Ten years ago today, Pope Benedict retained the papacy and Bergoglio remained the Heretic of Argentina

“His Holiness”

“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”

That was the response given by Abp. Ganswein back in 2014 to the question of certain irregularities in Pope Benedict’s  “abdication” … Pope Benedict had supposedly decided to resign, yet had chosen to retain his vesture, retain his title as pope, albeit with ’emeritus’ added (which is impossible), retain his residency within the Vatican enclosure, and his form of address as remaining “His Holiness”. HERE

The press questioned, “Why?”

The answer, “He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”
In Pope Benedict’s mind (“he considers”) that the title “Pope (Emeritus)” and the formal address “His Holiness” corresponds to reality. He believed he remained in some way papal… and quite obviously so.

Which means his resignation was invalid and null due to the Substantial Error clause of Canon 188, and he remained the one and only living pope until he went to his eternal reward on December 31st, 2022. In a terrible irony, Benedict remained pope because he thought, in error, that he could give up the active role in governance of the Church while retaining a passive papal role. With canon law being the arbiter of reality, not Benedict’s mind, not the minds of the Cardinals nor the minds of bishops, priests, laity… canon law says the resignation was invalid and null.

Quite obviously, Pope Benedict thought he retained some portion of the papacy. Quite obviously, he viewed himself as remaining in some way papal. Willful ignorance is the only way to unsee this.

But… we clearly had a conclave, and “Francis” was clearly elected, and this result seems to have been clearly greeted by universal peaceful acceptance by the cardinals, right? It seems the whole Church accepted it, right? Good grief, even Pope Benedict accepted it! Doesn’t this override any technical irregularities regarding the abdication?

Nope. Opinions cannot change reality. Appearances cannot change reality. The concept of Universal Peaceful Acceptance curing at the root cannot apply to an event that never actually happened.

Remember the Royal Wedding? Harry and Meghan! Televised all around the world, tens of millions of people watched it. Accepted it. It looked spectacular. All the rituals and rubrics were followed, the ceremony unfolded with precision, vows exchanged, and the prince and princess were proclaimed to be husband and wife.

Except that wasn’t reality. You see, Meghan is still married to her first husband, because God says so. Divorce is anti-reality. So all that took place that Saturday in London was the appearance of a wedding, but in reality was a radification of adultery and fornication. Even though everything was done correctly according to formula that day, nothing actually happened, because a previous impediment rendered the ceremonies null. It doesn’t matter that all the attendees and everyone watching on television believed that a wedding just took place. The metaphysical reality of the situation is that nothing happened, because a prior event (her actual wedding) nullified the “result” of that day’s proceedings. In the words of Louie Verrechio, an act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.“ HERE

Which is exactly why the 2013 conclave didn’t actually happen. It looked like it happened, everyone believed at the time it was real, yet the weight of the evidence points towards a prior event nullifying its occurrence: Pope Benedict intending to hold on to at least part of the papacy, remaining in some way papal, until his dying breath. And if that is true, then he didn’t resign any of the papacy, because Canon 188 says he didn’t. No resignation, no conclave.

“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”

Out of error, truth.

“The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” – Pope Benedict

Archbishop Gänswein…said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.” “Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “…before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’. (Not in its “Office”, the governance of the Church in the world, but in its “essentially spiritual nature”, through prayer and suffering.) “He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

And lastly, Professor de Mattei: “Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry. This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.”

38 thoughts on “Ten years ago today, Pope Benedict retained the papacy and Bergoglio remained the Heretic of Argentina”

  1. “albeit with ’emeritus’ added (which is impossible),”

    Can you esplain why? The OT specifies high priests remain in office untip death yet eventually the office became elected for a year….so why can’t the papacy change to be a limited term office? and then there would be retired popes.

    1. Yes, he could have retired. A really retired pope doesn’t have pope in his title. A Bishop Emeritus is still a bishop. Is a Pope Emeritus still a Pope?

    2. A retired pope is a fully resigned pope. And he gives up his papal name, says sayonara and goes back home. He doesn’t keep all the trappings of the papacy, he doesn’t wear white, he doesn’t give apostolic blessings, etc. Benedict 16 was a coward and allowed the devil to establish the anti-church. At any moment he could’ve clarified things. He wasn’t stupid. But he didn’t. Now we have Bergoglio, the false prophet and a demonic oppression of the world.

  2. “If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.”

    This is manifesthgly false. It is taught that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul, yet one can leave the faith. It is said ordination leaves an indelible mark, yet a priest may resign the excercise of his office. An excommjnicated priest even still has apostolic sucession. Even an excommunicated pope then still retains some semblance of the papacy.

    1. Not so fast.

      A baptized Christian can apostasize, and end up in Hell as a baptized person… because baptism is a sacrament.

      A priest or a bishop may decide to leave their priesthood behind to marry a woman, and when they die, they’ll go to their eternal destiny as a priest or bishop… because sacred orders is a sacrament.

      A pope can resign his office (munus), like Celestine V did, and go back to be simply don Pietro di Murrone, not papal in any way… because the Papacy is NOT a sacrament, just a juridical office (munus) like any other. Whoever holds a juridical office, must formally manifest his will to cease to hold that office for good. If he just expresses his desire to not take a flight to greet some thousands of youngsters halfway around the world (ministerium), or is just too tired of fighting packs of wolves in cassocks (ministerium) and keep up with the paperwork (ministerium), guess what? He stills holds that office, until the day he explicitly resigns the OFFICE (munus), not just the heavy workload (ministeria), whether he likes it or not.

      I hope this helps.

  3. The identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact, but at the same time a doubtful pope is no pope. Plus there have been antipopes in history. The only resolution to these contrary claims I can see is that when there is only one possible pope it cannot be doubted that he is the true pope.

    But we lived through a situation where there were two possible popes and no one bothered to resolve the doubt.

  4. 10 years in, and the Mark of the Beast is gaining a foothold. Staring with China’s social credit/digital currency system, then spreading to India and now because of Covid gaining foothold in the west, our phones will be required to access and use our new digital currency. If your’e not vaxxed, or you don’t have the right social credit score, you don’t get access to your money. And every decision you make will be checked by the central bank.

    I believe, in retrospect, smartphones were invented to get people hooked on them, so they can’t live without them, so they fashion their entire identity through them. I saw a Chinese man talk about how in 2016, 7 years ago, he jaywalked across the street to the store. By the time he got to the store to buy his goods with his phone, money had already been taken out of his account for the jaywalking. The cameras caught him, recognized him, took money out of his account.

    You no longer matter as a human being. You do not have rights. Your income is the government’s. You will have no cash, because the government doesn’t know what you’re doing with cash. Everything goes through the phone. If you try and make money under the table, the IRS army will show up and take it from you, ruin your life.

    I don’t know if anyone can properly grasp what is going on here. Obama came in, he , it is rumored, got Benedict 16 out. Francis brought in his Satanic heresy, his anti-Church framework, and then unleashed hell on the world through Pachamama. Biden , who is being controlled by the Obama gang, is knocking down the pins Obama set up. Infrastructure, inflation, food insecurity, illegal immigration, WW3, the bio weapon vaccine, all these things came out of the Biden administration.

    And look at how China is becoming the world hegemon. This is by design. A communist, godless, dictatorship (remember the errors of Russia, Fatima) will control the world economically, the west will do its bidding, they’ll call it a One World Order. And the anti-Church will very soon have its anti Christ.

    1. Look what comes after the abomination of desolation in the temple of God (the Catholic Church): the sign of the Son of man (the cross). God Himself will destroy the New World Order, who have for decades been planning it out.

  5. The supreme Law of the Church is the salvation of souls……this has not been the case for many decades, not just the last one.

  6. I sat down and watched Ms. Barnhardt’s long video presentation on this issue a while back.

    I went into it thinking, “Francis is Pope, that’s how I’ll start. The burden of proof is on her and her side to make their argument. I’m going to give her a fair hearing.”

    If her arguments aren’t good, and this is just her raving incoherently for hours on end, okay then Francis is Pope, no biggie. If her arguments are good, I have a right to know that Francis ISN’T Pope, and I’ll move forward with that information.

    I finished the video, and I thought…

    “If I were on a jury, I would have to vote that Francis is an anti-Pope.”

    Everyone who has countered her, and Dr. Mazza’s arguments, they don’t do a good job. Her arguments are not bad at all.

    She’s not some raving lunatic crying out nonsense. And even if she were a raving lunatic, a raving lunatic with good points, still has good points. St. John The Baptist was probably considered a lunatic in his own day.

    I do think that in that video she was not entirely fair to the sedevacantists and their arguments, sedevacantists such as Novus Ordo Watch have addressed that and made their own counterpoints on that specific issue, so I’ll leave that to them. I was only interested in “Is Francis an anti-Pope or not?”

    1. I have many many small issues with Barnhardt. For one, she mistakes arrogance for masculinity. THat’s what happens when any female tries to act like how she thinks a man should act. She’s saying things that are true, but she’s not being masculine. Secondly, she can be needlessly provocative. Example: she recently said that shepherds would break the legs of lost sheep to teach them to stay with the herd, etc. to not pursue danger (lone sheep + wolf is a bad thing). SHe was using it as an example that Jesus will break us to keep us. Well, she’s right- He will do that. He broke my back. But if you’ve ever raised sheep you know that if you break a sheep’s leg it will kill itself trying to get away from you.

      On the issue of the papacy, I am with her 100%. She is exactly right. Her insight into the papacy, and diabolical narcissism is genius. It comes from God. And I’ve told her so.

      On the important issues she’s 100% right.

    2. Actually Mr. Derksen at NOW does a good job of countering Miss Barnhardt’s video. To say Ann was “not entirely fair to the sedevacantists and their arguments” is…..generous. To my knowledge she has never addressed Mr. Derksen’s criticism of her slanderous rant against SVists nor refuted SVism….and I’ve asked her to repeatedly. Oh well, her loss.

      This video too answers why Bergoglio is not the pope. Hope you’ll give it a listen.


      1. Anyway, sedes’ big problem is that they decided to start their own movement instead of fight for the church from within. That is a deliberate action outside the Church. It’s akin to protestantism.

        Barnhardt is right on the sedes. 100%. Don’t like it? Become Catholic.

        1. SVism is in no way like protestantism. R&R is. R&R, aka SSPX sift who they say is the legit pope and magisterium. Sifting what is and what is not true is what Prots do. The VII religion is not Catholicism and Catholics don’t stay in a false religion. Do yourself a favor…..listen to the video I posted.

        2. And btw jmy….to say a sede is not Catholic shows ignorance on your part. I believe even the OP here won’t go there.

          1. Sedes are Cosplay Catholics. They divorced themselves from the Church because they were upset at what was happening IN the Church. That sounds awfully similar to Protestantism, or the excuses for Protestantism.

            What makes the sedes Catholic? They unilaterally claim the Church is the anti-Church, they claim they’re the true Church, they claim they’re the remnant.

            Throughout history the Church has messed up. But true Catholics stick with Jesus Church, pray and try to heal it from within. You left the Church.

            I don’t care what the OP thinks. I don’t care what anyone thinks. Someone truly outraged at Vatican 2 wouldn’t leave the Church. He’d fight it from within.

          2. The VII documents, the VII “popes & magisterium” teach heresy. This is not possible from the true Church and true popes! The NO religion teaches a different gospel in her liturgies, doctrines and disciplines. It’s precisely because we believe in the Petrine Promise that we are SVists. The VII religion is a false religion. The “proof” it is false can easily be seen by the great falling away from the faith these past 6 decades and the never before “irregular canonical status” of a “Society” holding to tradition. And there are Society priests who hold sede vacante. You prepared to say those priests are not Catholic?

            If you cannot or will not hold sede vacante that’s your choice, but don’t be intellectually lazy and accuse serious Catholics who do hold the position of not being Catholic. That’s ignorant.

          3. Kono,various Church councils have taught heresy and needed to be corrected. One glaring example is the Second Council of Ephesus that taught Christ had only one nature after the Incarnation. The council which condemned this error was Chalcedon, but this council also taught error… in saying the Patriarch of the East is equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome. The history of the pre-Trent Church is quite messy. 1958 Sedevacantism tends to only study the post-Trent, pre-VatII years.

          4. Thanks Mark. I’ll try looking into this. But before I do, Christ has one nature heresy, was that taught after the defined dogma of His having two natures?
            Also, was the Church at that time infiltrated with FM, homos, communists? Did the Church hierarchy change the liturgy to make it basically a Seder meal? Was there a worldwide apostasy afterwards?

          5. Kono, the Church had already taught the dual Natures of Christ two centuries earlier. You know that. Yet the Second Council of Epehsus in 449 was validly convoked, hijacked by heretics, and taught heresy. It’s messy but true. I’ve also related to you many other situations such as this in the pre-Trent Church.

          6. https://novusordowatch.org/2016/02/nestorius-salza-siscoe/

            Per usual, Mario Derksen does a thorough job refuting the anti-sede position. Please give it a read, and also the few comments. It shows how insipid the R&R position is. Once a prelate starts spewing heresy we laity are to listen to absolutely nothing else they say. Not sift what they’re saying to find bits of orthodoxy. And since Barnhardt publicly states Benedict was a heretic….

          7. The thing is, Debbie, I keep giving you examples of heretical contradictions in the pre-Trent Church, and you refuse to do the research. I am very generous about not censoring your comments, but you need to do your part.

          8. Mark, I did some research on II Ephesus, and you’re correct, it’s a mess. My understanding about the situation is that a) Pope St. Leo the Great did not hold nor promulgate the heresy of Nestorianism, b) the heresy (from bishops, not from a valid pope) was cleared up at Chalcedon within two years (pretty impressive considering they didn’t have instant communication nor air travel). If I am wrong in my understanding, please do correct me, because I do not see how Ephesus II is anything like six decades of VII.

          9. Yes, it’s a mess. And then when Chalcedon corrected that heresy, it created another heresy in proclaiming the Patriarch of Constantinople as co-pope.

          10. But neither heresies were held or promulgated by a valid pope. Isn’t that the point? I believe the sede point is that valid popes cannot, by Divine Protection, hold or promulgate heresy. Other clergy can and certainly have because they are not Divinely Protected.

            It is beyond obvious that the VII religion is not from heaven. But you know that.

          11. But did VII promulgate doctrine? The council itself said it did not. If the documents are merely bad policy shifting, but doctrine wasn’t touched, what does that say?

          12. You win. I’m done here. Know that I pray for you, by name, at nearly every Mass I assist.

    3. She’s not crazy. A common media tactic is to question the sanity of the person speaking the unpopular truth when you cannot refute what they are saying.

      Take for instance people who use the word “conspiracy theorist” to dismiss what you say without refuting your claims or evidence. It’s a shorthand for “crazy person”. The minute you are labeled a conspiracy theorist people ignore everything you are saying. She questioned an assumption that most Catholics never questioned: that Francis was legitimately elected. Once you question this everything coming from the Vatican since he started dressing in white makes sense. The only people who questioned this were 1958 sedevacantists, and the ideas implied have issues. But is there a way to explain Francis without agreeing implicitly that the Church defected at Vatican II? Yes. But that can only come if you question Francis, something Catholic media pundits say that you cannot. So they call her crazy so you don’t listen to what she is saying.

          1. Opposing an anti pope is not sedevacantism, dear. And I’ve known he’s been an anti-pope for 9 years. Some history: when the CHurch in the past had bad popes, antipopes, etc, disgruntled parishoners didn’t START THEIR OWN MOVEMENTS. They stayed with the Church and endured.

            I think you’re smart, I know you can understand this.

          2. And as to the pre-VII antipopes, they didn’t teach heresy. Big BIG difference. Even with those antipopes THE CHURCH was still Catholic….so of course one wouldn’t leave. The NO religion however, is not Catholic. For a third time, the “irregular canonical status” of the SSPX attests to the truth of decades of antipopes. Never in the history of the Church has there existed a society “not in full communion” (whatever the heck that means) with the Church and still considered Catholic. And for a second time I ask; are you willing to say an SSPX priest who holds sede vacante to not be Catholic?

        1. I don’t reject Vatican II as heretical but if I thought it was that would disprove Catholicism. All the scandalous and heretical things the freemasonic infiltrators have done falsely in the name of Vatican II does not suffice to prove that the actual documents of Vatican II contain heresy.

          I could say again and again that it can be proven through pre-Vatican II teaching that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church, but I don’t think you are reading what I am saying. And when I say the 1958 sedevacantist church lacks the attributes the Church is guaranteed to preserve till the end times, I can only surmise that you believe we reached the end times around the time of Vatican II. Francis is going to keep canonizing his false interpretation of Vatican II and you will be even more convinced that the Church after Vatican II is a false church, even as the sinodal church is coming into view, the church of darkness where everything is done according to the knowledge of man, a seeming fit for what Anne Catherine Emmerich prophesied.

  7. “Opposing an anti pope is not sedevacantism, dear.”…..oh, but opposing 6 anti popes is different. Why?

    Just take a peek at the SSPX and their “irregular canonical status” these past 50 years for a clue as to how long the “Church” has been under the rule of antipopes. Not to mention the great apostasy since the evil council. A council that is surely by now recognizable as not being from heaven.

  8. Mark,
    Your statement that “various Church councils have taught heresy and needed to be corrected” is grossly erroneous, reckless and in and of itself heretical. You should retract it immediately.

    This is the type of comment that one would expect from modernists, who absolutely loath the Church’s charism of undetectability. Actual authoritative teachings of the Church must be accepted and be held by the faithful. Erroneous propositions by certain wayward bishops struck down by the Sovereign Pontiff do not constitute “teachings of the Church.” Do you seriously not understand that?

    Do you also not understand that your statement, taken on its face, would mean that the Church is not indefectible and by extension, that Jesus Christ is a liar and a fraud? It would also have to mean that Sacred Scripture contains error, for how can it be possible for Christ’s Church to be both “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and not the pillar and ground of the truth at the same time?

    You cannot separate Jesus Christ from his Church: “He (Christ) is the Head of the Body, the Church” (Col. 1:18; cf. Eph. 5:23) Therefore, you are effectively asserting the following by your statement: Jesus Christ taught heresy at these councils.

    Are you deliberately obfuscating the truth about these Councils? The Second Council of Ephesus, dubbed the “Robber Council of Ephesus” by Pope St. Leo the Great, contained zero heretical teachings that were put forth and to be held by the faithful. Furthermore, the Supreme Pontiff by his sole authority declared that all of the Acts of the Council were null.

    Your assertion and implication that this Robber Council, “taught heresy” as an official action of the Church to be held by the faithful is utterly preposterous.

    As far as the Council of Chalcedon goes, it never taught that “the Patriarch of the East is equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome.” Can you provide the approved canon from this council that specifically states this? If you’re referring to Canon xxviii from the November 1st session, it taught nothing of the kind. Rather, it asserted that the bishop of Constantinople should have special privileges and be SECOND IN RANK, after the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, this canon was rejected by Pope St. Leo and had absolutely no force and effect upon the faithful as a “teaching of the Church.”

    I suspect that you’re attempting to redefine certain events in Church history so you can “prove” that the Roman Catholic Church taught heresy in the past and thereby justify your position that the counterfeit Novus Ordo/New (World) Order, error-ridden Vatican 2 Conciliar church is one and the same as the Holy Roman Catholic Church and that the uber modernist heretic Joseph Ratzinger was a legitimate successor of St. Peter. Ratzinger was a dyed-in-the-wool adherent of the new and heretical Novus Ordo false ecumenical religion and played an instrumental part in: 1) deceiving the faithful into believing that this counterfeit religion is Catholic; and 2) imposing this Judeo Masonic cult-of-man religion upon them.

    Will you at least admit the possibility that you fell for the “I resign” and “I do not resign” Rat trap? (Those contradictory sentences perfectly summarize the forked tongue, career Modernist Ratzinger, by the way). Ratzinger sat back and let the semi-trads take the bait and go on a wild goose chase–which continues to this day, while the junior antichrist from Argentina declares open warfare the faithful and finishes the job of annihilating all vestiges of anything Catholic remaining in the counterfeit Conciliar church. Bergoglio could not do what he’s doing without his partner-in-crime Ratzinger handing over the reigns of the counterfeit church to him on a silver platter.

Leave a Reply

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