Given the diabolical inversion of truth that flows so freely through this man (now including demon worship), I can’t imagine how bad this book must be. Not ordering it to find out. Will have to rely on the editorial description:
Learn how to rebuke the devil and avoid his snares with this new book from Pope Francis’s teachings. In this powerful collection, the pope lays bare the devil’s ploys and tactics, to help you avoid getting ensnared. Listen with care, as the pope tells the story of the devil’s history, character, and works, and consider the pope’s suggestions about what you can do to see victory over the devil.
Rebuking the Devil will be an important and sobering awakening to those who have forgotten the reality of the spiritual battle that humanity is undergoing. And to those already fighting hard in spiritual battle, they will find great reassurance in the pope’s certainty that we can overcome through Spirit-filled discernment and the power of God in Christ Jesus. Through the course of this book, you’ll learn from Pope Francis about the practical tools of spiritual battle.
This book is vital. Those from youth, to adult, to the wisdom of age will appreciate the pope’s guidance on dealing with our perennial foe. This collection will be readily used by students, parents, educators, faith formation groups, faith-sharing groups, priests and deacons preparing for homilies, and all Christians seeking to rebuke the devil. Pick up this easy-to-read, digestible collection of Pope Francis’s meditations on accessing God’s power over the devil, as your next weekend read!
Notice with him it’s never the Holy Spirit, it’s just ‘Spirit.’ And ‘Spirit-filled’ even suggests the plural. I mean, if we are going to have an Antipope lead the Antichurch straight to Hell, what better way than to stir up the spirits? ¡Hagan lío! “Learn how to rebuke the devil.” This is so dangerous. The laity should not be directly engaging demons at all, let alone engaging Satan himself. Trust me, you’ll lose. The laity must engage God, or God through the intercession of the saints, whom we then ask to engage the demons. Binding prayers, wherein demons are directly commanded to leave a person or place, are only for trained exorcists who have received apostolic authority to use them. That’s right, even priests should not be engaging in these prayers, without having received specific permission and authority from the local bishop.
Not hyperbole: If millions of people were to actually buy this book and start directly engaging with demons and the devil, the resulting spiritual destruction would be incalculable. In fact, one would have a tough time dreaming up a more devastating tactic to be deployed by the probable False Prophet forerunner of the Antichrist. I will need to write a follow up post, because there are several people in Tradland who don’t understand this (and who should know better), and are encouraging these binding prayers for use by the laity. Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
BREAKING: At meeting with International Association of Penal Law, #PopeFrancis says church plans to "introduce ecological sin against the common home in the catechism of the Catholic Church because it is a duty." pic.twitter.com/X4RAPFb3Go
Time for a re-post! It’s from three years ago, so I’ve cleaned it up a bit. Have a great weekend!
——————————–
Wherein the backyard barbeque becomes mortally sinful, with all its paper plates, plastic cups, kids running through the sprinkler…
Posted on
How can anyone, at this point, take the Catholic Church seriously? Can you imagine trying to evangelize a soul who is hungering for what is supposed to be the Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth?
I renew my dialogue with “every person living on this planet” (Laudato Si’, 3) about the sufferings of the poor and the devastation of the environment. God gave us a bountiful garden, but we have turned it into a polluted wasteland of “debris, desolation and filth” (ibid., 161).
The memory of why I couldn’t ever manage to get through Laudato Si’ when it first came out just came rushing back: It is physically nauseating to read.
The perpetual genuflection to Goddess Earth now includes the enumeration of non-recycling as a capital sin, and mandating ecology as both a spiritual and corporal work of mercy. You can’t make this stuff up. HERE
Let us learn to implore God’s mercy for those sins against creation that we have not hitherto acknowledged and confessed…we can acknowledge our sins against creation, the poor and future generations…we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation.” This is the first step on the path of conversion.
The first step on the path of conversion is to embrace the utterly false ideology of man-made global warming? It’s as if the people writing all this made bets with themselves as to who could contribute the most ridiculous claim.
As individuals, we have grown comfortable with…a “disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary” (Laudato Si’, 123), and we are participants in a system that “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature.” Let us repent of the harm we are doing to our common home. After a serious examination of conscience and moved by sincere repentance, we can confess our sins against the Creator, against creation, and against our brothers and sisters. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the confessional as the place where the truth makes us free.”
Has any other document, in the history of the Church, universally condemned all of humanity for committing a particular sin? Does Antipope Bergoglio really believe that every single person possesses a disordered desire to consume more than what is necessary? Would taking up an entire floor of a hotel as your personal living space fall into this category? And apparently it’s not venial, nope, most def MORTAL SIN, for it requires sacramental confession to be absolved.
Examining our consciences, repentance and confession to our Father who is rich in mercy leads to a firm purpose of amendment.
We laff. How come we didn’t see that phrase in Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia?
This in turn must translate into concrete ways of thinking and acting that are more respectful of creation. For example: “avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse, cooking only what can reasonably be consumed, showing care for other living beings, using public transport or car-pooling, planting trees, turning off unnecessary lights, or any number of other practices” (Laudato Si’, 211).
Wherein the backyard barbeque becomes mortally sinful, with all its paper plates, plastic cups, kids running through the sprinkler, the big black trash bag, charcoal and lighter fluid, leftovers, bug spray (“other living beings”), patio lights, and any number of other practices. Confessing in kind and number is going to be tough. I might need a notepad.
Bergoglio and his toadies continue their relentless rage against the First Commandment. They choose to worship Goddess Earth instead. That is, when they aren’t worshipping Man instead. Notice the dichotomy at play: Worshipping man requires subjugating God. Worshipping Goddess Earth requires subjugating Man.
When people start coming into the confessional saying, “Bless me Father, it’s been two weeks, I left a light on,” how will good priests express their unity to the Petrine See? How can the source of unity be the vector of schism? May I suggest to Father, “THOSE AREN’T SINS, HE’S NOT THE POPE.”
Bergoglio must be exposed as a usurper, charged, removed, and Pope Benedict be acknowledged as the one and only living pope since April 2005.
Arouse in Your Church, O Lord, the spirit with which blessed Josaphat, Your Martyr and Bishop, was filled when he laid down his life for his flock; so that, by his intercession, we, also moved and strengthened by the same spirit, may not fear to lay down our lives for our brethren.
Collect, Feast of Saint Josaphat, Martyr (14 Nov, 1962 calendar)
Josaphat was his religious name. His real name was John Kunsevich, born in present day Ukraine and later a Ruthenian Orthodox archbishop in Poland during the 16th century, who lead his archeparchy into union with Rome under the Union of Brest.
His insistence on unity with the pope, not to mention his zeal and asceticism, drew the ire of many enemies. He was so hated, that Orthodox, Protestants, and pagans conspired together to murder him, and they got their wish upon instigating an angry mob on 12 November 1623. He was shot, his skull smashed to bits with axes, wild dogs set upon him, then weighted with stones and thrown into the Dvina river. Catholics would later recover his body, which now resides at St. Peter’s in Rome.
He is a martyr not just for the faith, but specifically for unity with the one true pope, even unto death.
“I rejoice to offer my life for my holy Catholic faith. Grant that I be found worthy, Lord, to shed my blood for the union and obedience to the Apostolic See.” HERE Martyrdom of Josaphat Kuntsevych (c. 1861) Józef Simmler
UPDATE 13:12 MST. From “Aqua,” a frequent combox contributor:
“Luke 12:54-57. Jesus tells His disciples, they not only can, they must use their God-given grace, intellect, wisdom and judgement to make judgement and know Truth, standing there staring them in the face, so as to follow and act:
54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth (the weather); but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”
2 Tim 4:3-4
As mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, God gave us a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71). There is no greater reality in the universe than Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. What did He expect of His disciples when it came to the question of His true identity? He expected them to use their rational intellect and sensory perception to FIGURE IT OUT.
And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Matt 16:13-20
And Jesus went out, and his disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. And in the way, he asked his disciples, saying to them: Whom do men say that I am? Who answered him, saying: John the Baptist; but some Elias, and others as one of the prophets. Then he saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ. And he strictly charged them that they should not tell any man of him. Mark 8:27-30
And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples also were with him: and he asked them, saying: Whom do the people say that I am? But they answered and said: John the Baptist; but some say Elias: and others say that one of the former prophets is risen again. And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God. Luke 9:18-20
After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve. John 6:66-71
So now we are being asked to FIGURE IT OUT in terms of how it could be, that for 2000 years, Satan was prevented from overtaking the Petrine See by a rigorous supernatural enforcement of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32), but the supposed current occupant is somehow capable of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry; and has officially approved adultery, fornication, and cohabitation?
And yet, now we see another attempt to correct an apostate antipope, while still trying to stay in union with him:
November 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – An international group of 100 priests and lay scholars published a statement today to protest the pagan worship of Pachamama that took place last month during the Amazon Synod in Rome with Pope Francis’ (sic) active participation and apparent support…
On October 4, Pope Francis (sic) attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. (1)
He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter.
He participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama. (2)
On October 7, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis (sic) said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession. (3)
When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis (sic), on October 25, apologized for their removal and another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. (4) Thus, a new profanation was initiated.
On October 27, in the closing Mass for the synod, he accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar. (5)
Pope Francis (sic) himself confirmed that these wooden images were pagan idols. In his apology for the removal of these idols from a Catholic church, he specifically called them Pachamama (6), a name for a false goddess of mother earth according to pagan religious belief in South America.
Some visual aids, as I’ve posted before:
Maybe, just maybe, when you see the abomination, you should check your base premise.
He is not the pope. How could he be?
Scolding an apostate antipope isn’t going to get the job done. It’s true that stunts like this can be helpful in terms of getting the word out, and even the MSM is starting to pick up on things. Ross Douthat openly questioning who is the legitimate pope, in the New York Times, is certainly Overton Window worthy. So thank you, sort of, to everyone who laid out the horrid details and signed their names to the protest, but I’m afraid it’s just not good enough.
FIGURE IT OUT.
Do yourself a favor. If you have Twitter, check out this thread. It will make your day.
https://twitter.com/bishopstika/status/1194317737608306688?s=21
“Shut up, you stupid spotlight seeking, lustful self-certain opinion thruster, laynothing blogger.”
I came not to bring peace, but the sword!
A couple thoughts on the Douthat-Burke interview. The story starts off like this:
I had never met him before, but he was as I anticipated: at once obdurate and guileless, without the usual church politician’s affect, and with a straightforward bullet-biting to his criticism of the pope. The Burke critique is simple enough. Church teaching on questions like marriage’s indissolubility is supposed to be unchanging, and that’s what he’s upholding: “I haven’t changed. I’m still teaching the same things I always taught and they’re not my ideas.” What is unchanging certainly can’t be altered by an individual pontiff: “The pope is not a revolutionary, elected to change the church’s teaching.” And thus if Francis seems to be tacitly encouraging changes, through some sort of decentralizing process, it means “there’s a breakdown of the central teaching authority of the Roman pontiff,” and that the pope has effectively “refused to exercise [his] office.”
Except, that’s impossible, right? A pope has no more power to change moral teaching on the reality of marriage than he has to change math to say 2+2=5, right? So if something impossible is apparently happening, shouldn’t we be looking for the false base premise?
It was also in discussing the Amazonian synod that Burke brought up the specter that hangs over Francis-era debates, the idea of a schism in the church.
Burke: While the final document is less explicit in the embrace of pantheism, it does not repudiate the statements in the working document which constitute an apostasy from the Catholic faith. The working document doesn’t have doctrinal value. But what if the pope were to put his stamp on that document? People say if you don’t accept that, you’ll be in schism — and I maintain that I would not be in schism because the document contains elements that defect from the apostolic tradition. So my point would be the document is schismatic. I’m not.
Douthat:But how can that be possible? You’re effectively implying that the pope would be leading a schism.
Burke: Yes.
Whoops! If a true pope could lead a schism from the true Church, explain to me again how Christ isn’t a liar? How have the Petrine Promises not been broken, if this statement is true? How could any of the faithful have a moral duty to pledge unity and submission to a man or to an office which is capable of such monstrous error?
Douthat:Isn’t that a deep contradiction of how Catholics think about the office of the papacy?
Burke: Of course. Exactly. It’s a total contradiction. And I pray that this wouldn’t happen. And to be honest with you, I don’t know how to address such a situation. As far as I can see, there’s no mechanism in the universal law of the church to deal with such a situation.
So Bergoglio apparently has the power to violate the law of non-contradiction? That’s amazing. Do you see where a false base premise leads? You start out with this (false) thing that you think is true, you are sure of it. So sure of it, that you re willing to take any number of other known truths, even from scripture, and doubt their validity because their validity would violate the base falsity.
Folks, THINK. How can the Standard of Unity also be the Vector of Schism?
The most appropriate response I can think of is this post from just one week ago:
Action Alert: Top three questions to ask anyone who refuses to examine the nullity of Benedict’s resignation
Posted on
Be they cardinals, bishops, priests, laity, friends, family, bloggers, Trad Inc., or whomever, I think now is the appropriate time to cut to the chase. Contained herein are three questions to be asked, privately or publicly as the case may warrant, of every single Catholic, no matter their rank, who professes Jorge Bergoglio to be the one true living pope. The timing seems right, because all the bad things hatching out of the Roman sewers are redpilling a lot more people these days. Something isn’t right, and the open worship of demons inside the Vatican has shifted the Overton Window in a way few other things could have done. A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. Titus 3:10-11
It is of crucial importance to state at the outset that this has nothing to do with Bergoglio “losing his office” or trying to craft some mechanism in which to “depose” him. Folks, Bergoglio is a criminal usurper, which means he needs to be removed, not deposed. We have to get past the false base premise that Bergoglio is now, or ever was, a true pope. All of this heresy/apostasy has no effect on who holds the office of the papacy, because the office of the papacy has been held continuously by Pope Benedict since April 2005. Note well: It would have made no difference – at all – who was “elected” at the faux conclave of 2013, no matter if it had turned out to be someone totally orthodox, that person would still have been an antipope. There was no election, because there was no conclave, because there was no resignation. The personal apostasy and orchestrated demon worship of Jorge Bergoglio upon the high altar of St. Peter’s is not a causal factor as to why he is not pope.
However, the heresy/apostasy of Antipope Bergoglio does serve as a helpful proofset of the fact that he has never held the office, and so does not enjoy any of the supernatural protections of the papacy promised directly from our Lord Himself. If you think about it, this is actually a tremendous grace, because it would have been much harder to find the truth if everything appeared to be “normal.” It’s really not that confusing if you get your base premise correct.
“Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared….” 1 Tim 4:1-2
The questions which follow are of solid linear reasoning, which drill immediately to the core base premise. But they are also questions of grave matter to those professing submission to, and union with, an apostate heretic. It is out of fraternal charity that these questions must be asked, and answered.
Ready? Let’s get started! Question One: How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would permit the Church Militant to be put into a Catch-22 position of having to be in union with, and in submission to, a Pope who demands apostasy from the One True Faith in order to be in union with him, wherein we are literally damned if we do, and damned if we don’t? How is this not a clear violation of the Law of Non-contradiction, wherein the Standard of Unity is also the Vector of Schism?
If acceptance of heresy/apostasy/demon worship is the requirement in order to be in union with Bergoglio, which it clearly is, then how is that to be squared with the moral obligation of submission to, and union with, the Roman Pontiff under pain of mortal sin? Both things can’t be true.
“Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” 2 John 1:8-11
Yes, we’ve had bad popes in the past. We have had dozens of men hold the papacy who were less than stellar when it came to personal morality, to put it mildly. But we have never had a pope personally conducting himself as an apostate heretic, with the dethronement of God and the deification of Man as his central Freemasonic theme (and now an open worshiper of demons, because that’s where Freemasonry leads), who is also intent on forcing heresy on the faithful by preaching objective mortal sin as a moral good, willed by God (AL#298, 300, 303 HERE; AL footnote 351 HERE; inter alia). That’s supposed to be not possible, and we don’t need some future council to explain this to us. God gave you a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71).
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” 2 Tim 4:3-4
Let’s take it one step further. When a true pope is elected, it is dogmatically certain that the transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors, (Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus, 1870, HERE) not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church, but rather directly from Christ, immediately upon a validly elected successor’s acceptance of the office… (if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)… which leads us to Question #2: Question Two:How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would force the Church Militant into a Catch-22 position by His own divine will, by conferring the office of the papacy upon a man known to Him to be a wretched apostate heretic, and then WITHHOLDING the negative supernatural protection of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18-19, and Luke 22:32), so that the wretched apostate heretic could openly approve fornication (cohabitation), adultery, sacrilegious Communion, and even perform idolatrous demon worship upon the high altar at St. Peter’s? HERE,HERE,HERE, and HERE.
Said another way: If you are a person who believes Bergogio is a true pope, validly elected at a valid conclave after a valid resignation, then it is an article of faith for you to also believe that the papal office was bestowed BY CHRIST HIMSELF on Bergoglio at the moment of his acceptance of the papacy. If that’s true, then how is it possible that “Francis” could be permitted BY CHRIST HIMSELF to wage war on the Catholic Church, raping His bride, yet somehow the Petrine Promises have not been broken? Both things can’t be true.
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.” 2 Peter 2:1-3
Souls are at stake, so I highly recommend everyone engages with those closest to them, pose these first two questions, demand that people actually think, and get them to answer. Put it on facebook and twitter. Permission to cut and paste from here with no attribution. Imagine if just a hundred people started doing this; it would exponentiate in mere days.
The answer to these first two questions, with a high degree of moral certainty, is that it is impossible for Jorge Bergoglio to be pope. Once the false base premise is out of the way, the next logical question to be asked is… what could have caused this? Which leads us directly to Question Three… Question Three: Will you now, honestly and thoroughly, engage the publicly available data and argumentation that demonstrates that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope, and has been since 13 March 2013, not by reason of heresy/apostasy, but as the result of an invalid conclave due to the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict? If you will not, why not?
Yes, the heresy/apostasy/demon worship is awful, but these things are clues, not causes. Bergoglio did not cease being pope because he worships demons. Bergoglio is not pope because the conclave was invalid because Benedict’s resignation was invalid. This is the root, nothing else.
Summary of events surrounding the invalid resignation:
Canon Law forcefully shows that Pope Benedict’s purported resignation in February of 2013 was invalid and that he remains the one and only living Pope. There are a multiplicity of violations which nullify the abdication, rendering also null the subsequent conclave and its result. Violations of Canons 17, 36, 38, 332.2, 188, 359 have been demonstrated, and Canon 131.1 is also in play HERE. For example, he used the term “ministerio” (ministry, lower case) in the essential clause of the renunciation, instead of Munus (Office). The Office and the ministry are not the same thing, and although he could have properly manifested his resignation in accord with Can. 332.2 without using the word Munus, that’s not what he did, explained HERE. Prominent Canonists and Theologians were already crowing about the faulty Latin and nullity of the act within hours of it taking place HERE.
Another subset of evidence includes Benedict’s “always and forever” discourse during his last General Audience 27 February 2013 HERE. This is where he revealed his belief that the papacy imparts an indelible character upon acceptance of the office.
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (the day Ratzinger accepted the papacy). 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…
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 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.
Benedict admitted in that same speech that by instituting the role of “Pope Emeritus” he was creating a “novelty,” which means that he intended his “resignation” to be different tfrom any before, thus “remaining in a new way.” This concept was explained in great detail during Archbishop Ganswein’s epic “Expanded Petrine Ministry” discourse of 20 May 2016 HERE, wherein he explained how the papacy now consists of one “active member” and one “contemplative member,” and then (I’m not making this up) equated Benedict’s decision to bifurcate the papacy to God’s decision to spare His Blessed Mother from Original Sin via the Immaculate Conception HERE. The plain words of Benedict and Ganswein in these two speeches, if they were sincere and not subterfuge, demonstrate “Substantial Error” as a nullifying factor, as anticipated in Canon 188, since a bifurcated papacy is an ontological impossibility.
Speaking of subterfuge, there is also the possibility that the nullity of the resignation was intentional; four dimensional chess executed by Benedict in order to protect the papacy and keep it out of the hands of the heretics. There is no direct evidence which supports this angle, but it also cannot be disproven at this time. I mention it because it has a certain appeal, and although I think this scenario far less likely, it is possible.
Finally, there is furthering evidence visible to this day, which to the naked eye would appear we have “two popes.” This includes Benedict’s retention of title, form of address as “His Holiness,” his continual presence inside the Vatican, wearing white, wearing his not-destroyed Fisherman’s Ring, writing books and papers, blessing new cardinals, imparting “My Apostolic Blessing,” etc.
I’m just a totes retired not-pope, but allow me to impart My Apostolic Blessing.
The notion that Benedict really, truly, completely retired, retaining not a shred of the papacy, is absurd. And since a partial abdication is not possible, his Declaratio is therefore juridically null, reverting the situation to the status quo. This is true even if he has seemingly delegated the power of governance, as stated in Canon 131.1: “The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.” Benedict XVI is the one and only living pope, and has been since April 2005.
Battlespace awareness is critical to truly grasping what is happening here. Understanding the bigger picture of interconnected forces means going far beyond the tactical elements and individual breadcrumbs which have been provided for us.
Thank you to Ann Barnhardt for her contributions to this piece. The bigger picture is explained in great detail in Part Two of her Bergoglian Antipapacy video below. You don’t need to watch Part One first, as everything you need is contained in Part Two. For people risking their souls by being scandalized out of the Church because of the actions of a man who isn’t the pope… two hours of video is well worth your time.
Our Lady undoer of knots, pray for us.
I was a little lost at first, because I didn’t realize it was to be a votive Mass, and not the Mass of the Sunday. I knew something was up before it even started, because the color was violet. Also a little lost because it was High Mass, and I still have trouble navigating, as I’ve only attended maybe a dozen times. I don’t always keep up with the choir overlapping with whatever is happening at the altar. Funny, the ten year old girl with Down Syndrome sitting next to me, with a hand missal, didn’t skip a beat.
It turns out the Mass they used today was the Mass for the Conversion of Pagans. In older missals it is called Mass Against the Heathen. Which sounds particularly awesome.
I am traveling and don’t have my missal, and I can’ find the Mass propers for the votive online. If someone could paste them in the combox, I will update the post.
The sermon was mostly excellent, by the way. Except at the end, where he concluded that it was wrong speculate who might be pope. “It’s not our place. We just have to pray for the pope.”
Yes, of course we should pray for him. And Bergoglio too.
Surely by now, everyone reading this space has purchased their copy of (now archbishop) J. Michael Miller’s The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development and Mission of the Papacy. This book was published in 1995 by Our Sunday Visitor, and is an expansion on +Miller’s 1979 doctoral thesis, which the Gregorianum published in 1980 under the title, The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology.
Chapter 16 of this book is titled: “Facing the Future: 21 Theses on the Papal Ministry”
What might the future hold, in terms of the form and function of the Papal Ministry? Turn to page 357:
Thesis 14: In order to fulfill its specific mission, the Petrine ministry has assumed many different forms in the past and will continue to do so in the future
Because the people of God are on a pilgrimage, the pope must have the freedom to respond to new challenges, thereby revealing new facets of the Petrine ministry. We must be on guard, therefore, lest we too quickly identify contingent forms with what is dogmatically essential to the papal office. (Do you see here how the ministry is obviously distinct from the office?)
Miller immediately goes on to support this thesis with a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF at the time:
“The Petrine ministry…while preserving its substance as a divine institution, can find expressions in various ways according to the different circumstances of time and place.” -Cardinal Ratzinger (as Prefect of the CDF), Communionis Notio, 28 May 1992, P.18
From the Latin: “quodque, salva substantia divina institutione definita, diversimode pro varietate locorum et temporum se manifestare potest”
I looked up the source, and indeed it is an official document of the CDF, signed by Ratzinger:
The topic at hand, obviously, is the possibility of changing the structure of the papacy, to meet the varying needs of the Church and its members, while maintaining the essential nature of the office. This was Ratzinger’s dream, to somehow overcome the Petrine stumbling block for the sake of unity. And if changing the structure of the Petrine ministry was necessary, he was open to it.
Back to the Miller book, page 358:
Ratzinger admits that “without a doubt there have been misguided developments in both theology and practice where the primacy is concerned.” A particular way of exercising the primacy might well have been the pope’s duty for the Church’s welfare at one time, without its being so in the future. In the words of Hermann Pottmeyer, “the present juridical and organizational form of the office of Peter is neither the best imaginable nor the only possible realization.”
Now let’s take a look at Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1997 book-length interview with Peter Seewald, Salt of the Earth:
Seewald: “Do you think that the papacy will remain as it is?”
++Ratzinger: “In its core it will remain. In other words, a man is needed to be the successor of Peter and to bear a personal final authority that is supported collegially. Part of Christianity is a personalistic principle; it doesn’t get vaporized into anonymities but presents itself in the person of the priest, of the bishop, and the unity of the universal Church once again has a personal expression. This will remain, the magisterial responsibility for the unity of the Church, her faith, and her morals that was defined by Vatican I and II. Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change, when hitherto separated communities enter into unity with the Pope. By the way, the present Pope’s (JPII) exercise of the pontificate—with the trips around the world—is completely different from that of Pius XII. What concrete variations emerge I neither can nor want to imagine. We can’t foresee now exactly how that will look.”
Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, Peter Seewald book-length interview, 1997, page 257
“I neither can nor want to imagine.” Oh man, how unknowingly prophetic is that? Then again, if you self-fulfill your own prophesy, is that cheating? “Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change”
He’s not exactly on the fence about it, is he?
Now let’s move to the following year, and another document written by Cardinal Ratzinger in his official role as Prefect of the CDF, The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, 18 November 1998:
At this moment in the Church’s life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation”…
“The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing”.44 For this reason too, the immutable nature of the primacy of Peter’s Successor has historically been expressed in different forms of exercise appropriate to the situation of a pilgrim Church in this changing world…The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit’s voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.
Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff…(ahem, you mean like delegating the Governance role without relinquishing the Office, per Canon 131.1?)
In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church’s concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,Prefect, CDF, Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church (published in L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 18 November 1998, page 5-6) HERE
But wait! There’s more:
It’s 2008 and Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. This collection of essays, in various forms, goes back to 1987. The 2008 edition was translated by our new friend, Archbishop Miller. Turn straight to page 38 to read Benedict waxing poetic about the idea of not one, not two, but THREE members in an expanded Petrine ministry. He literally uses the term “papal troika.”
Talk about shifting the Overton Window. How about having a book published after you’ve become pope, introducing the radical idea of a papal troika as being plausible, and then pulling back to the slightly less radical idea of a diarchy, making the latter seem positively moderate by comparison.
But remember, there is absolutely zero evidence that Pope Benedict ever once, even for a moment, considered the idea of altering the structure of the papacy, you stupid layperson.
Be they cardinals, bishops, priests, laity, friends, family, bloggers, Trad Inc., or whomever, I think now is the appropriate time to cut to the chase. Contained herein are three questions to be asked, privately or publicly as the case may warrant, of every single Catholic, no matter their rank, who professes Jorge Bergoglio to be the one true living pope. The timing seems right, because all the bad things hatching out of the Roman sewers are redpilling a lot more people these days. Something isn’t right, and the open worship of demons inside the Vatican has shifted the Overton Window in a way few other things could have done. A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. Titus 3:10-11
It is of crucial importance to state at the outset that this has nothing to do with Bergoglio “losing his office” or trying to craft some mechanism in which to “depose” him. Folks, Bergoglio is a criminal usurper, which means he needs to be removed, not deposed. We have to get past the false base premise that Bergoglio is now, or ever was, a true pope. All of this heresy/apostasy has no effect on who holds the office of the papacy, because the office of the papacy has been held continuously by Pope Benedict since April 2005. Note well: It would have made no difference – at all – who was “elected” at the faux conclave of 2013, no matter if it had turned out to be someone totally orthodox, that person would still have been an antipope. There was no election, because there was no conclave, because there was no resignation. The personal apostasy and orchestrated demon worship of Jorge Bergoglio upon the high altar of St. Peter’s is not a causal factor as to why he is not pope.
However, the heresy/apostasy of Antipope Bergoglio does serve as a helpful proofset of the fact that he has never held the office, and so does not enjoy any of the supernatural protections of the papacy promised directly from our Lord Himself. If you think about it, this is actually a tremendous grace, because it would have been much harder to find the truth if everything appeared to be “normal.” It’s really not that confusing if you get your base premise correct.
“Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared….” 1 Tim 4:1-2
The questions which follow are of solid linear reasoning, which drill immediately to the core base premise. But they are also questions of grave matter to those professing submission to, and union with, an apostate heretic. It is out of fraternal charity that these questions must be asked, and answered.
Ready? Let’s get started! Question One: How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would permit the Church Militant to be put into a Catch-22 position of having to be in union with, and in submission to, a Pope who demands apostasy from the One True Faith in order to be in union with him, wherein we are literally damned if we do, and damned if we don’t? How is this not a clear violation of the Law of Non-contradiction, wherein the Standard of Unity is also the Vector of Schism?
If acceptance of heresy/apostasy/demon worship is the requirement in order to be in union with Bergoglio, which it clearly is, then how is that to be squared with the moral obligation of submission to, and union with, the Roman Pontiff under pain of mortal sin? Both things can’t be true.
“Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” 2 John 1:8-11
Yes, we’ve had bad popes in the past. We have had dozens of men hold the papacy who were less than stellar when it came to personal morality, to put it mildly. But we have never had a pope personally conducting himself as an apostate heretic, with the dethronement of God and the deification of Man as his central Freemasonic theme (and now an open worshiper of demons, because that’s where Freemasonry leads), who is also intent on forcing heresy on the faithful by preaching objective mortal sin as a moral good, willed by God (AL#298, 300, 303 HERE; AL footnote 351 HERE; inter alia). That’s supposed to be not possible, and we don’t need some future council to explain this to us. God gave you a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71).
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” 2 Tim 4:3-4
Let’s take it one step further. When a true pope is elected, it is dogmatically certain that the transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors, (Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus, 1870, HERE) not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church, but rather directly from Christ, immediately upon a validly elected successor’s acceptance of the office… (if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)… which leads us to Question #2: Question Two:How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would force the Church Militant into a Catch-22 position by His own divine will, by conferring the office of the papacy upon a man known to Him to be a wretched apostate heretic, and then WITHHOLDING the negative supernatural protection of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18-19, and Luke 22:32), so that the wretched apostate heretic could openly approve fornication (cohabitation), adultery, sacrilegious Communion, and even perform idolatrous demon worship upon the high altar at St. Peter’s? HERE,HERE,HERE, and HERE.
Said another way: If you are a person who believes Bergogio is a true pope, validly elected at a valid conclave after a valid resignation, then it is an article of faith for you to also believe that the papal office was bestowed BY CHRIST HIMSELF on Bergoglio at the moment of his acceptance of the papacy. If that’s true, then how is it possible that “Francis” could be permitted BY CHRIST HIMSELF to wage war on the Catholic Church, raping His bride, yet somehow the Petrine Promises have not been broken? Both things can’t be true.
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.” 2 Peter 2:1-3
Souls are at stake, so I highly recommend everyone engages with those closest to them, pose these first two questions, demand that people actually think, and get them to answer. Put it on facebook and twitter. Permission to cut and paste from here with no attribution. Imagine if just a hundred people started doing this; it would exponentiate in mere days.
The answer to these first two questions, with a high degree of moral certainty, is that it is impossible for Jorge Bergoglio to be pope. Once the false base premise is out of the way, the next logical question to be asked is… what could have caused this? Which leads us directly to Question Three… Question Three: Will you now, honestly and thoroughly, engage the publicly available data and argumentation that demonstrates that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope, and has been since 13 March 2013, not by reason of heresy/apostasy, but as the result of an invalid conclave due to the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict? If you will not, why not?
Yes, the heresy/apostasy/demon worship is awful, but these things are clues, not causes. Bergoglio did not cease being pope because he worships demons. Bergoglio is not pope because the conclave was invalid because Benedict’s resignation was invalid. This is the root, nothing else.
Summary of events surrounding the invalid resignation:
Canon Law forcefully shows that Pope Benedict’s purported resignation in February of 2013 was invalid and that he remains the one and only living Pope. There are a multiplicity of violations which nullify the abdication, rendering also null the subsequent conclave and its result. Violations of Canons 17, 36, 38, 332.2, 188, 359 have been demonstrated, and Canon 131.1 is also in play HERE. For example, he used the term “ministerio” (ministry, lower case) in the essential clause of the renunciation, instead of Munus (Office). The Office and the ministry are not the same thing, and although he could have properly manifested his resignation in accord with Can. 332.2 without using the word Munus, that’s not what he did, explained HERE. Prominent Canonists and Theologians were already crowing about the faulty Latin and nullity of the act within hours of it taking place HERE.
Another subset of evidence includes Benedict’s “always and forever” discourse during his last General Audience 27 February 2013 HERE. This is where he revealed his belief that the papacy imparts an indelible character upon acceptance of the office.
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (the day Ratzinger accepted the papacy). 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…
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 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.
Benedict admitted in that same speech that by instituting the role of “Pope Emeritus” he was creating a “novelty,” which means that he intended his “resignation” to be different tfrom any before, thus “remaining in a new way.” This concept was explained in great detail during Archbishop Ganswein’s epic “Expanded Petrine Ministry” discourse of 20 May 2016 HERE, wherein he explained how the papacy now consists of one “active member” and one “contemplative member,” and then (I’m not making this up) equated Benedict’s decision to bifurcate the papacy to God’s decision to spare His Blessed Mother from Original Sin via the Immaculate Conception HERE. The plain words of Benedict and Ganswein in these two speeches, if they were sincere and not subterfuge, demonstrate “Substantial Error” as a nullifying factor, as anticipated in Canon 188, since a bifurcated papacy is an ontological impossibility.
Speaking of subterfuge, there is also the possibility that the nullity of the resignation was intentional; four dimensional chess executed by Benedict in order to protect the papacy and keep it out of the hands of the heretics. There is no direct evidence which supports this angle, but it also cannot be disproven at this time. I mention it because it has a certain appeal, and although I think this scenario far less likely, it is possible.
Finally, there is furthering evidence visible to this day, which to the naked eye would appear we have “two popes.” This includes Benedict’s retention of title, form of address as “His Holiness,” his continual presence inside the Vatican, wearing white, wearing his not-destroyed Fisherman’s Ring, writing books and papers, blessing new cardinals, imparting “My Apostolic Blessing,” etc. I’m just a totes retired not-pope, but allow me to impart My Apostolic Blessing. The notion that Benedict really, truly, completely retired, retaining not a shred of the papacy, is absurd. And since a partial abdication is not possible, his Declaratio is therefore juridically null, reverting the situation to the status quo. This is true even if he has seemingly delegated the power of governance, as stated in Canon 131.1: “The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.” Benedict XVI is the one and only living pope, and has been since April 2005.
Battlespace awareness is critical to truly grasping what is happening here. Understanding the bigger picture of interconnected forces means going far beyond the tactical elements and individual breadcrumbs which have been provided for us.
Thank you to Ann Barnhardt for her contributions to this piece. The bigger picture is explained in great detail in Part Two of her Bergoglian Antipapacy video below. You don’t need to watch Part One first, as everything you need is contained in Part Two. For people risking their souls by being scandalized out of the Church because of the actions of a man who isn’t the pope… two hours of video is well worth your time.
Our Lady undoer of knots, pray for us.
——————————
The Bergoglian Antipapcy
PART 2 VIDEO: The Bergoglian Antipapacy: The Freemasonic/Teutonic Final Attack on the Petrine See
Recorded 16 June, ARSH 2019
00:00 Introduction and Acknowledgments
03:13 The answer to this controversy lies in CANON LAW because it revolves around a JURIDICAL OFFICE and a JURIDICAL ACT, specifically the 1983 Code
05:46 Canon 188 Review
06:45 What exactly is the definition of SUBSTANTIAL ERROR?
09:26 The massive difference and distinction between OFFICE (an ontological state of being) and a MINISTRY (an optional activity derivative of holding an Office)
14:12 Canon 131.1 – Delegating ministries of an Office does not CONFER the Office. Only one who holds and retains an Office can delegate ministries of said Office.
19:29 This impossible maneuver of attempting to essentially dissolve the Petrine Office by delegating aspects of the Petrine Ministry to multiple men simultaneously has been openly desired and discussed by German theologians under the influence of Freemasonry for over 50 years.
22:30 The principal motive of the object the act was DEFECTIVE
23:02 The project of the Freemasons through the Teutonic theological school of the 20th century has been the dissolution of the Papacy along the MUNUS-MINISTERIUM distinction.
23:46 The Latin of Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation of only the “MINISTERIUM”.
24:39 Canon 332.2 – The Pope must resign the OFFICE, and it need not be accepted by ANYONE (including the College of Cardinals). The only arbiter and judge of a Papal resignation is Christ THROUGH CANON LAW.
28:22 The mistranslation of Pope Benedict’s attempted statement of resignation, “Non solum propter” was MIS-TRANSLATED from Latin into Italian, and then from the erroneous Italian into English, Spanish, French, etc.
30:29 Christ bound and binds Himself to Canon Law in Matthew 16:19 (The Keys and the binding and loosing) in order to prevent CHAOS.
31:17 Look to the Fifth Joyful Mystery of the Rosary: Finding Jesus In the Temple. Where did you think I would be? In this context, a JURIDICAL issue, look for and find Our Lord in THE LAW.
32:22 Canon 332.2 “…but not that it is accepted by anyone.” This clause completely protects the Papacy from the MOB, and especially from THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS.
33:11 Does it make any sense to you that the law (Canon, Divine, Natural) can be broken, but as long as the College of Cardinals, or even “almost everyone” goes along with it, then it is not just “okay”, but positively sanated and ratified by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself? The new heresy of “Cardinalatry”, putting the College of Cardinals over and above the Pope and God Himself.
38:29. Pope Pius IX shooting down the notion that the Papacy is bestowed by the College of Cardinals, or even the Church. The Papacy is bestowed directly by Christ.
39:47 Can the Pope break the Natural Law? Can the Pope break the Laws of Arithmetic? Can the Pope break the Divine Law? DOES ERROR HAVE RIGHTS? Is God now giving clay to falsity? The Pope does now serve at the leisure of the College of Cardinals. NO!!
41:52 The “Universal Peaceful Acceptance” argument leads to an ISLAMIC chaos. It is an attack on REALITY ITSELF, and violates the Law of Non-contradiction. Ontological realities cannot be CHANGED in retrospect.
45:18 The Gloria Patri is a testament to the stability of REALITY in the timeline.
46:17 CANON 359 – The College of Cardinals has ZERO authority or capability to call a conclave is the See is not vacant, NO MATTER WHAT. No vacant See, no valid conclave. Period.
47:20 Reportage of Canonists strenuously objecting to the validity of Pope Benedict’s attempted partial resignation from literally within days of the February 11, ARSH 2013 announcement.
49:52 This “expanded Petrine Ministry” error did not just come out of left field. The J. Michael Miller dissertation: “The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology”. A collection and synthesis of the German theological academy’s plans for fundamentally transforming the Papacy – written in ENGLISH. The footnotes, bibliography and index are priceless.
55:10 The Miller dissertation agonizes of the following terms: “Ius Divinum vs Ius Humanum”, “Irreversible vs Reversible”, “Immutable vs Mutable/Changeable”, “Petrine Office vs Petrine Ministry/FUNCTION”.
57:27 Who are the key players? Kung-Kasper-Rahner-Ratzinger
1:00:39 Chapter 8 opens with Kasper’s quote, “The present crisis of the Papacy is one of legitimation.”
1:02:41 Kilian McDonnell on Walter Kasper’s plans to transform/de facto destroy the Papacy
1:06:10 The explicit distinction in the Miller Thesis between the Petrine Office and Ministry/Function. “The tow realities are, however, conceptually distinct.”
1:09:32 Ratzinger in his book “Salt of the Earth”: “Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change… What concrete variations emerge I neither can nor want to imagine.”
1:11:40 BUZZWORD: DEMYTHOLOGIZE the Papacy. The Antichurch will need to have all the external appearances of a papacy, but will be devoid of all grace, in order to deceive even the Elect into entering the Antichurch.
1:13:33 The Ganswein Speech
1:18:40 Wherein Ganswein compared Pope Benedict’s partial abdication to the Immaculate Conception
1:20:09 Dissolving the Papacy along the Office-Ministry distinction has been the Freemasonic goal for centuries.
1:20:52 Leo XIII on the known agenda of Freemasonry to destroy the Papacy, and then the Church.
1:22:19 Vatican News quoting Bergoglio naming his agenda as “Humanism of Fraterinty” – the very name of Freemasonry.
1:23:22 The coerced non-abdication exile of Emperor Charles I Habsburg – Blessed Emperor Charles only “renounced participation in state affairs”. He did NOT abdicate.
1:25:42 What does Walter Kasper want? Money and power, specifically from the Lutheran German Church Tax revenues. Freemasonry and satan share Kasper’s goals.
1:26:41 So what probably happened? “Either you let us schism the Church, or we will schism the Church…”
1:30:33 Why does this matter? Why not just wait for Antipope Bergoglio to die? The Truth not only matters, but is the only thing that will set us free. Holding the false premise of Bergoglio ever having been the Pope leads to FALSE SEDEVACANTISM.
1:35:56 Canon 751 the standard of schism is the Roman Pontiff – so who is and is not the Pope CLEARLY matters.
1:36:59 What can be expected from going on offense and confronting the Bergoglian Antipapacy? THE GRACE AND FAVOR OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST.
1:37:55 The Visibility of the Church, the Church in Eclipse (eclipses are highly visible by definition!), and Humility
1:42:50 Conclusion
PART 1: THE BERGOGLIAN ANTIPAPACY
Recorded 16 November, ARSH 2018
03:25 If anything in this presentation is illogical, irrational or detached from reality, let me know
05:03 THE False Premise: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope.
06:48 WHY isn’t Bergoglio the Pope? What happened?
08:16 The principle of Reversion to the Status Quo
11:37 Canon 188 – the text of the law
16:09 The plain sense of the law is the last line of defense against tyranny
18:04 SUBSTANTIAL ERROR: the key criterion
19:51 Pope Benedict XVI in his own words: “Always and forever…I remain in the enclosure of St. Peter.”
23:24 Essential precision: Pope Benedict’s mind is NOT the arbiter of reality, nor does his substantial error change the ontological reality of his status as Pope.
25:47 We know from logic that a Pope can commit substantial error in the context of an attempted resignation and still retain his office
27:18 Archbishop Georg Ganswein’s approved remarks from 20 May ARSH 2013 in his address at the Gregorianum in Rome
35:02 There cannot be a “Pope Emeritus”. Either a man occupied the Petrine See, or he does not.
36:37 Yes, Popes absolutely CAN resign. The issue here is the VALIDITY of the attempted partial resignation in February ARSH 2013
37:44 +Ganswein. Who is this omnipresent guy that is playing both sides?
38:35 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “But both Pope Benedict and +Ganswein are sub-verbal and don’t understand the words they are saying!”
40:10 The most intelligent people (and angels) make the biggest mistakes
41:13 The second invalidating criterion: FEAR
43:00 Just vs. Unjust Fear
45:28 Never underestimate the viciousness and violence of the sodomite.
46:32 Satanism is real and its global nexus today is inside the Vatican
48:41 Archbishop Viganò is in hiding for fear of his life.
49:03 The Southern Italian Mafia: longtime mercenaries of the Freemasons and sodomites
50:26 Fear of blackmail by the sodomite mafia using PAID false witnesses
53:05 “Pray for me, that I may not FLEE for FEAR of the WOLVES.”
54:22 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “The fact that Pope Benedict resigned is proof that he wasn’t coerced!”
55:57 MASSIVE BODY OF VISUAL EVIDENCE, the conscious retention of visible signs of the Papacy by Pope Benedict XVI after 28 February ARSH 2013
01:02:50 Prophecies: Apostasy from the Top
01:05:17 Pope Benedict XVI, worst Pope ever, notorious for quitting. The 300 page dossier on the sodomite/satanist infiltration of the Church, delivered to him on 11 December ARSH 2012
01:07:15 Pope Benedict’s warped metaphysics of “meaning”, not “being”
01:08:26 Pope Celestine V in the mind of Pope Benedict XVI
01:09:12 Pope Benedict’s mind is NOT the source nor arbiter of reality. He needs to be told this, not asked.
01:09:54 VALID YET ILLICIT – an essential precision
01:11:11 What anyone WANTS is not germane to the question. Binary objective reality.
01:13:35 Charity should immediately cause us to ask, “Holy Father, what did they do to you?”
01:14:55 What if Pope Benedict VALIDLY resigned tomorrow? It would confirm that the February ARSH 2013 attempt was invalid
01:16:58 STUPID TROPE ALERT “We can’t know who the Pope really is, and it doesn’t matter anyway!”
01:18:09 Why won’t people even discuss this? EFFEMICACY and SLOTH
01:25:20 The Sedevacantism Red Herring
01:30:00 “But what if Pope Benedict dies…?” Binary Objective Reality.
01:31:58 “What is Bergoglio dies or goes away somehow?” Any “conclave” called while Pope Benedict is still alive and occupies the See will be invalid, just as the March ARSH 2013 conclave was invalid
01:33:27 We MUST get thi 100% right. Half-right won’t cut it. The Parable of the seven demons.
01:35:00 Jorge Bergoglio
01:36:33 Electioneering of ARSH 2013 “conclave” is completely irrelevant because THERE WAS NO CONCALVE IN ARSH 2013. The only relevance the faux-concalve of ARSH 2013 served was to expose the corruption and criminality in the College of Cardinals and Curia
01:38:43 Jorge Bergoglio: arch-heretic. Informative but not germane to Bergoglio’s status as antipope. Only a confirming corollary.
01:40:35 STUPID TROPE ALERT “There have been heretic Popes before!”
01:44:17 Ann misspeaks – John the XXII, not John XXIII
01:44:34 Bellarmine and Suarez believed that the Petrine Promise precluded a heretic or man who had lost the Catholic faith to be the Pope.
01:46:27 Having faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and His promises is being viciously attacked on a daily basis by “conservative” and even “Trad Catholic” “thought leaders” as “papolatry”. The only way to hold the false premise that Bergoglio is the Pope is to ruthlessly attack the Papacy, and thus the Virtue of Faith itself.
01:48:20 Papolatry has NOTHING to do with the global cult of Bergoglio. It is 100% ideological tribalism driven by the fact that Antipope Bergoglio RATIFIED PEOPLE IN THEIR SINS AND APOSTASY
01:52:07 Attributes and characteristics of the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist
01:53:30 MORE visible confirmations that Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope
01:57:07 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “Papal Infallibility only applies to those things the Pope says that are true!”
01:58:05 It is precisely the AUTHENTIC authority of the Papacy that will be needed to fix this mess – and everyday “conservative” and “Trad” Catholic “thought leaders” attack the Papacy in order to continue to hold their false premise that Bergoglio is the Pope.
02:00:10 The concept of “Popular Acceptance”is NOT in play because the See was never vacant in ARSH 2013. The Mob/Vox Populi can not change ontological reality.
02:03:15 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “We believe that Novus Ordoism is a completely different religion to whose authority we MUST SUBMIT!”
02:04:42 The mystery of how “even the Elect would be deceived…” We are living it. Right now. The Elect are being deceived.
02:09:32 The greatest act of violence against the Papacy is to call a man who is not Peter, “Peter”.
02:10:12 Antipope Bergoglio has ZERO AUTHORITY. What will you do, Father, is Antipope Bergoglio tries to abrogate the Mass of the Ages?
02:12:21 What to do? Speak up. Man up. Defend Pope Benedict! Fast and pray – Matthew 17:20 Initiative
02:13:45 Deepen your relationship with Jesus Christ. “Jesus, I know that you love me.”
02:14:57 Conclusion. Please mirror, copy and spread this video. Closing prayer.
Look after yourselves, my friends, it’s not selfish. We pray to the saints to come to our aid, we pray for the purgation of faithful departed, and at the same time, we must pray for ourselves to be counted among them. Things are getting weirder by the day. Take care of yourself spiritually, and maintain your bearing.
———————————————
“Secure your own mask first, before helping others.”
Posted on
I fly around 120K miles a year for my day job, so I hear that phrase a lot. Maybe that’s why when I heard it referenced by Ann Barnhardt in a podcast earlier this week, it just sort of went right past me. The analogy was referring to the need to make sure your own faith, soul, prayer life, etc is well taken care of as prerequisite to anything else.
That same day, I went off to Confession, as I had already planned to do. The penance was totally focused on the need to pray for my own needs, and really making it a priority. The priest asked me if I had prayed my daily Rosary yet, and I told him I had not (I love that at the FSSP parish, it’s just assumed you’re praying a daily Rosary). He instructed me to go offer my Rosary, entrusting to our Blessed Mother the channeling of all necessary graces for my spiritual benefit.
The podcast and the Confession should both have been a big wake up call. But the full gravity of the situation didn’t really hit me until about halfway through that Rosary when I realized, slap upside the head, I actually could not remember the last time I prayed the Rosary entirely for myself. The Holy Ghost always knows when you need a slap upside the head. Now you already know how much I love the Rosary, so you can imagine how odd this seemed to me. I mean, obviously I’ve prayed a decade or two as a penance, for an increase in this virtue or that, but a whole Rosary just for me? I can’t remember the last time, and that’s a real problem.
In Spiritual Warfare, the Rosary is a weapon of mass destruction. I’ve written about it many times in these pages. It’s a real weapon, not a metaphorical weapon. So much so, it almost seems selfish to offer it entirely for yourself. But it’s never selfish to pray for yourself, so long as your intention is in accord with God’s will. And we need not worry about petitioning something against His will, because He’s not granting that anyway. Of course in the individual prayers of the Rosary, the Our Fathers and Hail Marys, we are praying for ourselves within those prayers. But what I am talking about here are specific, personal, spiritual intentions beyond what is asked in those prayers.
I would be willing to bet that most Catholics who are somewhat secure in their faith, who are honestly trying to live authentic Christian lives, and who have managed by the grace of God to overcome a whole bunch of entrenched wretchedness, don’t pray for themselves nearly enough. We foolishly think we’ve extracted ourselves permanently from said wretchedness and we’re now “saved”. Not in the proddy sense of “once saved always saved”, but rather in the sense of “thanks to my hard conversion/reversion to the one true faith, even though I still fall sometimes, and even though I’m totally unworthy of the honor, I am now on the side of the angels and God will surely grant me final perseverance.”
Oh man, that is so dangerous. It’s for very good reason that Jesus taught us to pray to the Father to deliver us not into temptation, and that we ask Mary to pray for us at the hour of our death. It’s for very good reason that in the Roman Canon itself, during the Hanc Igitur, the priest and faithful pray to be saved from eternal damnation and be counted among the elect. Damnation is a real possibility if we so choose it, and “once saved always saved” is one of the most pernicious lies ever told. If you are truly living an authentic Christian life, Satan views you as a hard target; he knows he needs to deploy extra resources to bring you down, and deploy he will. He’s already won the soft targets without even trying, so he’s got extra munitions reserved for you. Meditate on the blitzkrieg he has planned for the hour of your death. Be terrified by this, and use the terror to build your counterattack.
With everything that’s going on right now, all of the “confusion” surrounding all aspects of the Bergolian antipapacy, Satan is squealing with delight and has launched a huge offensive. Bergoglio himself is a soft target for Satan, easily manipulated and used to destroy souls on a horrific scale. He is a soft target not only because he is an arch-heretic and profoundly stupid, but because he does not have the supernatural protection afforded to the holder of the Petrine office, due to his invalid election. Now, when this is the unmistakable reality of the Catholic Church today, the one true Church founded by God Incarnate, do you think perhaps the effects of this might be rather… widespread? The past nearly fiveseven years since the failed partial resignation of Pope Benedict has literally been, pun intended, a huge coming out party for all manner of perversion and reprobation; a spiraling tempest of filth. Do you want a sense of how long ago fiveseven years was? FiveSeven years ago, Hillary Clinton was campaigning AGAINST same-sex “marriage.” Yeah. The ever quickening pace of events across all sectors of civilization is so breathtaking, you would be delusional to think it’s not all connected. The demonic activity is everywhere and is even palpable at times. PALPABLE. Have you felt it? Every solid priest I speak with confirms they feel it too.
So there is certainly no shortage of things to pray about. And while some of this is about prioritization, it’s also about recognizing your role at the tip of the spear. We need to militantly pursue our own spiritual perfection first and foremost. It might not seem right when it first hits your ear, but if we are too busy praying for everyone else at the expense of praying for ourselves, it does everyone a disservice. This may sound uncharitable or lacking humility, but that’s not the case, because it necessarily means expanding our own prayer life. The mere fact that you are here, reading this tiny, tiny blog right now, means you are probably the tip of the spear. Proper training is essential. By calling down these graces in petition, and cooperating with them, our own increase in holiness in turn makes our prayers for others more efficacious. Everybody wins.
You are part of a very small, elite, specialized unit. This is the greatest battle ever fought, because the results of this battle are eternal. You need to be on your game.
St Michael the Archangel, pray for us
St Joan of Arc, pray for us
St Martin of Tours, pray for us
St Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us
Christ, have mercy on us
