The importance of linear thinking: Separating the Bergoglian Heresy from the Bergoglian anti-papacy

Jonathan Byrd, the gentleman who took over Fr. Carota’s blog, has written a declaration on the Bergoglian anti-papacy HERE.  He links to several blogs, including this one, which already make his point for him. Mr. Byrd himself makes several good points, which I will get to tomorrow. But first, I wanted to highlight a distinction that often gets lost.
The first link he provides is from RadTrad Thomist, where Fr. Paul Kramer’s proof was posted a few days ago HERE. Unfortunately, I think Fr. Kramer muddied the water a bit, even though nothing he says is untrue. Although he does cover the details of Benedict’s Substantial Error and subsequent failed abdication, he also spends a great deal of time talking about the Bergoglian Heresy as being a means of the anti-papacy. As if to say, “Here is the proof that Bergoglio is an antipope (because Benedict is the only living pope), but hey, if that’s not proof enough, Bergoglio also isn’t pope because he isn’t Catholic.”
So if everything Fr. Kramer says is true, and it is, why take issue with his presentation of it? Well, because the ability to reason, and to follow a logical, linear thought process, is very important.
Benedict’s failed partial resignation is the only thing that matters. Benedict, for reasons known only to him, attempted to bifurcate the papacy into an “expanded Petrine ministry”, with one “Active” member and one “Contemplative” member. Benedict tried to alter the divinely-instituted nature of the papacy, and his doing so was mind-blowing Substantial Error, rendering his abdication entirely invalid in accord with Canon 188. Full Stop. There was no abdication, and hence no conclave, no election, no coronation that followed.
Benedict is still THE ONLY pope. The invalid conclave which followed could have elected the most orthodox prelate who ever lived, and he would still be an anitpope. To focus on anything else unnecessarily complicates things. So while the Bergoglian Heresy is indeed horrific, soul destroying, and unprecedented, it’s actually a great comfort knowing that he was never the pope, and so never promulgated anything magisterially, and he will be completely abrogated and expunged. It’s not so comforting to know that this fact only remedies the acute problem, while leaving the chronic and systemic disease of nuChruch to be healed another day.
Mr. Byrd, welcome to the jungle. We got fun and games.

7 thoughts on “The importance of linear thinking: Separating the Bergoglian Heresy from the Bergoglian anti-papacy”

  1. Distinguo! Distinguo!
    I quite agree with your distinction here. The connection, which is so tempting to Fr. Kramer and all of us perhaps who see the apostasy of Bergoglio for what it is, that the invalid election of Bergoglio helps to place his heresies in context. He’s an Anti-Pope worthy of the name, you might say. Or as Miss Barnhardt has put it, it makes sense of the whole Bergoglio enterprise and its Alice in Wonderland mannerisms, logic and courtiers.
    I happen to think that is a fair connection to make so long as one keeps the two threads separate and distinct. Therefore thank you for making the distinction. There are many weeds (not to mention snakes) in the Bergoglian jungle. These require cold logic and the sharpness of Occam’s razor to slice through. Two plus two equals five, indeed.
    Our Lady of Fatima in this Centenary Year Pray for us!

  2. And incidentally, I followed a similar path to you, my friend NVP. At first I thought Ann was a tad bonkers. It took my the better part of the past year to conclude that Benedict must be pope because no man has power to bifurcate the papacy; that the papal dyarchy to which he and Archbishop Ganswein subscribe is pure mallarkey; that he never had the intent to fully resign the Petrine Munus whole and entire, but always intended to retain some part of it; that the distinction of Benedict between active and contemplative member–however obvious it is that Bergoglio never prays and has zero contemplative life–again is completely bogus. From Benedict’s own words both at time of resignation in its ambiguities and thereafter where in his recent book–and why oh why do these prelates keep giving interviews! to such stupid journalists to boot–he states that the Petrine munus is irrevocable. Add to that the ambiguity created by Benedict’s retention of the Papal whites; title; Vatican residence; ring of St Peter; red shoes for all I know….
    Benedict’s ‘resignation’ is quite unlike any other in history. The most similar case, perhaps, was that of Celestine V. He was 79 years old when elected on, in essence, a lark to break an impasse between the Colonna and Gaetani blocs–knotted in a 12 to 12 tie for two years. His rule was completely chaotic,and reduced Vatican functionality and finances to nil. Quite unlike Benedict, the clean break of Celestine V (The Great Refusal to Dante, but the Church held otherwise and declared him Blessed) saw him set aside the papal white, title, residence, ring, handing them all off to the assembled cardinals. He then fled back to his monastery. He went back to being a simple monk, Peter of Morrone. He didn’t say call me pope, emeritus or otherwise, even when his successor’s men captured him.
    Peter of Morrone ended his days under house arrest, a simple monk who deemed his last wish for a solitary cell for his last days to have been granted. Long live Benedict, the one and only living and reigning Pope. (However bad.)
    New York, New York

  3. Pope Benedict was IMO deposed & therefore his semi-abdication leaving us with two popes has to be invalid. Despite this evidence, theologians & canon lawyers are tight-lipped in saying so & have left Christendom in a mineshaft. It will eventually take an insider to come clean so maybe we should send around the hat to make it worthwhile for him to do so. Everyone has their price!

  4. I sincerely hope your thesis is correct. To those that deem your argument to be simply looking for an easy way out of the present crisis, I would suggest that they’ve not thought through the terrible consequences of the Church declaring Bergoglio an Anti-pope. Schism would certainly follow, for starters. Many would doubt the Indefectability of the Church. And if Bergoglio were still alive, I can easily imagine him refusing to leave the Vatican. It would be a royal mess, to be sure.

    1. Bergoglio would never leave the Vatican. We already are in schism. What is being promulgated by this pope are heretical ideas, statements and pronouncements flowing at a rapid and deadly speed. Not to face this reality is to allow unchecked the destruction of our true Faith. This is what is in progress within the Catholic Church and anyone who wants to see it can see it . Amoris Laetitia is a fine example, but not the only one, for sure. I suggest you read Kramer’s article; it lays it all out in great thoroughness. Catholic prophecy, as well as the Book of Revelation, have the true Church going underground and the false Church reigning in Rome. We can either go in one of two directions: We can ‘go along to get along’ and lose our Faith, or we can state the obvious and face this trial with Christ.

  5. I do not know if my other two attempts to post a comment on this site have been received, as I had some trouble getting them to post, but I will try again. Ann Barnhardt has written an excellent article concerning the invalidity of Bergoglio’s pontificate. She makes the very salient point that other evil popes were prevented from rampaging through the Church as destructively as Bergoglio is doing because of Christ’s promise of infallibility in matters of Faith and morals. Her point is that Bergoglio is not part of this protection by Christ because he is not an authentic pope but is instead an antipope.
    In her article Barnhardt links to Father Kramer’s article, Her assertion about Christ’s promise of infallibility in Faith and morals for true pontiffs ties directly to the heresies of Bergoglio. His heresies are the fruit of the invalidity of his pontificate. Jesus told us ‘By the fruit the tree is known’. This is linear thinking at its best.

Leave a Reply

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