholici?lang=en

    Offline hismajesty

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 174
    • Reputation: +95/-290
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let's get somethings clear here.

    -The Pope has the right to resign. The Pope has done so in the past, and it is outlined very clearly in the law and practice of the Church.

    -Secondly, and most importantly, he is the supreme legislator of the Church. He can dispense/override parts of the law if he so wishs. If he does want to be Pope, one cannot force him. It is not a sacrament which leaves a mark. It is an office of Church. His priesthood will never go away.
    "....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another" - Church Father Lactentius on the globe earth


    Offline BTNYC

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2397
    • Reputation: +2684/-11
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How is there any ambiguity in this:

    Yes, the wording of the declaration of abdication was clear and unambiguous. There was also a subsequent statement of reiteration from the "pope emeritus" that was absolutely airtight. In fact, these statements are notable for a clarity which is otherwise all but nonexistent in conciliar church documents and pronouncements. Nice to know they're still capable of it, when it suits their needs.

    However, it's not at all inconceivable that Benedict was strong-armed out by the sodomite cabal. In fact, knowing what we now know about how extensive the queer infestation of the curia is, and in light of statements like "pray for me that I do not flee for fear of the wolves," it seems all but certain that Benedict's brand of "conservative" Hegelian dialectic modernism (complete with the outer trappings of a traditional pope) became intolerable for the "fruits of Vatican II" in the curia, who, wanting to see their perversion receive the same stamp of approval from the Church that it was rapidly receiving in the secular forum, brought to bear every weapon of coercion at their disposal to get Ratzinger to abdicate. Presumably, if they could successfully pressure him to renounce the papacy, they would see to it that the pronouncements effecting that renouncement would be sufficiently clear and unambiguous.

    So, short of an armed extradition / liberation of the aged "pope emeritus" from the clutches of the sodomite cabal that is presumably holding him prisoner, the sedebenediceplenists really have no options open to them. Their only real hope now lies in Bergoglio's own abdication - or death - and the election of another "conservative" modernist in the Ratzingerian mold.  I don't see that happening, though. Nor should anyone hope for it, in my opinion. The Bergoglian pontificate has been a blessing in disguise, shocking many a stultified neocath into cognizance by merely rapidly bringing many conciliar errors to their logical conclusions. To use a metaphor appropriate to the subject, the conciliar church, under Bergoglio, went from a half-century long period of HIV infection, with outward symptoms too subtle to be noticed by the average untrained eye, to full-blown, bedridden, skeletal, sarcoma-lesioned AIDS, impossible to ignore, and horrifying enough to render more than a few wayward souls "scared straight." Before long, I trust that even some of the sedebenediceplenists will abandon their nostalgia for the "glory days" of 1978 - 2013, and come to the realization that nothing short of a full-scale restoration of Catholic Tradition will suffice, and that the impending death of the bedridden, AIDS-infected imposter church is necessary to bring about that restoration.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4283
    • Reputation: +1963/-236
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Before long, I trust that even some of the sedebenediceplenists will abandon their nostalgia for the "glory days" of 1978 - 2013, and come to the realization that nothing short of a full-scale restoration of Catholic Tradition will suffice, and that the impending death of the bedridden, AIDS-infected imposter church is necessary to bring about that restoration.
    I actually don't think this will happen until another heretic "pope" (that is at least as bad as Bergoglio or worse) is elected within the impostor church.  I think there are way too many folks who still think this is only about Bergoglio...that he's merely a blip.
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15977
    • Reputation: +8644/-2873
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, the wording of the declaration of abdication was clear and unambiguous. There was also a subsequent statement of reiteration from the "pope emeritus" that was absolutely airtight. In fact, these statements are notable for a clarity which is otherwise all but nonexistent in conciliar church documents and pronouncements. Nice to know they're still capable of it, when it suits their needs.

    If nothing else, Benedict/Ratzinger still knew the traditional theological and canonical language of the Church; he had been well schooled in it.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15977
    • Reputation: +8644/-2873
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • However, it's not at all inconceivable that Benedict was strong-armed out by the sodomite cabal.

    This is certainly not impossible, that he was pressured out (but this has not been proven) ... though I highly doubt it was by the sodomites.  I found it rather disturbing the way he was looking at those nearly-nude male acrobats.  And I also found the nature of Ganswein's presence to be rather disconcerting.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15977
    • Reputation: +8644/-2873
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • it seems all but certain that Benedict's brand of "conservative" Hegelian dialectic modernism (complete with the outer trappings of a traditional pope) became intolerable for the "fruits of Vatican II" in the curia, who, wanting to see their perversion receive the same stamp of approval from the Church that it was rapidly receiving in the secular forum,

    That's possible, but I believed that his conservative Hegelian served its purpose well in lulling many Traditional Catholics into believing that he was a friend of Tradition.  But, then, when the reabsorption of the SSPX, IMO his chief mission in this conservative "good cop" act, failed, they felt that it was time to move on to Bergoglio.

    "Ratzinger, your main job was to re-absorb the SSPX, and you failed; time for us to move on."

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +39/-4
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/11/27/shut-up-they-explained-gaslighting-fake-news-and-the-bergoglian-antipapacy/

    “Shut up,” they explained: Gaslighting, Fake News, and the Bergoglian Antipapacy
    Posted onNOVEMBER 27, 2018
    If you have finally come to terms with at least investigating the Barnhardt Theory, or one of the many variants, congratulations. Please know that there are a whole lot of people who consider Jorge Bergoglio to be an antipope. If you are new to this blog, you can read around the dozens of posts on this topic to see where I stand. Look up Canon 188 and meditate on the foresight of the Substantial Error provision, which I’m convinced was Divinely inspired.
    The purpose of this post is to point out some of the unpleasantness for which you need to prepare yourself, as well as some common errors to guard against.
    First up: Casting aspersions.

    And then this past weekend, from an FSSP priest to his parishioners, tweeted out by Kansas Catholic: (emphasis mine)

    Quote
    “It has become fashionable in places to question both the validity of Pope Benedict’s papal resignation and the validity of Pope Francis’ papal election. Both of these suppositions have no clear basis in discernible reality and, within the context of what is clearly known, they border on insanity.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    These are examples of Gaslighting. No, you are not crazy. You are quite correct in examining the evidence and drawing conclusions. You are beginning with the true premise that all scripture is inerrant, including Matt 16:17-19, Luke 22:32, and you can’t help but invoke John 10:5, “They will not follow a stranger, but they will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”
    Do your research. Don’t be bullied. Don’t be intimidated.
    Then there is the Fake News blackout at nearly every mainstream and even “conservative” and trad sites. Sites that wont print any articles nor op/eds on the subject, and that comb their comboxes to delete any mention of what is really going on. Sites that publish commenting rules whereby strict censorship is promoted and enforced, like this:[/font][/size]

    Quote
    (Rule) 7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job… 
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    A direct corollary to this is the matter of “knowing your place,” aka “Shut up, you non-theologian laynothing.” Because yeah, the theologians, Catholic academics, cardinals and bishops are doing such a terrific job with everything. Speaking up, and all that. Bravo.
    Dymphna had a nice little riff on this kind of thing yesterday: HERE.[/font][/size]

    Quote
    Monsignor Nicola Bux is the theologian consultor of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in Rome but if you want to make him some stationery with his title on it I suggest you hurry because he probably won’t be there much longer. Msgr. Bux is questioning the validity of Pope Benedict’s abdication. He’s not the only one but instead of just moaning about it in private he’s made his query in public.
    A number of public Catholics (Ann Barnhardt uses the term “thought leaders”) have reacted poorly to Monsignor’s  doubts…These people say that the only thing we can do is wait for Francis to die and try to keep our Faith. They may have point but they go too far when they  the hurl the epithets, “rad trad”, “stupid”, “schizophrenic”, “weird” “unhelpful”  and “sedevacantist”  at people for not believing  or daring to doubt that  Benedict’s abdication was valid. When I think of all the heretical garbage  I’ve heard seen freely spewed about in these last few years alone I don’t see why this subject is taboo. Monsignor. Bux may be wrong but I’ve had enough of people telling us what we can’t even discuss in public.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Well said!
    Okay, now let’s move on to the law of unintended consequences. This happens when someone holds a conviction to be true because the data set seems to confirm it, but doesn’t think through the logical implications. The madness we are swimming in can make smart people operate in strange ways.I paste here a couple examples.

    This person thinks neither Benedict nor Bergoglio is pope (de facto sedevacantism). They think Bergoglio is an antipope because of his myriad heresies, but that he really was the pope at one point. Which means the See is currently vacant. But they don’t really want to say so, and they certainly don’t want to try to do anything about it. We have to “carry on” doing nothing, saying nothing. It doesn’t matter that millions of souls are at risk, either by losing their faith or by being ratified in their sins by this wretched regime. Better to lie low, you know.

    This person is taking the position of the Old Catholic movement: They reject the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined at the First Vatican Council. Since it doesn’t make sense that a true pope can be so very fallible, this person wonders if it is solemnly declared settled doctrine that’s wrong. Don’t do this. Don’t let the raging heresy of Bergoglio lead you to question previous magisterial teaching. Don’t become a heretic because a heretic “pope” is leading you to question everything you previously believed.
    Keep the faith.
    Don’t panic.
    God knows what He is doing, and He doesn’t keep the truth hidden.[/font][/size]

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +39/-4
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://cognitivegateway.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/true-pope-false-opposition/

    True Pope, False Opposition

    Posted onNovember 27, 2018by gladstone2

    New vigor surges in the veins of Catholics cognizant of the objective reality of regnant Pope Benedict XVI, a topic already too well-read and known by concerned pilgrims to warrant additional description here. Simple lessons can so glorify God in His perfect simplicity! No Pope has the authority to alter the nature of the Papacy. A pope renounces his office, or he does not. Truth, like well-honed steel, mows through the tangled web of conciliar lies.  What deserves further attention; in addition to authentic, restorationist resistance and leadership, is a greater understanding of how Catholics can recognize the horrendously, intentionally counterproductive effect of controlled opposition.

    Catholic Men Purporting to Lead: Please Mind the Maiden
    A perennial lesson of the ages is that when men of a realm fall into gross dereliction, Our Lord sends holy women to remind them of who they are. Reminder alert!



    Quote


    Real Deal: Portrait of Authentic Resistance and True Leadership
    All the hallmarks are present for Miss B:
    1. Speaking the truth precedes human respect.
    2. Zero financial interest.
    3. Open to new and creative means of fighting the fight.
    4. No Fear.
    5. Men will follow.
    6. Illegitimate power structure cannot ignore.
    7. Leaps with total abandon into the Wounded Hands of Our Savior.
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    Another rock solid personage appears below.
    [/font][/size]

    Veri Catholici: Latin for Catholic Men

    We also like this guy, linked here  and creativity shown here.Additionally and with great pleasure in reading his post written with both courage and clarity is Deus Ex Machina: https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/ockhams-razor-finds-benedict-still-pope-francis-is-false-pope-universal-church-in-state-of-necesity-since-24-april-2015/


    Of course, there are stalwarts on the Bergoglio side with whom we may now dispute, but whose authenticity is never in doubt. Read one word of what they publish week in and week out; there is no denying a Catholic mind and heart at work: Vox, Mundabor, Tancred at EF, TIA.  Readers will know many others. While brethren who may be mistaken, none of the above are trying to defend turf, subscribers, donations, or income. Catholic to the core.

    Is Controlled Opposition Present?
    Doubt it not for one instant!  Just as authentic leadership and opposition possesses recognizable attributes, so does the phony version.



    Quote


    Quintessential Controlled Opposition: Looking Out for Numero Uno!
    [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
    How can controlled opposition be recognized? Simple, observable facts shall declare. Does the suspect operate for personal gain and profit? Does suspect suppress alternate viewpoints advancing original ideas? Does suspect attack and gaslight? {Saying BXVI is Pope is crazy talk of deranged minds!} Subtler signals may arise. Does the suspect manufacture excuses for avoiding new approaches to the fight? Write books affirming the anti-pope that split hairs to a degree that is utterly maddening?  Does the suspect call down condemnation on opponents? {Excommunicate Benevacantists!} Step one in breaking through controlled opposition is recognizing not only its existence, but its true purpose. Phony opposition gets paid to ensure the complete ineffectiveness of any resistance to the illegitimate regime. Hence the snarling, claws out ambush of Catholic commenters and bloggers who deviate from the party line can be jarringly contrasted to the hum-drum grog ration for the somnambulant reader. “Oh that Francis, he’s so bad. Here’s what he did today. Isn’t that horrible? Just pray for him though, because only sedes say that Benedict is Pope. Sedes get banned and excommunicated. Please donate to my I want-a-bigger-house fund. Again.”

    Additional steps include robbing it of support and publishing what it says when it attempts to shut down or redirect authentic leadership and opposition. Of course, whatever support can be given authentic opposition should be brought.

    The Battle Devolves Unto Us
    We are in a viciously contested psychological war. The world’s money and media powers have thrown down their shekels on the Berg-Bag. Controlled opposition in the Opus Dei Catholic media has a job – remember that the objective of psy-war is to convince the enemy (that’s you and me) to give up on his own. They want you to feel silenced, alone, abandoned, without hope, and even that God and His Church have moved on from you. Never give in to them!

    The battlefront for the Church has been brought to our hearts and minds. The Catholic Church is founded on Logos. The false church is founded on gnosis. All the fallen crowns, thrones, kingdoms and nations map the path to ourselves, and our possessing of the Holy Faith. All the ruined orders, bishoprics, cloisters and monasteries leave their legacy now to us. The legacy of the Incarnation is in your hands. The testimonies of the martyrs are on your lips. No one can take your faith from you. Smash the controlled opposition in its teeth. One does not equal two. The Catholic Church can never command assent of the faithful to a fact She cannot explain. Benedict XVI is Pope of the Catholic Church, closing in on year fourteen of his papacy.[/font][/size]

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16