Pope Benedict is dead. Be ready for whatever comes next, and don’t lose faith.

Increase your prayers. Go to Confession. Go to Mass. Commend your loved ones to the Immaculate Heart. Whatever henceforth transpires, don’t lose faith. We rest in the absolute certainty that the situation will resolve, and that we are on the winning side in the end. But do be ready to be tried.

17 thoughts on “Pope Benedict is dead. Be ready for whatever comes next, and don’t lose faith.”

  1. Benedict XVI had some dangerous, modernist ideas. An enthusiastic supporter of Vatican 2, he was a modernist. He came up with the idea of an expanded papacy, which is why we’re in the hell we are in now. That he was seen as a conservative in later years shows how far left the Church lurched. But he was our pope, and if he truly was the katechon, despite how insane and crushingly mad the last 2 years have been, it will get worse. I hope somehow Bergoglio is dealt with, and we are spared.

  2. Was listening to Taylor Marshall, and apparently there is confusion over how to handle his death. Do they do it as a Pope? Or as a cardinal? They weren’t even sure whether or not to ring the bells, as that is only done for the death of a Pope.

    Turns out that the decision was made to ring the bells.

    So I’m thinking that providentially, Pope Benedict’s funeral will be, and visibly be handled, as that of a Pope, for all intents and purposes.

    I’ll also make my own little prophecy here that whenever Francis’ time ultimately comes, he will receive none of that Papal treatment, either by his own will or due to circumstances beyond him and his cohorts. He might even possibly die and be buried far outside of Rome.

    1. Bergoglio being an honest man and stand in for the ministry of the papal office, will no doubt now step down so that a proper conclave may be held.

    2. The fact that even the Vatican was confused over how to proceed with his death tells you a lot. So, they claim he hadn’t been the Pope for nigh a decade, but then ring the bells at his death and are now giving him a Papal Requiem? The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

    3. I’m not sure if this is true, but some say the bells were not “death” bells, but only the regular bells.
      Strange times, we’re in interregnum. God have mercy on his soul, and help us.

  3. Maybe it’s already happening? There’s a new Taco Bell commerical with these two guys in VR headset with look very similar to the ones that some Satanist made this year that kill you when you lose.

    Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZskNKOO4GU

    They’re already normalizing death in Canada. And I think many of the vaccine zealots who got vaxxed know they’re going to die and WANT YOU TO JOIN THEM.

    God help us.

  4. May he rest in peace.

    With that out of the way, I think that a lot people are wondering what Ms. Barnhardt and others are going to say about the College of Cardinals. Because most of the College of Cardinals today were appointed by what she describes (I think rightly) as an antipope, are those appointments valid Cardinals who can elect the next Pope?

    Let’s say that in the next year or so bergoglio passes away, or resigns.

    A new Conclave is called. The Cardinals all start to fly into Rome from all over the world.

    After meeting, the modernist Cardinal Tagle walks out on the balcony as “Francis II.”

    What then?

    Because I think that’ll put her, (and all of us) on the spot.

    People are going to say the likes of her and Dr. Mazza and others: “You spent years making a huge fuss about an antipapacy. Now both parties for that antipapacy are dead. That antipapacy situation has been resolved by The Angel of Death. The College of Cardinals says that this man, whom you will readily talk about being a modernist heretic, is the Pope now. Are you in Communion with him?”

    If she and Dr. Mazza argue that those Cardinals aren’t real Cardinals, people are going to lose a lot of respect for them. They’re going to say, “You’re not a 1958-Sede, you’re just a 2022-Sede. It looks like you’ve moved the goalposts and there is no way the Church can recover and have a valid Pope ever again from what you’re saying, just like the 1958-Sedes.”

    1. There are historical similarities, where the Cardinals of an antipope were allowed to keep their red hats, but were recused from the Conclave.

    2. Well, if Pope Benedict only resigned part of the papacy and delegated the other functions to Pope Francis, then Pope Benedict would implicitly approve of the Cardinals Pope Francis selected. Remember when the Cardinals were selected, they would then go visit Pope Benedict for his blessing, so an argument could be made that Pope Benedict approved.

        1. Benedict delegated the admin function of pope when he resigned the ministry and acknowledged that a conclave would be needed, then when Jorge got elected, Benidict never objected and both men called each other Pope. So, in Benedict’s modernist notion of the papacy, it could be split, and the functions can be shared. So, the argument can be made that Benedict approved of the “papal” actions of Jorge, much like a how Bishops can act in the name of the Pope in certain cases when the Pope explicitly or implicitly delegates that authority to the Bishops or Councils.

    3. I may be mistaken on this, but I’m pretty sure that Cardinals are a creation of the Bishop of Rome, not the Vicar of Christ. Up until 2013, those titles were held by the same man.

      In theory, if, for the sake of argument, Francis is only the Bishop of Rome (as in a normal diocesan bishop), then any Cardinals he makes would be valid.

      Cardinals are fixed to the Diocese of Rome, hence why they’re only ever called “Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church”. Yes, they may have archdioceses to run back home and may still wear red etc., but they actually do their “cardinalling” in Rome.

      Don’t forget, prior to the Pope’s death, Antipope Francis would shuttle his freshly minted Cardinals to get Benedict’s approbation and blessing. That probably gave them legitimacy points.

  5. Well, the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact unless there is legitimate doubt (such as a second possible pope). For if it were not true we would not have had such bizarre histories of antipopes being accepted by majority. So the difference between this position and the sedevacantist position is that we do not reject dogmatic facts. They claim that there has been no pope for 61 years but that the Church did not defect, which the author of The Sedevacantist Delusion satirizes well.

    If we have a vacany more than 3.5-7 years without anything apocalyptic happening I have no answers just like I have no answers to why anyone should become Catholic if it teaches that the gates of hell will never overcome while the pope himself is a vector of hell. Let’s hope it never comes to that.

    1. Well, thus far the Pope himself has not become a vector of hell, if by that you mean formally adopting heresy (Benedict, although he had odd musings, did not declare them as formal as far as I know, and Bergoglio ain’t Pope).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.