“Shut up,” they explained: Gaslighting, Fake News, and the Bergoglian Antipapacy

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.

14 thoughts on ““Shut up,” they explained: Gaslighting, Fake News, and the Bergoglian Antipapacy”

  1. Call her wrong, but to say Ann is sedevacantist is completely irrational. It shows rather poor reasoning and lack of ability to comprehend basic concepts on the part of those who claim she is (personally, I think they know perfectly well she is not SV, they just hurl it as an “insult”). How is “Benedict is still Pope” = “The See is Empty”? Is Benedict made of vapor or something?

  2. Amen brother, amen. Even a certain angry mom is now telling us all to shut up and quit wasting time, since there’s nothing that we can do about anyway. The problem is a lack of masculinity, courage and fortitude in our society today. Metrosexuals are everywhere, including the Church. But that’s why the cultural Marxists (Jews mostly) foisted feminism, gay marriage, trans, porno, etc. on society — to more easily conquer us.
    Just say no to the gay disco.

  3. One counter argument that seems to have some legs is that the Pope, as supreme legislator, is not bound by canon law. Therefore, 188 does not apply.
    But 188 (if I am citing the correct canon) deals specifically with validity of papal resignation. If a Pope is pulling a “doesn’t apply to me” card to something that directly addresses his action, and his alone, it would seem the Pope would have to specifically deny or somehow indicate he is not subjecting himself to it or in some way manifest that the particular canon does not apply to him (much like our esteemed US legislators expressly exempt themselves from Obamacare and other disasters to which they subject the hoi polloi). I don’t recall BXVI doing that, but perhaps I just missed it.

    1. Even if not bound by Canon 188, he’s bound by reality. The papacy was designed and instituted by God Himself. Its intrinsic nature cannot be altered, not even by a pope. An expanded Petrine ministry, with one active member and one contemplative member, CANNOT EXIST. It’s anti-reality.

      1. Right. Divine law trumps canon law. Benedict could no more change the divinely-established office of the papacy than he could decide chocolate and coca cola are valid matter for confecting the Eucharist.

      2. Correct, an expanded Petrine ministry cannot exist. But that does not address whether 188 applies. Given that an expanded Petrine Ministry (EPM) is an error, if 188 applies, then the attempted abdication would be in error and therefore not valid. On the other hand, if 188 does not apply because of the Supreme Legislator Card (SLC) or something, then the Petrine Ministry is still not expanded, but the abdication would be valid.
        So, it seems to me, those arguing the abdication is valid need to show 188 does not apply. To put it confusedly, they would need to show that legislation by the Supreme Legislator legislating how the Supreme Legislator validly resigns does not apply to the Supreme Legislator when he resigns.
        Which brings to mind a question for the SLC advocates. 188 discusses duress and substantial error as bases for invalidation. I doubt the SLC advocates would argue that an abdication procured by holding a gun to BXVI’s head would be valid under 188. So, when the basis is changed from duress to substantial error (assuming for the sake of argument that EPM = substantial error), why a different outcome?

        1. “On the other hand, if 188 does not apply because of the Supreme Legislator Card (SLC) or something, then the Petrine Ministry is still not expanded, but the abdication would be valid.”
          Wrong. If he only intended a partial abdication from an office that can only, by its nature, have one occupant, then he didn’t abdicate any of it. The abdication is defective and the situation reverts to the status quo.

Leave a Reply

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