Have you heard about the mysterious case of Archbishop Ganswein and the obscure, “unpublished,” 41 year old sermon by Joseph Ratzinger, then Cardinal Archbishop of Munich-Freising, delivered at his Frauenkirche Cathedral (Cathedral of Our Lady) on 10 August 1978? Well, pull up a chair!
First, here is an excerpt from +Ganswein’s infamous speech at the Greg, 20 May 2016, in which he mentions the mystery sermon:
Since the election of his successor Francis, 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.
It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.
You can read the unabridged English translation of the speech from Diane Montagna HERE. The original reportage from Ed Pentin is HERE.
There is a lot to unpack just in this brief excerpt, starting with “demythologized the papacy.” This concept appears over and over in the +Miller book, which lays out the desired end result of transformating the nature of the papacy, dissolving the monarchy into a synodal ministry, that was being pushed around all the best German cocktail parties of the 60s and 70s. In particular, this idea was the pet project and lifetime work of Cardinal Walter Casper, antipope Bergoglio’s “favorite theologian” HERE . Are you telling me +Ganswein had no knowledge of this fact, and randomly pulled a fifty dollar word like “demythologized” out of thin air?
I’ve already written several posts on this speech that I won’t rehash here. Just read the plain words that the man spoke. Read the headline of this post. It’s right there in front of you.
Now, about that sermon he referenced; what exactly was the “possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich…” What in the word was he talking about, and how would he have ever known about it or remembered it unless someone (cough) tipped him off that there was some stunning clue left there 41 years ago?
Guess what? Someone conveniently made it readily available, in the strangest way. Not only was I able to dig it up in five seconds, in English, but it also turns out that it had remained unpublished until… June of 2013, three months into the Bergoglian Antipapacy. That’s quite a coincidence, folks.
“Four days after Paul VI’s death, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, celebrated Mass in his Bavarian Cathedral on 10 August 1978 for the late Pope. His homily was printed in the archdiocesan bulletin, ‘Ordinariats-Korrespondenz’. For the 50th anniversary of Pope Montini’s election (21 June 1963), ‘L’Osservatore Romano’ translated and published the text in n.141 of the Daily and a synthesis was published in the English weekly edition, n. 26. The following, however, is an unabridged translation.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ratzdethp6.htm
Paul VI died on the Feast of the Transfiguration, 6 August 1978. Benedict crafted his homily to draw parallels between the Transfiguration and…wait for it…the possibility of the “transfiguration” or “metamorphosis” of a pope and his pontificate. Here is the relevant passage to latch onto, emphasis mine:
The transfiguration promised by faith as a metamorphosis of man is primarily a journey of purification, of suffering. Paul VI increasingly accepted his papal service as a metamorphosis of faith into suffering. The last words the Risen Lord spoke to Peter after making him the shepherd of his flock were: “when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go” (Jn 21:18). It was a hint of the crucifixion that lay in store for Peter at the end of his journey. It was, in general, a hint of the nature of this service. Paul VI, increasingly, let himself be taken where, humanly, by himself, he did not wish to go. For him his pontificate meant more and more allowing another to clothe him and allowing himself to be nailed to the cross. We know that before his 75th birthday — and also before his 80th — he fought strenuously against the idea of retiring. Moreover, we can imagine how heavy the thought must be of no longer belonging to ourselves; of no longer having a single private moment; of being enchained to the very last, with our body giving up and with a task that day after day demands the total, vigorous use of a man’s energy.. “None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord” (Rom 14:7-8). These words of today’s Reading word for word defined Paul VI’s life. By bearing it as a suffering he gave new meaning to authority as service. He took no pleasure in power, in position, in having had a successful career; and precisely because he bore authority as a responsibility “another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go” — his authority became great and credible.
So we have references to bravely resisting retirement, being clothed by another, being taken you where you do not wish to go, becoming a prisoner/crucified, giving NEW meaning to authority as service, and bearing authority as a responsibility, presumably referencing the last years of Pope Paul’s life, when he clearly was no longer governing the Church himself, yet he still bore the authority as the holder of the Office. Moreover, Ratzinger thinks Pope Paul’s suffering actually increased the greatness and credibility of his authority, even though outwardly he was no longer governing.
He says of Pope Paul that he was enchained to the last, with his “body giving up and with a task that day after day demands the total, vigorous use of a man’s energy.” Compare this to the Latin Declaratio, where Benedict says a lack of vigor is to blame for his own inability to adequately fulfill all of the day to day demands: “in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength (literally “vigor” in the original Latin) of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry…”
He says of Pope Paul, “we can imagine how heavy the thought must be of no longer belonging to ourselves; of no longer having a single private moment…” That sounds an awful lot like what Benedict said about himself in the crucial passage from his last (so far) General Audience:
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated…
The “always” is also a “forever” – 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.
Was Benedict a prisoner as pope 2005-2013, being crucified by his tormentors? Is he a prisoner now, enchained to the last, 2013-present? Did he, with the step he took in February 2013, “give new meaning to authority as service?” Does he see himself as imprisoned, as if in exile, and yet remaining “in a new way, so to speak, in the enclosure of St. Peter?”
Ahem. Popes in prison and Popes in exile are still the pope. Capisci?
There are breadcrumbs everywhere, folks. Sometimes they show up out of nowhere after 41 years.
Happy Nativity of Saint John the Baptist!
…that speech by +Ganswein was given publicly?? It’s reads like a word-search of buzzwords Barnhardt has been throwing around. This is blowing my absolute mind.
So Barnhardt and you have been diligently working to reveal the truth–or rather, I think, to remove obstacles to the truth. In my minds eye, I envisioned you both like a CSI tv show, forensic analysts poring over an ancient tome looking for clues.
That speech is it. Out there in the open, not hiding one bit. In 2016. I can see why this has been infuriating. People are treating you, at times, like you are interpreting data subjectively. You’re not, you’re just telling us what is already there. I only became Catholic in 2018, so I admit ignorance really of anything much prior to that–maybe more people know about all this. But then, why are more people not visibly outraged?
I’m beside myself, I really am.
Yep. You can click the two links I provided to the full text of the speech and the original reportage.
Welcome home and do not waiver from the faith. You’re in the right place, even though it looks hopeless. Fast and pray.
In truth, I think it was providential that my conversion was completed the spring before Vigano entered the world stage that summer. The Church Militant will need everyone she can muster to hold the line. Happy to do my part, such as it is.
I will educate myself. Thank you for what you are doing. I will indeed be fasting and praying.
I actually think it is very possible that Benedict was elected *with the full understanding* between Ratzinger and the Cardinals that he WOULD bifurcate his papacy in order to allow Bergoglio his destruction.
After all – do you REALLY think there were enough faithful Catholic Cardinals in 2005 to honestly elect a man without any strings attached?
Given what we now know about the deep roots of the Lavender Mafia – and the length of time they’ve been plotting all of this crap – I think Benedict was merely their transitional pope to launch their creeping destruction of the Petrine Office. And who would be more clever to pull this off than the cerebral Ratzinger?
If there were such an “understanding,” it would arguably nullify Ratzinger’s election. At the time, his election seemed nearly miraculous to me, and given what we know now about the extent of the rot, maybe even more so. If it’s true that the entire college is blackmailable, which seems likely, who knows what really went on.
@Lazarus Gethsemane, Camroyer, Mark Docherty, et al: Thank you for all your thoughtful responses. It is good to have a forum where I am able to have a free, considerate, and non-condescending give-and-take. What do you think of the following possibility especially in light of the virtue of Equity?
Benedict is Pope. On February 11, 2013 he resigned neither the Papal Office nor the Petrine Ministry. Rather through the use of the virtue of Equity in regards to Canon 332.2 especially, he made plain the reality of the situation in which he lived and lives: his ability to exercise the powers of governing and teaching–through no fault of his own–has been made null and void through and by the diabolic activity of the members of the world-wide network that has never ceased to exist or to work since Lucifer proclaimed, “Non serviam!”.
Due to the networks’ members’ actions and inactions not only is Pope Benedict not able to do what he ought, it is made to look as though he is doing or allowing the impossible–to oppose Christ’s promises to His Church and to bind on earth that which cannot and will not be bound in heaven. Pope Benedict’s unprecedented but reasonable announcement that he would no longer exercise the governing and teaching powers of the Petrine Ministry was absolutely free and valid and entailed no error or malice (because of his recourse to Equity). As much as we might desire it, he has no duty to derogate in these specific circumstances of which he alone knows ALL the details. Moreover, because he retains both the Papal Office and the Petrine Ministry, in no way has his resignation from and refusal to exercise those powers indicated that he has directly or even indirectly delegated them to be used by anyone else–Bergoglio included–whatever ANYONE else says or thinks (Universal and Peaceful Acceptance–hogwash). He has the office; he has the ministry; he is refusing to exercise the teaching and governing powers; he has said as much.
Although he may have involved another member–Ganswein(?)–in the use of the sanctifying power and thus “expanded the ministry” of that specific power, he did not change in anyway the integrity of either the Papal Office or the Petrine Ministry as divinely instituted by Christ–there is only one pope and that man is he “for ever and for always” since 2005. Moreover, the use of the powers to govern and to teach has been usurped by not delegated to the Anti-Pope (and perhaps False Prophet), Jorge Bergoglio; thus, anything said or done by this Anti-Pope and his Administrative Establishment applies only to the Anti-Church and is null and void as if it never existed as concerns Holy Mother Church and Christ’s faithful ones.
Perhaps it is the failure of other popes to obey Our Lady of Fatima that has led God to use Pope Benedict and his “difficult yet triumphant decision” as a secondary cause in order to complete His purposes (as in the case of Mary’s Immaculate Conception when, after the Fall, He used Mary’s constant Fiat to bring Himself, His kingdom, and His Divine Will to dwell with/in His creatures on Earth as it is in Heaven). Through imitating Christ’s own Passion and Crucifixion, Pope Benedict is a hero and not a coward. He alone did and does what no other man could and can do. He alone is Peter and where Peter is, there is the Church.
His primary suffering now comes in the form of the calumnies that pour forth from misunderstanding faithful who feel betrayed by that which they do not fully comprehend. In fairness, how can we comprehend that of which we know not and of which Pope Benedict is not free to speak? (Abp. Vigano is in hiding most likely to protect his own life!) For the sake of Christ’s Bride and His lambs and sheep, that he not be martyred until the fullness of time and grace have come (which God alone knows), our Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI remains a silent but willing prisoner all the while by his very existence he and he alone is safeguarding Our Holy Mother and Christ’s promises to Her and us.
Did Christ betray his followers when he was crucified and died? No! He did not. As I see it, neither has Pope Benedict. He not only needs our prayers and sacrifices, he deserves our outspoken support.
Incomprehensible, perhaps, but it is reasonable, he could do it and he did.
Islam_Is Islam says
“Benedict is Pope. On February 11, 2013 he resigned neither the Papal Office nor the Petrine Ministry. Rather through the use of the virtue of Equity in regards to Canon 332.2 especially, he made plain the reality of the situation in which he lived and lives: his ability to exercise the powers of governing and teaching–through no fault of his own–has been made null and void through and by the diabolic activity of the members of the world-wide network that has never ceased to exist or to work since Lucifer proclaimed, “Non serviam!..”
The problem I have with that theory is that it still begs the obvious question:
Such a thoroughly corrupt and heretical cabal of conspirators would be the very SAME cabal that actually elected him to be pope. So…why?
Why did they elect him in the first place – UNLESS – they knew they could use him with his consent?
Islam_Is Islam: “What do you think of the following possibility especially in light of the virtue of Equity?”
Justice would still have to be served for Benedict to rightly apply the principle of equity. And is justice being served? That’s pretty doubtful to me. After all, does Pope Benedict really appear to be feeding His sheep right now like he should be doing? Isn’t that what popes are supposed to do? As much as I love him, it doesn’t look that way to me. And I just don’t understand the idea that he can’t perform his duties. Doesn’t God give the graces necessary for one to honor one’s state?
“Pope Benedict’s unprecedented but reasonable announcement that he would no longer exercise . . . “
It might have been reasonable from his standpoint, but it doesn’t strike me as reasonble objectively. Is it ever objectively reasonable to say you won’t be exercising a power that your state obligates you to exercise (at least indirectly)?
We don’t know all the details. We don’t know the third secret. We don’t know his true motives.
What we do know is this: As a results of Benedict’s actions, the filth has fully revealed itself and come willingly into the light. We never could have know the extent of the rot any other way.
He remains silent, for now. But his silence has spoken volumes in terms of the monsters sensing safety and outing themselves.
We were never going to be to defeat what we couldn’t see.
Dear Lazsarus Gethsemane: “The problem I have with that theory is that it still begs the obvious question: Such a thoroughly corrupt and heretical cabal of conspirators would be the very SAME cabal that actually elected him to be pope. So…why? Why did they elect him in the first place – UNLESS – they knew they could use him with his consent?”
You can have all the theories you want, and you’ve got quite a few; however, they’re not of much value unless you can support and/or prove them. Good luck.
Good job Mark.
What do we read here? No hints to Fatima? No hints to being under enemy pressure?
Why one insist that he did what he did to ‘save papacy’ while evidence points to something quite contrary. He attempted to change papacy ‘forever’. This is substantial error and must be introduced not in the open.
He is still the pope, as Ann said, he wants it or not. By his actions many bad events take place.
If one wished to keep eyes closed and stick to theory about brave B16 fighting alone enemies – fine.
Question remains: what will we do with situation at hand?
@MC – Our friendly blogger Mark wrote in his own combox on 2/11/19:
“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.”
So you can see, this hypothesis is not an airtight case, and Mark himself concedes other credible possibilities in attempting to interpret what may have led Pope Benedict to take the action that he did. Are you sure *you’ve* got it all figured out?
@MC: I believe that what we do is pray and sacrifice for our Holy Father AND be outspoken in our support of him so that he is not alone fighting the enemies of Christ. Sin and not Pope Benedict is the cause of the many bad events that are taking place.
I’m finding it increasingly difficult to see Benedict as anything other than a WILLING co-conspirator in the current anti-papacy before our eyes.
Dear Lazarus Gethsemane, This is precisely what Satan wishes everyone to understand. There is no question whatsoever he did more in his eight years of an active Papacy to promote the Old Mass, reconcile the SSPX, demand and actually carried out the theological correction of the NOM faulty Consecration, redding it of “for you and all” and returning “for many,” defrocking a record number of predators, among many, many other things than PVI, and JPII. combined. These are FACTS!
Such an attitude, which is had by so many, is nothing less than considering that the Jews were right after all Christ did for them and then crucified Him. Let’s be realistic. Really, those who shouted “crucify him” at the beginning are akin to the very ones who today shout “he’s a fraud” at Benedict, because he supposedly made some missteps or misstatements. No one can truly understand the machinations that take place at the top of the most powerful Government, be it secular or be it religious, when Satan and his secret Network is determined to destroy it–a FACT admitted by Fr. Amorth, when he said there were Cardinals, Bishops and Monsignors in the Vatican who do not believe in God, who are involved with the demonic–he is known to have exorcised at least one Bishop.
Then too how do you interpret the vision of Jacinta, revealed in Sr. Lucia’a Third Memoir:
“One day we spent our siesta down by my parents’ well. Jacinta sat on the stone
slabs on top of the well. Francisco and I climbed up a steep bank in search of wild honey among the brambles in a nearby thicket. After a little while, Jacinta called out to me:
“’Didn’t you see the Holy Father?’
“’No.’
“’I don’t’ know how it was, but I saw the Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house, there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones, others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.’”
Where has there been a scene, concerning a Pope prior to Benedict’s resignation, that resembles most closely Jacinta’s description as does Benedict in that former Convent in the Vatican? One can wait for Francis or his successor to fit the picture, but generations will probably go to their grave, before it happens again. This is a FACT, and not just conjecture or imagination.
The question is: how is it that supposed miscues, mistakes, wrong moves, not saying exactly the right thing, according to judgment of people, indeed, every little imperfect move carries more weight than all the good a person does? I personally don’t know. But one thing is certain: Satan does not like a Pope who kept the Papacy out of the hands of one of his vicars.
Imagine, being Pope in a Vatican estimated to contain a 90% fags to faithful ratio. That ratio is likely similar throughout the Church. This wall of opposition exists to kneecap him, subvert him, oppose him. He gives orders. His Priests do the opposite. Mutiny.
Going below deck of his “Ship”, still “Captain” but without a crew to lead, merely matches appearance to reality after the mutiny of pirates that had already occurred. By going below, he gave his “Ship” to the leader of the pirates who follow their newly chosen pirate Captain willingly. He promotes their fag programs and they now carry out his fag orders happily.
The Captain below has his Commission from the King but no crew to carry it out. The Captain above has his commission from his fellow Pirates and the crew are all with him, sailing with a will to his destinations and ports.
So, it is now up to the rest of us passengers to either accept the pirates and their newly chosen course; the banishment of the Captain below deck … or … work to restore him to his Royal Commission and his chosen destination, ordained by the King who commissioned him, which would require a retaking or the ship and displacement of those whose claim and course is illegal and contra to the will of our Lord and King.
Very well said!
No, not well said at all. This analogy is no good (The other one, about poker dealer was excellent.), I modify it a bit.
Real captain caved under the force. He felt alone, an hopeless, and didn’t see any other choice but to flee. What was his goal? To save his live. Mission of the Ship is to pick up and save souls on the seas. Only he could do it, nobody else. He run away, went hiding.
By going below the deck he sealed the fate those out there and at the same time abandoned those who were already on the deck, passengers. What was his thinking? That passengers will do the job for him? By staying ‘under the deck” he deprives them of right to elect new, legitimate captain to lead them. By his actions he gave clear signal: hey passengers, cave in as I did, there is no hope for change left.
What do you think King will do when he take back full control of the ship? Will there be anyone left to greet him?
MC, this is the last comment of yours that I’m allowing where you claim metaphysical certitude regarding motive/intent. Just stop. Know one knows for sure, including you.
Mark, I’ll stop of course.
I do not claim any certitude regarding motive/intent, I only tried to show other possibilities.
frdbelland says:
June 25, 2019 at 1:06 pm
Dear Aqua, regarding your quote: “Imagine, being Pope in a Vatican estimated to contain a 90% fags to faithful ratio ………….”
I think you’re missing something here. The 90% of the fags in the Vatican and whatever the ration is in the Church are, I should were, basically hiding under the active reign of Benedict. How in hades is anyone going to find all the filth when everyone is covering up for them? No Pope is going to make a mass excommunication or defrock nameless personages–it would be ludicrous. Wouldn’t you agree? It certainly isn’t canonical. Those mutinous crew on YOUR ship are all visible, so the captain could conceivably try to do something. But would he really be able to handle 90% of that crew with 10% remaining with him? Let’s be realistic.
The ONLY way to expose the apostates and demonic networks is to “give them the wherewith all to feel free to “do their thing.”
Now tell me good Fr, wouldn’t these be the very SAME APOSTATES AND DEMONIC NETWORKS WHO VOTED TO ELECT BENEDICT IN 2005?
A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
@Lazarus Gethsemane: Perhaps it is your will that disallows you from seeing Pope Benedict as I see him.
There was a time when I thought that anything the Pope said on faith and morals would be obeyed simply because he is our Holy Father and protected by the Holy Spirit. Then, by the grace of God, I became a parent. Wills are stubborn things. Just because Mama said so doesn’t make it so, and the children weren’t under preternatural influence. At least I don’t think so. : )
The choice before each of us is for blessing or curse; life or death and the command is to choose life not only for ourselves but for our generational lines. The choice becomes clearer and clearer every day: BiP.
The details of the whys and wherefores we may never know, BUT we do know that Benedict is Pope and we should choose life and the blessing that comes with it and stop bellyaching, calling him names, and show him the honor due his Office.
Dear Aqua, regarding your quote: “Imagine, being Pope in a Vatican estimated to contain a 90% fags to faithful ratio ………….”
I think you’re missing something here. The 90% of the fags in the Vatican and whatever the ration is in the Church are, I should were, basically hiding under the active reign of Benedict. How in hades is anyone going to find all the filth when everyone is covering up for them? No Pope is going to make a mass excommunication or defrock nameless personages–it would be ludicrous. Wouldn’t you agree? It certainly isn’t canonical. Those mutinous crew on YOUR ship are all visible, so the captain could conceivably try to do something. But would he really be able to handle 90% of that crew with 10% remaining with him? Let’s be realistic.
The ONLY way to expose the apostates and demonic networks is to “give them the wherewith all to feel free to “do their thing.” An enemy CANNOT be fought, properly until the good soldiers can see them. Oh! It’s easy to take pot shots here and there, but the ammunition is wasted, the men are worn out, and the real goal is not accomplished. Cannot this be said to be the actually reality today. Since Benedict’s renunciation just look at what has happened, DA’a have their investigators invading Diocesan Chanceries; lists of credibly accused abusers are published; the faithful are up in arms and exposing tons of filth and much more–ALL SINCE BENEDICT’S RESIGNATION.
Secondly, if Benedict is the true Pope, AND HE IS, then Frank is the anti-Pope and he is the head of a false Church. Frank and his gang may have the buildings, as St. Athanasius once quipped, but the loyal Catholics have true Faith. And since Benedict is the Pope it MUST BE MADE CLEAR HE IS THE POPE BY THOSE IN AUTHORITY. For, the Pope is the true principle of unity and with unity comes visibility. Those of the fraudulent church can be discarded or take leave themselves, not being able, given their apostasy, to follow Benedict. As St. Paul says in 2 Thess. 2: 3-4: “Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.” Notice too, that when St. Paul says” 2 Thess. 2: 15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the TRADITIONS which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle,” the word for “traditions” in the Latin is “documenta,” which means “PROOFS.” In other words the traditions are the proofs of our Faith, and those apostates will not be willing to follow Benedict, who did what he could to maintain the traditions, despite the hatred from the modernists and the tactics of the Freemasons and Communists.
Islam_Is Islam says:
June 24, 2019 at 9:51 pm
@Lazarus Gethsemane: Perhaps it is your will that disallows you from seeing Pope Benedict as I see him.
On the contrary, perhaps it is *your* will that deludes you from seeing Pope Benedict as he really is: a co-conspirator who opened the door for this anti-pope AND the destruction of the papacy.
Okay boys and girls. Comments now closed.
Another question I have is why did Pope Benedict give us Summorum Pontificum?
That seemed to galvanize the enemies of the Church within. It seems hard for me to believe it was a ruse, or even a sop to the traditionalists to keep them quiet.
@GrandmaInTexas: Great point! It seems to me that the brightest spots in this dark time come from the unstoppable growth in TLM parishes that in large part owe their existence to Summorum Pontificum. Apart from speculation since we may never know the answers to why (which in the end is always because God wanted or permitted it), might it not be best to stop expecting answers to why-questions and move ahead in our present ‘BiP’ reality without them? Further, since we have the answers to the how-questions, why not choose to be satisfied with those answers regarding BiP and move forward with the confidence of a Soldier of Christ? We can:
–Pronounce Benedict’s name quietly but audibly at the Consecration in place of Francis’.
–Make and hand out BiP fliers.
–Stand in front of the chancery with BiP signs.
–Double your money and purchase a brick or bollard from WeBuildTheWall.us and put BiP on it–seriously.
–Direct our loved ones and those in our circles of influence to this and other websites that discuss the how-answers.
–Try not to focus too much on the why-answers because in the end we can’t really fully know them.
–Put up BiP billboards.
–And of course, pray and sacrifice.
I sold a few T-shirts last summer with his picture on the front and the caption, “Pope Benedict – Still Reigning” … maybe I should do that again.
@Mark Docherty: Awesome! Where do I buy a couple of those?
Good ideas. Having worked in a hostile work environment before, I cannot imagine the pressure, threats, intimidation, and deception that has been going on in Rome since the sodomites took control.
Perhaps BXVI did not flee the wolves. I am going to put his portrait up in my home.
@GrandmaInTexas: Great idea! Me too. I will put BXVI’s portrait up in my home. Thanks for that idea.
Islam_Is Islam: We can:
Sure, but this is not enough. How do you feel is your bishop will excommunicate you (like in Ann’s post). Will you withstand the pressure? What about all around you? We will be haunted out.
I think more formal actions need to be taken to force bishop and members of hierarchy to clearly declare their believes. They must be presented with clear questions, so any escapes into nothing-talk wont be possible. Such actions will rise up awareness between people that something is going on, eventually they will have to pick sides as they can’t hide in wish-washy areas.
T-shirts are ok, but if only that people in then will be looked as as just another wackos.
@MC: Thank you for your concerns about my well-being. Why would I be surprised that the conditions of Christians during other eras of persecution would not happen to me? As Miss B also stated, at one time both St. Joan of Arc and Abp Lefvebre were excommunicated, right? I will count myself among good company if that fate befalls me.
As for forcing more formal actions on our bishops, I was thinking that Cdl Denardo head of the USCCB should have just asked for a show of hands at the recent meeting in Baltimore for who believes what the Church teaches about homosexuality and the priesthood. That would formally put our US bishops on the spot, but it would never happen.
My bishop has not answered my own communications since October of last year. I handed him my most recent letter in March. He has yet to answer it. That being said, he appeared to be frustrated at the recent USCCB meeting when he addressed his brother bishops about amending one of the new policies. Frustration could be a motivator.
I continue to pray for him and “knock on his door” as I told him I would with emails, comments to his blog, and letters, but for all his commitment to listening and transparency, he seems to be following Bergoglio’s strategy for silence.
That being said, we might have had some success raising his and others’ awareness since he found a new venue other than our cathedral for the 4th annual Interfaith Prayer Service. I don’t know if our rosary of reparation prayed in the cathedral during the 3rd annual 2018 Interfaith Prayer Service gave him pause for thought, but the venue was changed to the synagogue in town this year. I’m not sure what next year will bring.
grandmaintexas says:
June 24, 2019 at 8:04 pm
“Another question I have is why did Pope Benedict give us Summorum Pontificum?
That seemed to galvanize the enemies of the Church within. It seems hard for me to believe it was a ruse, or even a sop to the traditionalists to keep them quiet.”
This assumes that the Devil only works in direct lines of obvious darkness.
However, the entire Scriptural premise of the paradigm of “Angel of Light” teaches us quite the opposite.
And there is a very simple and quite reasonable explanation for WHY BXVI gave us Summorum Pontificum:
Answer: To prompt the Faithful (both clergy and laity) to expose themselves by coalescing into easily identifiable groups so Bergoglio can specifically target them.
And what do you know? That is PRECISELY what we have been witnessing – yes?
Let’s all stop assuming that the Devil operates like some amateur Keystone Cop.
We’re talking about a Diabolic setup for the AntiChrist here folks. A scheme so thorough in its deception that “even the elect will be deceived”
And more to the point: We are talking about an ANGELIC BEING whose supernatural intellect and powers of persuasion were second ONLY to God. And as a reminder of that salient fact – you might want to recall that Our Lord required the assistance of Angels after He encountered Lucifer during his trial in the desert.
So let’s stop assuming that everything that happened in the papacy in the few years prior to Bergoglio were just completely unrelated. Francis didn’t arise out of a papal vacuum. He required SOMEONE to clear the way for him. Someone ON THE CHAIR ITSELF if he were to have any feigned sense of “legitimacy” to his hellish reign.
And thus far? All I hear and see from Benedict is happy praise and adulation for Bergoglio. Complete complicity.
And if you doubt that then I invite (no – I CHALLENGE) everyone to go back and watch BXVI’s address to Francis. And listen to the heaps of praise by Benedict. And look closely at Benedict’s facial expressions and obvious emotions. And then TELL ME AGAIN what you see that indicates that Benedict is ANYTHING but perfectly happy with Bergoglio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2jvdCk7e7I
I CHALLENGE)
I’m in. He was forced to say that.
Now more seriously. Though your interpretation of ‘Summorum Pontificum’ is possible, I lean to more favorable for B16 version, that he indeed started to incline toward tradition. His words about new liturgy being an artificial product that failed etc. can support me.
Regardless of his intentions effects of isolating ‘traditionalist’ can be very well under way. No contradiction here.
@Mark Docherty: Thank you for putting these pieces on the table. Finding the 41-year-old sermon published only three months after the Cardinals’ March 2013 ‘retreat’ AND making the connections that you have between Pope Benedict’s final General Audience and Abp. Ganswein’s May 2016 speech are sublime. Well done.
One question is whether Benedict thinks (A) the papacy is irrovocable in itself or (B) just irrevocable in his particular case owing to some kind of commitment he made never to abdicate the Petrine Office.
I’m more convinced that Benedict thinks A, which is obviously erroneous. So other questions that come to mind are whether a substantial error was involved in Benedict’s acceptance of the papacy, and if so, whether this would make his acceptance null. (Have others already discussed this?)
I am not aware of any canon whereby substantial error would be an impediment to nullify his acceptance of the papacy, but I get what you’re saying.
What I have in mind, more specifically, is the idea that the acceptance or resignation of the papacy doesn’t admit of accidental things like terms or conditions (cf. Socci, The Secret, pp. 71-75).
Now in Benedict’s case, the substantial error at issue in his acceptance would be his notion that the papacy is forever, i.e, intrinsically irrevocable. But even if he thought this at the time of his acceptance, would it constitute a ‘term’ or ‘condition’ of his acceptance? That seems to be the important question when approaching papal acceptances vis-a-vis substantial error.
And having thought about it more, I’d say the error in question, while substantial in some sense, arguably constitutes the exact opposite of a term or condition, since accepting the papacy as though it were necessarily forever would appear to mean, at worst, that you accept the papacy without any qualifying limits at all. If Benedict’s putative error meant he had only partially accepted the papacy, then perhaps there might be a case for a null acceptance, but I don’t think a partial acceptance is implied by accepting the papacy as though it were necessarily forever.
At least to my satisfaction, then, this resolves my main doubt above, which was whether Benedict’s ‘forever’ could nullify his acceptance of the papacy. I don’t think it could.
@CamRoyer: In the end, what does it matter what Pope Benedict thinks? As has been shown, it is very likely that there was no substantial error. We don’t get to make Benedict a scapegoat because Jesus already did that: He is the Lamb Who takes away the sin of the world. As in Aqua’a excellent analogy above, we get “to either accept the pirates and their newly chosen course; the banishment of the Captain below deck … or … work to restore him to his Royal Commission and his chosen destination, ordained by the King who commissioned him, which would require a retaking or the ship and displacement of those whose claim and course is illegal and contra to the will of our Lord and King.” Benedict’s was a self-banishment to show the us the reality in which he lives. Abp. Sheen told us that the laity would save the Church. Maybe that “resurrection” starts with individually and collectively rallying around Christ’s Vicar?
“In the end, what does it matter what Pope Benedict thinks?”
I think understanding his thinking helps us better understand what he’s doing and what he’s done.
“As has been shown, it is very likely that there was no substantial error.”
I’m unaware of where this was shown. It seems most discussions online are devoted to the validity of Benedict’s putative resignation, but not so much, if at all, to his acceptance of the papacy.
“We don’t get to make Benedict a scapegoat”
I don’t understand why questions about the validity of Benedict’s papal acceptance should give this impression. On the other hand, I wouldn’t deny outright that Benedict is culpable for some of the mess we’re in, though I would deny that it’s helpful to focus on his culpability. I think he’s more in need of our prayers right now.
@CamRoyer: You are correct that most discussions online at this time are irrevocably devoted to declaring invalid what Pope Benedict did focusing on speculations about his motivations for doing it. However, the discussion in a recent combox here at NonVeniPacem per Frdbelland regarding the virtue of Equity and BXVI’s recourse to it rules out invalidity due to error from malice, neglect, or coercion. I’d never heard of the virtue of Equity/Epikeia before that comment. It is reasonable to consider and yet it has been brushed aside by most online devotees including Br. Bugnolo and so far Miss Barnhardt.
To be clear, it is not so much the questions about how Pope Benedict has retained both the Petrine Ministry and Papal Office while renouncing/refusing to exercise the governing and teaching powers that give the impression of making him a scapegoat for the present crises, rather it is the speculations about his motivations that gives the impression of calumniating him and thereby making him a scapegoat, a liar, or worse yet a co-conspirator.
I think the Church needs more than only prayers and sacrifices for BXVI, I think the Church needs outspoken support in word and action for Her true visible head from those who have moral certitude of what he has told us he is doing and NOT so much of why he did what he did. That’s why I ask, “In the end what does it matter what Pope Benedict thinks?” Either he is Peter or he is not.
The evidence is clearer than sunlight.
I second what Islam_Is Islam said about this blog being a place to exchange thoughts in desirable manner. Thank you Mark D, and thank you all who contribute. The only issue is format of combox that is good for brief remarks but not for longer posts. Maybe, sometime in the future, some kind of forum can be created around Non Veni Pacem to accommodate deeper discussions.
Some thoughts about Benedict the Hero,
as response mainly to Islam_Is Islam:
First let me reiterate that we wont know for sure what B16’s intentions are (while on Earth), so all our discussion is of speculative nature. We can only try to analyze his actions to make sense of what is going on, but more important is recognition of reality, that B16 still is the Pope. The only Pope.
Islam_Is Islam, thank you for plainly laying out your hypothesis. I agree with you that B16 did not delegate his ministry in his ‘resignation act’, I can not agree about the rest. What you described isn’t un-probable, but is very unlikely. For me, your interpretation of facts belongs to fairy tales category, where you cant prove, cant deny, only can ‘truly’ believe.
What is observable in everyday does not suggest at slightest that you can be right. In favor of your position we must stop believing in our own eyes. On the other hand, if you take opposite position, that B16 intentionally tries to split papacy, and is introducing this idea to the Church through the backdoor, everything starts to make sense.
You may say that all his actions are forced. Are there any hints suggesting he is forced to do what he does? Please, specify. I think you need that force for your hypothesis to hold.
I don’t suggest evil intentions on B16’s side. In my theory (because it is confirmed by observations) he thinks he figured out what papacy truly is, he thinks it is a good, and what he does is for the good of the Church. Thus where his ‘good deeds’ (like ‘Summorun Pontificum’) fits in. He thinks he is doing all good all along.
BTW. I don’t think that example of Crucifixion of Christ is a good example, we should look rather at saints (martyr saints for that matter), but not to multiply examples: wouldn’t it be more corresponding to B16’s behaviour, if Christ rather start cooperating with Jewes/Romans?
Farther, if we agree with your hypothesis, we have to imply (borrowing language from frdbelland) that B16 seeing God failing with ‘plan A’, came up with ‘plan B’, his own politics, to save the Church. Isn’t that indicates lost of faith in Providence. Of course escape from that conclusion in your hypothesis is bringing up some secrets, unknown to anybody, for explanation/justification of observable facts.
Lasarus said : “I’m finding it increasingly difficult to see Benedict as anything other than a WILLING co-conspirator in the current anti-papacy before our eyes.”
I agree with that, evidence seems to be overwhelming.
frdbelland replied to LG : “This is precisely what Satan wishes everyone to understand.”
If true, I must admit that B16 is doing excellent job to support this goal.
B16’s ‘resignation’ brought much turbulence into life of the Church and put many souls in danger (please, disagree with me). Evidence points to his deliberate actions or at least to full cooperation in ‘splitting papacy’, with all consequences of that. You disagree. What can you show beside your believes?
I deliberately avoided picking up frdbelland’s arguments because I see them as very emotional and his interpretation of facts as biased, and by that, requiring longer responses. If anyone wants to bring them up, please do so, but one at the time. This way we can take closer look at each of them.
As reminder I want to quote what frdbelland’s wrote:
The question is:
how is it that supposed miscues,
mistakes,
wrong moves,
not saying exactly the right thing, according to judgment of people,
indeed, every little imperfect move
carries more weight than all the good a person does? I personally don’t know.
Neither do I, but remember that we are not judging the pope here.
@MC: We agree on several things: Benedict is Pope; no one can know his mind; there is rot and evil in the observable everyday. I think perhaps that we interpret what we see in the observable everyday differently and whether or not Benedict’s resignation is the root cause of the turbulence. I am glad to have this discussion with you.
As I said in another comment to someone else, I find it dissatisfying to be left with mere speculation. Despite the dissatisfaction I have decided that although I don’t know his motivations but I do have moral certitude that he is the pope, I will speak and act towards him as the Holy Father.
@Camroyer, MC, and others: Miss B is very good at reminding us to go back to first premises and to make sure that they are correct otherwise we end up way off track. That being said and as CamRoyer pointed out, many in the online discussions insistently start from a premise that l now think is incorrect; namely, that somehow there was a substantial error and thus the reason that Benedict is Pope is because the resignation, due to error, was invalid.
Having considered this base premise myself for a time (being unaware of the virtue of Equity and incorrectly thinking that he told us that he’d resigned from the ministerium instead of telling us that he was only renouncing the exercise of two of the powers of that ministerium), I can understand that it will be a difficult shift to consider (even in charity) the possibly correct base premise from which we should start.
And this is it: Because of his recourse to Equity, there was no error–please try to let that sink in–there. was. no. error.. The renouncement of exercising the two powers is valid–in his situation it is reasonable to do, he could do it and he did. He did not split the Petrine Ministry or attempt to change the monarchical structure of the Papal Office–clearly he has retained both to himself. In fact to take as FACT the speculation (as reasonable as it might seem) that his motivation is the one promoted by Miller, et. al. and proposed irrevocably (at this time) by Miss Barnhardt, et. al. leads to the name-calling and stone-throwing track that so many BiPpers now find themselves on: liar, traitor, abandoner, abusive father, coward, malicious co-conspirator, worse pope ever, etc… That is NOT Catholic. That needs to STOP.
If you have the moral certitude that Benedict is Pope, but you take the wrong track that starts with error you are led away from the power of the whole truth. Benedict is Pope and the powers that be have taken advantage of a LARGE population of purposefully dumbed-down laity and clergy (not only intellectually but morally and spiritually) in order to foist upon us a usurper. Benedict is not a scapegoat; he is our Holy Father and we should speak and act like it.
“In fact to take as FACT the speculation . . .”
I share your desire to avoid speculation, but the equity argument you’re making strikes me as just that. Did the Holy Father really appeal to the principle of equity? How do we know? And even if he did, does it necessarily follow that his reasoning was, in fact, in keeping with the demands of equity?
“Because of his recourse to Equity, there was no error.”
How does that follow? Does equity ever justify avoiding duties that follow from your state? I don’t see it. Perhaps the Holy Father thinks that, in his own case, equity does do this. But that still leaves unanswered whether it does in fact. One’s reasoning can always be formally integral yet materially amiss.
@CamRoyer: You ask good questions. As I see it, the ‘justification’ of avoiding duties (refusing to exercise powers amidst a mutiny that has been brewing for 100 plus years) is described well by both Father Belland above and Aqua below. I don’t know what the Holy Father thinks; I believe that you along with Mark and MC and others would agree that none of us do. I find it dissatisfying to be left with mere speculation. Despite the dissatisfaction I have decided that although I don’t know his motivations but I do have moral certitude that he is the pope, I will speak and act towards him as the Holy Father. I do not know and cannot decide for anyone else.
Just a little correction to make in my comment on Aqua. I said “the word for “traditions” in the Latin is “documenta,” which means “PROOFS.” In other words the traditions are the proofs of our Faith …..” What I should have said is that St. Thomas in his Commentary of 2 Thess. calls the “traditions” to which St. Paul refers (which is Latin is ‘traditio’) “documenta” which means “PROOFS.”, i.e., they are the proofs of the true Faith. My apologies. Fr. Belland
In reference to your comment above, you summarized my main point and I agree with you.
By Benedict XVI’s unprecedented act, appearance is now re-connected to reality. Now we know. And what we now know is fearful to behold.
And we must decide: (A) The new, strange, dangerous looking guys above deck, going strange, unfamiliar new ways – or (B) the Captain below deck who always went where we expected him to go, according to the King’s Commission we all heard before boarding; and who clearly insisted on keeping his rank and Royal Commission Orders before giving up the Bridge to those who are changing course.
The mutiny had already happened. The ship was not sailing as intended by the King. By going below deck and giving the ship to the mutineers, Benedict XVI made public what until then was a dirty little secret. Now we see them for what they are. They can’t hide behind whispers and dark corners and secret subversions. They can’t pretend to be holy Clerics in the day while living in fag bars at night. They are running the show – people are watching and paying close attention. And so, they have to prove their work to the passengers on the ship and explain why they turned West when we were ordered to sail East. No more pretending to go one way while actually steering the other.
And very importantly, we “passengers” must also decide. We cannot claim ignorance any more.
This is what Benedict’s action did: everyone must act truly according to their inner belief … either for heaven or for hell.
@Aqua: Yes, well said.