Feast of Saint Joseph: Enjoin him in prayer, and he will be very good to you

So let us enjoin him in the Litany:

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, hear us.
Christ, graciously hear us. 

God, the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us. 
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us. 
God the Holy Spirit, have mercy on us. 
Holy Trinity, One God, have mercy on us. 

Holy Mary, pray for us (after each line)
Saint Joseph,
Renowned offspring of David,
Light of Patriarchs,
Spouse of the Mother of God,
Chaste guardian of the Virgin,
Foster-father of the Son of God,
Diligent protector of Christ,
Head of the Holy Family,
Joseph most just,
Joseph most chaste,
Joseph most prudent,
Joseph most strong,
Joseph most obedient,
Joseph most faithful,
Mirror of patience,
Lover of poverty,
Model of artisans,
Glory of home life,
Guardian of virgins,
Pillar of families,
Solace of the wretched, Hope of the sick,
Patron of the dying,
Terror of demons,
Protector of Holy Church,

Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world,
Spare us, O Lord. 
Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world,
Graciously hear us, O Lord. 
Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world,
Have mercy on us. 

V. He made him the lord of His house:
R. And ruler of all His substance.

Let us pray.
O God, who in Thine unspeakable providence didst vouchsafe to choose blessed Joseph to be the spouse of Thine own most holy Mother: grant, we beseech Thee, that we may deserve to have him for our intercessor in heaven, whom we reverence as our defender on earth: who livest and reignest world without end. Amen.

“But more importantly, questions hinge on comments Benedict and others have made over whether he has fully abdicated the ministerium (active ministry) of the Successor of Peter but not the papal munus (office) — a bifurcation which canonists and theologians say is impossible.”

Debate Intensifies Over Benedict XVI’s Resignation and Role as Pope Emeritus


VATICAN CITY — Seven years have passed since Benedict XVI’s resignation but discussion over the precise role of a “Pope Emeritus” and the permitted extent of his influence has not only continued but increased in intensity.

Polemics over this contentious issue came to a head in January after Benedict XVI’s unexpected intervention a month before the release of Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Querida Amazonia.

The Pope Emeritus and Cardinal Robert Sarah had written essays on the nature of the priesthood in the book From the Depths of Our Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy and the Crisis of the Catholic Church, strongly affirming mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Church.

The publication prompted a storm of criticism largely derived from the book’s timing: Francis was widely expected in his exhortation to allow the ordination of some married men in remote Amazon regions, and From the Depths of Our Hearts appeared to be an attempt to thwart such a move which, it was feared, could undermine the Latin rite discipline of priestly celibacy universally.

Although figures close to the Pope have insisted the door remains open to the possibility, the Holy Father appeared in the end to hold off from making such a change in Querida Amazonia, at least explicitly, leading some to believe that the book was effective in protecting the priestly celibacy rule. (The Vatican implicitly denied this, saying the document was already completed on Dec. 27, except for marginal style and translation changes).

Though many welcomed the positive influence the book might have made on safeguarding clerical celibacy, the episode reignited questions over whether a former Pope should be allowed to make such statements that impact his successor’s pontificate.

It has also sparked debate over whether rules should be implemented to define the precise role of a Pope Emeritus, and highlighted a related question increasingly heard in Rome: whether Benedict has, in fact, fully resigned the Petrine Office.

Aside from the controversy over whether Benedict was aware of his precise involvement in the book (Cardinal Sarah strongly asserted that he was), Benedict’s contribution to it was not the first time he had broken a rule he imposed on himself at his resignation: to serve the Church in silence, “hidden from the world” and “dedicated to prayer.”

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, a vocal critic of Benedict’s resignation, lamented the “many times” the former Pope has contravened that rule by making speeches, writing letters and giving occasional interviews. Benedict wished to retire “to pray in silence,” Cardinal Brandmüller said. “It was never going to happen.”

“This is why I am so angry,” he said, “and this is what destroys so much.”


“He had no idea what would happen”

At the root of Cardinal Brandmüller’s frustration is that the office Benedict created for himself after his resignation — that of Pope Emeritus — is totally new, created quickly and with little apparent regard for its possible consequences.

“He had no idea what would happen,” the 91-year old Church historian said. The German cardinal, who served as president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences under Benedict, stressed that the institution of Pope Emeritus “doesn’t exist in all of Church history and in canon law.”

The cardinal puts these oversights largely down to Benedict’s lack of consultation, saying “even Celestine V,” the last Pope to have resigned the papacy, “consulted the cardinals before he resigned” but Benedict made the decision “practically alone” — an omission, he believes, which showed “disdain” for the College of Cardinals.

Other senior Vatican sources have said that between Benedict’s announcement of his resignation on Feb. 11, 2013, and his departure from the apostolic palace three weeks later, a number of cardinals pressed Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Vatican Secretary of State, to clarify the canonical status of an abdicated pope as they saw it could be “potentially problematic,” but “nothing was done.”

The concern now, according to some senior prelates, is that Benedict appears to think he somehow has a papal role, even if he believes he has fully renounced the papacy.

This confusion has been aggravated externally through Benedict’s adherence to some of the trappings of the papacy: his decision to wear white, to refer to himself as His Holiness, to impart his apostolic blessing, and his use of the title “Pope Emeritus.”

But more importantly, questions hinge on comments Benedict and others have made over whether he has fully abdicated the ministerium (active ministry) of the Successor of Peter but not the papal munus (office) — a bifurcation which canonists and theologians say is impossible.

This concept of a kind of split Benedict-Francis papacy has a number of origins, most notably comments Benedict himself made during his last general audience on Feb. 27, 2013.

In his discourse, he said that after his election as Pope in 2005, he was “engaged always and forever by the Lord” and so could never return to the “private sphere.” Other similar comments include Benedict’s words to Peter Seewald in the 2017 book Last Testament in which he said his resignation “was not one of taking flight” but “precisely another way of remaining faithful to my ministry.”

Benedict’s personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein also considerably fueled the debate in 2016 by telling a Rome conference that Benedict had “not at all abandoned this ministry”  of pope but instead de facto “expanded” it with a “quasi-shared ministry” that consisted of “an active member and a contemplative member.”

Archbishop Gänswein has since said his words, which many believe must have been cleared beforehand by Benedict or perhaps had been even written by him, were misunderstood. “There is only one Pope, one legitimately elected and incumbent Pope, and that is Francis. Amen,” he said last year.

But despite Archbishop Gänswein’s wish that the debate would end, it has continued, and doubts about the resignation have broadened.


Inner Responsibility Remains?

Professor Edmund Mazza, a Catholic author and broadcaster, has pointed out that in Last Testament, Benedict made the point in relation to the papacy that a “father does not stop being a father” even if “relieved of concrete responsibility.” He remains “in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function,” Benedict said.

Mazza then related these comments to a talk Joseph Ratzinger gave in 1977, entitled The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God, in which the future Pope argued that the institution of the papacy “can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility,” and that he “abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ.”

“For Benedict, ‘personal responsibility’ is the essence of what it means to be pope,” Mazza wrote in an essay entitled Resigned to the Papacy: Is Benedict Still Pope?, and he proposed that Benedict believes such a “moral responsibility” cannot be renounced, based on the fact that, in his Last Testament interview, Benedict said a pope “remains in an inner sense within the responsibility” even if the “functions” are relinquished.

A further study currently circulating in Rome is that by Italian civil lawyer Francesco Patruno. Noting that Benedict has preferred to leave his status “unregulated,” Patruno argues that the title “Pope Emeritus” is, in itself, of concern as it “involves a sort of split between the primatial office of the Pope and that of the Bishop of Rome” — a division which, because those aspects of the papacy are “united in the one person of the Roman Pontiff,” presents “inevitable legal-theological implications.”

Patruno is not the first to question the Pope Emeritus title: Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, also expressed reservations, saying in 2017 it “theologically creates more problems than solving them.”

But whereas Archbishop Fisichella recognizes the validity of the resignation, Patruno goes a step further, asking whether a pope could legitimately create ex nihilo (out of nothing) such an unprecedented figure as a Pope Emeritus. He believes this “would not be possible” because it would “touch on divine law” given that the institution of the papacy is “of direct divine creation.”

To imply the papal office is by its very nature divisible, and that it us up to “human willingness to choose which faculties to renounce and which to maintain, is in blatant violation of divine law,” Patruno writes in an essay of “brief reflections” on the “emeritus papacy.” He concludes, therefore, that Benedict’s resignation is invalid as it is “contrary to divine law itself.”

Others have proposed similar arguments and questioned how, through his resignation, a pope could unilaterally alter, or appear to alter, the papacy which is a divinely instituted monarchy with full and universal power. They quote in particular canon 188, which states that a resignation made out of “substantial error” would be “invalid by the law itself.”

In 2018, Father Nicola Bux, a former consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and for the Congregation of Saints, was concerned enough about the possible basis for this seeming diarchy within the papacy that he called for a juridical and historical investigation into the validity of Benedict’s resignation.

Now he believes the fracas over the Cardinal Sarah-Benedict book has highlighted how the “institution” of Pope Emeritus — and an apparent bifurcation it implies between the Pope’s active and passive ministry — is “harmful to the unity of the Church” and demands a resolution.


An Authentic Monstrum

The papal office cannot be “divisible into functions (active and passive) which could be renounced separately,” Father Bux said on Feb. 5. Such an idea, he believes, makes Benedict’s resignation an “authentic monstrum [monstrosity, unnatural event].”

He added that canonist friends of his are “firmly convinced” of the invalidity of the resignation based on the traditional canonical axiom, “doubtful resignation, no resignation” — a reference to St. Robert Bellarmine’s assertion that “a doubtful Pope is no Pope” if a “papal election is doubtful for any reason.”

But such doubts are rejected by theologians and others after having assessed the arguments. John Salza, a Catholic apologist and co-author of the book True or False Pope, argues that the resignation is valid principally on the basis of the doctrine of universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope. This provides “infallible certainty” that Christ “severed the bond between Benedict and the papacy in order make Francis Pope,” he said Feb. 25.

Any doubts about the resignation, Salza added, are “irrelevant because Francis was universally and peacefully accepted as Pope immediately following his election, by the entire episcopacy and a moral unanimity of the faithful.”

But he agrees with others who see Benedict’s actions after his resignation as problematic and causing confusion.

A priest theologian speaking on condition of anonymity and drawing on commentary on ancient canon law regarding resignations, (in particular M. Thériault, “De actibus juridici,” in A. Marzo et al. Comentario exegético al código de Derecho Canónico, 3a ed), said that if Benedict believed the munus and ministerium were not the same thing, “he would have to clearly say so within the resignation itself.”

But Benedict “did not distinguish clearly between them in the renunciation, nor did he include conditions, such as ‘I resign as acting Pope, provided I can be a ‘contemplative Pope.’” Rather, he stated, “’the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked.’”

The theologian sees the situation as analogous to a woman who is divorced and insists that she is no longer married, and yet retains external trappings of her marriage, such as the ring, the name, and claims a right to her ex-husband’s property.

Both he and Salza argue that even if Benedict believed he was still Pope, that would be a matter of the internal forum, and “the Church does not judge internals.” “In the external forum, he did everything that was required for a valid resignation,” Salza said, and we have certainty of this because Francis has been peacefully and universally accepted as Pope.”

Furthermore, the theologian said no resignation requires “complete understanding, or even orthodoxy, regarding what is being resigned” for it to be valid, merely that the one resigning intend to resign the “substance of his position” — papal governance and jurisdiction. He also said by Benedict using the term emeritus, it is a “significant sign” he has fully renounced the papacy as canon 185 indicates that the title is given to a bishop “only when he has validly resigned, or lost office in some other way.” Thus, he said, Benedict could not be ‘Pope Emeritus’ “unless he resigned.”

Cardinal Brandmüller, even though he has been a critic of the resignation, similarly accepts its validity and firmly rejects the hypothesis of the Petrine Office being divisible, saying he believes Francis is Pope as there can only be “one Pope,” inseparable in his unity and in his power — a thesis he presented in a 2016 canonical and historical essay in the Italian journal Archivio Giuridico.

For him, the roots of the problem date back to 18th century France and the beginning of ultramontanism (the view that the Pope has absolute, boundless power) and particularly the long pontificate of Pope Pius IX when a metaphysical view of the papacy began to take root — a view which he believes Archbishop Gänswein (according to his 2016 speech) and others appear to support. “The institution of the Pope Emeritus is the last expression of such papalism,” he said.

Such a metaphysical conception of the papacy that gives it a sacramental character is believed to be behind the notion that a pope could renounce his active ministry but keep the munus. The theory was put forward by heterodox German theologian Karl Rahner, even before Pope St. Paul VI instituted the episcopal emeritus (until that time, bishops did not retire and become emeriti).


Papacy Juridical, Not Sacramental

In his 1964 book The Episcopate in the Church (L’ episcopato nella Chiesa), Rahner claimed a pope could resign the juridical aspect of the papacy but not what relates to its indelible character, or what he called its “sacramental nature.” Without evidence, Patruno claims this theory, relaunched in 1974 by the heterodox School of Bologna, is one that Benedict, who was once a friend of Rahner, “wanted to follow.”

But Rahner’s theory is rejected by, among others, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“The phrase ‘renunciation of the exercise of the ministry of Peter’ does not mean that the election to the office of Bishop of Rome is a sacramental consecration which confers an indelible character,” he said on Jan. 29. “He is not, therefore, like a bishop emeritus who retains all the sacramental munera given with episcopal ordination, but renounces the exercise of jurisdiction in his diocese.”

Further stressing the non-sacramental nature of the papacy, he added that on the level of ordination, a pope is “only a bishop” and does not have any level of consecration higher than that. A pope, he said, retains the munera of a bishop, but in “renouncing this papal office, he loses primatial powers completely.” Hence, in renunciation the ministry, Benedict renounced what was proper to the papal office.

Italian Church historian Professor Roberto de Mattei agrees with Cardinal Müller, saying that the papacy, “despite its divine institution, is of a juridical nature: it is not a sacrament, it is an office.” He therefore firmly believes there is “only one pope, one Vicar of Christ and it is he who governs the Church. Today he is Pope Francis.” He also believes any “grace of state” is linked to the Petrine office, and that Benedict XVI lost that, too, “by renouncing the office.”

De Mattei, who is president of the traditional Catholic Lepanto Foundation, said the attempt to “redefine the munus petrinum was born in progressive circles that have wanted to de-institutionalize the Church, giving the Pope a charismatic rather than juridical role.” As well as Rahner, this was a theory further supported by dissident theologian Hans Küng, also a former friend of Benedict. For this reason, De Mattei believes those who “defend the tradition of the Church must strongly reject this error.”

And yet due to this ongoing debate over this seemingly “bifurcated” papacy and events in the Church since 2013, it is not just scholars who have been questioning Benedict’s resignation, but also an increasing number of faithful, causing significant distress and challenging unity in the Church.

The sensus fidei, or sense of the faith — an instinct that regards what pertains to the Catholic Faith — currently “perceives something is wrong,” said Father Bux who, in 2018, called on Francis to make an urgent profession of faith.

The faithful, he said, “perceive that Francis’ teaching has something ‘strange’ about it and they don’t understand the reason for it, but they almost perceive that a kind of grace of state is lacking, [a grace] which would make Francis’ teaching immune from real heresies.”

Father Bux, who has also served as a consultor to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, does not go so far as to suggest Francis is an “antipope” — a term he regards as “excessive” — but rather as “a sort of ‘unfinished pope’ or acting pope, precisely because of the way Benedict XVI set out his act of resignation.” He added that the resignation “had no clarity of ideas” and by the way “Benedict XVI designed it, Francis seems almost like an administrator, an acting director, a delegate or something like that.”

But the anonymous priest theologian took issue with Father Bux’s argumentation, saying that “just because a pope may not be receptive to the grace of state doesn’t mean it hasn’t been given.” He also said the sensus fidei is misapplied in this context as it normally relates to a specific doctrinal claim, whether it is Catholic or heretical, rather than the “grace of state” which is “not a matter of faith as such.” No one can have a “sense” of whether a person has a “grace of state,” he noted, as it is something “only God can know.”


Benedict Aware of Situation

Nevertheless, Benedict is aware of the divisions and fraught situation in the Church that his resignation has caused, as a somewhat heated exchange of correspondence between him and Cardinal Brandmüller in 2017 showed.

This is “absolutely” a sensitive point for Benedict, Cardinal Brandmüller said, adding that Benedict has “discovered what he has really done, and seen the consequences.”

So what is the solution to this vexatious problem?

One could be to draw up regulations on what a retired pope can and cannot do — something that is rumoured to be under consideration and may possibly be included in Pope Francis’ new constitution for the Roman Curia expected later this year.

In his 2016 article, Cardinal Brandmüller laid out what some of those rules could entail, including the need to define the status of an ex-pope, his name, his residence and also regulation of his social and media contacts so that his dignity is respected but also any danger to Church unity is prevented.

Father Bux said regulations could only be devised for future papal resignations and not applied retroactively. Furthermore, he said a Church legislator could regulate what happens around some of the practicalities of a papal resignation, but he could not legislate on a matter that would “foresee dividing the functions of the papal office, or foresee that a subject could renounce some functions and not others, splitting the office.”

“Only the Lord could allow the papal function to be divided,” he said. “But He did not. And certainly, man could not. Many think the Pope is an interpreter of divine law. He is. But it’s one thing to interpret it in accordance with divine law; it’s another to invent a figure or an institution not provided for by divine law.”

Still, the absence of any man-made legal framework carries risks regarding Benedict’s role.

“The problem that can arise from the legislative vacuum is precisely this: the possibility of a schism in the Church,” said de Mattei, adding that “unfortunately, the responsibility for this confusion lies with Benedict XVI himself.”

It is solely up to Benedict to “clarify his ambiguous position which seems to be the consequence of an erroneous ecclesiology,” he said.

Until then, De Mattei believes Catholics have every right to resist what they see as problems with this pontificate, but they must consider Francis “a legitimate Pope, until proven otherwise.

“To deny this fact, express doubts, clues or hypotheses are not enough,” he said. “Sure proof is needed, shared by an authoritative portion of the Catholic world. This does not seem to me to be the case, at least until today.”

Cardinal Brandmüller believes the matter will ultimately only be fully resolved by Benedict’s passing. “From the institutional point of view, it’s the only solution,” he said. “The ground is very mined.”

But for those who have become convinced Benedict is still Pope, that would be unsatisfactory as they would continue not to recognize Francis’ election and, in turn, question the validity of all Francis’ acts such as his encyclicals and appointments, including those of cardinals and bishops.

This is one of the reasons why Bishop Athanasius Schneider rejects the invalid resignation argument, and instead urges greater trust in God, stressing that only He can correct this situation, that the Lord will take “command in the storm” and “give calm back to His Church.”

He also takes some solace in a 2014 letter from Benedict to Andrea Tornielli, then a journalist with La Stampa, in which Benedict reportedly wrote: “There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry. The only condition of validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculation about the invalidity of renunciation is simply absurd.”


Putting the Question to Benedict

But those comments have failed to quell questions about the seeming diarchy of the papacy. On the contrary, the controversy over the validity issue has increased, leading some to insist, for the good of the Church, that Benedict simply issue a clarification himself. This could perhaps be achieved by one or two of his friends asking him to affirm that Francis is the only Pope, there is no bifurcation, and that he fully renounces all trappings of the papacy. Cardinal Brandmüller said he was sympathetic such an initiative.

However this question is resolved, Cardinal Müller believes the virtue of “prudence is needed here,” and noted that “many people are emotionally attached” to a pope and “transfer their sympathies unevenly.”

He also appealed for “the Christian gift of discernment of spirits” so that “ideologues in the media” are not allowed to “incite one another (e.g. in films)” — a reference to the recent Hollywood movie, The Two Popes, which further spread the notion that two pontiffs could exist.

“Everything that causes quarrels and discord is not of the Spirit of God,” Cardinal Müller said, referring to disputes and, at times, vitriolic arguments that have become a frequent occurrence since Benedict’s resignation.

Quoting St. Paul’s letter to the quarrelling Corinthians, Cardinal Müller said: “Each of you is saying, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?’”

Watch them laugh and laugh at you as they destroy millions of families and livelihoods

For how many untreated diseases, depression, and suicides are they responsible?

March 16th 2020, deathvaxx already perfected for brand new virus, passed animal trials, and ready for human jabs… how’d they do that?

On the same day the lockdowns were announced, March 16, 2020, the deathvaxx was already ready for human consumption. How about that.

March 16th 2020, deathvaxx already perfected for brand new virus, passed animal trials, and ready for human jabs… how’d they do that?

Originally posted

Remember, no drug company or government had ever developed a successful (ie Safe and Effective) coronavirus vaccine. Yet after failing to develop a single vaccine for anything, in the history of the company, Moderna by Fauci whips up the perfect cure for the Rona in five weeks. This is the official narrative. Don’t be a tin foil flat earther.

Monday, March 16, 2020

A Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating an investigational vaccine designed to protect against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has begun at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (KPWHRI) in Seattle. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, is funding the trial. KPWHRI is part of NIAID’s Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium. The open-label trial will enroll 45 healthy adult volunteers ages 18 to 55 years over approximately 6 weeks. The first participant received the investigational vaccine today.

The study is evaluating different doses of the experimental vaccine for safety and its ability to induce an immune response in participants. This is the first of multiple steps in the clinical trial process for evaluating the potential benefit of the vaccine.

The vaccine is called mRNA-1273 and was developed by NIAID scientists and their collaborators at the biotechnology company Moderna, Inc., based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) supported the manufacturing of the vaccine candidate for the Phase 1 clinical trial.

“Finding a safe and effective vaccine to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 is an urgent public health priority,” said NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. “This Phase 1 study, launched in record speed, is an important first step toward achieving that goal.”


AP: San Francisco reparations starting at $5MM but wait there’s more

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Payments of $5 million to every eligible Black adult, the elimination of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years and homes in San Francisco for just $1 a family.

These were some of the more than 100 recommendations made by a city-appointed reparations committee tasked with the thorny question of how to atone for centuries of slavery and systemic racism. And the San Francisco Board of Supervisors hearing the report for the first time Tuesday voiced enthusiastic support for the ideas listed, with some saying money should not stop the city from doing the right thing.

Several supervisors said they were surprised to hear pushback from politically liberal San Franciscans apparently unaware that the legacy of slavery and racist policies continues to keep Black Americans on the bottom rungs of health, education and economic prosperity, and overrepresented in prisons and homeless populations…

The committee hasn’t done an analysis of the cost of the proposals, but critics have slammed the plan as financially and politically impossible. An estimate from Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, which leans conservative, has said it would cost each non-Black family in the city at least $600,000…

Some supervisors have said previously that the city can’t afford any major reparations payments right now given its deep deficit amid a tech industry downturn.

Tinisch Hollins, vice-chair of the African American Reparations Advisory Committee, alluded to those comments, and several people who lined up to speak reminded the board they would be watching closely what the supervisors do next.

“I don’t need to impress upon you the fact that we are setting a national precedent here in San Francisco,” Hollins said. “What we are asking for and what we’re demanding for is a real commitment to what we need to move things forward.”

The idea of paying compensation for slavery has gained traction across cities and universities. In 2020, California became the first state to form a reparations task force and is still struggling to put a price tag on what is owed.


Shocking new footage of J6 violent QAnon Shaman-led deadly insurrection


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.”