As we have learned, if you start with a false base premise, all the logic in the world will only leave you chasing your tail. But start with a true base premise, then examine the evidence, and logic will flow like a waterfall.
Jorge Bergoglio is OBVIOUSLY an antipope. A heretic places himself outside the Church, and a non-Catholic cannot be pope. But how did we get here? Did anything unusual happen in February 2013? Did the old pope sort of half-quit, then hang around for another ten years, in the Vatican, wearing white, with Pope still in his title, addressed as His Holiness, blessing new Cardinals, and imparting his Apostolic Blessing? Because a half-quit in Canon Law means didn’t-quit-at-all.
Did Benedict think he could remain IN ANY WAY papal after he “resigned?” What evidence do you see? If Benedict thought he remained in any way papal, altering or splitting the papacy, then he didn’t quit at all, and retained the whole thing. Canon 188.
For your consideration, please enjoy the following post from four years ago, where I gathered a few breadcrumbs. You will see that Joseph Ratzinger not only believed that the structure of the papacy could change, but that it positively WOULD change. The evidence from February 2013 shows us that he actually attempted to do just that.
Ratzinger: “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.”
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?)
“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
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.”
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.
The excerpt above, from “Church, Ecumenism and Politics”, sounds really bad, and in keeping in one sense with the Petrine deviations we now see. Pope Benedict seems to be speculating on not just a Papal “Troica”, but one which consists of an ecumenical pairing of Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant.
That’s bad. But …
As is usual with Ratzinger’s method (I’ve read him a lot) he frequently considers in a very honest way an argument that he considers in fundamental error, by spelling it in very honest and explicit detail. *Then* he proceeds from there to disassemble and disprove the error.
I was able to find the excerpt you used and read *the rest if the story* … until the Kindle sample ran out. He disassembles the above thesis and proves the opposite in the next section subtitled “The interior basis for the primacy: “Faith as responsible personal witness”
– quote –
“Although we need not conclude that such reflections are entirely sterile and useless, it is plain they are a distortion of Trinitarian doctrine and an *intolerably* oversimplified fusion of Creed and Church polity”
And
“Is Peter as a person the foundation of the Church or is his profession of faith the foundation of the Church? The answer is: The profession of faith exists only as something for which someone is personally responsible, and hence the profession of faith is connected with the person.”
– end quote –
In the same way that it is important to determine what exactly Bergoglio is, evidently occupying the Papacy in some never before seen way, *so also* it is important to determine what and who exactly his predecessor is, why and what he did leading up to our current state.
One argument is that Benedict was himself heretic and gravely in error leading by intent to further and deeper error. This is your view, shared by Ann Barnhardt and many others.
I do not share that view.
My argument is that Benedict, in accord with my correction through expansion of the above excerpt, is equivalent to a Ship Captain who was commanding his vessel in accord with the naval commission he received from the King. His crew and passengers mutineed from that mission and refused his authority. In accord with the reality he retained his authority, but explicitly gave command of the vessel to the mutineers who had already implicitly taken it from him … he removed himself to quarters awaiting correction from higher authority and power – the King himself.
I see no evidence in Ratzinger’s/Benedict’s public ministry heresy, apostasy, pre-existing intent in thought, word or deed to fundamentally transform the Papacy and Church. He always appeared as its defender, protector. I *do* very much see the malign forces, which are legion, with very strong intent to transform, deform, destroy. I do not share the view that Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger was one of them.
Our last Pope was a good Pope, and a brave one. But that must remain speculation, a mystery I suppose, until all is revealed at some future day, perhaps not until eternity.
PS: This theory also fits better with the idea, linked here,
https://nonvenipacem.org/2023/07/24/1p5-editor-tim-flanders-takes-up-the-topic-of-pope-benedict-as-katechon/
that Pope Benedict XVI saw himself, literally, as Katechon of NT prophecy – Pope at the end of days, precedent to advent of Antichrist.
I can see this. But why would someone, thinking himself to be Katechon, take HIMSELF out of the way/quit?
The “why” seems best to be explained by the interview you linked and the Scripture prophecy from Thessalonians to which it referred:
– quote from interview –
“From the beginning, he said, the Church has been inextricably mixed. It is both the Church of Christ and the Church of the Antichrist.”
– end quote –
And
“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. *And then shall that Wicked be revealed*, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” (2 Thess 2:7,8)
Then shall tgat Wicked (capitalized), “mystery of iniquity” be revealed.
– In my analogy –
The wicked have assumed command of the King’s ship while the Captain is on the Bridge. His word means nothing, practically speaking. To the passengers (Faithful) it appears he is directing the ship toward the King’s desired destinations and purposes (conquest). When he removes himself (your question to me) *ge is aligning the explicit reality what is already implicitly true, though hidden*. “The wicked are revealed”; they stand exposed and directly responsible for all their actions – pending judgement when the King’s flotilla of ships finds them and restored His ship “destroying with the power of His mouth”.
Those of us who know, stand with the true Captain, confined to quarters, and reject the now *obvious* imposters as the thieves and brigands that they are.
What has been done is to restore quantitative reality to what was before just hinted at by those who did their deeds in the shadows and darkness of anonymity. Anonymous no more … we see them clearly now for who they are – enthroner of witchcraft demons (literally) in high places. The winnowing (cockle from wheat) is at hand – the poison is identified and removed from the food supply. Now – we await judgement.
Andrea Cionci and others believe that Benedict actually did not resign at all, but made a declaration of an impeded See. His resignation speech is actually called a “Declaration”. I give great weight to this argument. This would explain why he stayed in the Vatican, dressed like a Pope, signed documents as a Pope, etc., etc.
Then why did Ratzinger go to his grave taking his secret code with him? What’s the end game?
Mark
I don’t believe there is some super secret code. I think the code is to read the declaration as a declaration of impediment and not as a declaration of resignation.
I agree that Benedict’s resignation/declaration was invalid on many points and therefore he was the True Pope these last 10 years.
I became suspicious of Bergoglio by some of the things he was saying in 2015. Then in 2016? One Peter Five linked to Ann Barnhardt’s article on the resignation. I never looked back after reading her and seeing her videos.
But the one question in my mind all these years, still is, is why would Benedict, of all people, commit substantial error? He must have known it was error. I still can’t jive this with the Petrine protection given to the Pope.
However, a declaration of an impeded See would jive. Basically it would separate the office from the ministry. This also fits in with an apparent bifurcation of the Papacy. Just like Blessed Karl did with his resignation, not abdication.
Basically though, we are on the same page… we have an anti Pope hell bent on destroying the Church from within!
I link to a Cionci article:
https://sfero.me/article/the-impeded-see-for-dummies-the-wheat-of-benedict-xvi-and-the-chaff-of-bergoglio
I agree completely with your premise: I *have* to know *what*; I would *like* to know *why*.
It is not essential to my Catholic faith to know *why* Pope Benedict did what he did – helpful, but not essential.
It is essential to my Catholic faith to know *what* Pope Benedict did so that I can orient my obedience and guide my conscience through proper formation in Truth.
Cionci’s argument is ridiculous.
See: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/12/14/summa-contra-andrea-cionci-plan-b-and-the-ratzinger-code/
And: https://romalocutaest.com/2023/06/07/the-ratzinger-code-debunked/
Steven! Hi!
Exactly. B16 wasn’t the katechon. If anything he was part of the unleashing of evil. Maybe unwittingly. Maybe not.
Bergoglio is a mercy from God to wake people the hell up. He is a wolf without the sheep’s clothing. Obviously so. Unfortunately ’22 SVism does not and cannot explain how the “Church” could give us 6 decades of already condemned heresies as ecumenism, religious liberty and poisoned liturgies. Not to mention the great apostasy. All these things happened well before Jorge came on the scene. The NO religion has never been and never will be Catholic.
Apb. Lefebvre could see it, but didn’t have the foresight or grace or cajones or whatever to come to the correct conclusion, as other clergy did. And now his Society doesn’t have the foresight or grace or cajones or whatever to see that Frank cannot possibly be pope. That’s the archbishop’s real legacy….wishy washiness which led to error.
And before you get all up in arms over my comment Aqua, please know I love and hope for the best for the good archbishop. If he made it through his particular judgement, and I firmly believe he did, it would be in spite of his erroneous R&R position and possibly BECAUSE he grew some cajones and did the consecrations AND BECAUSE he was excommunicated from the antiChurch by an antipope. He didn’t have the luxury of 20 more years to see the full effects of the bastard council.
Speaking of excommunications, Ann goes on and on about the necessity to be excommed from Bergoglio, know that Abp. Lefebvre beat her to it by 35 years this very month. And the only ones currently being excommed are NO “priests” who convert to sedevacantism.
Kono said:
“ Unfortunately ’22 SVism does not and cannot explain how the “Church” could give us 6 decades of already condemned heresies as ecumenism, religious liberty and poisoned liturgies.”
Actually, the Church and Scripture explains this, as linked in Mark’s Katechon article below.
There is ongoing precedent for evil in the midst of the Church, for which we must contend for the sake of good.
For instance … The Arian heresy, ultimately conquered by Athanasius, lasted *within the Church* for *100 years* – 300-400 AD.
Pope Benedict XVI refers to his lifetime’s primary theological source, St Augustine, Doctor of the RC Church, when he says “From the beginning, the Church has been inextricably mixed. It is both the Church of Christ and the Church of the Antichrist”.
There has been, since Judas betrayed Jesus at the summit and source of our RC Faith, good and evil inextricably mixed … *by the word of St Augustine himself*, and the power of our own observation and reason. Always. We are in a battlefield and there are casualties. Peace and tranquil Beatitude is for the next life, not for this. Now we fight (Eph 6:11-13). Why? Because evil is in our midst.
Kono,
Another example (from the previous discussion on Katechon) is Our Lord’s own words in His Gospel parable about the Cockle and the Wheat (Matthew 13:24–43).
The Cockle looks almost identical to the wheat, and has been sown by the Devil into the Wheat-field itself (the Church). Cockle is poison. Wheat is food. Iow, evil and good inextricably mixed. By Our Lord’s own Word.
No doubt Aqua that there has been and will continue to be unbelievers within the Church, but once their unbelief, heresies, apostasy is manifested, they’re no longer a member of the Church.
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free” [1 Cor 12:13]. As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith [cf. Eph 4:5]. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican [cf. Mt 18:17]. It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis
There’s another quite I don’t have time to retrieve, but Pope Pius XII also (?) says one is severed from the body via heresy, apostasy etc.
Aqua, we could cherry pick verses all day like Prots to prove our positions; I’d go with the Good Shepherd discourse and St. Paul’s warning to the Galatians. Bottom line, we all agree there’s a crisis in the Church and this crisis has wreaked absolute havoc around the globe; as the Church goes, so goes the world. Agree?
There are now as many opinions on what to do? who’s right? where do we go from here? as there are people. Sound familiar? It’s the same problem that Protestants have…confusion. And the reason we have this confusion for decades now is because there has been no pope to unify and settle the issues.
The mere existence of the SSPX and their “partial communion” for 5 decades points to the truth of ’58 sedevacantism; not ’22 sede. Abp. Lefebvre got it wrong (as did SAINT Ferrer). There is no shame in getting something wrong….only in not conceding when shown one’s error.
If changing the liturgy wasn’t enough to get the attention of the laity, God, in His mercy, made sure things like Assisi and Koran kissing happened when virtually everyone in the world had access to TV and newspapers. Stained glass windows for plebs like me…because Catholicism is for everyone, from the illiterate to the best and brightest.
You like to call me a Protestant on this and other sites. It seems to be your new theme: I like the Bible. Protestants like the Bible. Therefor, I must be a “Prot”.
Well … when it comes to making Protestant style declarations, I think using your own personal layman’s authority to declare six Popes deprived of Office, the entire apostolic line dead, all Sacraments invalid, all Ordinations invalid, the entire RC Church – dead, in a word … except for your tiny little remote chapel wherein only the Catholic flame remains alive (you’ll use the SSPX in a pinch) – kind of fits my definition of “Prot”.
Aqua says ‘…except for your tiny little remote chapel wherein only the Catholic flame remains alive (you’ll use the SSPX in a pinch)…’
I’ll use Scripture & St. Augustine to ask you what Our Lord means when He asks if He would find faith upon His Return? Or that even the elect (if possible) will be deceived? And St. Augustine’s prophecy that in the end the Church would become very small and very hard to find?
Last question. Do you know why the SSPX scrubbed this SSPX priest’s sermon from the web wherein he says “he’s convinced the NO priestly ordinations are invalid”? I saw the video myself before it was scrubbed 24 hours later. You may deny it, but the truth is there are both clergy and laity who hold to the sede position within the SSPX. And maybe, just maybe the SSPX has these diverse opinions because A. Apb. Lefebvre held both positions and B. Because there has been no pope to settle the matter.
Link to SSPX priest who believes NO ordinations are invalid.
https://novusordowatch.org/2023/06/sspx-priest-novus-ordo-ordinations-invalid/
Kono,
“Will He find faith upon His return”?
By definition, faith will be found *ONLY* within the Church He established – the Church of the Apostolic Line, not the one you created by your personal definitions and suppositions and consequent rulings.
The wheat field remains the wheat field. It is filled with cockle, true, which needs to be removed. But that doesn’t mean we burn it all down and start over.
Aqua, the Church Herself argues against this. Within the past 200 years, She has repeatedly stressed the PERFECT unity within Her. Simply put, as Mark points out, a heretic is, ipso facto, excised from the Church. That there have been wolves in sheep’s clothing, they haven’t been Catholic.
In the Arian Heresy, it was the pope leading the error, it was bishops fighting against the pope (and due to lack of clarity, we will exclude Liberius from the discussion, although Bellarmine seems convinced his dalliance into supporting the critics of Athanasius deprived him of his Office). It was to Rome that Athansius appealed.
You are correct that Ratzinger often identifies an error and then points out the error. However, he felt that Gaudium et Spes corrected the “errors” of Pius IX’s Syllabus, inferring the Church through Her Magisterium could lead souls astray, and he repeatedly said that the Church would need to backtrack on Papal Supremacy if the Orthodox were going to rejoin the Church. He also spouted the nonsense of “partial communion” as taught by V2, and even praised Luther, to the point of recommending heretics NOT convert to the True Church. He putnhis heterodoxy into action when he didn’t resign while resigning…
Not that my opinion means anything to objective reality. But. I have gone to bat for ’58 Sedes. I don’t personally hold that position, but I easily see how someone could. However. God demands that we “be perfect” but does not expect perfection from us in this world. As a matter of fact, if you take the ’58 position to its logical extremes – if you purity-spiral from the ’58 position – you quickly exclude not just some people but EVERYONE. Who here has not been mistaken about some point of the faith at some point in his life – aka a material heretic? If we take these mistakes to ipso facto exclude someone from the Church, as a proof that they do not possess the supernatural virtue of faith – perhaps I’m wrong, but I consider this a step too far.
The difference between Benedict and Bergoglio is that Benedict believed he was being Catholic. He was MISTAKEN in attempting to reconcile two ultimately irreconcilable things through the “hermaneutic of continuity”. Bergoglio just plain rejects the Faith.
I don’t expect to convince you; I too believe Bergoglio, or one like him, was inevitable due to the errors of modernism. But by the definition some people have of “orthodoxy” St. Thomas Aquinas would be a heretic and NOT a Catholic because he denied the immaculate conception!
Heresy has far more to do with refusal to correct when it is SEEN, by the person, to be in the wrong, rather than with being wrong in the first place.
Just my two cents.
Heresy is the rejection of defined doctrines of the Church. You cannot seriously argue that Benedict wasn’t aware of the doctrines of the Church. He admits that he was. He was formed under Pius XII (and under suspicion of heresy by the Holy Office). He also admits that he was more interested in studying censured works of de Lubac, De Chardin, etc. than he was Scholastic theology or dogmatic theology. He knew what Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus, and rejected it because he was an indifferentist. He believed that, contrary to the teaching of Vatican I, doctrine could change…
The same is true with JPII. The difference with Bergoglio is that he was a “man of the council”, fully formed in Vatican II theology. He is only carrying out the council…
Urielangeli said: “If we take these mistakes to ipso facto exclude someone from the Church, as a proof that they do not possess the supernatural virtue of faith – perhaps I’m wrong, but I consider this a step too far.”
Bingo. I have considered the Sede position with as much attention as I care to give it. It is toxic for this reason, hi-lighted from you. I don’t have the authority, I don’t have the facts, I don’t have relevant testimony. I have nothing but an opinion. To take that opinion and apply it to not just vast swaths of living breathing Catholics, souls, not just souls but Apostles with authority from God, and not just those I see but those I’ve read about in books and newspapers from decades ago stretching into future perpetuity – all, all in my Sede declaration declared heretic apostate, removed from Office the entire Church declared dead (except for the little Sede chapel 1,587 miles away in a little hollow).
I know people close to me personally who hold this view. I obviously have discussed it here (for quite some time). It is mind-bendingly repulsive – once you stop and consider the implications, really think through where this leads, of the actions taken with serious eternal consequences under nothing more than personal authority (which means no authority).
RE: personal opinion/personal authority.
I find this comment strange in light of other comments wherein you vehemently defend BiP and Bergoglio being an antipope. Why, dear Aqua, after looking at the evidence, does your ’22 SVism “opinion” hold water, but ’58 SVism, after looking at the evidence, is “mind-bendingly repulsive”? What authority to YOU possess to determine this? Just because a decades long interregnum is “hard to believe” doesn’t make it false….just as the Bread of Life discourse was “hard to believe” didn’t negate it’s truthfulness.
The difference between you and me:
You: On the basis of your personal opinions, suppositions and authority you remove from Office all Popes past, present and future, all Bishops and Priests and nullify the Sacraments. You have declared the RC Church dead from your armchair without so much as a trial.
Me: On the basis of the Divine Revelation of Christ, Sacred Tradition and Canon Law which authorizes one Pope in Office at a time – I recognize with my eyes, ears and brain that the current Pope did not leave his Papal Office. *I did not remove anyone in Authority from Office*. I merely observed that the previous occupant never left and that his resignation statement reflected the reality of his subsequent actions … rendering the resignation illegal and the subsequent Conclave invalid – *One.Pope.At.A.Time!
Addendum for accuracy: “all past Popes starting with Pope John XXIII”.
Kono said:
“Just because a decades long interregnum is “hard to believe” doesn’t make it false….just as the Bread of Life discourse was “hard to believe” didn’t negate its truthfulness.”
A decades long interregnum (gap) is not hard to believe. Creating the interregnum (in your mind) by removing Popes, Bishops, Priests based on your personal opinion and authority is hard to believe (impossible).
The Bread of Life discourse comes as revelation directly from the mouth of God. It is Dogma for a Catholic to believe it.
The Office of Pope and Apostles until the end of time is also based on revelation directly from the mouth of God. It is Dogma for a Catholic to believe it. It is heresy to believe an individual Layman has authority over that Office.
Your comparison is false. It actually proves my point, in that God guarantees the Rock, just as He guarantees His Eucharistic presence until the end of time, even when times seem hard and it is difficult to believe because the promise is difficult to see.
He does not guarantee you the right to judge and remove Popes (etc) to create interregnums and end His Church indefinitely.
Aqua, when we apply what the Church teaches about Herself, it’s clear She cannot teach heresy, promulgate poisonous liturgies, lead souls astray or BE the cause of confusion, hence Apb. Lefebvre’s Open Letter to CONFUSED Catholics. Yet this is exactly what the “Church” did. There’s no getting around this. Include things like Assisi, which was reportedly the final straw for the archbishop, from a now “canonized Saint” and the fact other bishops/clergy settled on the sede position (to which Abp. Lefebvre, like it or not, waffled on) and it becomes clearer. Throw in the five decades long CONFUSION over the status of the Society’s membership in the Church, (as IF “partial communion” could ever be a thing)….it’s just not that hard to see.
We know God is going to allow a great deception in the last days. We know there must be a great falling away (and the Jews’ conversion) before the end times. Seems to me, the deception, due mostly to itching ears, is that what the world these past six decades believes is the Catholic Church, is in fact and in deed, the antiChurch.
To be 100% and brutally honest, the ONLY thing which scares me about the sede position, is why, why God do you allow me to see the truth, and not others more worthy than me?
Two pieces of advice I’d like to offer; if anyone reading this was Confirmed by a NO “bishop”, regardless if it was with the Indults, get conditionally or re-Confirmed by a valid bishop, whether it’s SSPX or sede.
And, if you “worshipped” for any length of time in a non-Catholic “church”, do an abjuration. I know from personal experience the NO and Indults won’t do them, but have been told SSPX priests will and of course sede clergy will.
I’m out. I’m tired. I’m sorry I too often can be a jerk.
Jesus, Mary, I love you, save souls.
Aaron,
Well history does not demonstrate “perfect unity within Her”, such as the Arian crisis in which “the whole RC world was heretical Arian except for the little band with Athanasius” for 100 years. Nor does St Augustine teach that. Nor does Our Lord, in the parable I referred to above. Nor does the NT prophecy in Thessalonians, to which I referred, in which *evil is mixed with good* pending the judgement of God.
The problem is if you are expecting (demanding) perfect unity, but there obviously is not nor has there been … then the next obvious conclusion is … it’s all dead – and then becomes a Sede.
The Church has already defined that She is, inherently perfectly unified. Pope Pius XII tells us in Mystici Corporis that there are three criteria for membership in the Church: 1) valid baptism, 2) adherence to the True Faith, and 3) submission to legitimate authority. The Arians were heretics, and thus NOT PART OF THE CHURCH. Thus, the Catholic Church was perfectly unified, but was afflicted by outsiders pretending to be Catholic. This is why St. Athanasius said “They may have the buildings, but we have the faith”.
The idea of “imperfect unity” is an heretical invention of the Second Vatican Council. No pope ever taught that. In fact, the Council of Florence dogmatically teaches that heretics, schismatics, Jews, pagans, and apostates are not only outside the Church, but as such, on their way to hell, and not even shedding blood for Christ can earn them salvation…unless they repent and earnestly seek reconciliation with the True Church.
Aaron,
Ok. I don’t disagree. Now what? What do you do with that information?
I know that’s the way it is supposed to be. I also know that’s not how it is. So … ?
I think you think I am trying to defend something I manifestly am not. I see the reality of what is, and act accordingly. Again, what is your practical solution for yourself and family in the face of what is – because what is, is not as it should be.
Aaron said:
“The Arians were heretics, and thus NOT PART OF THE CHURCH. Thus, the Catholic Church was perfectly unified, but was afflicted by outsiders pretending to be Catholic. This is why St. Athanasius said “They may have the buildings, but we have the faith”
Which sounds precisely like my reference to the cockles amidst the wheat parable of Our Lord (Matt 13). “Perfectly unified” amongst the wheat … except for all the cockles … which need to be burned up in fire.
Which also sounds exactly like “church of Christ and antichrist inextricably mixed” – the point, made by St Augustine and referenced by Pope Benedict XVI.
Good and evil all mixed up in the same “field”, as you say also for the time of Arius and Athanasius.
Finally: Good, perfect Divine Good, in the person of Jesus Christ, at the Last Supper together with Judas, evil Judas, personally chosen by perfect Divine Good Jesus to be His close Disciple; as close to Jesus as it is possible to be … evil Judas was intimately close to and taught by ultimate Good, God Himself – instead, His betrayer; evil.
The mistake that can be made is to think it is impossible for evil to infiltrate the Church, for Cockle to grow adjacent to wheat, so that when we see all the poisonous wheat-like weeds we are not discouraged as if such a thing could never happen. We just bear down and go to work, to remove the bad and defend the good.
If there is no such thing as imperfect unity, and there is no salvation outside the Church, how can anyone be saved by being invincibly ignorant and of good will? Are they saved outside the Church?
Pius XI taught this.
It is basically an enthymeme (implied, even if not expressed). All that happened in VII put the implied proposition into words. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls it development of doctrine.
Simply, no one is saved by invincible ignorance or good will without Trinitarian water baptism.
So Pope Pius XIwas a modernist too?
Have you considered that maybe what you think if heresy actually is not heresy?
The soul of the Church is not a novel teaching but can be found in Outlines of Dogmatic Theology by S. J. Hunter, (page 261).
If you mean by baptism of desire, why are good-willed, invincibly ignorant protestants who have been baptized already in a state of grace? They have already been baptized and they subscribe to heresy. And where exactly are they if not in the soul of Church? It is clear they are not in the Catholic body, for they are heretics. And yet they cannot be outside the Church either, for there is no salvation outside it.
I think more traditionalists should study theology before concluding Vatican II taught heresy. The sedevacantist position is more nuanced and it is hard to see why it is false until you have, unlike the R and R position. I can keep repeating that if sedevacantism is true, the Catholic Church defected, and thus sedevacantism is false. There is no more formal apostolic succession, but the world has not ended. It’s not so much that it is shocking, despairing or terrifying as much as the Church promised it would not happen in clear terms. It’s not a theological speculation when the Church said it wouldn’t happen either.
By sedevacantism I mean paleovacantism.
Aaron –
The number of Bishops supporting Arianism varied over time, the heresy ebbed and flowed and mutated (from my brief reading) during its course which lasted centuries (plural) and extended beyond the Council of Nicaea it seems. But the number of Bishops in support of the heresy were at various times majorities and substantial – eg … “If the whole world stands against me, then I stand against the world”, and, “they have all the buildings but we have the Faith” said Athanasius to his tiny little holy band of Faithful heading out to the desert in exile. They were exiled from the Church. Athanasius was exiled five different times for a total exile period of seventeen years; he also fled Alexandria six additional times due to threats to his life.
It seems clear to me that the fight for the Faith has not been clean but messy, when seen from the historical perspective. That seems in accord, as I’ve said, with the writing of Augustine on the topic and the three different Scriptures I referenced above.
Arbp LeFebvre’s Faith was not shaken. He observed the deformations to the Faith and he took appropriate action, remaining obedient to the Pope and Apostles to the extent he could. He did NOT declare on his own *substantial* apostolic authority – a lot more than you or I have – that the deviations rendered the Papacy vacant, apostolic authority nullified and the conciliar church dead. He came to Her aid and committed to fixing the problems over *the long term* … in Catholic time … which might even mean centuries of conflict. But he and his Society remain firmly grounded in the Mystical Bride of Christ which lives on in the Apostolic Line.
Have you ever noticed,
That no matter the post Kono always uses it to justify Sedevacantism? That’s not normal. That’s how you know it’s a cult.
If you have a problem with the Church, as I’ve always said, the logical thing is to fight for it from within. Especially if you KNOW that hit is Jesus’ Church. But that’s not what the sedes have done.
Seriously, in what world does Sedevacantism make sense? Not in a Catholic world. If you are born and raised Catholic you couldn’t think of anything worse than abandoning the Church in her time of need. But that is what Sedes have done. They’ve essentially said “The Church is lost forever, so we’ll start a club that imitates it.”
The evil attempting to destroy the Church (which cannot be done, btw) loves the sedes. They love the protestants. They love the abandonment of Jesus’ Church.
I get so tired of the combox becoming a debate on sedevacantism. There is no debate. THey have left the Church. THey gave up on the Church. Period.
Thank you jmy1975. I concede I have too often injected sedevacantism into threads which really weren’t relevant to the sede position. This post however, IS about ’22 sedevacantism, or ’22 interregnumism if the sede word is too offensive.
I’m not quite certain of your position though. I thought you were a NO Catholic who doesn’t attend TLM. Would you be willing to clarify?
Also, are you willing to answer if you’re a ’22 interregnumist or a Francis is pope believer?
Again, if you’re willing. Do you believe the SSPX are in the Church? Outside the Church? Or something in between? If they’re, in your opinion, inside the Church; does it matter if *some* SSPX clergy and laity hold to the sede position?
And lastly, is a ’22 interregnumist really inside “The Church” when said Church and it’s magisterium and traditional groups like FSSP, ICK & SSPX say Francis is pope? Or is one allowed to disagree on such an important issue as long as it’s less than six decades?
Thanks again.
Kono,
No, the post is *not* about ’22 Sedevacantism.
The post is about whether and how Pope Benedict XVI intended to change the “Petrine Ministry”.
Look at your questions to jmy1975. They are all probing his Sede beliefs, and related schools of thought related to his possible Sede beliefs.
jmy1975 said: “… If you have a problem with the Church, as I’ve always said, *the logical thing is to fight for it from within*. Especially if you KNOW that it is Jesus’ Church. But that’s not what the sedes have done.
Seriously, in what world does Sedevacantism make sense? Not in a Catholic world. If you are born and raised Catholic *you couldn’t think of anything worse than abandoning the Church in her time of need*. But that is what Sedes have done. *They’ve essentially said “The Church is lost forever, so we’ll start a club that imitates it*.”
That is precisely it.
One more thing….and thank goodness it’s not about sedevacantism. 😀 I’m a boomer and I don’t know why when I post here it shows up as kono when it used to show my name, but most regulars, I think, know I’m Debbie Douglas and I live in Fraser, Mi. I don’t hide behind a fake name or where I live. I seriously doubt, and I know you’ll all agree, I’ll never be a Saint, so I want to be a martyr…..come and get me you Freemason SOB’s.
Mark,
There is no evidence that Benedict intended to “remain in any way papal.” Neither you, nor Ann have provided any direct evidence that Benedict thought any such thing. There is no paper. There is no document. You can cite no document. There is nothing in which Benedict, either as Cardinal Ratzinger, or as Pope Benedict, either thought, considered, or taught any such thing. You are making it all up. Prove me wrong.
Regarding Apostolic Blessings see https://romalocutaest.com/2023/03/04/benepapists-and-their-false-claims-about-apostolic-blessings/.
God bless,
Steve O’Reilly
There’s evidence, but not proof. Such as him claiming he dresses in white because he had nothing else to wear and then wearing white till he died. Do you suppose he had nothing else to wear till the day he died? Maybe Francis took him in because he was homeless too? Was he unaware of what two men dressing up like popes looks like, even when he corrected Francis on married clergy? Is that a credible assumption? Yes or no only, please.
Evidence and proof are synonyms. That is, a document, action or observation that demonstrates the existence of a fact. “Proof” is just the noun version of prove, and evidence is what you use to prove something.
Evidence def: “reasons for believing that something is or is not true”.
Proof def: “something which shows that something else is true or correct; an act or process of showing that something is true.
Evidence are the pieces assembled to make the case for true or false; the process whereby a solid conclusion is arrived at through logical progression or scientific method.
Proof is the end of that process.
For instance: Evidence is compiled in a legal process. But evidence by itself is not enough. It must be assembled in a logical way such that taken together, it proves the conclusion by its impenetrable logical structure.
As Pediaa.com puts it: “In other words, evidence does not become proof until someone takes the pieces of facts and information and arrive at a logical and concrete conclusion. For example, if the evidence acts as a theory or hypothesis, the proof proves the theory to be a fact. Proof is what you get by analyzing all the evidence.”
Steve as you know, and has been explained to you in copious detail in your blog and with you across multiple other blogs, there is all the evidence any Catholic needs to prove that Pope Benedict XVI intended to stay in a “Papal Way” – starting with the fact that he did so.
You reject the evidence. Rejecting the evidence and absence of evidence are not the same thing.