My favorite quote from Cardinal Muller’s manifesto (which is really amounts to nothing more than restating perennial Catholic doctrine and quoting from the CCC):
“Faith and life are inseparable, for Faith apart from works is dead (CCC 1815). The moral law is the work of divine wisdom and leads man to the promised blessedness (CCC 1950). Consequently, the “knowledge of the divine and natural law is necessary” to do good and reach this goal (CCC 1955). Accepting this truth is essential for all people of good will. For he who dies in mortal sin without repentance will be forever separated from God (CCC 1033). This leads to practical consequences in the lives of Christians, which are often ignored today (cf 2270-2283; 2350-2381). The moral law is not a burden, but part of that liberating truth (cf Jn 8:32) through which the Christian walks on the path of salvation and which may not be relativized… Every human being has an immortal soul, which in death is separated from the body, hoping for the resurrection of the dead (CCC 366). Death makes man’s decision for or against God definite. Everyone has to face the particular judgement immediately after death (CCC 1021). Either a purification is necessary, or man goes directly into heavenly bliss and is allowed to see God face to face. There is also the dreadful possibility that a person will remain opposed to God to the very end, and by definitely refusing His Love, “condemns himself immediately and forever” (CCC 1022). “God created us without us, but He did not want to save us without us” (CCC 1847). The eternity of the punishment of hell is a terrible reality, which – according to the testimony of Holy Scripture – attracts all who “die in the state of mortal sin” (CCC 1035). The Christian goes through the narrow gate, for “the gate is wide, and the way that leads to ruin is wide, and many are upon it” (Mt 7:13).
To keep silent about these and the other truths of the Faith and to teach people accordingly is the greatest deception against which the Catechism vigorously warns. It represents the last trial of the Church and leads man to a religious delusion, “the price of their apostasy” (CCC 675); it is the fraud of Antichrist. “He will deceive those who are lost by all means of injustice; for they have closed themselves to the love of the truth by which they should be saved” (2 Thess 2:10).”
That last part is quite shocking; he’s actually calling out our present times as those foretold in CCC 675 and in Scripture of the final deception wherein “even the elect” would be lost had those times not been shortened. I don’t see any other way to read it.
The document from Cardinal Muller was released in seven languages on Friday, two days earlier than planned, because some publication in Europe blew the embargo. It had been scheduled to be released tonight, on the eve of the Feast of our Lady of Lourdes, 11 Feb, which also happens to be the sixth anniversary of Pope Benedict’s Declaratio, in which he failed to abdicate the Throne of Saint Peter, because he renounced its Ministry but not the Office, with the apparent intention of transforming the papacy from a monarchy into a “synodality”. Of course it was at Lourdes that Our Lady confirmed herself to be the Immaculate Conception, and we do well to recall that Abp. Ganswein drew a direct parallel between Benedict’s Declaratio of 11 Feb 2013 and God’s decision to create Mary Immaculate. Yeah, that’s a pretty big deal, as in hubris maximus, and I wrote a long blog post explaining it last December on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception HERE.
Apb. Ganswein: “…I, too, a firsthand witness of the spectacular and unexpected step of Benedict XVI, I must admit that what always comes to mind is the well-known and brilliant axiom with which, in the Middle Ages, John Duns Scotus justified the divine decree for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God:
“Decuit, potuit, fecit.”
That is to say: it was fitting, because it was reasonable. God could do it, therefore he did it. I apply the axiom to the decision to resign in the following way: it was fitting, because Benedict XVI was aware that he lacked the necessary strength for the extremely onerous office. He could do it, because he had already thoroughly thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of popes emeritus for the future. So he did it.
The momentous resignation of the theologian pope represented a step forward primarily by the fact that, on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, he introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of “pope emeritus,” stating that his strength was no longer sufficient “to properly exercise the Petrine ministry.” The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst); as though, by this, he wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then Joseph Ratzinger took as archbishop of Munich and Freising and which he then naturally maintained as bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis,” which means “fellow workers in the truth.” In fact, it is not in the singular but the plural; it is taken from the Third Letter of John, in which in verse 8 it is written: “We ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers in the truth.”
Since the election of his successor Francis (sic), on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.”
On the same day as the ++Muller bombshell, we also got a big hit from Bobby Mickens, as reported by Ann Barnhardt with all the necessary commentary HERE. You will note quotes from Bergoglio, to the tune of, “I think that a ‘pope emeritus’ has already become an institution. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI took this step which de facto instituted popes-emeriti,” Francis said. “He opened a door which is institutional, not exceptional.”
You understand that what INSTITUTIONAL means, right? Hint: It relates to a change in the structure of a thing, as in instituting a permanent change to it.
“People closest to (Bergoglio) believe he will step down, “after he’s discerned that he’s done all he has been called to do and has implemented solid reforms that will be hard for a successor to undo. That would be a way to ensure that Benedict’s resignation does not remain a singular, one-off occurrence and truly does become institutional and not exceptional.””
And then there was this:
Santa Marta and the end of centralized, monarchical Church authority
The Argentine pope made the first — and what is the most significant — reform of his pontificate in…his decision to…make his permanent home at the Casa Santa Marta. The choice of address was…part of his plan to demythologize the institution of the papacy and eliminate the lingering vestiges of the old papal court….He’s done this principally by laying the foundation (not without difficulty and opposition) for structures of synodality, first of all by strengthening and reforming the Synod of Bishops…that gives (or is aimed to give) national episcopal conferences greater decision-making and doctrinal authority that has been almost exclusively reserved to the pope and his aides in the Vatican up to now.
But this long-term project, which is only meant to unleash a process that will need years to mature, is not even fully launched yet. Pope Francis still needs to further reform a number of institution and offices in the Vatican that pertain to the all-but-dead monarchical papacy.
You’ve all purchased the book on the development of the papacy by Abp. Michael Miller, right? I mean, surely everyone with a dog in this hunt has at least done some basic level of research into THE premier work covering the widespread desire to transform or even eliminate the papacy in 1960s-70s Germany, right? You know that it was seen as a great ecumenical imperative, right? You know that, because of the Kirchensteuer, this initiative continues today with ++Kasper at the helm, right?
Getting back to the ++Muller document, in which he does NOT, note well, give name nor TITLE to his accused (full text HERE), and comparing the manifesto to the body of work compiled by Antipope Bergoglio, today’s Gospel for the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany seems quite timely, if not downright anticipatory:
“Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.” Matthew 13:24-30
God is in charge. God will not be mocked.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Out Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for us.
Virgin Most Powerful, pray for us.
Saint Bernadette, pray for us.
Happy Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes!
24 thoughts on “Suffer both to grow until the harvest: The Church and the anti-church may not be subsisting in the same space much longer”
As Miss Barnhardt does not have comments, I will put this here, if I may.
In the Antipapacy video, the story is that Benedict was threatened by one or more entities in the Vatican until he resigned. Since then, the story has become that he has been a proponent of splitting up the Papacy since at least the late 1970s. If so, how was he threatened to do something that he was already in favor of? That doesn’t make much sense. And, if he was on board with this, is he really being held as a prisoner in the Vatican?
We seem to have contradicting stories here.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
The central premise in the Barnhardt Antipapacy video is that Benedict attempted a bifurcation of the papacy by only resigning a portion, but the monarchal natural of the papacy was instituted by Christ himself, and is thus immutable. Therefore, Benedict’s partial abdication failed, and he remains the one true living pope.
Since her declaration of moral certainty in this matter nearly three years ago, and my own in July 2017, new evidence continues to come to light. The most significant of this evidence is the widespread – near universal – belief that not only could the papacy be altered or even abolished, but that indeed it should be, all this happening within the high theological circles in 1960s-70s Germany.
Now the fact remains that nowhere has it yet to be found that Ratzinger explicitly endorsed these ideas at the time, but he can be seen presenting them as plausible in open discussion. The point being that the idea of a bifurcated or even synodal papacy is not something he himself dreamt up — on the contrary, this was a high concept and something that’s been in his mind for 50 years.
Keep in mind, it could also be a ruse. Benedict could have done this knowing that he would fully retain the papacy. He left us enough other clues in terms of remaining in the Vatican wearing white and being addressed as His Holiness, and of course he knows the contents of the Third Secret.
I think the time is getting close when we will find out a lot more.
A few points.
Yes Ratzinger’s openness to a non-monarchial view of the Papacy could have been used against him to force a bifurcation which Benedict himself knew was invalid, but not his enemies. Hence the possibility of a brave deception.
On the other hand it could be Benedict did indeed believe in the validity of what he did. But this does not preclude the very strong possibility that he was forced to make this step. So, no contradiction.
There is one area that has been somewhat unexplored and that is the influence of Reginald Cardinal Pole’s on Benedict’s view of the papacy. Pole saw the papal office, not primarly as governing, but as Peter embracing the Cross through a life of suffering and martyrdom. In fact the Italian canon lawyer Stefano Violi even noted that Benedict’s “contemplative” papacy is in fact closer to that willed by Christ. I have some citations from Ratzinger on this somewhere. It certainly sheds light on the “contemplative” papacy.
You are on to a very hot trail with your last paragraph. I will be writing about this soon.
I tend to believe this was a ruse by Benedict to
protect the Church. I have found Father David Belland’s take on the situation to be quite compelling.
Thank you for this link SAS. I had read something similar from Father, but could not remember where. It is compelling and more importantly charitable towards our Holy Father, the Church and the papacy!
You’re welcome, kono! I believe Our Lady of Lourdes led me to find it and share it on her feast day so be sure to thank her too. God bless you!
It is certainly a possibility. If he was being pressured, and he was aware his opponents favored this bifurcated Papacy thing, it would present an opportunity to in some sense “poison pill” anything Bergoglio would do. Or, he could have done it being just as mistaken as his opponents. Time will tell.
The link does not work any longer. Do you have another? I surely meant to print it, but did not.
Sorry kono, the author requested it be taken down.
docmx001 – I see that you and Ann Barnhardt regularly ask for the intercession of “Our Lady, Undoer of Knots”. A few years before “Pope” Francis came on the scene, I had ordered the devotional booklet for it, but for some reason I just couldn’t get into it. We’ve been told that this is one of Bergoglio’s favorite devotions. I remember emailing myself these two links back in 2015, which perhaps confirmed why it seemed something was off about it. However, there hasn’t been any further critiques that I’m aware of. Maybe you or Ann could investigate, like she did with that whole Wiccan stang scandal (that is, IF there really happens to be a concern with the “Our Lady, Undoer of Knots” devotion). But, just that Antipope Bergoglio is a promoter of it, makes me highly skeptical.
Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, is fully vetted on the wiki, believe it or not. If “Francis” seems enthralled by her intercession, perhaps that is most fitting.
Haha, Ann Barnhardt is too funny. But of course she is going to end her latest blog post with the picture in question. Our Blessed Mother with Rapunzel-like hair, go figure. I was hoping for a more thorough investigation than what Wiki has to offer. Then again, the other two bloggers (the first one being defunct) had not followed up with any additional insights beyond what they initially posted on the subject. Bigger fish to fry, I assume. Thanks for at least allowing me to inquire about it, since it has been on my mind for quite some time.
But, just that Antipope Bergoglio is a promoter of it, makes me highly skeptical.
Stopped clock, etc.
I sense some nervousness…..
A question I’d like posed to all who insist Francis is the pope: You’re in Rome, you have the choice of receiving a papal blessing from either PPBXVI or PPF…..which one?
And given that “Francis” does not even offer the apostolic blessing, but yet Benedict still does, is there even a choice to be made?
Exactly….a papal blessing or a wave. I’m just trying to say in your heart of hearts, which one would make you feel you’ve received a blessing from Almighty God?
Now the google docs I posted above written by Father David Belland no longer exist when I click on the link. Can anyone tell
me how they might have disappeared?
The author requested it be taken down.
Ok thank you.
If you are interested in learning more about
what Father David Belland has to say about BXVI’s
“resignation” he said that his email address is email@example.com and he would be happy to send anyone who is interested, his research and writings on the topic.
Thank you very much! It sure is getting nasty out here. I could see Skojek was going off the deep end, but now Marshall too! It’s so very disheartening.