“And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God. For think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds.” Hebrews 12:1-3

Truly He is risen. Alleluia!
Happy Easter everyone.
 

The Agony of Jesus Christ at Gethsemane is noteworthy for its intensity. I’ve always believed that the intensity of the terror was not driven primarily by thoughts of His impending Passion and death, for He certainly was no coward, but rather by the knowledge that His sacrifice would be wasted by a multitude through hatred and indifference. His desire for reciprocation of the deep personal love He has for each of us was/is so intense, that the sense of loss over His beloved but damned sons and daughters caused his earthly physical body to sweat blood (Luke 22:44). His spoken desire of “let this chalice pass” in Matt 26:39,42 could be referring to the Crucifixion, as tradition holds, but it seems to me there is something more. God willed for the world to be reconciled to himself through this very sacrifice, and Jesus IS God. The will of Jesus, in both His divine nature and His human nature, united in the Hypostatic Union, were never at odds with God the Father: For He and God are of the same Essence.
Just prior to this, upon entering the garden, He said, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death.” (Matt 26:38) Is He sorrowful because He is about to ransom humanity through His Cross and Resurrection? Or is He sorrowful because so many would choose to ignore it? His terror and pain, it seems to me, is out of His love for those who would be lost; lost loves, so to speak, in spite of His own unyielding love and sacrifice. I’m not a scripture scholar, but it seems worth meditating on, for the sake of our own soul.
Miss Barnhardt has her usual reflection posted today, and I highly recommend it, even if you’ve read it before HERE.
A great exercise on Good Friday is to pick a Gospel and read it all the way through. It really doesn’t take that long. I am going to leave you with the seventh chapter of Matthew, the third part of the Sermon on the Mount.
Remember that the Sermon on the Mount takes place at the very beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. After the infancy narrative ends with chapter two, the introduction of John the Baptist and the baptism of the Lord in chapter three, and the temptation in the desert at the beginning of chapter four, He gets right down to business. Upon hearing of John’s death, Jesus immediately withdrew to Capernaum to begin the Galilean Ministry, as foretold in Isaiah. Preaching His message of repentance (4:17), He chose his first disciples (4:18-22), and then began drawing large crowds (4:23-25), primarily through working miracles.
Now that He had everyone’s attention, it was time for the big reveal. The Sermon on the Mount begins with chapters five and six forming a sort of catechism, and the central theme is something like, “You all think you know what’s what? Well, I’m here to take it up a notch.” He goes on to explain a litany of sinful behavior, and how we’re so much more wretched then we even knew. But then we get to chapter seven, where He offers hope, through repentance, prayer, obedience, and love. He wants to be loved.
Enter ye in at the narrow gate, my friends. Blessed Pascal Triduum to all.

The Holy Gospel of St. Mathew, Chapter 7: The third part of the Sermon on the Mount:

[1] Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? [4] Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
[6] Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. [7] Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. [8] For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. [9]Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone? [10] Or if he shall ask him a fish, will he reach him a serpent?
[11] If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him? [12] All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets. [13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. [14] How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! [15] Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
[21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.
[26] And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, [27] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. [28] And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine.[29] For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees.

The following course of action was suggested from reader, “Aqua”, emphasis mine.

His Humbleness strikes again, cameras at close range a couple of “feet” away

Posted onAPRIL 11, 2019

Not just a PR stunt, but a giant middle finger to our Lord, who is “unable” to genuflect at the Consecration nor kneel during Exposition.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3W1mG38IX4?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]

Repost below from just a few months ago.

---

Practicing what you preach: “Better to be an atheist” than a “hater”

Posted onJANUARY 4, 2019

Courtesy HERE.  This was at Vespers and Te Deum, 31 December 2018. Of course he’s done this many times before, with ample photographic evidence, and the winningest caption I’ve seen so far is, “Antipope Bergoglio stares down his opponent.”
He helpfully followed it up two days later with a homily about how daily Mass-goers are a bunch of hypocritical haters who would be better off staying home and living as atheists HERE.
Have you ever wondered why they keep putting out the prie dieu when they know he’s never going to use it? Do you ever wonder why he’s not embarrassed standing there in front of it, when it’s such a jarring sight? Do you ever wonder why, in six years, he’s never told them to stop bringing it out?
Because he wants it there, that’s why. It’s there for effect, you see. It’s an enhancement, an accessory. “I should be kneeling, but I won’t bow to you. Non Serviam. And (just to reinforce the point) look at this stupid kneeler they put here for me. How pathetic.”
Remember, the biggest rush he gets is not in the power play itself, but in the getting away with it.
Are you aiding and abetting him? Do you follow this man?

Not just a PR stunt, but a giant middle finger to our Lord, who is “unable” to genuflect at the Consecration nor kneel during Exposition.

Repost below from just a few months ago.

Courtesy HERE.  This was at Vespers and Te Deum, 31 December 2018. Of course he’s done this many times before, with ample photographic evidence, and the winningest caption I’ve seen so far is, “Antipope Bergoglio stares down his opponent.”
He helpfully followed it up two days later with a homily about how daily Mass-goers are a bunch of hypocritical haters who would be better off staying home and living as atheists HERE.
Have you ever wondered why they keep putting out the prie dieu when they know he’s never going to use it? Do you ever wonder why he’s not embarrassed standing there in front of it, when it’s such a jarring sight? Do you ever wonder why, in six years, he’s never told them to stop bringing it out?
Because he wants it there, that’s why. It’s there for effect, you see. It’s an enhancement, an accessory. “I should be kneeling, but I won’t bow to you. Non Serviam. And (just to reinforce the point) look at this stupid kneeler they put here for me. How pathetic.”
Remember, the biggest rush he gets is not in the power play itself, but in the getting away with it.
Are you aiding and abetting him? Do you follow this man?

So it came to pass that Pope Benedict issued a 6000 word exhortation regarding the abuse crisis in the Universal Church, because that’s totally what retired, sickly, frail, and unable to continue his services six years ago non-popes do. HERE
From the preface:

“The extent and gravity of the reported incidents has deeply distressed priests as well as laity, and has caused more than a few to call into question the very Faith of the Church. It was necessary to send out a strong message, and seek out a new beginning, so to make the Church again truly credible as a light among peoples and as a force in service against the powers of destruction.
Since I myself had served in a position of responsibility as shepherd of the Church at the time of the public outbreak of the crisis, and during the run-up to it, I had to ask myself – even though, as emeritus, I am no longer directly responsible – what I could contribute to a new beginning.”

Remember, always and forever, once a pope always a pope, I’m just turning over the governance part, keeping the contemplative part, blah blah blah. Someone else is now responsible for the day to day operations, but I’m retaining the true essence of the papacy, the spiritual part. Remember this from the Declaratio?

“I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.”

And guess what… that’s totally wrong. The essential nature of the papacy is that of a GOVERNING OFFICE. This is the ontological reality of what the papacy IS. And since Benedict explicitly did NOT resign the Munus in his Latin pronouncement of the Declaratio, the conclave convoked by the cardinals was invalid. No one on earth, not even the entire college of cardinals, has the power to accept the resignation of a pope, EVEN IF IT WERE VALID. If valid, the resignation would have been effective by the act itself, not by anyone’s “acceptance” of it. If invalid, no amount of “universal peaceful acceptance” can turn a lie into the truth.
I’m reposting below the meaty part of what I wrote in my Moral Certitude post of 3 July 2017. The upfront quote is from Benedict’s “final” general audience of 28 February 2013:
—————————

“The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” HERE

Now, combine those words with his decision to retain the papal title as an emeritus, to retain the vesture, to physically remain at the Vatican, etc etc. This is the evidence that is contemporary with the (supposed) abdication. It doesn’t invalidate the other evidence, where he says he is renouncing, but it sure is a serious counterweight to it.

Now, fast forward to Abp. Ganswein’s comments last year where he dropped the bombshell of the “Expanded Petrine Ministry.” These were not off the cuff remarks, but rather a formal, well-prepared speech on Benedict’s papacy, given at the Greg in Rome on 20 May 2016:

Archbishop Gänswein…said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”

He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.
“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.” HERE

His words follow EXACTLY the active vs passive elements as outlined by Benedict in his final general audience, and suggest Benedict has in fact been operating under this guise the entire time. It’s nearly irrefutable.

Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

Grave or Unjust Fear are concepts that run throughout canon law. In each and every case, the existence of this condition always nullifies whatever action the fear induced — BY THE LAW ITSELF. That last phrase means we need not get into the detail, we need not determine degrees of culpability, and we need not any sort of judicial ruling to bring the nullification into effect: The mere existence of the nullifying condition brings about the nullification of the action. Go ahead and click on any of these links to the other canons if you need it splained moar.

 1    1,    0,  125|         act placed out of grave fear, unjustly inflicted, or
 2    1,    0,  172| directly or indirectly by grave fear or malice to vote for a
 3    1,    0,  188|   resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly
 4    2,    3,  643|         induced by force, grave fear, or malice, or the one whom
 5    2,    3,  656|       made without force, grave fear, or malice;~5/ the profession
 6    4,    1, 1103|       because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally
 7    4,    2, 1191|         out of grave and unjust fear or malice is null by the
 8    4,    2, 1200|         malice, force, or grave fear is null by the law itself.~
 9    6,    1, 1322|      who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively
10    6,    1, 1323|        who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively
11    6,    1, 1344|       committed the delict from fear, necessity, the heat of
12    6,    1, 1359|       penalty extorted by grave fear is invalid.~
13    7,    2, 1538|      extorted by force or grave fear.~
14    7,    2, 1548|      this secrecy;~2/ those who fear that from their own testimony
15    7,    2, 1620|       coerced by force or grave fear;~4/ the trial took place

 
And now Lifesite brings word that the man Pope Benedict brought in to reform the Vatican Bank in 2009 was in actual fear for his life and the lives of his family, and was ultimately ousted from his position in 2012 when he got a little too close to the truth, and various Curial officials moved against him.

Vatican Bank ex-chief: I feared Curia could order my assassination while I cleaned up corruption

Read the whole thing HERE.
Now it goes without saying that Pope Benedict failed to properly manifest his resignation in discord with Canon 332.2 by resigning only the ministry and not the office. It also goes without saying that we’ve already checked just about every box on Canon 188 when it comes to said failed partial abdication, and we’ve always suspected that grave fear was also part of the mix. But now we have what seems to be definitive proof. If the man assigned by Benedict to clean up the corruption in the Vatican Bank was literally in fear for his life, how much more danger would be facing the man who appointed him?
You’re going to be called a crazy chemtrail chasing faked moon landing flat earther. Get over it, and start serving Christ through loyalty to His True Vicar.
St. Vincent Ferrer, Angel of Justice, pray for us.