I won't say that Archbishop Lefebvre hated Ratzinger but let's just say that Ratzinger was his nemesis.  It's ironic that anyone who loves the archbishop would look to Ratzinger for comfort.

https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2019/10/15/benedict-xvi-is-the-true-pope/


I now hold that Benedict XVI is the true pope.  Please download here a paper I wrote to defend this position.

I thank Fr. Paul Kramer, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, Veri Catholici, Eric GaJєωski, and others who have helped me understand this.  They have publicly acknowledged that Benedict XVI is the true pope for quite some time and have persistently defended this position despite the strong opposition.
Tony La Rosa

I can understand following this or that great personage (especially a bishop, several intelligent and holy priests, a Trad religious order, etc.) but GaJєωski? He's a complete nobody!

GaJєωski has NO seminary training, no competence in canon law, theology, Vatican II, the Trad movement, etc. and is literally living in his parents' home because he has no gainful employment or career. Even as a layman Trad blogger he's at the bottom of the barrel, having been caught buying "popularity" on the black market to boost the appearance of his Social Media "empire". He's a complete fraud.

He is practically a homeless bum. In a photo I saw of him a few years ago, he was unshaved, wore a sweatshirt "hoodie", and has been long-term unemployed with no marketable skills or experience even though he is middle age (in his late 30's at least).
Not exactly a horse I'd hitch my wagon up to, but to each his own I guess!

And who adheres to the unpopular, much disputed opinion of a pure choleric like Fr. Kramer? Cholerics make good leaders sometimes, but they often go off course (see: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer). They generally don't make good administrators, thinkers, or planners. They have strong emotions. Cholerics aren't known for their careful, objective reasoning and clear thinking!

If the only person I could point to for "why I follow this position" had a fiery, pure choleric temperament, I'd be a bit uneasy to say the least.

I've never heard of the others, but considering Tony La Rosa's standard for credibility -- it's logical to at least SUSPECT they're in the same "class" or category as Eric GaJєωski.

As for the position itself (Benevacantism -- the belief that Pope Benedict is still pope), I can only say

1. It's fringe
2. It has been adopted by NO great minds of our present day. The men you listed are NOT great minds!
3. Benedict very publicly resigned the papacy, and even if the didn't use the right words, he obviously intended to resign -- he has never spoken up that "what happened" wasn't legitimate, etc. He has de-facto resigned the papacy at least.
4. Benedict wasn't exactly an awesome pope -- he was no Pope Francis, but he was as bad as any Post-Vatican II pope. So Benevacantism changes nothing regarding the Crisis in the Church.
5. I heard the Pope Emeritus was in bad health, and he is certainly getting very old. Many (most? all?) news organizations have an obituary written up for him already. In a few years, we won't have to have this argument -- but will all the Benevacantists become sedevacantist at that point?
6. If Tony la Rosa did become sedevacantist in a few years, it would suit his modus operandi -- namely, his head spinning around like a top. I hope when it stops spinning it's facing forwards (to quote a great Catholic movie)

3. Benedict very publicly resigned the papacy, and even if the didn't use the right words, he obviously intended to resign -- he has never spoken up that "what happened" wasn't legitimate, etc. He has de-facto resigned the papacy at least.

Benedict has repeatedly affirmed that he has resigned ... in no uncertain terms.  This theory is just utter hogwash.  When he said that he was retaining a function, he was clearly talking about hanging around the Vatican and supporting the pope, mostly through prayer.  Some speculate that he has stayed in the Vatican to continue to enjoy the diplomatic immunity of living there, since there were some attempts to charge him for the abuse scandals.  But there is zero indication that he meant to retain anything of the actual papacy.  He clearly stated in his resignation, to make sure there was no uncertainty, that he was vacating the office to the point that a new conclave would need to be held.  Assuming, for a second, that he did somehow in his own brain mean to bifurcate the papacy, it's not possible to do so.  So if he said for there to be a new conclave, then he was clearly handing off the papacy.

Conspiracy Theorists:  "You really meant in your own mind not to completely give up the papacy."
Benedict:  "No, I did not."
Conspiracy Theorists:  "Yes, you did."

Look, IF there is something like this going on in his head, the Church can only go by what's evident in the external forum.  If he SAYS he resigned, then he resigned.  Period.  End of story.  Speculation about something in his brain is meaningless.

All this talk about him wanting to continue the munus ... he was talking about the "service or prayer" ...

where I could retire to continue in my way the service of prayer

He was saying that he could continue to serve the Church by prayer, and not saying that he would retain the service/office of the papacy.

As was discussed on the other recent thread, it's a mortal sin against the Faith, to refuse to recognize, once one has full knowledge of dogmatic fact teaching, that Pope Benedict XVI truly was Pope in April 2005. 

"Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.

The only solutions I can conceive of (none of which are particularly persuasive) are:

1) There is some yet to be explained reason why the pre-conciliar popes were dogmatic facts, and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes were/are not;

2) Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong;

3) The unanimous consent of theologians was wrong.

I sense the solution lies somewhere within #1?

Agree, the solution is regarding #1.  Firstly, it is often argued that John XXIII and Paul VI might have been freemasons.  There is circuмstantial evidence for this accusation, yet considering that freemasons are the only ones who could provide DIRECT confirmation, such confirmation is a pipe dream.  Further, we know that in the early 1900s, when Pope St Pius X was pope, that the Church was infiltrated.  How much more so was there infiltration in the 1960s, which V2 proved was a sizable %, being that the orthodox cardinals were outmaneuvered and outvoted many times?  The % then was probably close to 40-50%.  (It is now probably 80-90%). 
.
Being that a normally-functioning Vatican, of the past ages, would be filled with 99-100% of orthodox officials (Cardinals and all others), then such "rumors" concerning John XXIII and Paul VI would have come to light long before the conclave, and they wouldn't have even been considered as papal candidates (probably would've been excommunicated just based on the rumors/scandal).  So, it is easy to say that the circuмstantial evidence and persistent rumors of masonic connections gives way to a doubt about these popes.
.
In regards to JPII and Benedict and Francis, while the rumors of masonic connections are less, the evidence for heresy and unorthodox beliefs/act BEFORE they were elected is just as high.  You can go pull up pictures of Francis having public prayer services with Jєωs and protestants while in Argentina.  Benedict confirmed his heresy by his own hand, in the many books he wrote.  JPII left all kinds of pictures and anecdotes from his priestly "hippie" days of the 70s.  So it is easy to say that none of these men were 100% orthodox even long before they were elected pope.  A normal, orthodox church would've put these men on the "unelectable" list (or again, they would've been excommunicated long ago...or better, never been allowed to enter a seminary).
.
Conclusion - The communist/masonic infiltration since the late 1800s, has watered-down the orthodoxy of the Vatican.  Thus, the normally orthodox clergy is outnumbered, and so the internal "self regulating" aspect of the Church is compromised.  Since the infiltration, the Church has experienced a cινιℓ ωαr against truth.  All those infiltrators stick together and lie to protect their own, while the orthodox officials are left to try to protect and preach what Truth is still uncompromised.  But as in all wars, the hardest aspect is to figure out what is true and what is disinformation.  Without proof, without a functioning orthodox church, the evidence needed to convict and punish heretics/evil men is gone.  Such is how the infiltrators have succeeded (for the time being) at gaining the high places of control.  But this situation gives much doubt about the papacy for the last 60 years.  Such doubts and such a "lack of institutional control" have never existed in the Church's history, til now.  This is the difference imo.