Pope’s Retreat Preacher Speaks on Antichrist as a “pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”
VATICAN CITY, March 1, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Papal watchers are wondering what message Pope Benedict XVI was giving when he selected retired Bologna archbishop Cardinal Giacomo Biffi to preach the annual Lenten retreat to the Pope and the top members of the Vatican…
This year’s selection…created a stir since Cardinal Biffi, while he is known for orthodox faith and frank words, is most well known, at least in the secular media, for his preaching on the Antichrist. In fact, the Times of London reported in 2004 that the Cardinal described the Antichrist as “walking among us”.
The Lenten retreat did not disappoint. Cardinal Biffi picked up on his oft repeated theme of the Antichrist, basing his remarks on the works of Vladimir Soloviev, a Russian religious philosopher who has received praise from Pope Benedict prior to his elevation to the pontificate.
Quoting Soloviev, the Cardinal said “the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist.”
“He will convoke an ecumenical council and will seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions, granting something to each one. The masses will follow him, with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants,” he said according to a Zenit translation of a Vatican Radio summary here: http://www.radiovaticana.org/it1/Articolo.asp?c=120479 . (Feb. 20, 2017 – Translation is not longer available on Zenit and the only Zenit report on the 2007 retreat mentions only the first day’s talk and not the later one on the Antichrist)
In his “Tale of the Antichrist” Solovyov foresees that a small group of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants will resist and will say to the Antichrist: “You give us everything, except what interests us, Jesus Christ”. For Cardinal Biffi, this narrative is a warning: “Today, in fact, we run the risk of having a Christianity which puts aside Jesus with his cross and resurrection.”
The 78-year-old cardinal added that if Christians “limited themselves to speaking of shared values they would be more accepted on television programs and in social groups. But in this way, they will have renounced Jesus, the overwhelming reality of the resurrection.”
The cardinal said he believes that this is “the danger that Christians face in our days … the Son of God cannot be reduced to a series of good projects sanctioned by the prevailing worldly mentality.”
The preacher of the Spiritual Exercises added that “there are relative values, such as solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature. If these become absolute, uprooting or even opposing the proclamation of the event of salvation, then these values become an instigation to idolatry and obstacles on the way of salvation.”
Cardinal Biffi affirmed that “if Christianity—on opening itself to the world and dialoguing with all—dilutes the salvific event, it closes itself to a personal relationship with Jesus and places itself on the side of the Antichrist.”
Cardinal Biffi’s reflections, in fact, are very similar to remarks Pope Benedict made last Fall in a meeting with Swiss Bishops. While Pope Benedict did not speak of the Antichrist, he spoke of a new false or “substitute” religion, calling it also a “successor” of religion.
“Modern society is not simply without morality, but it has, so to speak, ‘discovered’ and professes a part of morality”, the Pope told the Swiss bishops. “These are the great themes of peace, non-violence, justice for all, concern for the poor, and respect for creation.”
However, the Pope warned that these “great moral themes” have “become an ethical complex that, precisely as a political force, has great power and constitutes for many the substitute for religion, or its successor.”
“It is only if human life is respected from conception to death that the ethics of peace is also possible and credible,” concluded the Pope. “It is only then that non-violence can express itself in every direction; only then that we truly welcome creation, and only then that we can arrive at true justice.”
And then, twelve years later, this happened:
Pope Francis proposes adding ‘ecological sin’ against ‘common home’ to catechism
VATICAN CITY, November 15, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis said today that he is thinking about adding the “‘ecological sin’ against our common home” to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“We have to introduce―we are thinking about it―to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ‘ecological sin’ against our common home, because a duty is at stake,” Pope Francis told his hearers. The Argentinian pontiff made the remark in a speech he gave today to the 20th World Congress of the International Association of Penal Law in Rome.
Don’t worry, Antipope Bergoglio is far too crude, far too stupid, and far too, um, *unattractive* to be the Antichrist. But he sure is paving the way, like a good Forerunner should.
Excerpt from Mr. Johnston: “Even those who advocate for it (Pope Benedict’s invalid resignation) would know very well that it was NOT mounted out of love for rigorous application of procedure, but as a fig leaf over a political coup against an inconvenient Pope. Once that precedent is established, you have politicized canon law as a tool to be used as a cudgel against theological opponents. Open that Pandora’s box and you have created all sorts of new opportunities for the evil one to make mischief and attack the Church.”
My comment: “Charlie, with respect, I guess that depends on whether you believe in objective reality. The evil one hates objective reality, being the Father of Lies and all that. We are called to seek reality by assenting to revealed truths and by acknowledging observable data through our rational intellect.
“Let’s set aside the entirety of canon law for a moment, and simply consider the observable facts. Benedict didn’t resign the Office, neither in the original Latin declaratio, nor in his spoken word as he delivered it in Latin (video easily searchable). Then he created a number of peculiar novelties specific to his “new role”, and even lied about some of them, e.g. “No other clothes were available.” He continues to be addressed as His Holiness and continues to do things that only popes do, like go by his papal name and impart his apostolic blessing. The situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of the Church. There is tremendous confusion, souls are at risk, and people are losing their faith over this (or rather, what has been born of this).
“Let’s go back to his not resigning the office, but only the active ministry. If that happened, which it did, or rather it’s what he tried to do, the effect would be that he resigned none of it (per Canon 332.2). Whether he intended to split the papacy, or he intended to retain the whole thing, the effect is the same. But we don’t even need to explore intent. He didn’t resign the office; that’s the ontological reality. Neither cardinals nor anyone else has the power/jurisdiction to “accept” a pope’s resignation (also per Canon 332.2). Their acceptance of it, or willingness to go along, has zero effect on ontological reality. And so, the conclave they convoked was invalid (per Canon 359).
“Reality is not determined by popular vote, otherwise Arianism would be a matter of dogmatic certainty.”
I wish only fraternal charity to Mr. Johnston, and I acknowledge the good work he does. But then I discovered that, after locking the combox, he changed the relevant passage of his original post to read as follows:
“The whole idea (Pope Benedict’s invalid resignation) is based on a minority interpretation of canon law. If there were an actual deficiency, it would need to be clear, compelling, and indisputable. Otherwise, it would rightfully be seen as the fig leaf covering over a coup against an inconvenient Pope. Set that precedent and you will never see the end of rival factions seeking advantage in legalisms rather than the large truths of the faith. It would reduce the College of Bishops to roving bands of rival warlords. Frankly, I think it a satanic seduction to a “fix” of current controversies that would permanently enfeeble and introduce disorder into the hierarchy.” HERE
“Introduce disorder into the hierarchy…” <raises hand> YES, Charlie, it was 100% Miss Barnhardt who introduced disorder into the hierarchy on 19 June 2016. Hierarchy solid as a rock before that.
Dear readers, compare the edited passage with the original at the top of this page. I’m sorry, but if you edit something in order to change the entire meaning, even on a blog, you need to call it out as an update and point out the edited portion.
Open letter to Charlie: In this edited passage, it seems you’ve gone from castigating our motives and means, to acknowledging the possibility that this “minority interpretation of canon law” could actually be true, if it could be shown clearly (ahem HERE,HERE, and HERE), but oh it’s probably just a bunch of warlording legalisms. Essentially, you are saying: “This minority interpretation had better be clear and compelling, otherwise it’s satanic.”
REALLY?
Well, I am seeing a LOT of things that look satanic these days, but they always seem to be coming from Team Bergoglio.
via vaticannews.va:
The first chapter of Our Mother Earth…highlights the need to protect our common home through the union of “the whole human family in the search for a sustainable and integral development”. This premise is developed in the second chapter…Pollution, global warming, climate change, and loss of biodiversity, the effect of uncontrolled exploitation, are destined to grow exponentially if there is no change of direction in the short term. We need an “environmental conversion”, Pope Francis (sic) says, that is possible through the promotion of a truly ecological education that would create, especially in the young, a renewed awareness and ultimately a renewed conscience.
In the new article that concludes Our Mother Earth, Pope Francis (sic) turns his gaze upwards, in order to offer an even wider vision of a discourse that is not focused solely on the concern for the protection of the environment…In this final chapter, Pope Francis (sic) develops the “theology of ecology” in a profoundly spiritual discourse.
Creation is the fruit of God’s love…especially for man, to whom He has given the gift of creation, as a place in which “we are invited to discover a presence”. He continues:
“This means that it is for humanity’s capacity for communion to condition the state of creation […] It is therefore humanity’s destiny to determine the destiny of the universe.”
Given the diabolical inversion of truth that flows so freely through this man (now including demon worship), I can’t imagine how bad this book must be. Not ordering it to find out. Will have to rely on the editorial description:
Learn how to rebuke the devil and avoid his snares with this new book from Pope Francis’s teachings. In this powerful collection, the pope lays bare the devil’s ploys and tactics, to help you avoid getting ensnared. Listen with care, as the pope tells the story of the devil’s history, character, and works, and consider the pope’s suggestions about what you can do to see victory over the devil.
Rebuking the Devil will be an important and sobering awakening to those who have forgotten the reality of the spiritual battle that humanity is undergoing. And to those already fighting hard in spiritual battle, they will find great reassurance in the pope’s certainty that we can overcome through Spirit-filled discernment and the power of God in Christ Jesus. Through the course of this book, you’ll learn from Pope Francis about the practical tools of spiritual battle.
This book is vital. Those from youth, to adult, to the wisdom of age will appreciate the pope’s guidance on dealing with our perennial foe. This collection will be readily used by students, parents, educators, faith formation groups, faith-sharing groups, priests and deacons preparing for homilies, and all Christians seeking to rebuke the devil. Pick up this easy-to-read, digestible collection of Pope Francis’s meditations on accessing God’s power over the devil, as your next weekend read!
Notice with him it’s never the Holy Spirit, it’s just ‘Spirit.’ And ‘Spirit-filled’ even suggests the plural. I mean, if we are going to have an Antipope lead the Antichurch straight to Hell, what better way than to stir up the spirits? ¡Hagan lío! “Learn how to rebuke the devil.” This is so dangerous. The laity should not be directly engaging demons at all, let alone engaging Satan himself. Trust me, you’ll lose. The laity must engage God, or God through the intercession of the saints, whom we then ask to engage the demons. Binding prayers, wherein demons are directly commanded to leave a person or place, are only for trained exorcists who have received apostolic authority to use them. That’s right, even priests should not be engaging in these prayers, without having received specific permission and authority from the local bishop.
Not hyperbole: If millions of people were to actually buy this book and start directly engaging with demons and the devil, the resulting spiritual destruction would be incalculable. In fact, one would have a tough time dreaming up a more devastating tactic to be deployed by the probable False Prophet forerunner of the Antichrist. I will need to write a follow up post, because there are several people in Tradland who don’t understand this (and who should know better), and are encouraging these binding prayers for use by the laity. Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
BREAKING: At meeting with International Association of Penal Law, #PopeFrancis says church plans to "introduce ecological sin against the common home in the catechism of the Catholic Church because it is a duty." pic.twitter.com/X4RAPFb3Go
Time for a re-post! It’s from three years ago, so I’ve cleaned it up a bit. Have a great weekend!
——————————–
Wherein the backyard barbeque becomes mortally sinful, with all its paper plates, plastic cups, kids running through the sprinkler…
Posted on
How can anyone, at this point, take the Catholic Church seriously? Can you imagine trying to evangelize a soul who is hungering for what is supposed to be the Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth?
I renew my dialogue with “every person living on this planet” (Laudato Si’, 3) about the sufferings of the poor and the devastation of the environment. God gave us a bountiful garden, but we have turned it into a polluted wasteland of “debris, desolation and filth” (ibid., 161).
The memory of why I couldn’t ever manage to get through Laudato Si’ when it first came out just came rushing back: It is physically nauseating to read.
The perpetual genuflection to Goddess Earth now includes the enumeration of non-recycling as a capital sin, and mandating ecology as both a spiritual and corporal work of mercy. You can’t make this stuff up. HERE
Let us learn to implore God’s mercy for those sins against creation that we have not hitherto acknowledged and confessed…we can acknowledge our sins against creation, the poor and future generations…we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation.” This is the first step on the path of conversion.
The first step on the path of conversion is to embrace the utterly false ideology of man-made global warming? It’s as if the people writing all this made bets with themselves as to who could contribute the most ridiculous claim.
As individuals, we have grown comfortable with…a “disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary” (Laudato Si’, 123), and we are participants in a system that “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature.” Let us repent of the harm we are doing to our common home. After a serious examination of conscience and moved by sincere repentance, we can confess our sins against the Creator, against creation, and against our brothers and sisters. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the confessional as the place where the truth makes us free.”
Has any other document, in the history of the Church, universally condemned all of humanity for committing a particular sin? Does Antipope Bergoglio really believe that every single person possesses a disordered desire to consume more than what is necessary? Would taking up an entire floor of a hotel as your personal living space fall into this category? And apparently it’s not venial, nope, most def MORTAL SIN, for it requires sacramental confession to be absolved.
Examining our consciences, repentance and confession to our Father who is rich in mercy leads to a firm purpose of amendment.
We laff. How come we didn’t see that phrase in Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia?
This in turn must translate into concrete ways of thinking and acting that are more respectful of creation. For example: “avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse, cooking only what can reasonably be consumed, showing care for other living beings, using public transport or car-pooling, planting trees, turning off unnecessary lights, or any number of other practices” (Laudato Si’, 211).
Wherein the backyard barbeque becomes mortally sinful, with all its paper plates, plastic cups, kids running through the sprinkler, the big black trash bag, charcoal and lighter fluid, leftovers, bug spray (“other living beings”), patio lights, and any number of other practices. Confessing in kind and number is going to be tough. I might need a notepad.
Bergoglio and his toadies continue their relentless rage against the First Commandment. They choose to worship Goddess Earth instead. That is, when they aren’t worshipping Man instead. Notice the dichotomy at play: Worshipping man requires subjugating God. Worshipping Goddess Earth requires subjugating Man.
When people start coming into the confessional saying, “Bless me Father, it’s been two weeks, I left a light on,” how will good priests express their unity to the Petrine See? How can the source of unity be the vector of schism? May I suggest to Father, “THOSE AREN’T SINS, HE’S NOT THE POPE.”
Bergoglio must be exposed as a usurper, charged, removed, and Pope Benedict be acknowledged as the one and only living pope since April 2005.
Arouse in Your Church, O Lord, the spirit with which blessed Josaphat, Your Martyr and Bishop, was filled when he laid down his life for his flock; so that, by his intercession, we, also moved and strengthened by the same spirit, may not fear to lay down our lives for our brethren.
Collect, Feast of Saint Josaphat, Martyr (14 Nov, 1962 calendar)
Josaphat was his religious name. His real name was John Kunsevich, born in present day Ukraine and later a Ruthenian Orthodox archbishop in Poland during the 16th century, who lead his archeparchy into union with Rome under the Union of Brest.
His insistence on unity with the pope, not to mention his zeal and asceticism, drew the ire of many enemies. He was so hated, that Orthodox, Protestants, and pagans conspired together to murder him, and they got their wish upon instigating an angry mob on 12 November 1623. He was shot, his skull smashed to bits with axes, wild dogs set upon him, then weighted with stones and thrown into the Dvina river. Catholics would later recover his body, which now resides at St. Peter’s in Rome.
He is a martyr not just for the faith, but specifically for unity with the one true pope, even unto death.
“I rejoice to offer my life for my holy Catholic faith. Grant that I be found worthy, Lord, to shed my blood for the union and obedience to the Apostolic See.” HERE Martyrdom of Josaphat Kuntsevych (c. 1861) Józef Simmler
UPDATE 13:12 MST. From “Aqua,” a frequent combox contributor:
“Luke 12:54-57. Jesus tells His disciples, they not only can, they must use their God-given grace, intellect, wisdom and judgement to make judgement and know Truth, standing there staring them in the face, so as to follow and act:
54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth (the weather); but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”
2 Tim 4:3-4
As mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, God gave us a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71). There is no greater reality in the universe than Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. What did He expect of His disciples when it came to the question of His true identity? He expected them to use their rational intellect and sensory perception to FIGURE IT OUT.
And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Matt 16:13-20
And Jesus went out, and his disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. And in the way, he asked his disciples, saying to them: Whom do men say that I am? Who answered him, saying: John the Baptist; but some Elias, and others as one of the prophets. Then he saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ. And he strictly charged them that they should not tell any man of him. Mark 8:27-30
And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples also were with him: and he asked them, saying: Whom do the people say that I am? But they answered and said: John the Baptist; but some say Elias: and others say that one of the former prophets is risen again. And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God. Luke 9:18-20
After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve. John 6:66-71
So now we are being asked to FIGURE IT OUT in terms of how it could be, that for 2000 years, Satan was prevented from overtaking the Petrine See by a rigorous supernatural enforcement of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32), but the supposed current occupant is somehow capable of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry; and has officially approved adultery, fornication, and cohabitation?
And yet, now we see another attempt to correct an apostate antipope, while still trying to stay in union with him:
November 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – An international group of 100 priests and lay scholars published a statement today to protest the pagan worship of Pachamama that took place last month during the Amazon Synod in Rome with Pope Francis’ (sic) active participation and apparent support…
On October 4, Pope Francis (sic) attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. (1)
He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter.
He participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama. (2)
On October 7, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis (sic) said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession. (3)
When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis (sic), on October 25, apologized for their removal and another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. (4) Thus, a new profanation was initiated.
On October 27, in the closing Mass for the synod, he accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar. (5)
Pope Francis (sic) himself confirmed that these wooden images were pagan idols. In his apology for the removal of these idols from a Catholic church, he specifically called them Pachamama (6), a name for a false goddess of mother earth according to pagan religious belief in South America.
Some visual aids, as I’ve posted before:
Maybe, just maybe, when you see the abomination, you should check your base premise.
He is not the pope. How could he be?
Scolding an apostate antipope isn’t going to get the job done. It’s true that stunts like this can be helpful in terms of getting the word out, and even the MSM is starting to pick up on things. Ross Douthat openly questioning who is the legitimate pope, in the New York Times, is certainly Overton Window worthy. So thank you, sort of, to everyone who laid out the horrid details and signed their names to the protest, but I’m afraid it’s just not good enough.
FIGURE IT OUT.
Do yourself a favor. If you have Twitter, check out this thread. It will make your day.
https://twitter.com/bishopstika/status/1194317737608306688?s=21
“Shut up, you stupid spotlight seeking, lustful self-certain opinion thruster, laynothing blogger.”
I came not to bring peace, but the sword!
A couple thoughts on the Douthat-Burke interview. The story starts off like this:
I had never met him before, but he was as I anticipated: at once obdurate and guileless, without the usual church politician’s affect, and with a straightforward bullet-biting to his criticism of the pope. The Burke critique is simple enough. Church teaching on questions like marriage’s indissolubility is supposed to be unchanging, and that’s what he’s upholding: “I haven’t changed. I’m still teaching the same things I always taught and they’re not my ideas.” What is unchanging certainly can’t be altered by an individual pontiff: “The pope is not a revolutionary, elected to change the church’s teaching.” And thus if Francis seems to be tacitly encouraging changes, through some sort of decentralizing process, it means “there’s a breakdown of the central teaching authority of the Roman pontiff,” and that the pope has effectively “refused to exercise [his] office.”
Except, that’s impossible, right? A pope has no more power to change moral teaching on the reality of marriage than he has to change math to say 2+2=5, right? So if something impossible is apparently happening, shouldn’t we be looking for the false base premise?
It was also in discussing the Amazonian synod that Burke brought up the specter that hangs over Francis-era debates, the idea of a schism in the church.
Burke: While the final document is less explicit in the embrace of pantheism, it does not repudiate the statements in the working document which constitute an apostasy from the Catholic faith. The working document doesn’t have doctrinal value. But what if the pope were to put his stamp on that document? People say if you don’t accept that, you’ll be in schism — and I maintain that I would not be in schism because the document contains elements that defect from the apostolic tradition. So my point would be the document is schismatic. I’m not.
Douthat:But how can that be possible? You’re effectively implying that the pope would be leading a schism.
Burke: Yes.
Whoops! If a true pope could lead a schism from the true Church, explain to me again how Christ isn’t a liar? How have the Petrine Promises not been broken, if this statement is true? How could any of the faithful have a moral duty to pledge unity and submission to a man or to an office which is capable of such monstrous error?
Douthat:Isn’t that a deep contradiction of how Catholics think about the office of the papacy?
Burke: Of course. Exactly. It’s a total contradiction. And I pray that this wouldn’t happen. And to be honest with you, I don’t know how to address such a situation. As far as I can see, there’s no mechanism in the universal law of the church to deal with such a situation.
So Bergoglio apparently has the power to violate the law of non-contradiction? That’s amazing. Do you see where a false base premise leads? You start out with this (false) thing that you think is true, you are sure of it. So sure of it, that you re willing to take any number of other known truths, even from scripture, and doubt their validity because their validity would violate the base falsity.
Folks, THINK. How can the Standard of Unity also be the Vector of Schism?
The most appropriate response I can think of is this post from just one week ago:
Action Alert: Top three questions to ask anyone who refuses to examine the nullity of Benedict’s resignation
Posted on
Be they cardinals, bishops, priests, laity, friends, family, bloggers, Trad Inc., or whomever, I think now is the appropriate time to cut to the chase. Contained herein are three questions to be asked, privately or publicly as the case may warrant, of every single Catholic, no matter their rank, who professes Jorge Bergoglio to be the one true living pope. The timing seems right, because all the bad things hatching out of the Roman sewers are redpilling a lot more people these days. Something isn’t right, and the open worship of demons inside the Vatican has shifted the Overton Window in a way few other things could have done. A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. Titus 3:10-11
It is of crucial importance to state at the outset that this has nothing to do with Bergoglio “losing his office” or trying to craft some mechanism in which to “depose” him. Folks, Bergoglio is a criminal usurper, which means he needs to be removed, not deposed. We have to get past the false base premise that Bergoglio is now, or ever was, a true pope. All of this heresy/apostasy has no effect on who holds the office of the papacy, because the office of the papacy has been held continuously by Pope Benedict since April 2005. Note well: It would have made no difference – at all – who was “elected” at the faux conclave of 2013, no matter if it had turned out to be someone totally orthodox, that person would still have been an antipope. There was no election, because there was no conclave, because there was no resignation. The personal apostasy and orchestrated demon worship of Jorge Bergoglio upon the high altar of St. Peter’s is not a causal factor as to why he is not pope.
However, the heresy/apostasy of Antipope Bergoglio does serve as a helpful proofset of the fact that he has never held the office, and so does not enjoy any of the supernatural protections of the papacy promised directly from our Lord Himself. If you think about it, this is actually a tremendous grace, because it would have been much harder to find the truth if everything appeared to be “normal.” It’s really not that confusing if you get your base premise correct.
“Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared….” 1 Tim 4:1-2
The questions which follow are of solid linear reasoning, which drill immediately to the core base premise. But they are also questions of grave matter to those professing submission to, and union with, an apostate heretic. It is out of fraternal charity that these questions must be asked, and answered.
Ready? Let’s get started! Question One: How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would permit the Church Militant to be put into a Catch-22 position of having to be in union with, and in submission to, a Pope who demands apostasy from the One True Faith in order to be in union with him, wherein we are literally damned if we do, and damned if we don’t? How is this not a clear violation of the Law of Non-contradiction, wherein the Standard of Unity is also the Vector of Schism?
If acceptance of heresy/apostasy/demon worship is the requirement in order to be in union with Bergoglio, which it clearly is, then how is that to be squared with the moral obligation of submission to, and union with, the Roman Pontiff under pain of mortal sin? Both things can’t be true.
“Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” 2 John 1:8-11
Yes, we’ve had bad popes in the past. We have had dozens of men hold the papacy who were less than stellar when it came to personal morality, to put it mildly. But we have never had a pope personally conducting himself as an apostate heretic, with the dethronement of God and the deification of Man as his central Freemasonic theme (and now an open worshiper of demons, because that’s where Freemasonry leads), who is also intent on forcing heresy on the faithful by preaching objective mortal sin as a moral good, willed by God (AL#298, 300, 303 HERE; AL footnote 351 HERE; inter alia). That’s supposed to be not possible, and we don’t need some future council to explain this to us. God gave you a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71).
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” 2 Tim 4:3-4
Let’s take it one step further. When a true pope is elected, it is dogmatically certain that the transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors, (Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus, 1870, HERE) not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church, but rather directly from Christ, immediately upon a validly elected successor’s acceptance of the office… (if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)… which leads us to Question #2: Question Two:How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would force the Church Militant into a Catch-22 position by His own divine will, by conferring the office of the papacy upon a man known to Him to be a wretched apostate heretic, and then WITHHOLDING the negative supernatural protection of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18-19, and Luke 22:32), so that the wretched apostate heretic could openly approve fornication (cohabitation), adultery, sacrilegious Communion, and even perform idolatrous demon worship upon the high altar at St. Peter’s? HERE,HERE,HERE, and HERE.
Said another way: If you are a person who believes Bergogio is a true pope, validly elected at a valid conclave after a valid resignation, then it is an article of faith for you to also believe that the papal office was bestowed BY CHRIST HIMSELF on Bergoglio at the moment of his acceptance of the papacy. If that’s true, then how is it possible that “Francis” could be permitted BY CHRIST HIMSELF to wage war on the Catholic Church, raping His bride, yet somehow the Petrine Promises have not been broken? Both things can’t be true.
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.” 2 Peter 2:1-3
Souls are at stake, so I highly recommend everyone engages with those closest to them, pose these first two questions, demand that people actually think, and get them to answer. Put it on facebook and twitter. Permission to cut and paste from here with no attribution. Imagine if just a hundred people started doing this; it would exponentiate in mere days.
The answer to these first two questions, with a high degree of moral certainty, is that it is impossible for Jorge Bergoglio to be pope. Once the false base premise is out of the way, the next logical question to be asked is… what could have caused this? Which leads us directly to Question Three… Question Three: Will you now, honestly and thoroughly, engage the publicly available data and argumentation that demonstrates that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope, and has been since 13 March 2013, not by reason of heresy/apostasy, but as the result of an invalid conclave due to the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict? If you will not, why not?
Yes, the heresy/apostasy/demon worship is awful, but these things are clues, not causes. Bergoglio did not cease being pope because he worships demons. Bergoglio is not pope because the conclave was invalid because Benedict’s resignation was invalid. This is the root, nothing else.
Summary of events surrounding the invalid resignation:
Canon Law forcefully shows that Pope Benedict’s purported resignation in February of 2013 was invalid and that he remains the one and only living Pope. There are a multiplicity of violations which nullify the abdication, rendering also null the subsequent conclave and its result. Violations of Canons 17, 36, 38, 332.2, 188, 359 have been demonstrated, and Canon 131.1 is also in play HERE. For example, he used the term “ministerio” (ministry, lower case) in the essential clause of the renunciation, instead of Munus (Office). The Office and the ministry are not the same thing, and although he could have properly manifested his resignation in accord with Can. 332.2 without using the word Munus, that’s not what he did, explained HERE. Prominent Canonists and Theologians were already crowing about the faulty Latin and nullity of the act within hours of it taking place HERE.
Another subset of evidence includes Benedict’s “always and forever” discourse during his last General Audience 27 February 2013 HERE. This is where he revealed his belief that the papacy imparts an indelible character upon acceptance of the office.
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (the day Ratzinger accepted the papacy). The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord…
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 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.
Benedict admitted in that same speech that by instituting the role of “Pope Emeritus” he was creating a “novelty,” which means that he intended his “resignation” to be different tfrom any before, thus “remaining in a new way.” This concept was explained in great detail during Archbishop Ganswein’s epic “Expanded Petrine Ministry” discourse of 20 May 2016 HERE, wherein he explained how the papacy now consists of one “active member” and one “contemplative member,” and then (I’m not making this up) equated Benedict’s decision to bifurcate the papacy to God’s decision to spare His Blessed Mother from Original Sin via the Immaculate Conception HERE. The plain words of Benedict and Ganswein in these two speeches, if they were sincere and not subterfuge, demonstrate “Substantial Error” as a nullifying factor, as anticipated in Canon 188, since a bifurcated papacy is an ontological impossibility.
Speaking of subterfuge, there is also the possibility that the nullity of the resignation was intentional; four dimensional chess executed by Benedict in order to protect the papacy and keep it out of the hands of the heretics. There is no direct evidence which supports this angle, but it also cannot be disproven at this time. I mention it because it has a certain appeal, and although I think this scenario far less likely, it is possible.
Finally, there is furthering evidence visible to this day, which to the naked eye would appear we have “two popes.” This includes Benedict’s retention of title, form of address as “His Holiness,” his continual presence inside the Vatican, wearing white, wearing his not-destroyed Fisherman’s Ring, writing books and papers, blessing new cardinals, imparting “My Apostolic Blessing,” etc.
I’m just a totes retired not-pope, but allow me to impart My Apostolic Blessing.
The notion that Benedict really, truly, completely retired, retaining not a shred of the papacy, is absurd. And since a partial abdication is not possible, his Declaratio is therefore juridically null, reverting the situation to the status quo. This is true even if he has seemingly delegated the power of governance, as stated in Canon 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.” Benedict XVI is the one and only living pope, and has been since April 2005.
Battlespace awareness is critical to truly grasping what is happening here. Understanding the bigger picture of interconnected forces means going far beyond the tactical elements and individual breadcrumbs which have been provided for us.
Thank you to Ann Barnhardt for her contributions to this piece. The bigger picture is explained in great detail in Part Two of her Bergoglian Antipapacy video below. You don’t need to watch Part One first, as everything you need is contained in Part Two. For people risking their souls by being scandalized out of the Church because of the actions of a man who isn’t the pope… two hours of video is well worth your time.
Our Lady undoer of knots, pray for us.
I was a little lost at first, because I didn’t realize it was to be a votive Mass, and not the Mass of the Sunday. I knew something was up before it even started, because the color was violet. Also a little lost because it was High Mass, and I still have trouble navigating, as I’ve only attended maybe a dozen times. I don’t always keep up with the choir overlapping with whatever is happening at the altar. Funny, the ten year old girl with Down Syndrome sitting next to me, with a hand missal, didn’t skip a beat.
It turns out the Mass they used today was the Mass for the Conversion of Pagans. In older missals it is called Mass Against the Heathen. Which sounds particularly awesome.
I am traveling and don’t have my missal, and I can’ find the Mass propers for the votive online. If someone could paste them in the combox, I will update the post.
The sermon was mostly excellent, by the way. Except at the end, where he concluded that it was wrong speculate who might be pope. “It’s not our place. We just have to pray for the pope.”
Yes, of course we should pray for him. And Bergoglio too.
Surely by now, everyone reading this space has purchased their copy of (now archbishop) J. Michael Miller’s The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development and Mission of the Papacy. This book was published in 1995 by Our Sunday Visitor, and is an expansion on +Miller’s 1979 doctoral thesis, which the Gregorianum published in 1980 under the title, The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology.
Chapter 16 of this book is titled: “Facing the Future: 21 Theses on the Papal Ministry”
What might the future hold, in terms of the form and function of the Papal Ministry? Turn to page 357:
Thesis 14: In order to fulfill its specific mission, the Petrine ministry has assumed many different forms in the past and will continue to do so in the future
Because the people of God are on a pilgrimage, the pope must have the freedom to respond to new challenges, thereby revealing new facets of the Petrine ministry. We must be on guard, therefore, lest we too quickly identify contingent forms with what is dogmatically essential to the papal office. (Do you see here how the ministry is obviously distinct from the office?)
Miller immediately goes on to support this thesis with a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF at the time:
“The Petrine ministry…while preserving its substance as a divine institution, can find expressions in various ways according to the different circumstances of time and place.” -Cardinal Ratzinger (as Prefect of the CDF), Communionis Notio, 28 May 1992, P.18
From the Latin: “quodque, salva substantia divina institutione definita, diversimode pro varietate locorum et temporum se manifestare potest”
I looked up the source, and indeed it is an official document of the CDF, signed by Ratzinger:
The topic at hand, obviously, is the possibility of changing the structure of the papacy, to meet the varying needs of the Church and its members, while maintaining the essential nature of the office. This was Ratzinger’s dream, to somehow overcome the Petrine stumbling block for the sake of unity. And if changing the structure of the Petrine ministry was necessary, he was open to it.
Back to the Miller book, page 358:
Ratzinger admits that “without a doubt there have been misguided developments in both theology and practice where the primacy is concerned.” A particular way of exercising the primacy might well have been the pope’s duty for the Church’s welfare at one time, without its being so in the future. In the words of Hermann Pottmeyer, “the present juridical and organizational form of the office of Peter is neither the best imaginable nor the only possible realization.”
Now let’s take a look at Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1997 book-length interview with Peter Seewald, Salt of the Earth:
Seewald: “Do you think that the papacy will remain as it is?”
++Ratzinger: “In its core it will remain. In other words, a man is needed to be the successor of Peter and to bear a personal final authority that is supported collegially. Part of Christianity is a personalistic principle; it doesn’t get vaporized into anonymities but presents itself in the person of the priest, of the bishop, and the unity of the universal Church once again has a personal expression. This will remain, the magisterial responsibility for the unity of the Church, her faith, and her morals that was defined by Vatican I and II. Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change, when hitherto separated communities enter into unity with the Pope. By the way, the present Pope’s (JPII) exercise of the pontificate—with the trips around the world—is completely different from that of Pius XII. What concrete variations emerge I neither can nor want to imagine. We can’t foresee now exactly how that will look.”
Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, Peter Seewald book-length interview, 1997, page 257
“I neither can nor want to imagine.” Oh man, how unknowingly prophetic is that? Then again, if you self-fulfill your own prophesy, is that cheating? “Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change”
He’s not exactly on the fence about it, is he?
Now let’s move to the following year, and another document written by Cardinal Ratzinger in his official role as Prefect of the CDF, The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, 18 November 1998:
At this moment in the Church’s life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation”…
“The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing”.44 For this reason too, the immutable nature of the primacy of Peter’s Successor has historically been expressed in different forms of exercise appropriate to the situation of a pilgrim Church in this changing world…The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit’s voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.
Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff…(ahem, you mean like delegating the Governance role without relinquishing the Office, per Canon 131.1?)
In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church’s concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,Prefect, CDF, Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church (published in L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 18 November 1998, page 5-6) HERE
But wait! There’s more:
It’s 2008 and Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. This collection of essays, in various forms, goes back to 1987. The 2008 edition was translated by our new friend, Archbishop Miller. Turn straight to page 38 to read Benedict waxing poetic about the idea of not one, not two, but THREE members in an expanded Petrine ministry. He literally uses the term “papal troika.”
Talk about shifting the Overton Window. How about having a book published after you’ve become pope, introducing the radical idea of a papal troika as being plausible, and then pulling back to the slightly less radical idea of a diarchy, making the latter seem positively moderate by comparison.
But remember, there is absolutely zero evidence that Pope Benedict ever once, even for a moment, considered the idea of altering the structure of the papacy, you stupid layperson.
My comment: “Charlie, with respect, I guess that depends on whether you believe in objective reality. The evil one hates objective reality, being the Father of Lies and all that. We are called to seek reality by assenting to revealed truths and by acknowledging observable data through our rational intellect.
“Let’s set aside the entirety of canon law for a moment, and simply consider the observable facts. Benedict didn’t resign the Office, neither in the original Latin declaratio, nor in his spoken word as he delivered it in Latin (video easily searchable). Then he created a number of peculiar novelties specific to his “new role”, and even lied about some of them, e.g. “No other clothes were available.” He continues to be addressed as His Holiness and continues to do things that only popes do, like go by his papal name and impart his apostolic blessing. The situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of the Church. There is tremendous confusion, souls are at risk, and people are losing their faith over this (or rather, what has been born of this).
“Let’s go back to his not resigning the office, but only the active ministry. If that happened, which it did, or rather it’s what he tried to do, the effect would be that he resigned none of it (per Canon 332.2). Whether he intended to split the papacy, or he intended to retain the whole thing, the effect is the same. But we don’t even need to explore intent. He didn’t resign the office; that’s the ontological reality. Neither cardinals nor anyone else has the power/jurisdiction to “accept” a pope’s resignation (also per Canon 332.2). Their acceptance of it, or willingness to go along, has zero effect on ontological reality. And so, the conclave they convoked was invalid (per Canon 359).
“Reality is not determined by popular vote, otherwise Arianism would be a matter of dogmatic certainty.”