Well this is encouraging.

“I had a face-to-face conversation yesterday with a person who had an audience with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome less than two weeks ago.

Pope Benedict is completely mentally lucid and sharp, and speaks and moves between multiple languages (that my contact eyewitnessed) with complete facility.

Pope Benedict, like almost all people over the age of 90, is thin. Almost no one weighs more at age 92 than at age 78.

+Gänswein was NOT present.

So, all claims that Pope Benedict is either senile or suffering from dementia are 100% incorrect”. HERE

Completely mentally lucid and sharp.

Which is why he can still CO-AUTHOR BOOKS in order to defend the Church against a usurper antipope.

Which reminds me, I caught something the other day that I hadn’t noticed before. Take a close look at the Benedict head shot on the book cover. Notice anything… strange?

Instead of the cassock, he’s wearing a simar. The simar is basically a cassock with a short, elbow-length cape (the pellegrina) attached to it. Below is a better look at it.

Why is this interesting? Because after the faux abdication, Benedict stopped wearing the simar and went with a simple cassock instead.

Presumably he did that because of his purported delegation of the POWER of the Office, a situation wherein a monarch retains his crown but power/jurisdiction is transferred to a regent (cf. Can. 131.1). Vis:

“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…I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.” (Pope Benedict last General Audience 27 Feb 2013) HERE

You see, the simar, with its distinguishing pellegrina, is a symbol of JURISDICTION. The color is a symbol of rank. The simar is “formally restricted to reflect its true jurisdictional significance.”

Per The Church Visible, James-Charles Noonan, Jr., First Edition, page 293:

So many questions.

Why did totally-lucid Benedict choose this particular photo for the book cover? If he didn’t choose it himself, he at least would have had to personally approve it, right? Is it a recent photo, or is it over seven years old, which is the last time he was seen in a simar? If the photo is new, when did he start wearing it again? If the photo is old, why did  ++Sarah, the publishers, and Benedict himself want the book cover to VISIBLY DEMONSTRATE Benedict’s jurisdiction and authority?

But nah. I’m sure it’s nothing.

https://twitter.com/pellegrino2020/status/1229695011324911616?s=21

What follows is from “Giuseppe Pellegrino” via Marco Tosatti’s site. HERE

1)  Benedict XVI still considers himself to be pope. His direct intervention on the question of priestly celibacy, of such central importance for the life of the Church, was not casual or haphazard. His writing in From The Depths of Our Heartsis lucid and theologically reasoned. It shines with great clarity… He is encouraging priests – as their true Holy Father – and calling them back to what should be their first love. Behold, the voice of the true and perennial Magisterium, the voice of Peter exercising his call to strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32).

2) Bergoglio is afraid of Benedict. We do not know what really happened or what agreements may or may not have been made between the “Bergoglians” and the “Ratzingerians” both in 2005 and 2013. Some have said that Bergoglio’s faction agreed to allow Ratzinger to be elected pope in 2005 but placed certain conditions on what he would do and that he would resign after a certain amount of time. Others maintain that in 2013 Benedict XVI resigned in such a way that he retained the Chair of Peter while allowing Bergoglio to become Bishop of Rome and ostensibly the pope… the demon that speaks through Bergoglio recognizes the courage and integrity of Benedict and knows that Benedict is still somehow – impossibly – in charge…Bergoglio changed his plan to approve the ordination of married “viri probati” – which was in the work for years– because Benedict called his bluff: “If you change this, you will be placing yourself in opposition to the entire Tradition of the Church,” says Benedict’s book in a nutshell. Bergoglio backed down because he fears Benedict.

3)  Benedict XVI understands that the Church is living in the end times. Nobody has been more aware of the evil present within the Church throughout his entire life than Joseph Ratzinger / Benedict XVI…As cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger inserted a new topic into the Catechism of the Catholic Churchthat had not been present in previous catechisms: “The Church’s Ultimate Trial.” Inserted as part of the teaching on the Second Coming of Christ, paragraphs 675-677 focus on what will happen to the Church in the time immediately preceding the Second Coming. These paragraphs describe a religious deception that is in fact apostasy. Does anyone else feel that that is about as succinct a definition as any of what Bergoglio is doing? Furthermore, we know that as a young theologian and again as pope, Benedict has been intrigued by a somewhat obscure patristic eschatology that asserts that prior to the Second Coming, the Church must and should be split in two so that the Church could be saved ( see article here)…It is no longer possible to deny that there are two magisteriums speaking to the faithful today, one spewing ambiguous syncretism, the other testifying to perennial wisdom with clarity. Let the hearer decide if this is in fact the foretold “splitting” of the Church into an Ecclesia decora [a beautiful Church] and an Ecclesia furba [a dark Church]. But the reality of a false magisterium that exists alongside a true magisterium, both of which are speaking, can no longer be denied.

There is more that I left out, click the link up above to read the whole thing.

As for CCC 675-677, I wrote about this in May 2018 HERE and August 2016 HERE.

POTUS was in Phoenix last night. Sold-out venue. Big screens set up outside for the overflow crowd. Bigly.

Protesters were kept across the street. Some of them were triggered.

A protestor just tore up an American flag and stomped on it across the street from supporters for @realDonaldTrump rally. @abc15 pic.twitter.com/DAD8azP1lo

— Nicole Grigg (@NicoleSGrigg) February 20, 2020

I was home watching the Dem debate, which was a hilarious two-hour pissing contest that I would have paid to see. Bloomberg looked like he wanted to murder someone.

I hate to say anything to make anyone overconfident, but I think Trump could have a clear path to win 40 or more states at this point. He won 30 in 2016.

Most of what follows appeared in an essay from 15 June 2019 HERE. I’ve reworked a few minor things and re-post it here, as the BiP Barnhardt Thesis continues to gain traction by the day.

———————————————–

Words have meaning; in the law, and in actions. That words are to be taken at face value, both in the law and in specific acts, is actually part of canon law. Everything presented here is done so according to the plain meaning of words, and you don’t need to be a genius to decipher it. Otherwise, it would be Gnosticism.

When it comes to the law, words matter; the plain and proper meaning of the words. This idea is so important, they wrote this canon specifically to address it:

Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

In addition to the importance of words in the law itself, there is also the importance of words in any individual act, as found in Canons 36 and 38. These appear in the section of the code called:

TITLE IV. SINGULAR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS (Cann. 35 – 93)

Can. 36 §1. An administrative act must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and the common manner of speaking. In a case of doubt, those which refer to litigation, pertain to threatening or inflicting penalties, restrict the rights of a person, injure the acquired rights of others, or are contrary to a law which benefits private persons are subject to a strict interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation.

As we saw in Canon 17, the phrase “the proper meaning of the words” is used, but this time it’s about administrative acts. It then goes on to explain, more or less, that in juridical matters pertaining to persons, those words are subject to a strict interpretation, whereas in other matters they are subject to a broad interpretation.

Can. 38. An administrative act, even if it is a rescript given motu proprio, lacks effect insofar as it injures the acquired right of another or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogating clause.

Canon 38 seems to be stating the obvious… an act which is contrary to law lacks effect. But the kicker is the last clause, which stipulates that if the competent authority expressly adds a derogating clause, the act DOES take effect, despite it being contrary to the letter of the law.  This means an administrator, facilitating an act which he knows goes against some portion of the law, is able to validate the act by specifically (“expressly”) calling out the conflict, and exempting (“derogating”) his specific act from that aspect of the law, provided that the administrator has the “competent authority” to do so.

Now you may have heard it said that the pope is above the law; that canon law does not apply to him, because he is the supreme administrator. That notion is false. We know this because we have canons that specifically apply to popes and no one else. However, as supreme administrator, the pope does have the “competent authority” to abrogate or derogate whatever he wants, as we just saw from Canon 38. The thing is, he has to actually do the derogation. He has full power over the law, yet he is subject to the law as it is written. Father Brian Harrison has explained the concept this way:

“As supreme legislator, the pope may change any ecclesiastical law by officially and expressly abrogating it or derogating from it. But if he were to decree something which broke the law-that is, which acted against an existing ecclesiastical law without expressly adding a clause derogating from that law-then canon law itself (c. 38, 1983 Code; c. 46, 1917 Code) states that such a lawless action, even on the part of a “competent authority” (and that, of course, includes the pope) would have “no effect.””  HERE

Now let’s take a look at two very specific canons related to Pope Benedict’s failed partial attempted resignation, and apply what we just learned to the proper words of Benedict’s act and the proper words of the law. Example #1:

Can. 332.2 If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

We’ve beaten this one to death, right? He did not resign the Munus, he “resigned” the ministerio, so the resignation did not take effect. The combined force of Canons 17, 36, 38 tells us that his proper words did not properly manifest resigning the Office according to the proper words of the law, nor did he derogate any portion of the law in the Declaratio. The effect of his act was, as eye can plainly see, a mere delegation of the power of governance. Which conveniently bring us to Example #2:

Can. 131 §1. The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.

Well. Isn’t that interesting?

Canon 131.1 appears in the section of the code called,

TITLE VIII. THE POWER OF GOVERNANCE (Can. 129 – 144)

Aside: This canon is very interesting in light of all the uncovered theological discourse about a “demythologized” synodal papacy, or a scenario where the ruling monarch might “delegate” part or all of his proper power of governance to a surrogate(s), in an arrangement akin to a Regency. In fact, I seem to recall that this notion was so widespread among contemporary theologians of the 1950s and 60s that someone actually wrote their doctoral dissertation on it, and then, the Gregorianum thought so highly of it, they published it as a book, which now can be yours for the low low price of USD$4.87.

Free preview (pg. 197, parenthetical mine):

“When contemporary theologians (i.e. Kung/Rahner/Kasper/Ratzinger/Dulles/Neumann) apply ius divinum to Roman primacy they do not thereby imply that there can be no changes in the way papal authority will be exercised in the future.”

To wit:

“In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church, or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament – possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like” – Cardinal Dulles, 65 years ago

Let’s get back to Canon 131.1. Since we are talking about separating the governance of an office from the actual office itself, we better check the Latin to see if this really says what we think it says. It’s the only way to be sure.

Can. 131 — § 1. Potestas regiminis ordinaria ea est, quae ipso iure alicui officio adnectitur; delegata, quae ipsi personae non mediante officio conceditur.

Look. At. The. WORDS.

The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself. Now in the case of the Petrine Office, we are obviously talking about the active governance of the whole Church. So, what if the power of governance for the Petrine Office was “delegated” from the monarch to a regent? What does Canon 131.1 say happens in such a case? Look at the words.

It says that in such a case of delegation, the power of governance is transferred to the person of the regent, but not by means of an office. The monarch fully 100% retains the office and fully 100% retains his monarchy. Remember, Benedict could have chosen to derogate this clause (delegata, quae ipsi personae non mediante officio conceditur), in accord with Canon 38 as explained above, when he attempted to “resign”/delegate the active governance of the Church, but he did not. And since he did not, the force of the law remains in effect: Benedict is the sole occupant of the Office, even though he is no longer exercising the power of the office for the governance of the Church. Here, let him explain it:

“The “always” is also a “forever”…My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life…I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” – Pope Benedict, Last General Audience (so far), 27 February 2013

Aldo Maria Valli is the latest Vaticanista to utter public commentary regarding the faux resignation of Pope Benedict (per canons 332.2/188) and subsequent invalid conclave (per canon 359), wherein the Cardinals “elected” an antipope. Original reportage HERE and HERE.

“After my walk, I returned home, and turned on my computer and found an email with a message from a friend who for some time has invited me to reflect on the impossibility of having a pope emeritus. I will summarize it in my own poor words (I ask pardon of any canonist who is reading this): just as one does not receive a consecration to be the pope, when a pope renounces the pontificate he cannot become a pope emeritus, because he is no longer a pope. He does not even return to being a Cardinal, but a bishop. Period.  Consequently, Benedict XVI, with his renunciation of ministerium but not of munus (that is, of the active exercise, but not of the mandate) did something which he could not do and hence his renunciation is invalid. But if his renunciation is invalid, the Conclave which followed it is also invalid, and even the pope which came out of that Conclave.”

Note well that this isn’t some sort of vague hypothesizing. This is pretty much spot on, if you boil the reality down to its essence. When a bishop retires, he becomes bishop emeritus. He’s still a bishop, you see. But in the case of a pope, you cannot have a pope emeritus, because a truly retired pope cannot retain any of papacy. It’s a one man gig. You can’t still be some sort of semi-pope anymore. There is no indelible mark of consecration imparted to a recipient of the papacy. It’s not a degree of Holy Orders: It’s an Office. The Office itself is a state of being, a temporal juridical authority, like POTUS. When you’re POTUS, you’re POTUS. When you’re not, you’re not. It’s a binary set.

You can’t still be a little sorta non-active pope. You can’t “remain” pope in any way whatsoever, because only one man can be pope at one time. So if you intended to remain pope, in any way, this is Substantial Error, which nullifies the renunciation, which, oh by the way, was already invalid because you attempted to renounce the ministerium, not the Munus, and oh by the way, was almost certainly executed under grave fear, malice, and coercion. Invalid renunciation = invalid conclave = antipope “elected.” The fact that the Cardinals unanimously “accepted” the resignation has zero effect on the validity of the resignation. The fact that they convoked a conclave and “elected” someone, even if they did it in good faith, has zero effect on the validity of the “election.”

Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

Can. 332§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

If you’re gonna resign the office, you need to actually resign the office. And there’s no sharesies.

People hurl ad hominems at us for supposedly throwing everything against the wall hoping something will stick. But honestly, have a thorough look at the data set and you will see ALL OF THE ABOVE in play. The resignation is invalid ten ways to Sunday.

As the truth continues to filter into the mainstream, at some point we will reach critical mass, and the trickle will become a flood. It will happen overnight, and you need to be prepared for this.  Putting the truth up in Klieg lights is going to elicit a response from the demons that will be… not pretty. Isn’t it interesting how this whole affair has lured all the cockroaches out into the open? Just seven years ago, most of us had no idea how deep and wide the rot went. It’s almost as if all this were Providential, no?

That light switch is about to get flicked on.

Hey! Remember that time when a bunch of Latinists/canonists/theologians publicly called out the invalidity of Benedict’s “resignation” within DAYS of him pronouncing it? Yep.

Take the time. Read it all.

———————-

The Church Visible: How can a simple layperson ever figure out who is pope? Um, you have the internet, right?

https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/11/the-church-visible-how-can-a-simple-layperson-ever-figure-out-who-is-pope-um-you-have-the-internet-right/

You have to go read it all HERE. You won’t believe how racist you never knew you were.

Be sure to visit he site and click on those other links too, so you can teach your children just how much they are to blame for Cherokee Nation.

That’s another great link to go learn about plastic cups and fossil fuels, you shameless, commuting, air conditioning abusing, charcoal barbequing, whore.

Below is a glimpse of their episcopal certitude on the worst enviro sins you need to take political action on NOW, for the betterment of your community and all of humankind, you know. SEAMLESS GARMENT YOU HEATHEN.

Please contact Susan of the parish council to arrange group study for your family.

Trust me, you do NOT want to “discover the joys, the blessings and the power of the Spirit” of Pachamama.

Pro tip: If anyone, especially a priest, suggests to you that the truth can only be found by following a “spirit” that guides us BEYOND what we know to be “true, sacred, and holy,” then you are dealing with someone undergoing a preternatural disturbance. This is Teilhard’s demonic dream where creation, cosmos, and consciousness go forward together toward new mo’ better troofs, if only we are brave enough to set aside our fears and embrace the “spirit.”

They aren’t more enlightened than you are. They aren’t in possession of some acquired knowledge, blossoming as the fruit of docility to the “spirit.” Friends, the fullness of truth is already in front of you in the Deposit of Faith. It doesn’t change, because God never changes, hello Malachi 3:6. It doesn’t “go forward, always forward.” Anything contrary to this is satanic, and it’s only going to get worse. The lies will always be interwoven with truths like, “God is bigger than all of us.” Arm yourself.

May I suggest this little primer… it’s 59 pages that will change the way you look at everything, and it’s $3.16. HERE

Nothing like a little bait and switch. Yeah, get everyone worked up and worried about deaconesses and married priests, then go full frontal Pachamamamania.

73. Inculturation elevates and fulfills. Certainly, we should esteem the indigenous mysticism…

74. Similarly, a relationship with Jesus Christ, true God and true man, liberator and redeemer, is not inimical to the markedly cosmic worldview that characterizes the indigenous peoples…

78. A process of inculturation involving not only individuals but also peoples demands a respectful and understanding love for those peoples… Let us not be quick to describe as superstition or paganism certain religious practices that arise spontaneously from the life of peoples.

79. It is possible to take up an indigenous symbol in some way, without necessarily considering it as idolatry. A myth charged with spiritual meaning can be used to advantage and not always considered a pagan error.

Then Paragraph 81 kicks off a section titled The inculturation of the liturgy… Might want to go have a look at that HERE.

A great synopsis, short and sweet, a two minute read, from a new blog/blogger “Septina Buccina” HERE … I have only laid out a fraction of what he found, and it is a MUST READ as he has highlighted much more from the document and added much commentary. I beg you to click the link. A quick taste here:

In Article 74 he reduces the eucharist to some sort of pantheism, says that God is in everything like the earth worshippers believe & ACTUALLY TELLS YOU THAT A RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST ISN’T INCOMPATIBLE WITH PAGANISM. Let’s be very, very clear here: the man pretending to be pope says that Christianity and paganism are compatible.

Ann’s take HERE.

Hey! Remember when they did all this IN PLAIN SIGHT? THE ANTICHURCH VISIBLE?