The FBI had so many paid informants at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, that it lost track of the number and had to perform a later audit to determine exactly how many “Confidential Human Sources” run by different FBI field offices were present that day, a former assistant director of the bureau has told lawmakers.
At least one informant was communicating with his FBI handler as he entered the Capitol, according to Steven D’Antuono, formerly in charge of the bureau’s Washington field office.
D’Antuono has testified behind closed doors to the House Judiciary Committee that his office was aware before the riot that some of their informants would attend a “Stop the Steal” rally thrown by former President Donald Trump, but he only learned after the fact that informants run by other field offices also were present, along with others who had participated of their own accord.
The Washington field office had to ask FBI headquarters “to do a poll or put out something to people saying w[ere] any CHSs involved,” he said, so they could get a handle on the scale of the FBI’s spying operations at the Capitol that day.
“We started getting responses back” from FBI headquarters, added D’Antuono, which helped identify which field offices had planted confidential informants in the crowd.
One paid informant from the Kansas City field office was at the Capitol as the crowd surged inside and allegedly was in communication with his FBI handler “while they were in the crowd, I think, saying that they were going in,” according to the former bureau brass…
Father Malachi Martin (reader of the Third Secret of Fatima) Interview with Bernard Janzen 1992, The Kingdom of Darkness:
Janzen: In our discussion earlier you just touched on the subject of Satan’s assault on the papacy. Perhaps we could have a brief discussion about that.
Martin: […] what I think is fatally necessary for every Catholic to know, and that is the fate of the papacy and the coming stress and danger that we shall be without the strength of the papacy.
Bernard: Is it ever possible that the cardinals at a future conclave could elect a heretical pope?
Martin: [brief pause over the sensitive nature of the question] You know…they have elected men in the past who had heretical ideas. Two or three. They have never elected yet an apostate…an apostate. […] An apostate has rebelled against the very fundamental of faith and rejected God and Christ. We have apostates now who are papabili [men who could be elected pope]. Yes, we could have an apostate. But in that day, then we are into something terrible. We’re into something which, Bernard, is something that, if you think on it, in full knowledge of the meaning of your terms, is nightmarish. It would test the faith of St. Catherine of Sienna. It would test the faith of the greatest saint. It would try the patience of Job. It would be a black day; a day on which you can clothe every window in black and put out the lights and dress in sackcloth & ashes and pray that you’re spared because your faith is going to be battered to pieces…if that happens. ’cause then, they have the prize and everything goes underground. And we are indeed on our way to becoming what Paul VI, in his misery, called, in 1978, an infinitesimally small part of humanity. Completely marginalized and pushed to the side and forgotten as a quaint group of people as interesting as Tibetan astrologers on a modern campus.
Father Malachi Martin Interview with Art Bell on May 4, 1998
Martin: The prophecy of Fatima is not a pleasant document to read – not pleasant news. It implies – it doesn’t make any sense unless we accept that there will be, or that there is in progress – a wholesale apostasy amongst clerics and laity in the Catholic Church, that the institutional organization of the Roman Catholic Church – that is, the organization of parishes, dioceses, archbishops and bishops and cardinals and the Roman bureaucracies and the chanceries throughout the world – unless that is totally disrupted and rendered null and void, the third secret makes no sense, and number two, the other salient characteristic about it is that it means intense suffering for believers.
Father Malachi Martin Interview with Art Bell on July 13, 1998 (the very Anniversary of the Third Secret of Fatima)
Bell: Alright, here we go. Just a couple of things I want to quickly read. One from a friend in Australia, Father, who says, “I had a Jesuit priest tell me more of the third secret of Fatima years ago in Perth. He said, among other things, the last pope would be under control of Satan. Pope John fainted thinking it might be him. We were interrupted before I could hear the rest.” Any comment on that?
Martin: Yes…uh…it sounds as if they were reading – or being told – the text of the third secret.
Bell: Oh my.
Martin: It sounds like it. But it’s sufficiently vague to make one hesitate. It sounds like it.
Bell: Father, is there any circumstance under which you can imagine, that you would feel free to reveal the secret?
Martin: Yes. Yes. If there was a total collapse at the center.
Bell: And you anticipate that, don’t you?
Martin: I anticipate it as a possibility, Art. I can’t predict, but I anticipate it as a possibility, certainly, yes. I do.
“Malachi personally confirmed to me in 1997 that the “pope” who will lead the apostasy in the Church will be a heretic and an antipope.” – Father Paul Kramer, Facebook quote, May of 2016
“We’re facing.. what we may have to face, finally.. the False Pope.” – Fr. Malachi Martin, Detroit, Michigan circa 1989? [November 1992?]
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.” – Cardinal Luigi Ciappi (Personal Theologian to Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II) from a 1995 personal letter to Professor Baumgartner of Salzburg, Austria; Father Gerard Mura, “The Third Secret of Fatima: Has It Been Completely Revealed?”, the periodical Catholic, (published by the Transalpine Redemptorists, Orkney Isles, Scotland, Great Britain) March 2002
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism.” “Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” – Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, p. 88-90, p. 79
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who read the Third Secret, made reference to one of its themes during an allocution to the members of the Marian International Academy he declared, “It suffices to cast a rapid glance at what is happening at this moment in the world, in order to recognize that without the intervention of the Mother of all mercy near the All-Powerful, the world risks becoming pagan once more, a paganism more deplorable than the first paganism, because it is aggravated by apostasy. We are witnessing a veritable deluge of sins, a deluge which leaves behind it a nauseating quagmire, infected by immorality, lies and blasphemy…” – 15 December 1960 – Allocution de S. Em. Le cardinal Ottaviani à l’Académie Mariale Internationale, “Documentation Catholique,” 1961, col. 244
1963 – In a public admonition to his spiritual sons amidst the Second Vatican Council Padre Pio said: “Due to the rampant injustice and abuse of power, we have reached a compromise with atheistic materialism [Communism], a denial of the rights of God. This is the punishment foretold at Fatima … All the priests who support the possibility of a dialogue with the negators of God and with the Luciferian powers of the world [Freemasonry] are mad, have lost their faith, no longer believe in the Gospel! In so doing they betray the word of God, because Christ came to bring on earth perpetual covenant only to men of heart [good will], but did not join with the men thirsty for power and dominion over the brothers … The flock is dispersed when the shepherds ally with the enemies of the Truth of Christ. All the forms of power made deaf to the will of the authority of the heart of God are rapacious wolves that renew the passion of Christ and make the Madonna shed tears … ” – Published in “Avvenire” August 19, 1978; See also partial quote in “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” 2006 by Antonio Socci
“The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.” – Pope Paul VI, October 13, 1977 in a formal address marking the 60th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun as quoted in the Milan-based daily Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, p. 7 of its issue dated October 14, 1977
“The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against the apostasy in the Church.” “I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church: grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself…If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking…” – Cardinal Silvio Oddi, to Italian journalist Lucio Brunelli in the journal Il Sabato, Rome, March 17, 1990
“Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. – Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), Paragraph #675 – The Church’s ultimate trial
“Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist.” – Selected excerpt taken from Our Lady of La Salette’s Secret to Mélanie Calvatin on 19 September 1846. (Approved apparition) Final version published in 1879 at Lecce, Italy, with the imprimatur and approval of Bishop Salvatore Luigi Zola, C.R.L., the Bishop of Lecce
“I cannot reveal anything about what I have learned at Fatima about the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: the one concerns the Pope. The other, logically – although I should say nothing – should be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.’” – Father Joseph Schweigl 1952 (Pope Pius XII sent him to interrogate Sr. Lucia on September 2, 1952); Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, p. 710, p. 337-338
November 11, 1984 – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger affirmed that the Third Secret concerns, “a radical call for conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the ‘novissimi’ (the last events at the end of time). If it is not made public — at least for the time being — it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational (literally: ‘for sensationalism’). But the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions” – Ecco perche la fede e in crisi in the review, Jesus, p. 79
“I believe that there is a connection between that which is announced in the first part of the Secret, which concerns wars and sufferings which would be everywhere, and the second part which concerns the persecutions and a type of breakdown of the faith. Because where the ellipsis (the three dots, “…”) was placed, it means “Here is the third part, which is not revealed” and then the conclusion “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc.” This suggests to me that there is a relationship between faith and the third part of the Secret. Therefore, it is something that relates to the Church. It is some kind of universal crisis which affects the whole Church and all of humanity.” – Father Jose dos Santos Valinho (nephew of Sr. Lucia); This public statement was made on the 14th of February, 2003 broadcast on the program ENIGMA, which was transmitted prime time, nationwide on RAI, the National TV Network of Italy, The Fatima Crusader, Issue 74, p.76
Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed the need for a “Year of Faith” that seeks to awaken humanity at a critical moment. “In vast areas of the earth the faith risks being extinguished, like a flame without fuel,” the pope warned, “We are facing a profound crisis of faith, a loss of a religious sense which represents one of the greatest challenges for the Church today … The renewal of faith must, then, be a priority for the entire Church in our time.” – Pope Benedict XVI, Vatican City, 27 January 2012 from his address to the participants in the plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.
Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer. – Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250;
What if I told you one in 50 people who took a new medication had a “medically attended adverse event” and the manufacturer refused to disclose what exactly the complication was — would you take it?
And what if the theoretical benefit was only transient, lasting about three months, after which your susceptibility goes back to baseline?
And what if we told you the Food and Drug Administration cleared it without any human-outcomes data and European regulators are not universally recommending it as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is?
That’s what we know about the new COVID vaccine the Biden administration is firmly recommending for every American 6 months old and up.
The push is so hard that former White House COVID coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha and CDC head Mandy Cohen are making unsupported claims the new vaccine reduces hospitalizations, long COVID and the likelihood you will spread COVID.
None of those claims has a shred of scientific support.
In fact, if Moderna said that, they could be fined for making false marketing claims beyond an FDA-approved indication. Pfizer’s version, approved this week as well, also has zero efficacy data and has not been tested on humans at all. We only have data about antibody production from 10 mice.
The FDA, or Moderna (frankly, it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes), should disclose what happened to the patient who took the new vaccine and had a complication that required medical attention. The public has a right to know.
The last time the Biden administration approved and recommended a novel COVID bivalent booster, last fall, with no human-outcomes data, it was an epic fail. Only 17% of Americans took it (and some of those were forced to do so by their employer or school). Now it is making the same mistake.
Two weeks ago, the Biden administration upped its orders for the pediatric version of the new COVID vaccines from 14.5 million doses at $1.3 billion to 20 million doses for $1.7 billion, which is more than four times as many pediatric doses as were used last year.
There clearly seems to be a special push this time to give it to children — the same group European regulators are not supporting.
In fact, the original Moderna vaccine was banned in parts of Europe for people under age 30.
“To effectively harvest the heart cells from a fetus, it has to be kept alive during the extraction process. Meaning they have to cut open the chest to access the heart without anesthesia, extract the cells while it’s still beating, and then euthanize the fetus before or after extracting the rest of the tissue and organs for sale to pharmaceutical and biomedical companies. They do the same with garnering the highly sought after fresh cells from the brain, but instead cut open the face while the fetus is still alive. I’m still dumbfounded that this is allowed and acceptable in any single capacity, and honestly wish I could forget it. Anytime I think of vaccines, I’m reminded of this disclosure and feel disgusted. It’s terrifying how devalued human life has become in the eyes of “modern” medicine and the establishment, and the lengths pharmaceutical companies will go to get what they want. It’s so inhuman and objectively evil. If you think abortion rights have anything to do with the rights of women to choose or bodily autonomy, then you’re naive. They don’t care about any of our rights at all, and COVID demonstrated that to all of us many times over. It’s about profit, power, and other nefarious agendas. This has to stop.”
The comment below was originally posted , a few months after the pachamama demon enthronement at St. Peter’s in Rome, and just as coronadoom was all the rage in Italy, soon to be executed in your neighborhood. You need to prepare yourself for how bad this October synod is going to be. Kissy Tucho is doing his best to explain it to you. Do not be scandalized out of the Church. These people have zero legitimate authority. Go to Mass and pray the Rosary. If you know what’s what, that an apostate antipope is squatting on the Chair, speak up. Fraternal charity demands it.
Demons in the combox: “The joys, blessings, and power” of Pachamama
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
A sedevacantist is defined as a Catholic who believes there has not been a valid Pope since 1958. Fr. Jim Altman is not a sedevacantist. I know Fr. Altman in real life. We have mutual friends who are sedevacantists and we admire them, but we are not in that camp.
To recap: SedevacantistinLatin means empty-chair. SedevacantistinEnglish means one who believes no valid Pope since 1958 due to modernist heresies in them.
If you were speaking exclusively Latin, you could accurately call Fr. Altman “a sedevacantist” due to his recent video on the papacy. But while speaking English, it would be entirely dishonest and a false-accusation to call Fr. Altman “a sedevacantist” because of his recently-explained stance on the Chair of Peter.
Why isn’t it sufficient to imply the Latin for sedevacantist when speaking English? Because we have thousands of English cognates based on Latin root words where the English word means something slightly different or entirely different from the original Latin root word.
In the Traditional Latin Mass, there are many propers asking that we imitate the conversatione of the saints. Conversatione in Latin looks like the English word “conversation.” But a transliteration is not the same as a translation. Most Missals translate this as “intercourse,” but this is inaccurate, too, at least according to modern parlance. Really, the request to God that we imitate the conversatione of the saints is a request that we imitate the lifestyle of the saints. Yes, the best translation of the Latin conversatione into English is “lifestyle.” Keep in mind that those odd cognates that look like their root-word in another language but mean another thing entirely are often labeled by linguists as faux-amis.
But many conservatives and even traditionalists who know the basics about language are still calling Fr. Altman a “sedevacantist,” as if they were allowed to go on denotation without connotation. Why are they doing this? Because they are dishonest. They know that Fr. Altman believes every Pope from 1958 to 2022 was valid. Now, if you don’t agree with Fr. Altman’s view of the current Vatican right now, that’s fine. But then politely dismantle his syllogisms without calling him a “sedevacantist” if you mean that word specifically to evoke a connotation of being a “Protestant.”
If you’re doing that on purpose, keep in mind that Marxists changed Eastern European languages to promote Communism. Pro-aborts refuse to use accepted neonatology terms in discussing abortion. At a less destructive level (but perhaps because of a fear of the truth) there are Catholics today who believe they can call Fr. Altman a “sedevacantist” simply based on a transliteration and denotation of the Latin instead of a clear translation of word based in connotation, too. (Even true sedevacantists today are honest enough to admit that Fr. Altman is not a “sedevacantist” as it means in English!)
But for those who hate the Logos, it usually means hating language, too. They refrain from answering clear objections posited by their adversaries. And it’s precisely because leftists can not answer such objections that they change language to suit their foregone conclusions. Clearly, I expect this behavior from Marxists and pro-aborts. But to see such dishonesty on language from conservative and traditional Catholics should give them pause as to exactly why they are so afraid of Fr. Altman’s recent assertions.
You only change language when you’re afraid that the truth is true.
Pick up your cross daily, and follow Him. Learn how to USE your suffering, cooperating with grace, to unite your cross to His Cross. It’s the only way. Exaltation/Exultation (I’ve seen it both ways) literally means Triumphant Joy. This needs to be our attitude toward our cross and His Cross; it’s our path to holiness. Blessed feast.
INTROIT Gal. 6:14 But it is fitting that we should glory in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom is salvation, life, and resurrection for us, by whom we are saved and delivered. Ps. 66:2. May God have mercy on us and bless us; may He let His face shine upon us; and may He have mercy upon us.
Originally posted (Pope Benedict is referred to in the present tense, as he yet lived and reigned)…
Some really fine work below from “Marcus Veritas,” an anon Trad layman lawyer from Colorado. He and I have had previous exchanges on the BiP theory. His treatment here of a “Reader’s Digest” version of the Miller Dissertation is hugely helpful, because most people who should have keen interest on this subject haven’t bothered to read one page of this document, a document which is absolutely key to understanding the papacy, the office, and the ministry, down through the ages to the present day, and what other forms it could and might take, according to the greatest Nouvelle minds of the twentieth century. For those too lazy to read the book, Marcus hands it all to you on a platter in less than 15 minutes. Enjoy, and please share.
Miller’s Dissertation: The Key to Unlocking Benedict’s Incomplete Resignation
The reason most Catholics and the rest of the world incorrectly assume Pope Benedict XVI resigned the Papacy in February 2013 is because they do not view his attempted resignation through the prism of the Nouvelle théologie, which is necessary to understand what really was going on.
What’s becoming more and more clear to me every single day is that this debacle that Pope Benedict XVI caused in February 2013 when he erroneously attempted to resign only his “active” role in the Papacy, while remaining in a “passive” or “contemplative” role, is 100% a product of the Modernist theological errors and the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II).
One of the most important keys, almost a Rosetta Stone so to speak, to understanding both the mind and text of Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation in February 2013, and why he remains the current Pope to this day, can be found in Archbishop J. Michael Miller’s 1980 dissertation penned for the Gregorian University in Rome. He is now the Archbishop of Vancouver. If you want to read the dissertation in its entirety you need to buy a copy here.
Ann Barnhardt originally turned me on to this academic exercise in post-Vatican II ecumenism and piqued my interest enough to purchase a copy. After I read it, my mind was blown away. Because this is so important to understanding why Benedict and not Antipope Bergoglio (Francis) is Pope to this day, I will summarize the contents of the Miller dissertation for the reader but with sufficient detail so you understand the full context to what can best be described as a summary of Modernist thought concerning the Papacy.
I will do my best to objectively summarize the material and refrain from making personal comments throughout the summary. However, I will tie Miller’s conclusions back to Benedict’s actions in February 2013 after the summary so you can see why this is so relevant and important. Before I begin the summary, keep the following in mind:
When Pope Benedict attempted to resign a portion of the Papacy, he made an effort to distinguish between a Papal office (Munus) and ministry (Ministerium). While some commentators said this is not a big deal because of the multiple/ambiguous meanings associated with these Latin terms Benedict used, after you understand the Miller dissertation, it becomes obvious that Benedict was not just being lazy and sloppy with his terminology in his resignation speech. He actually chose his words very carefully.
When he could have just said “I hereby resign the Office of the Papacy in its entirety with all its rights and privileges effective immediately,” he chose not to do that. The Miller dissertation explains the WHAT and the WHY behind what Benedict was doing in February 2013, at least theologically.
SUMMARY OF THE MILLER DISSERTATION
Title: The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology
Author: J. Michael Miller
Date: November 21, 1980
PART I: HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
In this Part, Miller summarizes the history of what he refers to as the “classical” presentation. The history he is referring to is the historical justification for the Papacy. And this justification was based on the notion of “divine right” or ius divinum. For the remainder of this summary, I will just refer to this concept as divine right.
In this first Part, Miller mentions Pope Leo the Great noting that Leo based his theory on Papal Primacy on evidence from Holy Scripture. Papal Primacy refers to the concept of primacy of jurisdiction, which means the possession of full and supreme teaching, legislative and sacerdotal powers in the Catholic Church. Other later Popes and general Councils agreed with Leo. With some minor differences, the history of the Church’s teaching reinforced the notion that the Papacy was instituted by Christ as found in Holy Scripture. The Papacy, according to this “classical” line of thought says Miller, did not originate from a Council, the Apostles or other types of synods.
Fast forward in time to the First Vatican Council (Vatican I). Here, Miller concedes that the Council in Pastor Aeternus condemned those who denied that Christ gave Peter alone a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. Vatican I also confirmed that Peter received authority immediately and directly from Christ and not through the Church. Vatican I accepted what had always been taught previously that Peter was the rock upon which Christ built His Church, the power of the keys was given to Peter alone, and Peter was directly vested with jurisdiction (authority). In other words, Peter was given his unique authority by divine right.
Vatican I also taught that there are perpetual successors to Peter’s primacy, also by divine right. Although Miller notes the that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter, that is not itself by divine right. Miller says, “Before Vatican II, nearly every twentieth century treatise on the papacy adopted the structure of Pastor Aeternus: Petrine primacy promised and conferred by Christ, the perpetuity of succession in the primacy, and the legitimacy of the Roman bishop’s claim to be successor of Peter.” Miller says that the Vatican I fathers “paid no attention to the difference between that which the historical Jesus instituted and that which originated from the Risen Christ.”
And because the Papacy was instituted by divine right, the classic view was that the papacy itself was unchangeable. This classic view began to be challenged after Vatican I, according to Miller. Some theologians began to suggest that if the structure of the papacy came to exist over the course of time due to historical circumstances, then the structure of the papacy was not by divine right, even if the Papacy itself was.
Miller explains that after Vatican I, there was a shift in how theologians perceived the concept of divine right. Rather than being directly instituted by Christ, the meaning began to expand to include more generally the notion of “God’s will.” This becomes important as we shall see.
PART II: LUTHERAN AND ANGLICAN THOUGHT
Because the purpose of this dissertation is to promote ecumenical dialogue, presumably in the spirit of Vatican II, Miller summarizes the modern position of the Lutherans and Anglicans with respect to the Papacy. I will not dive into this too deeply in the summary, but just enough to allow the reader to see why changing the idea of the Papacy is needed for ecumenical dialogue in Miller’s mind.
The Lutherans, according to Miller, believe that if a concept has no salvific importance than it cannot be of divine right. However, if a concept is of divine right, then it is going to be found in Holy Scripture. Man-made law is going to be developed over time in history. Lutherans admit there is a need for a “Petrine function” that serves Christian unity. Lutherans have seen this “Petrine function” carried out in different ways such as councils, theology schools and even the Pope. They just don’t believe any particular structure is of divine right.
Therefore, Lutherans will agree that Christ established a “Petrine function” or “ministry” that can be fulfilled in different forms. The Papacy could be one of those options, but not necessarily the only one.
The Anglicans also agree that something like the Papacy would be beneficial to the universal Church to help unite all Christians. However, it is not absolutely necessary. They agree a Petrine “function” was established in the New Testament and that the development of this concept has been divinely guided since the time of Christ in history.
PART III: Modern Catholic Thought
Here, Miller looks at the opinion of modern Catholic theologians. This is important because these ideas form the basis for Miller’s conclusions. Many of the names are familiar ones because they played a very important role in Vatican II. They are part of the Nouvelle théologie. They focused on changing the meaning and/or just removing from ecumenical discussion the concept of “divine right” when it comes to the Papacy.
Gotthold Hasenhüttl and Hans Küng argued that if something was not instituted by Christ directly then it was not of divine right and anything else that developed afterwards over the course of time in history was man-made and therefore reversible. They deny that many institutions Catholics used to think were of divine right were actually instituted by Christ. Rather, they were man-made institutions developed over time, and therefore are changeable.
Other modern theologians take the position that an institution could still be of divine right, even if not instituted directly by Christ, because they developed over time under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Karl Rahner, for example, argued that “if historical circumstances call for it, as in the case for a pastoral synod, an institution of human right shares in the Church’s constitutional structure of divine right; as such it is not simply dispensable.”
According to these theologians, “the Church is constantly led to create new structures to which respond to its needs.” These developments have “as much right to be considered the work of the Spirit as those of the past…[w]hen new structures are needed to fulfill this [missionary] role, and if former ones no longer serve, the Spirit is there to provide the necessary organization.”
Miller says that Catholics are divided as to whether divine right means an institution within the Church needed to be established during the apostolic age or could have been developed over time. This matters because some theologians hold that only those of divine right are irreversible and not subject to change or being abolished.
Unless, of course, Christ intended those divine institutional structures to be only temporary. This was the argument of Cardinal Avery Dulles. Dulles argued that even if institutions were established by divine right that does not mean they could not be changed over time.
Another theologian who believed that what Christ instituted could be changed if historical circumstances called for it was Edward Schillebeeckx. He argued that even though it was divinely instituted, the Church must reorganize the Church’s tripartite apostolic ministry structure. According to Miller, Schillebeeckx argued “the present-day Church cannot limit itself to only the hierarchical form of ministerial structure, even those it is based on ius divinum.”
If the notion of divine right applies to institutions that have changed over the years, the meaning of Papal Primacy must also be reexamined. What matters, according to Küng, are not papal rights or the chain of succession, but how the Petrine ministry is carried out.
Theologians such as Küng use the distinction between Petrine ministry and the papacy in their explanations as to why the Papacy can be abolished or changed. The Petrine ministry is a permanent function of the Church given to it by Christ. “Someone, or some institution, must be entrusted with assuring the unity of the universal Church.” While admitting most theologians associate this Petrine ministry with the papacy as we know it today, referring to these theologians like Küng, Miller notes
“this small group does not insist on a necessary continuity between the primacy in its papal form and all future forms of the Petrine function. For them it is at least conceivable that the Petrine function be fulfilled in the episcopal college, a synod, or any other number of structures designed for that purpose.”
In a footnote to this discussion on the distinction between the Petrine ministry and the Papacy, Miller quotes from Rahner:
“In this case the Petrine function would exist iure divino, but it need not be exercised by a single individual.”
In the same footnote, Miller notes Cardinal Dulles makes the same point at Rahner:
“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.”
Miller, then, takes an interesting turn to discuss the notion of “Church as sacrament,” a teaching resulting from Vatican II. With respect to the Papacy, the idea is that the Papacy should be considered “quasi-sacramental.” The reason for doing this, according to the theologians that Miller refers to, is that it avoids juridical terminology—it is more ecclesiological than canonical. This, in turn, provides a “new context” for the discussion of the theological justification for papal primacy. This concept of “quasi-sacrament” attached to the Papacy actually aids in ecumenical dialogue with protestants because they accept the idea of an invisible grace from Christ made available to man through outward visible forms such as the Papacy. The Papacy could symbolically represent Christ’s unifying action in this sense.
PART IV: ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE
In this Part, Miller summarized various proposals that ecumenical commissions among Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans put together. The point of these commissions, and indeed the point of Miller’s dissertation, is to find ways that the Papacy can be considered that harmonizes the teaching of the Church with various protestant “communities”. I will avoid summarizing all these proposals and discussions in effort to move on to Miller’s final conclusions.
PART V: EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this final part, Miller puts all of these strains of thought together with the purpose of opening the door for further “dialogue” with protestants on the Papacy. Miller’s ultimate thesis seems to be that if you replace the use of the term “divine right” with regard to the institution of the Papacy, then this opens the door of dialogue with protestants (especially Lutherans and Anglicans).
Moving away from classical notions of divine right (of which the Papacy was traditionally considered at Vatican I), Miller sees an opening for ecumenical dialogue with protestants because modern Catholic theologians have broadened the notion of what divine right actually means. While the Petrine ministry or function was established by Christ, it’s form (structure) is really a product of the Holy Spirit working in conjunction with human factors over time, which means the structure of the Papacy is subject to change.
The key is the use of the term “Petrine function”, which refers to the “Petrine Ministry” given to Peter by Christ. When viewed in a broader way, this provides an opportunity to Catholics for “considering changes in the way the Pope fulfills the Petrine function.”
Miller proposed to stop using the term “divine right” when referring to the Petrine function and instead use divine institution (institutio divina) and divine design (ordinatio divina). Using these terms permits emphasizing the elements of human decision and historical factors in the development of the Papacy as we know it today. These terms affirm that the Petrine function is of divine origin (divine institution). But the structure of the papacy involves human decision making with the Holy Spirit (divine design). These terms avoid misunderstandings when Catholics use the term “divine right” because that term implies that the form (or structure) of the Papacy cannot be changed since Christ instituted it.
In conclusion, Miller recommends avoiding the term “divine right” because of its “association with past polemics” and that it should be replaced so that the Petrine function can be distinguished “from its realization in the historic papacy.”
Second, Miller argues the action of the Holy Spirit must always be taken into account when describing the emergence of the Papacy rather than focusing on the Christological origins that cause so much conflict in ecumenical dialogue. “New perspectives” are opened when considering the Spirit’s guidance in continuing the work of the Church.
Third, the use of the term “Petrine function” allows non-Catholics “to reconsider their present experience of a need for a ministry of unity directed to the universal Church, without limiting their reflections to the present form of papacy.” In turn, Catholics must ask themselves, says Miller “What really belongs to the Petrine function of the Pope?”
Finally, distinguish between the Petrine function as a divine institution and its realization in the historic papacy as divine design. “Contemporary discussion can benefit from making this distinction between the dominical institution of Petrine primacy and the divine design of its concrete realization in the papacy.”
[END OF SUMMARY]
Implication of Miller’s Dissertation
After reading this summary of Miller’s dissertation, I hope the reader is able to see why the distinction between the munus and ministerium is so important to understanding Benedict’s actions in February 2013.
Benedict, along with the Nouvelle théologie, do not look at the Papacy the same way most Catholics do. Most of us look at it the way Vatican I taught us to look at it—consistent with what the Church always taught. He doesn’t, which is why this is so confusing to others and Benedict is given a pass for his drawn-out resignation speech and needless use of confusing terminology. No one bothered to look at the ecclesiology behind what Benedict was doing. If you understand the Papacy like Benedict, it wasn’t needlessly confusing at all, it actually makes perfect sense if you happen to be well versed in Catholic “new” theology.
Viewing the Papacy as a broad quasi-sacramental Petrine ministry instituted by Christ subject to ongoing guidance from the Holy Spirit over the course of history, as opposed to a rigidly defined juridical office, opens the door for many changes. It makes possible the notion that Christ did entrust St. Peter with a special ministry but that the structure or form that this ministry takes remains changeable over time. For Miller, this was very important for purposes of ecumenical dialogue with protestants who rejected the idea that the Bible teaches Christ instituted an office to be held by one man, the successor of Peter with supreme juridical authority over the Church.
For Benedict in 2013, this is important because while he believed the Petrine ministry was “forever” in the nature of a sacrament (essentially precluding his ability to give up that ministry entirely)(this is the “munus“), the Petrine ministry is not so limited to preclude the possibility of dividing up the particular functions of the ministry among others (this is the “ministerii”). Benedict could still, therefore, resign the administrative duties or active component of this Petrine ministry, while still retaining a more passive role or function.
Now, this notion of an expanding Petrine ministry to allow for potentially two or more different participants serving different functions at the same time may all seem contrary to what the Vatican I fathers taught in Pastor Aeternus. And it is, which is why Benedict was in substantial error when he attempted to pull this off. But, you see, this is what Miller’s dissertation was all about.
Miller was trying to find a way to square the “classical” teaching of the Church concerning the Papacy (set forth in Vatican I) with the Modernist ecumenical ideas taught by the Nouvelle théologie. Almost like he was engaging in a hermeneutic of continuity!
Because Vatican I kept using this phrase “divine right,” which implied that Christ instituted a papal office with one man (the successor of Peter) holding supreme juridical authority that could never change, Miller saw an opening and honed in on the use of that term and concluded the best thing to do is to just stop using it.
You see, according to Miller and other Modernists, if you just stop using phrases like “divine right” that they used in Vatican I (and Council of Trent and what all Catholics used to use for that matter) then it makes it easier to split hairs and justify new concepts of the Papacy without doing violence to the teachings of Vatican I. Changing terminology and redefining accepted concepts is a key weapon for the Modernist. It’s just another sleight of hand.
Avoiding the use of “divine right” and replacing it with other terms that recognize a Petrine ministry (the munus) instituted by Christ while at the same time recognizing smaller changeable components (the ministerii) that make up the structure of that larger Petrine ministry opens the door to changing how the Papacy is exercised without really changing the Papacy.
When viewed in this way, it is possible to associate the “office” of the Papacy with the Modernist notion of the “Petrine Ministry” (the overarching, quasi-sacramental concept instituted by Christ) and then distinguish it from its component and changeable parts or structure. Such components while not strictly defined could, just for example, include an administrative function, spiritual function or suffering function not limited to one person. These components could properly be described as “ministries” within the Papal office or overarching Petrine ministry.
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry [here he is talking about the “munus” or enlarged Petrine ministry instituted by Christ.] I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature [he sees this as a spirtual office or quasi-sacramental duty, not just a juridical one], must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern [that’s a juridical term] the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, [he uses “ministerio” here to make it clear he is resigning the smaller administrative or “active” component of the larger “munus” he was talking about above. It’s interesting he connects the Bishop of Rome with this administrative function of the Papacy, which implies he does not believe the Bishop of Rome and Papacy are inseparable. This was touched on in the Miller dissertation] entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter [that is the administrative component], will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is. [It makes sense that a conclave would be needed because remember he is trying to expand the Petrine ministry/office. If he is appointing a delegate to handle administrative functions, it would not be an expansion of the Petrine ministry or change of structure.]
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry [he uses “ministerii” here because he is still talking about this smaller administrative/active component not the Petrine ministry/office] and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
“The “always” is also a “forever” – 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 do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. 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.”
Miller’s dissertation was written for ecumenical purposes with the goal of rethinking the Papacy in such a way that protestants would find acceptable. In normal times, this would just fly under the radar as another post-Vatican II attempt to water down the Church’s perennial and unchanging dogmas–in this case the Papacy.
However, these are not normal times. This dissertation contains the theological keys for making sense of what Benedict attempted to do in February 2013. Of course, these ideas are all erroneous and contrary to the teachings of Vatican I. And as a result, Benedict was in substantial error according to Canon 188 when he attempted to resign only a portion of the Papal office, leaving an administrative/juridical function to be filled by someone else after a “conclave” was called.
All of this information is in the public sphere and available to those who actually care to look into it. I invite all those who insist Jorge Bergolgio is the Pope right now to do just do a little work and read the documents for themselves and use a basic level of logic to piece two and two together.
Today is the 340th anniversary of the Battle of Vienna. If you are not familiar, you can easily search. TLDR: Under the invocation of the Holy Name of Mary, 10,000 citizens and perhaps 40,000 reinforcements, all Catholics (the prot countries were allied with the muslims… let that sink in), put down 200,000+ invaders, after a long siege. Good stuff. Here is a quick snippet from our old friend Tantumblogo:
Catholic Culture – the winged hussars of Poland
Hussars were a form of moderately heavy cavalry that survived the middle ages into the early modern period. They were basically extinct by the early 18th century. But for a while in the cavalier period, in the 1500-1600s, they could be utterly dominant on the battlefield, which is why nations had them, in spite of their high expense.
No hussars were as feared – nor as effective, it seems – as the winged Hussars of Poland. They played a pivotal role in saving Christendom from the Turk at the 2nd Siege of Vienna in 1683, when 2-300,000 Turks, including many Janissaries, tried to take Vienna defended by only about 10,000 men at arms. The Catholic relief force (the protestants in Germany, France, and elsewhere wanted the Turks to win, to go on and conquer Rome, and end the Church forever) numbered about 50,000, of which around 3,000 were winged hussars. But it is hussars that routed the Turk, put him to flight, leaving a baggage train so enormous, so opulent, that it actually sent the central European economy skyrocketing for many years after the victory, and also paved the way for the slow collapse of Ottoman power in SE Europe. It’s amazing how much can hinge on one battle, one charge…..
The hussars were called “winged” because they had extensions on their rear armor to which were mounted eagle feathers. There are various explanations for why they did this – some say the wings made a terrible sound when the hussars were at a gallop, some say the approach of some terrible demon bird sent enemy horses to fright, and some say they wore them just because they looked really cool. I’ll vouch for the latter – the winged Polish hussars were probably the most amazing looking cavalry in world history:
There is a nice article here about the 2nd Siege of Vienna, and the role the hussars played in it.
Vienna was the battle that turned the tide irrevocably in favor of Christendom – at least up until the present day. Who knows what the future may hold, with Egypt now fallen to radical islam and Syria likely soon to fall…….we may face the demon turk again. I pray we get our Catholic act together before that happens, or we won’t stand a chance. History has a tendency to flow in cycles of ebb and flow.
I should note that the first thing the great Polish king Jan Sobieski did after routing the Turka and lifting the siege, was to have a High Mass offered in thanksgiving. He was a great, Catholic king.