Video: Pope Benedict’s failed resignation explained in 14 minutes.

The Miracle of the Sun occurred 106 years ago today at Fatima, as was foretold by the Blessed Virgin Mary. She also foretold many terrible things would happen, unless people repented, and Russia was consecrated to her Immaculate Heart. Things like: “Entire nations shall be annihilated.” We didn’t listen.

Then there is the vision of the bishop in white. Then lastly, there is the part we still haven’t been told, but all the conciliar popes knew, including Pope Benedict. I am quite convinced, though only a hunch, that everything that has transpired these last 11 years (or maybe 65 years) is bound up in the Third Secret. What a privilege to be born into this age.

Here is the video from our friend The Catholic Esquire, shared here with permission. 14 minutes of truth bombs. He covers all the key points, including the idea of synodal papacy as laid out in the Milller dissertation, which is backed up with copious annotation from 1950s-1970s  “leading” German theologians. He covers the +Ganswein speech in May 2016, which lays out in precise detail what Pope Benedict had attempted to do: Half resign, yet remain some kind of pope. Per canon law, if he intended to remain in any way papal, the entire resignation was invalid.

Please share with friends who are about to be scandalized by the “synodal church.” Bergoglio is not the pope, and he never has been.

38 thoughts on “Video: Pope Benedict’s failed resignation explained in 14 minutes.”

  1. Sister Lucia told us we are living in the times of Apocalypse 8-13. That is at the times of the false prophet, antichrist and mark of the beast. We see countries switching to a cashless society with digital id needed for everything. We know that RFID chips exist.

    1. Hi Caroly P-
      I’m sitting here final-editing 2.5 hours of lecture video with 85 dense slides, and I feel like I didn’t hardly say anything and left so many things out. I’m adding a couple of inserts that I just CANNOT leave out. I reserve the right to do a part 3 1/2. 🙂

      1. Hi Ann. After your next video on the antipapacy, please consider one (or a series) on the errors of 1958 sedevacantism. God reward you, Mark, Supernerd, Dr. Mazza and Nurse Claire for all you do.

      2. I feel like people are finally starting to grasp reality, and I’m sure you’re latest will help them wrap their head around it. Thanks for all you do. 🙏🏻 daily for you.

  2. Either the Vatican II changes came from the Catholic Church, or they didn’t. If they did, they are by definition profitable for your salvation and you must follow them. If they did not, then they proceeded from a false imitation of the Church from which you are obliged to depart.

    1. There have been multiple failed councils, and the Church remained the True Church. As one example, the Council of Constance affirmed the error of Conciliarism, whereby the collected bishops hold power above the pope. This error was later condemned, but Constance remains a valid council, as in the end it resolved the Great Schism. Sedes hate Church history.

      1. Let’s be perfectly fair here. I don’t think Sedes hate history myself; it’s just that there’s so much of it, and the lines and distinctions are sometimes so fine, that it’s almost always possible to cherry-pick out of it what supports your own positions.

        And I don’t even mean that in a bad way. The way the human mind works is to set up a paradigm by which all other things are viewed, and then selecting and discarding data points as important/unimportant, relevant/irrelevant, “that totally makes sense”/“well that can be explained (away)”.

        1. Yes. Everyone is cherry-picking, and have been cherry-picking, since 1958 and the Great Apostasy began. This is because we have been without a true shepherd. It is manifestly obvious.

          1. Everyone always cherry-picks, without fail. It is a limitation of being human, with human limits on information storing and understanding.

            Taking a step back. What makes a painting a good painting? Or, even more, what makes a novel a good novel?

            The answer is simple. The artist/author includes depicts all and only those scenes which are relevant, excluding those that are irrelevant; arranged according to the right artistic principles; and composed and directed toward and for the right reasons. A good novel/painting is a _concentration_ of meaning above that which life produces, distilled from individually meaningful scenes; while all the less- or un-meaningful scenes have been discarded.

            This is, incidentally, the primary reason why GRRM, for all his technical excellence, will never be a great writer; because he believes everything is meaningless, he cannot rightly select what to depict. He is blind to the supernatural.

            A similar process occurs when humans attempt to understand. Our understanding is written like a novel; and the irrelevant and the bloat must be pruned in order to leave only the meaningful.

            But then that leaves us in the position of making our own judgement… what is meaningful? What is noise? And, critically, the answer to that question will largely depend on our already existing understanding…

          2. Uriel, my already existing understanding of the riches of Catholicism is abysmal. I cannot rely on that to cherry-pick. There are known Catholic Truths that I, as a Catholic, believe, and when the “visible church” deviates from that, I cling to the Truths, and realize the origin of the deviations/ambiguities are not of the Holy Spirit.

          3. I honestly think much of the confusion comes from accepting what the SSPX claims as true rather than learning traditional Catholic theology, reading the actual documents of Vatican 2 and asking yourself if there is a way of seeing continuity with the past or not. I see a continuity, not contradiction, as most trads claim.

            As for why so many faithless scandals, I think the Masons infiltrated the seminaries and sort of hijacked the Church, and it is not the case that they were following VII but claiming to.

          4. T,
            If V2 documents are not sufficiently clear in their meaning, or ambiguous, that is not of the Holy Spirit, and a stealth schism. If you have to hunt and contort to find “continuity”, if others can debate about the meaning of this or that phrase, “continuity” is not there, confusion and rupture are there. We know Bergoglio is not Catholic, in fact he despises Catholicism, and is a proud heretic. He was not eligible to be pope. Neither was Benedict, who ….gravely erred…in enabling Bergoglio. None of the men after Pius XII were eligible, especially Paul VI, who had been outed as a Soviet spy.
            Abp. Levebvre always recognized Paul VI as pope, yet openly defied him, making his SSPX schismatic. This action initiated the stealth movement to destroy the papacy by defying the pope, claiming that the pope is unnecessary, can be ignored, etc. This is a dismantling of the monarchical Church. That is why Montini gave away the papal tiara, why Bergoglio pretends to be so humble. My gut feeling is that most Trads cannot bear to be without their TLM and Sacraments, and are willing to ignore Church Law, even watch the Papacy be reduced to a “synodal” sidekick to have them, one way or another. And at this point in time, we are not meant to have them, other than what we can do “in the catacombs”, keep the Faith as the Japanese did for 200 yrs. We are scattered sheep, the Temple has been destroyed, the priesthood, the Sacrifice eliminated. Understanding where we are is vital.

          5. If what paleovacantists say is true, the Catholic Church contradicted itself, and if it did, paleovacantism is false because the Church defected. Paleovacantists just apply what SSPX claims and makes logical deductions. But I don’t buy into those claims because what the Church said and did before Vatican II shows that VII developed, not contradicted, dogma.

            For instance let us take the idea that some non-Catholics being part of the Church is heresy. It sounds so obviously novel, and yet pre-conciliar teachings imply just that, if not explicitly. For example, it taught baptism of desire and the possibility of salvation for invincibly ignorant non-Catholics. If they are saved, and if there is no salvation outside the Church, then it follows these non-Catholics have to be in the Church somehow. Old theology manuals talk about the body of the Church (Catholics) and the soul of the Church (everyone in the state of grace). If these non-Catholics are in the Church (and logic says they must be) then they must be in the soul of the Church and not the body.

            Same sort of thing with, say, religious liberty. They claim it’s an error for the Church to adapt to changing Church-State relations. In a Catholic state, error has no rights. But in a secular state, no one should be harassed for their religious beliefs. The Church cannot veto whether the state will be Catholic or not, but simply adapt to changing circumstances. That the Church is no longer as powerful as it was when there was a Christendom does not mean it defected or betrayed Christ, as Christ did not send his disciples to conquer the world but to convert it. Christendom is not the mission given to it. But SSPX would make it seem that way.

            I’m still learning more as I study V2, but honestly it looks like SSPX claims loudly to be traditional and people believe them because they don’t know better. And that is why I think it is crucial to distinguish between what V2 taught and the chaos that followed.

          6. And I am not trying to be glib her. I almost shipwrecked my faith, never questioning my base premise, that Francis is the valid pope. Similarly I think people should try to verify their base premise, that what SSPX claims about Vatican 2 is true. When you we new to traditional Catholicism you end picking claims you don’t verify even when you learn more about it. I honestly see continuity.

      2. Was the error picked up, pushed, and ratified by hierarchy after it was condemned? Or will you also condemn Saint Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception before it was formally defined? By my count, the V2 Ape Church has resurrected all *already condemned* errors.

        1. The error was ratified by three popes, and wasn’t formally condemned until Lateran V, a hundred years later. The erroneous document is named “Haec Sancta” if you want to research.

          1. Why do the 1968 episcopal changes have the same ambiguity as Leo XIII’s null and void decision on Anglican Orders?

          2. Do you deny the pope has the power to modify rites, as has been done many, many times in the past?

          3. What makes Francis doctrinally different than Benedict or JP2 or P6? Was Amoris Laetitia (6th commandment broken) worse than Assisi (1st commandment broken?)


          4. “Francis” promulgated heresy as authentic magisterium, which is impossible for a true pope. Assisi was personal sin.

          5. To clarify Mark, you still believe sedes are Catholic, right? They’re not Prots, schismatics, schizos…. after all, there’s no sin in not recognizing a doubtful Pope, right?

          6. Just want to keep things clear Mark. The gal you do podcasts with and frequently cross post, has publicly said these things and more about sedes, and to my knowledge has never publicly recanted of her calumnies.

          7. @yoursedefriend I, and many others, see a difference of kind, not merely degree, between Bergoglio and Benedict et al.

            Why? Because for all his many, many faults, Benedict believed wholeheartedly in his beloved “hermeneutic of continuity” – meaning he was, if a heretic, a material rather than a formal heretic.

            That one pope I don’t remember the name of in the early 20th century with the confused ideas about the Judgement was probably similar.

            Now, don’t get me wrong, the heresy and chaos of VII ought to be condemned. But the heresy was not that the documents were explicitly heretical, but rather that they deliberately left open a heretical interpretation while still being able to be interpreted in an orthodox manner.

            I for one harbor 0 doubts about the validity of the NO, which implies that Paul VI was permitted to promulgate it – even if he did so illicitly.

            God bless.

      3. Mark, I am a rather late convert, and freely admit my ignorance of much Church history and Canon Law. But, I do not think that God requires that knowledge on the part of His sheep. That is the role of the Church. In fact, we are told to have the Faith of a child, to rely on faithful shepherds to guide us, to not be our own shepherds. Like the child in the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes, whose lack of sophistication allowed him to use common sense to see reality, we must cling to the fundamental basics of reality, the Church Magisterium, faithful and holy popes and saints, and Scripture to get us through this. The fruits of V2 are horrific, do they compare with the fruits of the Council of Constance? My uneducated guess would be no, simply because the bishops were Catholic back then, not modernist infiltrators. So the comparison of “error” between the two councils seems to be apples and oranges. It’s good to know Church history, and thank you for educating me. But this is a straw man. I have learned much from you, and Ann Barnhardt, still do. However, by following the “data set”, and learning that Benedict was a thorough modernist and architect of V2, there’s no way he was valid/eligible, either.

        1. Nicely stated SJH. I’ve been following Ann and Mark for many years and also appreciate what I’ve learned from them. Holding BiP is precisely what brought to SVism. When the SSPX and Indults didn’t get on board with it, I wondered why. Why couldn’t they see what I, a simple lay faithful, could see? Study the SSPX and I think you’ll come to the ’58 sede position. RnR is clearly a non Catholic response to the crisis.

    2. I doubt that Vatican II was even a legitimate council in the history of the Catholic Church. There were no definitions solemnly pronounced and no anathemas. It seems only pastoral letters and therefore not covered by infallibility. Compare the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II. The fruits of Vatican II were extremely bad and certainly did not “come from the Catholic Church.” It came from a handful of freemason infiltrators, not from the Church Itself.

      1. Vatican II was validly convoked by a true pope. The Vatican schema approved by John XXIII were torn up on the first day of the council by the modernist bishops, so they could seize control. But it pronounced no defined doctrine and no anathemas, so by definition it cannot be “heretical.” Of course the documents contain terrible ideas and poorly constructed concepts (ie Religious Liberty as a human right, the “Value” of ecumenism, etc.)

  3. The Gift of The Holy Ghost, The Gift Of Infallibility, The Munus is Forever for a validly elected Pope who remains in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), and thus in communion with every validly elected Pope

    It would be accurate to say that while The Ministerial Office may, for a period of time, be vacant, The Munus remains forever, Through The Teaching of The Magisterium, grounded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, The Deposit Of Faith, Endowed to us from God, From The Father, Through The Son, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).

    This does not change the fact that a man elected to the Papacy who, prior to his election to the Papacy was not in communion with Christ, and thus every other validly elected Pope, could not possibly be a successor of Peter.

  4. Is there any evidence that Benedict was a proponent of a bifurcated paper prior to his resignation?
    (proximity to the Miller Dissertation and its proponents notwithstanding)

    Just wondering if this was forced upon him by the wolves, or if it was his intent from the outset… which would raise the issue of accepting the papacy in substantial error.

    1. “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”

Leave a Reply

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