Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ladislaus on February 11, 2022, 11:55:09 AM
-
He's made comments before on his EWTN radio show coming a hair's breadth away from saying Bergoglio isn't the pope. I kept wondering why he wasn't kicked off the air.
We'll, he's come out now as a Bennyvacantist (BennysedepleneBergogliovacantist to be precise).
https://rumble.com/vume9o-seven-pieces-of-evidence-that-francis-is-an-antipope.html
-
He's made comments before on his EWTN radio show coming a hair's breadth away from saying Bergoglio isn't the pope. I kept wondering why he wasn't kicked off the air.
We'll, he's come out now as a Bennyvacantist (BennysedepleneBergogliovacantist to be precise).
https://rumble.com/vume9o-seven-pieces-of-evidence-that-francis-is-an-antipope.html
Do Bennyvacantists truly think there was no Crisis in the Church during the reign of Pope Benedict? Why didn't they give up their Trad chapels and go back to their local parishes?
They probably did -- because they weren't really TRADS, didn't have any illicit chapels to begin with, and were only after the "Latin Mass" which Pope Benedict made much more available at their local parishes.
In short, Bennyvacantism is an INDULT phenomenon, and the logical result of the error of having any truck with the Conciliar Church, seeking permission for your birthright which is to attend the Tridentine Mass, nourish your Faith and/or save your soul.
-
Do Bennyvacantists truly think there was no Crisis in the Church during the reign of Pope Benedict?
That's the million-dollar question. Cardinal Kasper famously said:
“They are different personalities of course, different backgrounds ... One is European, the other comes from Latin America. [But] if you read exactly what they write, it’s the same line and substance.”
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/10/kasper-sees-no-substantial-difference-between-benedict-and-francis
And if you actually read Ratzinger's theology, this is clearly the case.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/55977873.jpg)
-
Leaving aside for the moment the incongruity of accepting the papacies from John XXIII - Benedict XVI, but not Francis, Coffin gives these 7 pieces of evidence for his position:
Evidence items:
1) The term “pope emeritus” has no precedent and is confusing
2) Pope Benedict XVI seems to have resigned only part of the papacy, the active ministerium, not the office or munus of the papacy
3) Pope Benedict’s longtime personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein has made statements that appear to affirm Benedict's continued papal identity
4) Pope Benedict's correct form of address is still “Your Holiness”
5) There are at least three errors in the official Latin “declaratio” read by Pope Benedict on February 11th 2013
6) "Universal peaceful acceptance by the Church of Francis has never really occurred
7) The canonically illegal behavior of the St. Gallen Mafia cardinals in conspiring to vote in their man from Buenos Aires in 2013 invalidates the Conclave
I haven't had chance to listen to his 30 minute video, but I would be very interested in what he has to say on point #6 (as it is a point of contention between R&R and some sedes).
-
6) "Universal peaceful acceptance by the Church of Francis has never really occurred
That's nonsense. He argues that people found something "off" about him from the beginning. :laugh1:
Then he argues that the notion hasn't been defined, with which I agree.
-
Sean, you gave some rational reasons for "Bennyvacantism". However, the Indulters who accept that position aren't going by any of those reason, but rather the reason I gave:
Pope Benedict freed the "Latin Mass" somewhat. For them, there's no Crisis in the Church, just a hiccup in the implementation of Vatican II. "Vatican II has never been truly implemented" and all that rubbish.
If they have the Latin Mass, they are ONE HUNDRED percent happy. See, I wouldn't be. Not until the FAITH ITSELF is safe again in Rome.
-
Lad and Matthew-
The 7 pieces of evidence are from COFFIN, not me.
They are posted by him at the link Lad posted in the OP.
-
FWIW, all the Bennyplenists I've ever heard speak to the issue give reasons such as Sean listed (from Coffin). I've never heard one say, "it's because he's more conservative" or "he freed the Latin Mass."
-
Let's all return to the glory days of the Church under St. Montini and St. Wojtyla.
-
He also wrongly claims that an excommunicated man can't be pope. He hasn't really done his homework. He should talk to the sedevacantists a bit.
-
Lad and Matthew-
The 7 pieces of evidence are from COFFIN, not me.
They are posted by him at the link Lad posted in the OP.
Right, I understand. I'm just reacting to the comment he made.
-
Here's what's going on. Someone like Coffin, who still has the faith, simply cannot reconcile Beroglio with Catholicism. That part we all get. So maybe it can be a first step, once he realizes that a guy parading around in white doesn't make him pope. They were always able to find a way to explain away Wojtyla and Montini, but Bergoglio defies all such attempts at being salvaged.
So Bergoglio is in fact, by being so over the top, exposing the entire conspiracy ... as that one prophecy indicated would happen "about 12 years after the millennium has passed) ... Bergoglio took office in early 2013.
-
In short, Bennyvacantism is an INDULT phenomenon, and the logical result of the error of having any truck with the Conciliar Church, seeking permission for your birthright which is to attend the Tridentine Mass, nourish your Faith and/or save your soul.
Yep. Pretty much. But, at least it admits that there is a problem to begin with.
-
Yep. Pretty much. But, at least it admits recognition that there is a problem to begin with.
Right, I think it's the beginning of a paradigm shift. He denounces Beroglio's pachamama episode. Has he looked at Assisi yet?
-
Here’s how I would appraise Coffin’s 7 pieces of evidence:
1) Neither here not there;
2) A canonical defect would be “healed in the root” by Francis’s acceptance (Billot);
3) Immaterial;
4) False: He is Cardinal Ratzinger (His Eminence is his proper title);
5) See #2;
6) He is making an argument of fact. What exactly is his argument to support this claim??
7) See #2.
Overall, a very weak list. The only possibility I can see is demonstrating #6 (but nobody in the conciliarists church has made this claim thus far).
-
FWIW, all the Bennyplenists I've ever heard speak to the issue give reasons such as Sean listed (from Coffin). I've never heard one say, "it's because he's more conservative" or "he freed the Latin Mass."
Coffin’s list, not mine
-
Lad and Matthew-
The 7 pieces of evidence are from COFFIN, not me.
They are posted by him at the link Lad posted in the OP.
Bump
-
Right, I understand. I'm just reacting to the comment he made.
Roger that; we’re all posting at the same time
-
So Bergoglio is in fact, by being so over the top, exposing the entire conspiracy ... as that one prophecy indicated would happen "about 12 years after the millennium has passed) ... Bergoglio took office in early 2013.
Is this the spurious St. Malachy prophecy, or something else?
-
Here’s how I would appraise Coffin’s 7 pieces of evidence:
1) Neither here not there;
2) A canonical defect would be “healed in the root” by Francis’s acceptance (Billot);
3) Immaterial;
4) False: He is Cardinal Ratzinger (His Eminence is his proper title);
5) See #2;
6) He is making an argument of fact. What exactly is his argument to support this claim??
7) See #2.
Overall, a very weak list. The only possibility I can see is demonstrating #6 (but nobody in the conciliar church has made this claim thus far).
Bump
-
Coffin’s list, not mine
That's why I wrote "(from Coffin)".
-
That's why I wrote "(from Coffin)".
Ah, my bad.
-
Haven't watched the vid, but taking the summary at face value, I don't think it's as honest as it could be. Face it, if Bergo was like JP2 in doctrine, people like Coffin wouldn't be asking questions or drawing conclusions. The impetus for all this (perfectly justified) hand-wringing is the fact that Bergo can't breathe without uttering something bizarrely unorthodox or outright heretical. THAT is why Coffin and others are Bennyvacantist, despite whatever lawyerish explanations they'll provide.
-
Do Bennyvacantists truly think there was no Crisis in the Church during the reign of Pope Benedict? Why didn't they give up their Trad chapels and go back to their local parishes?
They probably did -- because they weren't really TRADS, didn't have any illicit chapels to begin with, and were only after the "Latin Mass" which Pope Benedict made much more available at their local parishes.
In short, Bennyvacantism is an INDULT phenomenon, and the logical result of the error of having any truck with the Conciliar Church, seeking permission for your birthright which is to attend the Tridentine Mass, nourish your Faith and/or save your soul.
The then Fr Ratzinger was a suited radical at V2, and while he did repent somewhat when he saw the disorder of student protest at the end of the sixties, his theology is still formed around V2. When he became Pope he did at least revise the ecuмenical meeting at Assisi so it was no longer a pagan prayer meeting, and he fixed ruled to defrock perv priests, which Francis temporarily stymied. I would say that diocesan traditionalists were a thing, variously using priests with the Bugnini indult to offer their private Mass which they happened to attend, priests who often assisted the SSPX. Fr Michael Cresswell was one who helped get the SSPX in Ireland off the ground. Fr Alan Wilders was another diocesan priest who helped the SSPX. Later he helped found St. Patrick's Academy, Islandeady, a boarding school in Mayo. When the diocesan traditional Mass resumed in Ireland in 1984, it was not a matter of a priest having to wrack his brain to recall to how offer the Mass for priests were offering it wherever a room could be hired. Some were SSPX, some friends of it, others diocesan or Order. That said, I don't think Patrick Coffin is a hardbitten, long in the tooth, diocesan trad, just a usual grifter.
-
Bene-vacantists are one scandal away from recognizing there is no pope. They aren't grounded in what a true Papacy is.
-
Bene-vacantists are one scandal away from recognizing there is no pope. They aren't grounded in what a true Papacy is.
They'll be in a bind once the Rat kicks the bucket
-
Sean, you gave some rational reasons for "Bennyvacantism". However, the Indulters who accept that position aren't going by any of those reason, but rather the reason I gave:
Pope Benedict freed the "Latin Mass" somewhat. For them, there's no Crisis in the Church, just a hiccup in the implementation of Vatican II. "Vatican II has never been truly implemented" and all that rubbish.
If they have the Latin Mass, they are ONE HUNDRED percent happy. See, I wouldn't be. Not until the FAITH ITSELF is safe again in Rome.
I also think this is the bottom line: Summorum Pontificuм.
-
FWIW, all the Bennyplenists I've ever heard speak to the issue give reasons such as Sean listed (from Coffin). I've never heard one say, "it's because he's more conservative" or "he freed the Latin Mass."
But would they give any of these other reasons if there was no Summorum Pontifcuм? I strongly doubt it.
These folks will jump right back onto the Conciliar train if a Benny XVII is elected.
-
Bene-vacantists are one scandal away from recognizing there is no pope. They aren't grounded in what a true Papacy is.
If the revelations about his time as a diocesan bishop don't dent him, they might decide on revelations over his time at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. While action against Maciel and others were likely constrained by JP2, it could look bad if someone was unaware of that context.
-
They'll be in a bind once the Rat kicks the bucket
The "Rat" isn't going "to kick the bucket" until after the following happens (Jeremiah 52):
31 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity, of Joachin king of Juda, in the twelfth month, the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Joachin king of Juda, and brought him forth out of prison. 32 And he spoke kindly to him, and he set his throne above the thrones of the kings that were with him in Babylon. 33 And he changed his prison garments, and he ate bread before him always all the days of his life. 34 And for his diet a continual provision was allowed him by the king of Babylon, every day a portion, until the day of his death, all the days of his life.
Benedict XVI is Joachin. The 40 years of "the exile/captivity" started in July 1988 with the Lefebvre "excommunications." The "seven and thirtieth year" means the period after the completion of 36 years but before the completion of 37 years, which would be from July 2024 to June 2025. The twelfth month refers to the month of Adar in the Hebrew calendar, rather than the Gregorian calendar. So the date of the event described in Jeremiah 52:31-34, under my assumptions, would be March 25, 2025, the Feast of the Annunciation.
However, the precise date is not critical. Accepting the calendar uncertainties, the date for Benedict's restoration will be in the near future. A few years from now at most.
You can triangulate all of the dates referred to by using three sources: the 70 years in Jeremias 25-29/Daniel 9, the 40 years of the captivity/exile in Jeremias, and the years in the reign of Sedecias in Ezechiel. The 70 years starts with John XXIII calling the Vatican II Council in January 1959. The 40 years starts with Lefebvre's excommunication in July 1988, and the years discussed in Ezechiel start with Bergoglio's anti-papacy in March 2013. All of those prophecies are connected, overlap and end in 2027-2028.
-
The "Rat" isn't going "to kick the bucket" until after the following happens (Jeremiah 52):
I suspect that both will die at the same time. There are couple of prophecies about two popes dying at the same time.
-
I suspect that both will die at the same time. There are couple of prophecies about two popes dying at the same time.
Which I've always found interesting given there can't be "two popes".
-
Which I've always found interesting given there can't be "two popes".
How about two "apparent popes"?
-
Sometimes the Jesuit Superior General is referred to as the Black pope. So the one prophecy about the white pope and the black pope dying the same night was often taken as a reference to the Jesuit superior. Of course, Bergoglio is a Jesuit ... the first ever Jesuit “pope”. Antipopes are also “popes” in a manner of speaking. And now we also have a “pope emeritus”. I think that there’s no better time for the prophecy to be fulfilled. I also believe the prophecy said that a restoration of the Church would begin when the black pope and white pope died during the same night.
-
When the White Pope and the Black Pope shall die during the same night then there will dawn for the Christian nations the Great White Day. Woe unto the City of Philosophers, woe unto Lombardy for thy towers of joy shall be broken down; All the tyrants shall be put out of God's Church, and there shall occur a general conversion to the faith of Christ under the Great Lion.
Great Lion could be a reference to the Great Monarch.
-
Sometimes the Jesuit Superior General is referred to as the Black pope. So the one prophecy about the white pope and the black pope dying the same night was often taken as a reference to the Jesuit superior. Of course, Bergoglio is a Jesuit ... the first ever Jesuit “pope”. Antipopes are also “popes” in a manner of speaking. And now we also have a “pope emeritus”. I think that there’s no better time for the prophecy to be fulfilled. I also believe the prophecy said that a restoration of the Church would begin when the black pope and white pope died during the same night.
Can you provide a link to this prophecy? Is it something the Church [ie. the pre-Vatican II Church] approved?
It sure would be fascinating if the two died in the same night...hopefully sooner rather than later.
-
It sure would be fascinating if the two died in the same night...hopefully sooner rather than later.
I couldn't help but chuckle at this comment. :laugh1: Especially after all the discussion about whether it's okay to wish/pray for someone to die.
In any case, it would help clear things up for getting a new pope; no need to worry about which one is really pope (if any).
Doesn't the vision of the 3rd Secret of Fatima also say something about "a bishop dressed in white" (why not just say "pope" if so?) and later "pope", indicating that there are 2 different "popes" (1 real & 1 not) & both might die/be killed around the same time?
-
I couldn't help but chuckle at this comment. :laugh1: Especially after all the discussion about whether it's okay to wish/pray for someone to die.
In any case, it would help clear things up for the election of a new pope; no need to worry about which one is really pope (if any).
Doesn't the vision of the 3rd Secret of Fatima also say something about "a bishop dressed in white" (why not just say "pope" if so?) and later "pope", indicating that there are 2 different "popes" & both might die/be killed around the same time?
LOL. Yeah, I've been hesitant to write something like that in the past, but I just don't care anymore. They need to be gone yesterday. Having said that, I know that God is in control.
-
Can you provide a link to this prophecy? Is it something the Church [ie. the pre-Vatican II Church] approved?
It sure would be fascinating if the two died in the same night...hopefully sooner rather than later.
It's an old Italian prophecy found in Fr. Cullerton's The Prophets and Our Times
So the prophecy is pre-V2
-
It's an old Italian prophecy found in Fr. Cullerton's The Prophets and Our Times
So the prophecy is pre-V2
Thanks to 2Vermont for asking, and thank you DigitalLogos for posting that.
-
It sure would be fascinating if the two died in the same night...hopefully sooner rather than later.
Cue Anne !
Anne doesn't get it. These people are mass murders, at least of souls, and Bergoglio in pushing the jab also of bodies. Great Sts. like Pius V were in favor of capital punishment for heretics and other people who destroyed souls.
You wish here is not for the damnation of Bergoglio or Ratzinger, but for the restoration of the Church. You are moved by charity for all the poor souls who are being detroyed by the new religion. I see billions of people out there in the world without the light of Catholic faith because it has been obscured by the papal infiltrators. THAT is where my heart overflows with charity. I hope and pray that Bergoglio saves his soul, but he needs to be GONE.
Those like Anne who hold that this is hatred have very little faith and do not understand how grave is the loss of souls taking place under the Conciliar imposter church.
-
Those like Anne who hold that this is hatred have very little faith and do not understand how grave is the loss of souls taking place under the Conciliar imposter church.
The Karen of CI
(https://www.thehowlermonkey.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Best-Karen-Memes-25.jpg)
-
It's an old Italian prophecy found in Fr. Cullerton's The Prophets and Our Times
So the prophecy is pre-V2
But did the Church approve of it? Or maybe that's not the right word.
-
But did the Church approve of it? Or maybe that's not the right word.
The book is a collection of prophecies and doesn't have an imprimatur, so I doubt it.
-
The book is a collection of prophecies and doesn't have an imprimatur, so I doubt it.
Well, I guess it's just a matter of time before we know whether it's true/refers to Ratzinger and Bergoglio.
-
The whole Bennyvacantist argument is based on an assertion that is simply false, i.e., that munus and ministerium mean two different things and are mutually exclusive terms. In reality, there is a certain amount of overlap between their meanings, more than enough to debunk any claim that Benny was certainly using the words to refer to two separate things, i.e. the office and the function of the office.
-
Sometimes the Jesuit Superior General is referred to as the Black pope. So the one prophecy about the white pope and the black pope dying the same night was often taken as a reference to the Jesuit superior. Of course, Bergoglio is a Jesuit ... the first ever Jesuit “pope”. Antipopes are also “popes” in a manner of speaking. And now we also have a “pope emeritus”. I think that there’s no better time for the prophecy to be fulfilled. I also believe the prophecy said that a restoration of the Church would begin when the black pope and white pope died during the same night.
March 25, 2022?
-
March 25, 2022?
That thought has crossed my mind. I could see a couple of Russian hypersonics paying a visit to Rome that day ... perhaps minutes after their simulated "consecration of Russia by a pope".
-
The whole Bennyvacantist argument is based on an assertion that is simply false, i.e., that munus and ministerium mean two different things and are mutually exclusive terms. In reality, there is a certain amount of overlap between their meanings, more than enough to debunk any claim that Benny was certainly using the words to refer to two separate things, i.e. the office and the function of the office.
Yeah, there's a false argument that Canon law requires a certain "word" to be used in a resignation simply because it chose one or the other of these terms to describe it. In fact, Canon Law doesn't even require a formal resignation docuмent. Just says that he has to sufficiently make his intentions known. He could simply walk out and say, "Later guys. I'm done with this pope stuff." so that anyone could reasonably conclude that his intention was to quit. In fact, there's a principle that abandonment of an office is tacit resignation. Since Ratziger has not pretended to exercise any papal authority for almost 10 years now, that would suffice for a tacit resignation. If you had one of those corrupt Borgia popes leave the Vatican, go around the world womanizing, and doing none of his papal functions, that too would be enough. Now if it was found out that he resigned under extreme duress, that would be a different story and a stronger argument. Also, the fact that Bergoglio's election was clearly engineered and orchestrated beforehand, that would (by even JP2's prior decree) invalidate the election.
No matter how you slice it though, Bergoglio is no more the pope than I am.
Ratzinger couldn't have made it clearer, using the circuмlocution " 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."
I don't see how it could be made more explicit.
-
That thought has crossed my mind. I could see a couple of Russian hypersonics paying a visit to Rome that day ... perhaps minutes after their simulated "consecration of Russia by a pope".
No, because then that would make them "martyrs". I think they just die.