“So, for Benedict XVI we must ask ourselves: did he really renounce the Petrine ministry altogether? Is he no longer Pope? ” Socci answers: “From the subjective point of view we can therefore say that his intention – which is decisive to define the act he did – was not to be no longer Pope … It is clear that – despite having made a renunciation on the papacy (but what kind?) he has intended to remain still pope, albeit in an enigmatic way and in an unprecedented form, which has not been explained (at least until a certain date) “.
And in fact we must remember that Benedict said, speaking of the Roman pontiff: “The “always” is also “forever”- there is no longer a return to private life. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this “.
…
“In light of his last speech, one understands why Joseph Ratzinger remained “in the enclosure of Peter “, Benedict XVI is still signed, he defines himself as” pope emeritus “, has papal heraldic insignia and continues to dress as pope”.
So, unlike what happened previously in the history of the Church, today there are de facto two popes; that mutual legitimacy is recognized in a more or less ambiguous way. An exceptional and unprecedented situation. WRONG. No, we don’t have de facto two popes, because that is an ontological impossibility. This is exactly the colossal error of Benedict. Socci and Tosatti both recognize that Benedict only attempted a partial abdication, but then erroneously conclude that he actually pulled it off, and the “expanded petrine ministry” is a real thing.
…
The conclusion of the canonist is clear: “The object of irrevocable renunciation is the execution muneris through action and speech ( acting et loquendo ) not the munus entrusted to him once and for all”.
And “the limited renunciation of the active exercise of the munus constitutes the absolute novelty of the renunciation of Benedict XVI”.
Items confirmed by the Prefect of the Pontifical House, Msgr. Georg Gänswein according to which the “renunciation” of Benedict XVI – who “decided not to renounce the name he had chosen” – is different from that of Pope Celestine V who – after his abandonment of the papacy – “had once again become Pietro dal Morrone “.
And he continued with one of the most surprising and sensational statements: “Therefore, from 11 February 2013 the papal ministry is no longer the same as before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and durably transformed into his exceptional pontificate ( Ausnahmepontifikat ) “.
It is the node of the dual ministry, that is, the point where the “collegial dimension” of the Petrine ministry is proposed, “almost a common ministry”.
A concept that is needed sooner or later to be unraveled. But whoever opposes and wants to challenge this conception of facts – would find himself dealing with the question of the validity of a dubious or partial waiver…

“Whoever opposes and wants to challenge this conception of facts – would find himself dealing with the question of the validity of a dubious or partial waiver.”

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)

“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.“

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:

(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… 

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.

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.

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.
 
 
 

So I watched this. It is clear, concise and quite, quite brilliant in its precision and argument. Benedict XVI has serious questions to answer and needs to be told that the Papacy cannot be partially abdicated as was his expressed intention. https://t.co/h0KckHn90E

— Laurence England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 (@TheCrushedBones) November 22, 2018

One is reminded of the brilliant post from Louie Verrecchio at the akacatholic blog from 12 June 2017, which I have already linked to previously. This was about three weeks before I made my public declaration of moral certitude regarding the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the subsequent Bergoglian Antipapacy:

Consider, if you will, the following hypothetical scenario:
A Catholic man and woman are validly joined in holy matrimony.  At some point, the man abandons his wife. No annulment is obtained. The man, still validly wed, proposes marriage to another woman; managing to deceive even their pastor into believing that he is single. Marriage vows are exchanged at the altar with the pastor as witness, and the “newlywed” couple is widely embraced by the entire community as man and wife.
QUESTION: Is the couple validly married?
ANSWER: No, the conditions for a valid marriage, in spite of the convincing outward appearance to the contrary, did not exist. We might sum up the general principle being applied in this case as follows:
An act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.

Indeed. Louie then moves on to a not so hypothetical scenario:

A certain cardinal is validly elected pope. At some point thereafter, enemies of the pope secretly pressure him via threats of harm, perhaps either to himself or to the Church, in order to force his resignation.  The pope acquiesces to this pressure and declares his intent to resign the Office of Peter.  The resignation is invalid, of course, given that “it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely.” (See 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2) Alternatively, the pope could have attempted only a partial resignation, which also would render his resignation invalid under Canon 188.
The pope, still the valid occupant of the Office of Peter, manages to convince the faithful – both laity and hierarchy – that the See of Rome is vacant.  A conclave assembles and promptly elects another cardinal who is then presented to the world as the new pope, and he is widely embraced by the entire community as the Holy Roman Pontiff.
QUESTION: Is cardinal #2 the pope?
ANSWER: No, the conditions for a valid conclave, in spite of the convincing outward appearance to the contrary, did not exist.  

I brought this up back in May in relation to comments from Abp. Ganswein as he explained why Pope Benedict still asks to be addressed as “His Holiness.” The archbishop’s response was, “He considers that this title corresponds with reality.”
Since there is suddenly now a great deal more interest in this topic, and since some people continue to insist there just isn’t any evidence, that it’s all conjecture and nothing else, I’ll just paste the whole thing here:

Antonio Socci’s new book is set for release 27 November. Available for pre-order (Italian only) HERE.
From the Amazon summary, via Google Translate:

The Church goes through the most serious crisis in its history, according to many observers. More questions are asked about what really happened in 2013 with the surprising “renunciation” of Benedict XVI, his decision to remain “pope emeritus” and the coexistence of two popes. Why had Benedict XVI become a sign of contradiction? What was happening on a geopolitical level? Who advocated a “revolution” within the Catholic Church? And has the pope really resigned? These are the questions Antonio Socci tries to answer through the facts, gestures and words of Benedict XVI in ​​these six years, discovering, as in an exciting thriller, that he actually remained pope , with consequences still unexplored. In this compelling and documented investigation we try to understand what is happening in the Vatican, but above all it investigates the mysterious mission to which Benedict XVI has been called, for the Church and for the world. The author hypothesizes that there may also be supernatural events at the origin of his choice. Then there is to decipher an ancient prophecy concerning blessed xvi and there is finally a new revelation that comes from Fatima, that not only affects the Church, but the whole world.

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas.

23:25 “The mind of Pope Benedict is not the arbiter of reality.”
Money!
If you don’t have two hours free to watch the whole thing this busy holiday week, take a look at the nine minutes I highlighted in the timestamps below.
Happy Thanksgiving!

From wiki:

The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, describes the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, who, in his description of his window, claimed that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within the window, rather than on politicians’ individual preferences.^[1][2] According to Overton’s description, his window includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.

As the spectrum moves or expands, an idea at a given location may become more or less politically acceptable. Political commentator Joshua Treviño postulated that the degrees of acceptance of public ideas are roughly:^[4]

• Unthinkable
• Radical
• Acceptable
• Sensible
• Popular
• Policy

Overton Window expressed as a graph:

Now please keep in mind, this is an imperfect model in our case, because what we are searching for here is objective truth, not some proposed public policy. The truth has nothing to do with the popularity of an idea, much less its “political acceptability.”
The truth is the truth, whether or not it is popular.
But the point being made here, with regards to the idea of the Bergoglian Antipapacy being the blue line on this chart, is that we just passed Point “A” in the last 24 hours. Point “A” is when the idea takes off, and the chart hockey-sticks. Which means we are about to see a whole lot more focus  – white hot light – on this question.
And as Rorate wrote, “Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.”
So I leave you with commentary from Br. Alexis Bugnolo at the “From Rome” blog. It should be noted that at least two admins at the “From Rome” blog have long suspected the Bergoglian Antipapacy, but more from the standpoint of the shenanigans of the 2013 Conclave rendering the election invalid, rather than Benedict’s failed partial abdication:

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 doubt. There was a very noteworthy thesis — if I remember correctly — which was published in 2015 or 2014 by a canonist at Rome, which raised questions regarding the validity.
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 Gracida, Bishop 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.
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.

Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?

And it seem that he did not.
1. Substantial error, in regard to 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 ministrum petrinum 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.

Do go read the whole thing HERE. He lists TWELVE MORE proofs after this one.
Sunshine!

This theory is now circulating: https://t.co/0FQhdohoYf

— Dictator Pope official site (@DictatorPope) November 18, 2018

You're getting warmer… https://t.co/EK8x6lGBUx

— Non Veni Pacem (@nonvenipacem) November 18, 2018

With PJMedia now picking up this story HERE, the Overton Window is about to enter hockey stick stage. Lest you think PJM is some mickey mouse click-bait operation, let me assure you, they are not. PJM rose to prominence during the 2016 election cycle as THE premier debunker of Fake News. Do a little research on them.
Here is a little taste of their reportage on the full text of the +Bux interview. Do click on the link and read the whole thing:

To address the current crisis, he suggested that an examination of the “juridical validity” of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation was in order to “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.” The theologian consultor to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints was implying that further study of the situation could reveal that Francis is not and has never been a valid pope, but is, in fact, an antipope who could be removed from the papacy, thus nullifying his “insurmountable” errors.

“Is not, and never has been”

Winner winner chicken dinner!
Blessed Virgin Mary, Undoer of Knots, pray for us.
 

Problems such as, “How can a true Roman Pontiff seemingly be immune from the supernatural negative protection from error that the Catholic Church claims that every true Roman Pontiff enjoys?” Not to mention, if the Church, through her visible head on earth, is capable of promulgating error in the area of faith and morals, then the Church is not what she claims to be, but rather, a fraud.
The headline is from the interview with Monsignor Nicola Bux conducted by Aldo Maria Valli and posted to his site on October 13, HERE  and reported by Edward Pentin HERE and further by Ann Barnhardt yesterday HERE.
Most of the interview is a long dialogue about the troubles, i.e. that the man who claims to be pope is a full blown heretic, and that this is highly problematic, because no one can judge the pope. But then, just as it seems the problem is intractable, and Monsignor Bux sighs as he laments the “many practical, theological and juridical difficulties to the question of the judgment of the heretical pope,” he then abruptly pivots and drops a bomb:

“Perhaps – and I say this from a practical point of view – it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation”

This should be nominated for the understatement of this young century. Yes, friends, it WOULD be easier. Because the plain words and actions of Benedict himself, and those close to him, are sitting there in the light of day for anyone to examine. It’s not hard. And it would also be more practical, as he says, because the invalid resignation renders the entire Bergoglian Antipapacy null. No need for corrections or formal charges or trials. IT NEVER EVEN HAPPENED. Jorge the Heretic is not, never was, and never will be pope, and Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is now, and has been, the one, true, living Supreme Pontiff since his election 19 April 2005.
+Bux continues:

Perhaps – and I say this from a practical point of view – it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, i.e. whether it is full or partial (“halfway”), as someone has said, or doubtful, since the idea of ​​a sort of collegiate papacy seems to me decidedly against the Gospel dictate. Jesus did not say, in fact,tibi dabo claves … “turning to Peter and Andrew”, but he only told Peter! That’s why I say that perhaps a thorough study of renunciation could be more useful and profitable, as well as helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us. 

Bravo! Perhaps the good Monsignor can go enlist some cardinals. Too bad the Dubia brothers, now down to two living members, went out of their way to affirm Bergoglio as true pope before they went on to call out his heresy. The same is true of the 2017 Correctio.
+Bux continues:

That’s why I say that perhaps a thorough study of renunciation could be more useful and profitable, as well as helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us. It was written: “There will also come a time of the most difficult trials for the Church. Cardinals will oppose cardinals and bishops to bishops. Satan will put himself in their midst. Also in Rome there will be great changes “(Saverio Gaeta, Fatima, the whole truth, 2017, p. 129). And this great change, with Pope Francis, we can see in a palpable way, given the clear intention to mark a line of discontinuity or break with the previous pontificates. This discontinuity – a revolution – generates heresies, schisms and controversies of various kinds…

Indeed.
All it takes is a handful or even one cardinal to take a stand on this. Can we get just one?
As stated in an earlier post, embracing reality means forcing oneself to accept what is true. Wisdom is attained by conforming the rational intellect to objective reality. This is literally the opposite of Modernism and the “new paradigm”, which seeks to conform reality to whatever the mind wants it to be. We have before us a data set that very clearly points to a singular reality, and that reality is being suppressed. It’s being suppressed by fear: Fear of losing human respect, loss of title, loss of income, loss of clicks, loss of “Likes”.
SOULS ARE AT STAKE, yet those who could and should act, first among them Pope Benedict himself, but also cardinals and bishops, as well as laity in the Catholic media, PREFER TO DO NOTHING. I pray you change course and expose the truth. I pray you take action; cite Canon 188 in declaring the abdication invalid, based on the weight of the evidence. Your reward awaits you, either way.
Resources to share far and wide:
Barnhardt tour de force, Vocem Alienorum (Voice of a Stranger): HERE
Count me in: Moral Certitude and the invalid abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, still reigning: HERE
Reading Benedict through Meisner through Ganswein: HERE
FAQ: Did Benedict reveal his intent to bifurcate the papacy in the actual Declaratio? HERE
Pope Benedict adds more evidence that he doesn’t consider himself retired, nor does he think it possible: HERE
Antonio Socci: Benedict “confirms” his imaginary Expanded Petrine Ministry via the “inner continuity between the two pontificates” from the Big Letter: HERE
Painfully detailed linguistic breakdown of the “inner continuity” comment: HERE
Fake pope kisses real pope’s Fisherman’s Ring: HERE
Why does Benedict insist on still being addressed as “His Holiness”? Ganswein responds, “He considers this title corresponds to reality.” HERE
De Mattei: “Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but…he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope…Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope…” HERE

Yes, Cardinal Rabbit Hole, they are taking it very seriously, as is clearly visible to anyone with eyes to see. Any and all transparency must be stopped. So on the very morning of the first day of the USCCB meeting dedicated entirely to the abuse crisis and with concrete ballot measures, Rome blocks the whole thing.
Specifically, it was the Congregation for Bishops that delivered the order.
Anyone wanna guess the only two American bishops in the Congregation for Bishops?
++Cupich and ++Wuerl.
Boys and girls, get ready. The real filth that still lies beneath is so, so bad, that the optics of this mess actually look much better than the truth we might eventually find out.
———————

Vatican Cancels US Bishops’ Vote on Sex-Abuse Reform Measures HERE

The instruction to delay consideration of a new ‘Code of Conduct’ for bishops, creation of a lay-led investigative body came directly from the Holy See, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo told USCCB meeting.

Ed Condon/CNA

BALTIMORE — Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, has told the American bishops that they will not vote on two key proposals that had been expected to form the basis for the Church’s response to the sexual-abuse crisis.

The news came at the beginning of the U.S. bishops’ conference fall general assembly, meeting in Baltimore Nov. 12-14.

The instruction to delay consideration of a new “Code of Conduct” for bishops and the creation of a lay-led body to investigate bishops accused of misconduct came directly from the Holy See, Cardinal DiNardo told a visibly surprised conference hall.

Cardinal DiNardo said that the Holy See insisted that consideration of the new measures be delayed until the conclusion of a special meeting called by Pope Francis for February. That meeting, which will include the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences, will address the global sex-abuse crisis.

Apologizing for the last-minute change to the conference’s schedule, he said he had only been told of the decision by Rome late yesterday.

Ahead of the bishops’ meeting, two documents had been circulated: a draft “Standards of Conduct” for bishops and a proposal to create a new special investigative commission to handle accusations made against bishops.

These proposals had been considered to be the bishops’ best chance to produce a substantive result during the meeting and signal to the American faithful that they were taking firm action in the face of a series of scandals that have rocked the Church in the United States over recent months.

Speaking before the conference session had even been called to order, Cardinal DiNardo told the bishops he was clearly “disappointed” with Rome’s decision. The cardinal said that, despite the unexpected intervention by Rome, he was hopeful that the Vatican meeting would prove fruitful and that its deliberations would help improve the American bishops’ eventual measures.

While Cardinal DiNardo was still speaking, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago intervened from the floor, expressing his support for the Pope. 

“It is clear the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously,” Cardinal Cupich said.

At the same time, he suggested that the work that had gone into preparing the two proposals should not go to waste.

Cardinal Cupich suggested that if the conference could not take a binding vote, they should instead continue with their discussions and conclude with resolution ballots on the two measures. This, he said, would help best equip Cardinal DiNardo to present the thoughts of the American bishops during the February meeting, where he will represent the U.S. bishops’ conference.

“We need to be very clear with [Cardinal DiNardo] where we stand and be clear with our people where we stand,” Cardinal Cupich said.

While acknowledging that the February meeting was important, he noted that responding to the abuse crisis “is something we cannot delay — there is an urgency here.”

Cardinal Cupich went on to propose moving forward the American bishops’ next meeting, currently scheduled for June 2019. Instead, he suggested, the bishops should reconvene in March in order to act as soon as possible after the February session in Rome.

Ed Condon is the Washington editor for Catholic News Agency.