Bling, Bling, Fisherman’s Ring!

UPDATE: Some commenters have noted Benedict may not be wearing the Fisherman’s Ring in this photo. It’s not clear. I assumed it was, given his insistence on keeping it even after “retirement”. Nevertheless, this changes nothing about the material covered in the post. Another commenter dug up a piece about Antipope Bergoglio’s ring, which you can read about in the comments. While it is a design belonging to Paul VI, it’s not the same one Paul VI wore as pope.
UPDATE 2: has picked up on this. H/T Frank Walker HERE.
The latest public photograph of Pope Benedict helpfully provides another visual reminder of his failed partial abdication of the Petrine Ministry: Full frontal display of the Fisherman’s Ring.
fishermans ring
We have previously demonstrated by weight of the evidence, and declared with moral certainty, that Pope Benedict is still the sole living pontiff. This is due to his intention to bifurcate the papacy into an expanded ministry with two living members, one active/governing member and one passive/contemplative member.  It is this novel impossibility, attempting to alter the intrinsic nature of the Divinely Instituted Petrine Ministry, that renders invalid Benedict’s attempted partial abdication, as it clearly rises to the level of Substantial Error as foreseen by Canon 188.
Anyone who denies the essential truth of the preceding paragraph must support their counterargument with facts that refute the evidence presented.  Any appeal to emotion, any appeal to “who are you to make such claims?”, any appeal to “but Francis is universally accepted!” are all fallacious. The truth doesn’t depend on your emotions, it doesn’t depend on earthly authority, and it most definitely doesn’t depend on popularity. The Passion comes to mind.
Recall that the most convincing evidence of the failed abdication comes from the words of Pope Benedict himself, in his last (so far) official General Audience, later echoed by his personal secretary Archbishop Ganswein (pictured here with Benedict). We’ve covered that ground quite extensively, and the silence has been deafening.  You might call it a dictatorship of crickets.
But what I haven’t written about too much is Benedict retaining the papal vesture. Most infamously, he claimed to be retaining the white cassock (sans pellegrina) out of necessity – because “no other clothes were available.” Yeah, I’m sure Gammeralli was just too busy. Reminds me of the necessity to resign due to fear of jet lag from WYD. Oh and he retained the papal title and name and form of address (His Holiness) out of “convenience.” Whoppers, they are.
Now, about that Fisherman’s Ring. This ring is cast for each pontiff according to his own unique design and conferred at the “inauguration” (formerly coronation) and imposition of the Pallium. Both the Pallium and the Fisherman’s Ring are symbols of the power of the papal office. The ring itself is unique to each pope due to its historical use as not only visual symbol of power, but also as a physical seal to be used when executing official documents in the governance of the Church. At the end of every pontificate, the former pope’s ring is destroyed, smashed with a special silver hammer made expressly for this purpose, in the presence of the College of Cardinals, therefore ensuring no curial misconduct such as generating false documents. Then the new pontiff selects his own unique design and away we go.
Except that’s not what happened this time.
After announcing his intent to (partially) abdicate, the press began running all sorts of stories about things Benedict would be forced to give up in his (false) retirement. Chief among them, of course, was the Fisherman’s Ring.  You can do a quick search and find dozens of articles on this. Then, Benedict intervened to inform everyone that oh no, he wasn’t giving up the ring, see? He was keeping the ring, but he was having an “X” applied to the seal to “negate” its power of governance. Because, as we have learned, Benedict intended for the governance aspect of the ministry to be be passed to the new pontiff. But Benedict kept the ring, because “always” is also “forever” when it comes to acceptance of the Petrine Ministry. Notice here Abp Ganswein showing it off quite nicely.
None of this is conspiracy theory. Nothing is being twisted to fit a narrative. These are facts. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar or in denial. Do your own research. Don’t be afraid of the scoffing, the bullying, and being accused of “being on the crazy train.” Think for yourself and act accordingly. The Catholic media, even Trad media, if they are making any sort of income from being Catholic, are not going to admit to any of this until prelates start going public.
One last thing. You know that part about every pope designing his own unique ring as the unique seal for his pontificate? Well, guess what? Antipope Bergoglio didn’t do that.
He ordered a copy of Paul VI’s ring.
You can’t make it up.

28 thoughts on “Bling, Bling, Fisherman’s Ring!”

  1. I guess Gammeralli is still just too darn busy to find a black cassock in his size…that being ‘shriveled-pathetic-worst-pope-in-history-setting-up-the-false-prophet-on-the-throne-while-he-watches-and-smiles:extra-short’. Yeah….that size is a little hard to find…being pretty specific and all that.

  2. How do you know this is the fisherman´s ring? The photo does not make it clear. Couldn´t this be his simple episcopal ring which was also made out of gold?

    1. The detail of the ring is not really clear in the photo. But everything I wrote in the post about Benedict keeping the Fisherman’s Ring is true, and easily verifiable with a five minute internet search.

  3. Did a fact check on the last item. According to the USCCB website Francis used a ring designed for Paul VI but never actually made, as Paul VI chose to use another ring. Full quote as follows:
    “The ring Pope Francis will wear bears the image of St. Peter with the keys and was designed by Enrico Manfrini. The Vatican reports that Archbishop Pasquale Macchi, (d. 2006) former personal secretary of Pope Paul VI, kept the wax cast of a ring made for Paul VI by the artist Manfrini, who had made several medals and other artistic objects for Paul VI. The ring was never cast into metal, and Paul VI always wore another ring that was commissioned at the time of the Second Vatican Council. Archbishop Macchi left the cast, along with other objects, to Monsignor Ettore Malnati, who worked closely with him for many years. Monsignor Malnati made a ring of gold-plated silver from the wax cast. This was offered to Pope Francis, along with several other possible rings, by the Papal Master of Ceremonies, through the auspices of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, retired Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Bishops. It was this ring that Pope Francis chose to be the ring of the Fisherman, which will be presented to him at the Mass of Inauguration of his Petrine Ministry on March 19, 2013.”

  4. The papal office is an elected office. There is no ontological change associated with it, unlike the ordination of a priest or the consecration of a bishop. If Benedict has truly resigned, all of the external trappings of the Petrine office, including the ring and the white robes, need to go. He should dress as a bishop, which he will always be. At the moment, he is simply feeding confusion.
    It should also be stated that simply wearing the papal regalia does not make him Pope, anymore than wearing a Batman costume makes him Batman or wearing a cop’s uniform makes him a cop. When Benedict resigned his words were clear……“……………….so that the See of Peter will be vacant.”. There’s no wiggle room there. He renounced the papacy.
    Benedict is no fool and the retention of the papal regalia is not an accident. He’s sending a message. I am no longer Pope….but I was once…..and might be again.”

    1. You are absolutely correct that there is no ontological change associated with accepting the papacy. And this is precisely Benedict’s error: he thinks that there IS an irrevocable ontological change. Which is why he thinks himself incapable of totally resigning the papacy, which means he didn’t resign any of it. Please read this post:

  5. hey, what happened to my earlier res[one tha twas awaiting moderation?
    It has disappeared

  6. It sure has. Did you imagine this blog was a democracy?
    No, ABS has read this blog for awhile and he is convinced it is not a democracy but, rather, a querulous and captious funhouse in which the authority does not like being corrected.
    That’s ok, ABS reads a lot of blogs and never attempts a response and so he will not try and reply to you in here but he prolly will read your blog for awhile for the same reason many fans go to NASCAR races.

  7. I’m going to go back now and find the stories that said how “the fisherman’s ring was/will be destroyed”
    There were several at the time it was all over the news declaring how solemnly the “fisherman’s ring will be destroyed..blah blah blah” meanwhile they were stealing our pope.
    What an absolute crock of sh*t, why do they think we sheeple will believe all this. The obviously never read the quote by Lincoln “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

  8. The whole thing is a mystery. Does anyone doubt PB is an intellectual, and no cognitive lightweight?
    How could it be he would not KNOW the bi-polar papacy would not work? I find it impossible to imagine he does not know the rules on this well, especially since he was going to try it. For what reason would he be indicating he is still pope in any way, what is the benefit?

  9. I humbly submit that while Card Sarah, Burke, Bishop Schneider, Chaput say that Pope Francis is the valid pope I will consider him so… the moment they say otherwise I will ponder it.

  10. E o que muda para os Católicos essa discussão inútil se Bento XVI é ainda papa ou não?
    Bento XVI é tão mau quanto Francisco. Digo que ele ainda é pior, pois que a mentira é tão perigosa quanto mais ela se assemelha a verdade.
    Bento XVI dividiu o movimento tradicional Católico com sua mera aparência de conservador. Retirou as excomunhões dos bispos, liberou a missa tridentina, criou o IBP. Em contrapartida continua o mesmo modernista de sempre, favorável ao estado laico, ao ecumenismo, a liberdade religiosa, Bento XVI nega a ressureição dos corpos; Introdução ao Cristianismo, 2004, pág. 255: “Fica claro portanto que o ponto central da fé [na ressurreição dos corpos] não consiste na ideia da devolução do corpo, à qual ela ficou reduzida, praticamente, no nosso pensamento; essa afirmação continua válida mesmo diante da objecção de que é essa a imagem utilizada correntemente na própria Bíblia.”11
    Bento XVI, Introdução ao Cristianismo, pág. 258: “As reflexões precedentes deixaram ficar mais ou menos claro qual é o ponto essencial do anúncio bíblico da ressurreição: o seu conteúdo essencial não é a ideia de uma devolução dos corpos às almas depois de um longo período intermédio…”12
    Bento XVI, Introdução ao Cristianismo, pág. 261: “Repitamo-lo uma vez mais: São Paulo não fala da ressurreição dos corpos, mas sim da das pessoas…”13
    Papa Francisco é um progressista escandaloso, intelectualmente limitado em relação a Bento XVI, Francisco se assemelha no seu agir, aos padres paroquianos modernos, não engana a ninguém.
    Assim sendo Bento XVI, o maior defensor do Vaticano II inimigo de Dom Lefebvre é muito pior que Francisco, pois engana os incautos com seu pseudo conservadorismo.
    Discutir se Bento XVI é ainda Papa ou não é tirar o foco do que é mais grave, que a Igreja vive em crise e temos de denunciar e combater os modernistas com ou sem aparência de conservador.

    1. You’re quite right. Benedict is a modernist with a veneer of orthodoxy. I realize this. Nothing will get fixed until the entire nuchurch facade is torn down. But that is an entirely different problem than the one I’m dealing with here. Your point seems to be, why are we talking about this thing when we have this other thing we should be talking about.

      1. Sim, está correto amigo. E seu artigo é interessante e as dúvidas são válidas.
        Ocorre que muitas vezes vejo discussões quentes e demoradas a respeito de Bento XVI ser ainda papa ou não papa, e Francisco seja um falso papa.
        Gasta-se muito tempo e energia nesta “disputatio”, quando Bento XVI e Francisco trabalham na mesma equipe, são irmãos trabalham buscando um mesmo fim, uma religião antropocêntrica, uma religião onde o homem é o centro e não mais Cristo.
        Francisco é criação de Bento XVI. Bento XVI é pai de Francisco.
        Gastemos nossas energias e inteligência no que é mais importante, falar aos nossos amigos que a Igreja Católica está ocupada por seus inimigos, os modernistas, que se infiltraram no seio da Igreja e tomaram seus postos mais altos.

        1. Formacao, again you are correct, and I have written about the total infiltration many times. The solution to the overthrow of the institutional Church has nothing to do with Benedict being the pope instead of Francis. The entire facade must be torn down, and that won’t happen without supernatural intervention. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop writing about the situation that’s right in front of us.

  11. In May 2013, in a BBC article about the things that Pope Benedict would give up upon “resignation”, it read: “According to tradition, the papal apartments are sealed and the Pope’s gold ring – known as the fisherman’s ring – is smashed with a specially designed silver hammer when the Pope leaves office. “Objects strictly tied to the ministry of St Peter must be destroyed,” the Vatican says. This time round, though, the insignia on Benedict XVI’s ring was merely scratched with a cross so that it can be kept for posterity – perhaps in a museum.”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.