Tell me more about how all of this is no big deal, this too shall pass, we’ve had lots of heretic popes, he hasn’t done anything SUPERbad yet, the catechism doesn’t have any magisterial weight, and we even had Alexander VI with seven children and twenty concubines. Besides, the question of Benedict’s abdication is a matter of infallible certainty, you know, yet we cannot possibly know what infallibility really is nor how it works nor what Christ really meant in Matt 16:19 nor Matt 18:18, and anyhoo nearly the entire Church was Arian at one point, so shut up.
I’m sorry, no. We have a Marxist/Globalist/non-Catholic usurper in white, a not dead not retired pope in white, and all of the filthy heretics being finally exposed – nay – exposing themselves, willingly. Prophesies being fulfilled left and right. Amazonian time bomb set to explode one month from today. If only I had a dime for every time I’ve written these words: The current situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of the Church. 
And guess what? The foremost living expert on Church history agrees.
Thank you, Cardinal Brandmüller.
https://twitter.com/Johnthemadmonk/status/1169768079825473537?s=20

“Some points of the synod’s Instrumentum laboris seem not only in dissonance with respect to the authentic teaching of the Church, but even contrary to it. The nebulous formulations of the Instrumentum, as well as the proposed creation of new ecclesial ministries for women and, especially, the proposed priestly ordination of the so-called viri probati arouse strong suspicion that even priestly celibacy will be called into question,” the cardinal wrote.
“We must face serious challenges to the integrity of the Deposit of the Faith, the sacramental and hierarchical structure of the Church and its Apostolic Tradition. With all this has been created a situation never before seen in the Church’s history, not even during the Arian crisis of the fourth and fifth century,” Brandmüller added.

Read the rest, as well as Cardinal Burke’s contribution, HERE

Steel Cage Death Match!
In the white corner, Christ and his Petrine Promises from Matt 16:19, 18:18.
In the black corner, Bergoglio the Destroyer inserting heresy into the Catechism.
Who wins?
The following was left by an anonymous “Someone” in the combox this morning. The natural beauty of rational thought on full display.

someone says:

September 6, 2019 at 7:28 am

Cardinal Burke, Roberto De Mattei and others have always tried to save both Vat. I and the claim that “Francis is Pope” by stating that not everything that a pope utters is protected by infallibility. This seems pretty sensible to me.

A validly elected pope (e.g. John XXII) can say at table that the saints will not see God until the end of the world. But he would never be able to proclaim it as a dogma.

Between a dogmatic definition (like those of the Immaculate conception or of the assumption of Our Lady) and chatter at table there are lots of different types of utterences: private letters, public speeches, declarations, encyclicals, exhortations (like Amoris Laetitia) etc.

Here is the thing. EVEN IF we were to grant, with cardinal Burke, that Amoris Laetitia has no magisterial authority (pace Bergoglio’s letter to the Argentine bishops), how can we say that Bergoglio’s revision of the CCC is not an act of the universal magister (under the hypothesis that Bergoglio were to be pope)?

Vatican I says that a pope is infallible when he

“speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals [chapter 4:9]”.

So a pope has to:

(a) exercise of office of teacher;

(b) define a doctrine concerning faith and morals

(c) address the whole Church

in order to be infallible.

Even if we were to concede that one of these conditions is not met by Amoris Laetitia (i.e. we should grant that either he was not addressing the whole church – but he was – or that he was not speaking of faith or morals – but he was – or that he wasn’t exercising his alleged office of teacher – this is the tricky part, where Burke’s might have a point, cf. AL 3), how could we possibly say that in revising a cathechism for the universal church a validly elected pope is not exercising his office of teacher, addressing the whole church on matters pertaining to faith and morals?

John Paul II was certainly doing it while he promulgated the CCC.

Now “Francis” has inserted an obvious heresy in the CCC. Hence, he cannot be the pope, otherwise Vatican I is false (which it isn’t).

Cardinal Burke’s remarks that “Francis” is speaking as a private man while condemning the legitimacy of death penalty “won’t float”

Fred Martinez over at Catholic Monitor has really been nailing it lately HERE.
He draws some high quality commentary, too.
This one today is priceless. I hope he doesn’t mind me posting it.

Jack said…
People who imagine that Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility is circular, tautological, or otherwise redundant imagine that the dogma goes like this: “Solemn papal definitions are infallible, because the pope has the power of infallibility.” Which is like saying, “it’s right because the pope says it’s right.”
This would be to set up the pope as a kind of god, since only God is truly self-justifying like this, right simply because He is right, because He is Truth itself by His very essence.
I think in the wake of liberalism and its undermining of all authority, Catholics rallied to the pope and after Vatican I made this kind of mistake, at least implicitly, that the pope is right because he is right. But this is just another human error, setting up a man in God’s place, undermining authority in an even more subtle way.
The pope is not right because he says he’s right, and he’s not infallible simply because he has the power of infallibility (although he is and he does). Vatican I is very clear. The pope is infallible BECAUSE Christ gave the keys to Peter and his Successors, and HE guaranteed by HIS divine power that the pope would never err in his solemn teaching capacity. This is perhaps a subtle distinction, but it makes a profound difference. It means that our faith is not centred on the person of the pope, but centred on Christ just has it has always been.
So when we come across a pope who appears to be erring in doctrine, the first thing we should ask is whether he is really erring or not. And if he is erring, the next thing to ask is whether his papacy is legitimate or whether he’s an antipope. But for people with a worldly mindset who are too willing to accept the world’s opinions and maintain their public image, and who’s faith is more centred on the person of the pope than on the person of Christ, they would rather deny Vatican I and become heretics than accuse a possible antipope (despite there having been many, many antipopes in history) and fall temporarily out of favour.
To be honest at this point I would not be surprised if Skojec is a kind of double agent and 1p5 a false-opposition operation designed to keep potential critics of the regime confused and pigeonholed. Keep traditionalists as a whining bunch of scandalmongerers rather than united in any useful purpose.

Jack’s comment would have been equally relevant with regard to another post which appeared today, which I mirror here for the sake of this combox:
—————————————

From the Patrick Coffin interview with Cardinal Burke a couple weeks ago, through the lens of a shrieking @DawnofMercy:

Coffin then repeats a traditionalist bishop's call for a synod to "resolve" whether the last conclave was valid. And he asks Burke about Antonio Socci's book claiming Benedict is still pope.

Surely Burke will assure listeners that Socci is wrong? Well, almost, but not quite… pic.twitter.com/7dEC43H3Wq

— Dawn Eden Goldstein 🇺🇦 (@DawnofMercy) August 15, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoUq6sWqaTE
I’m only covering a five minute clip of this interview. If you want a crack at the complete transcript intertwined with Dawn’s pearl clutching, go HERE.
First of all, forget about St. Gallen Mafia and the shenanigans at the “conclave.” Coffin starts in about that around 18:00, referencing Bishop Gracida’s claims, but this will get us nowhere. Since Benedict attempted a partial abdication, which was wholly invalid and therefore a null act, no conclave actually took place. The conclave was rendered invalid ipso facto the invalid abdication.  It was a Cardinals’ Retreat, nothing more. Think about this. Any effort to invalidate a conclave that is already invalid would, if successful, only result in another invalid conclave, because the one true living pope is still alive and kicking. The failed partial abdication is the True Premise from which the resolution must proceed.
So start at the 23:00 mark. ++Burke is addressing the question of the validity of the abdication. The audio is pretty terrible, so here is the transcript and commentary from Dawn; sorry, but it’s the only source available. Ignore the sections that she highlighted, and concentrate on the second and third paragraphs.

Burke reluctantly admits that Socci’s claim that the papacy is split between two popes “won’t hold water.” But as for whether Benedict is still the pope, “the whole matter is a bit confused.” And Socci is “an outstanding, … saintly man,” Burke adds; “it merits to read him.” …That’s enough to show Burke is too close to the schismatic rails. Given that @NCRegister, @cnalive, and @EWTN often run stories portraying him as a guardian of orthodoxy (though @cnalive wisely ignored his Declaration of Truths), they owe it to their readers to report on this …

Do you see what’s going on here? He mixes truth with error. Frankly, though, he is so close to the whole truth that he is looking straight past it.
First, ++Burke asserts that a pope must govern in order to be pope. “There is only one pope and the pope must govern the Church.” Well yes, that’s how it’s supposed to work, governance being one of the three components of the ministry, the others being teaching and sanctifying. However, failure to govern does not unpope a pope. A pope in a coma, a pope in exile, a pope in prison… none of them can govern, but they still remain pope. This is not a difficult concept. Yes, a pope is SUPPOSED to govern, but the failure/inability to govern has exactly ZERO effect on the ontological reality of who is pope. Popes remain pope until they die or validly resign. Period, full stop.

“That someone could hold the office and someone else is actually carrying out the ministry — that simply won’t float.”

YES. EXACTLY. THAT SIMPLY WON’T FLOAT.
THERE’S A TERM FOR IT: SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
Pope Benedict’s faux partial abdication was based on delegating the governing aspect of the ministry, while retaining the office. This is Substantial Error, per Canon 188. Cardinal Burke correctly makes reference to the last Wednesday Audience and +Ganswein’s speech at the Gregorianum in 2016. There is also evidence in the original Latin Declaratio itself, where he fails to resign the Office. These actions nullified the abdication, per the very clear words of Canon 332.2, a canon which specifically addresses the conditions for a valid papal abdication. Therefore, the Cardinals had no jurisdiction nor authority to convoke a conclave, per Canon 359. You don’t need to be a canon lawyer to understand the plain meaning of the words of the law (a concept which itself is part of the law, as explained HERE).
What really is going on here is ++Burke falling headlong into the old False Base Premise trap. He first gets tripped up by the notion that whomever is governing must be pope, which frankly is just not very bright, in that it ignores the counterexamples I gave and the fact that we’ve obviously had antipopes who’ve governed the Church in the past. Then from the “Francis is pope” false assumption he proceeds to lay out the evidence that Benedict is pope, but he’s unable to apply said evidence back to the question of the effectiveness of the abdication.
Allow me to restate the block quote in the form of a rational argument, from ++Burke’s worldview, and you will see it more clearly:

1. “Francis” is pope
2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry
3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican
4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry
5. Burke asserts there can be only one pope
6. Therefore, “Francis” is pope

Do you see how that works?  All of your assumptions throughout the argument (#2 through #5) can be true, but it will never lead you to a true conclusion if your base premise is false.

1. “Francis” is pope – FALSE
2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican – TRUE
4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
5. Burke asserts there can be only one pope – TRUE
6. Therefore, “Francis” is pope – F-A-L-S-E………….

I need to write a letter.
Dear Your Holiness Pope Benedict, c.c. Cardinal Burke,
Since you didn’t resign the Munus (violating can. 332.2), and you attempted to split off the governance aspect of the ministry while retaining the Munus (violating can. 188), quite possibly coerced (also violating can. 188), and you allowed a conclave to be convoked while you still held the Munus (violating can. 359), and you remain in the Vatican, wearing white, being addressed as His Holiness, signing your name Pope Benedict, bestowing your Apostolic Blessing, not smashing your fisherman’s ring, writing books, granting interviews, all while an antipope and likely False Prophet forerunner of the Antichrist has usurped the throne, endangering millions of actual souls…
…would you mind calling a press conference, and reclaiming your pallium? I would have it dry cleaned first; you never know where it’s been. You could clear up a lot of this mess of the past 6.5 years, and it might even reassure some people that the Church really is who She says She is, that Christ keeps his promises, pillar of fire pillar of truth, and all that good stuff. If not, and if CCC675 really is in play, could you at least do me a solid and have +Ganswein email me the Third Secret?
Sincerely,
NVP

1. Benedict is pope – TRUE
2. Socci provides evidence Benedict attempted an expanded petrine ministry – TRUE
3. Benedict laments inadequacy to GOVERN, retains vesture and remains in Vatican – TRUE
4. Ganswein in May 2016 defined the structure of a faux expanded petrine ministry -TRUE 
5. The papacy is a divinely instituted monarchy, which cannot be “demythologized” –  TRUE
6. Burke asserts there can be only one pope – TRUE
7. Therefore, Benedict is pope – TRUE
8. All logical fallacies nuked from orbit DING DING DING

If the Church has you dejected, you’re sinning against Hope. If you are considering apostatizing, you’re sinning against Faith. If you question the Truth or you encourage others to question the Truth, you’re sinning against Charity.
Truth is a Person. He speaks to us in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21.
Of course, no one knows if we are in the run-up to the Big Show or not. The point is, gird yourself and be prepared. I’m pasting here from biblehub because of the spiffy links they provide between the verses in these three gospel chapters. The formatting looks a little wonky, but oh well.

Great news! On 5 October 2019, there will still be exactly ZERO laywoman active lesbian Cardinals. None! I mean, the Cardinaliate is not a clerical state. Sure, the current discipline is that only ordained men can wear red, but that’s only since the 1917 code. There is no reason we can’t revert to laymen, and in this day and age, laywomen. Give it time. Give it time. Keep bowing down to the Heretic in Chief and Argentinian usurper.
Or, check your false base premise at the door, and keep your faith.

1. Benedict’s renunciation was a null act, per canons 332.2 and 188
2. When a juridical act is null, the situation reverts to the status quo
3. If you hold that Benedict has delegated the Governance, he stills hold the office, per canon 131.1
4. Since the See was never vacant, the conclave was ipso facto invalid, per canon 359

The following re-post lays out the foundation of why we are where we are. It’s three months old, but it got some unexpected traction on twitter yesterday, and some people got excited. It’s coherent and linear. Happy Sunday.
—————————