We need to pray. Go to Mass. By all means, go to Confession.
As I posted on Monday, you can read about the orchestrated campaign for this dude here:
https://catholicvote.org/legacy-catholic-media-promote-cardinal-same-time-coincidence-or-campaign/
(Note this article was originally published two days before the death of Pope Benedict XVI)
I was very much taken with Ann Barnhardt’s recent discussion this Christmas about the parallels between the arrangement of the Jewish high priests at Christ’s execution, and that of Bergoglio and Pope Benedict XVI during this, their execution of authentic Catholicism. Her post is titled:
Myself, I could not help but dig deeper and follow this rabbit hole for a while. And so, I’ve recorded the following:
# # #
The online Jewish Encyclopedia only further bolsters what you’ve said this past week in regards to Annas, who at Christ’s time, was the true and recognized high priest, while Caiaphas was a Roman installment:
“Annas is the high priest who appears in the New Testament as holding this office along with Caiaphas, his son-in-law (Luke, iii. 2). In fact, one passage calls him plainly the high priest (Acts, iv. 6), while Caiaphas is merely a member of the hierarchic family. It is into Annas’ hands that Jesus is delivered for his first hearing, ere being sent to Caiaphas (John, xviii. 13), though in another passage (John, xi. 49, 51) Caiaphas is styled the high priest of that year. From these citations it is obvious that though Caiaphas was the properly appointed high priest, Annas, being his father-in-law and a former incumbent of the office, undoubtedly exercised a great deal of the power attached to the position. The use of the singular in the passage in Luke, in fact, is interpreted by Dr. Plummer as significant of this circumstance: ὲπὶ ἀρχιερέως ‘Αννα και καιάψα—”under the high priest Annas-Caiaphas,” which would mean “that between them they discharged the duties, or that each of them in different senses was regarded high priest, Annas de jure [Acts, iv. 6] and Caiaphas de facto” (John, xi. 49). Plummer’s further suggestion that Annas may have been encouraged, “so far as it was safe to do so, to ignore the Roman appointments and to continue in office during the high-priesthoods of his successors,” must be noted, particularly in view of the fact that government appointments to religious offices were always discountenanced by the Jews.
Ann, I was reflecting on your post this week about the parallels between the situation of Annas and Caiaphas with that of Pope Benedict and Bergoglio. Struck by the typological parallels, I dug into things a little further. And, well, I found it VERY interesting how John 18:24 describes how Annas delivered our Lord, bound up, into the fatal claws of Caiaphas:
“And Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas, the high priest.”
I think that in much the same way, the earthly Catholic Church was likely delivered, bound. The authentic Church has been restricted, tied up, and restrained thanks largely to Vatican II and the cheerleading modernist popes that came afterwards. Subdued, Catholicism was passed into the bitter, spiteful hands of our own “Caiaphas,” the Project-Gladio-deep-state-installed polytheist, Jorge Bergoglio. And like the Caiaphas, Bergoglio seeks a public humiliation of Catholicism before its final execution.
Furthermore, I found it very interesting that according to Talmud scholars, the “house of Annas” was regarded as wealthy and accursed, and he was considered one of a number of corrupted priests that characterized a whole generation of priests at that time.
“The character of the High-Priests during the whole of that period is described in the Talmud in terrible language. And although there is no evidence that “the house of Annas“ was guilty of the same gross self-indulgence, violence, luxury, and even public indecency, as some of their successors, they are included in the woes pronounced on the corrupt leaders of the priesthood, whom the Sanctuary is represented as bidding depart from the sacred precincts, which their presence defiled. It deserves notice, that the special sin with which the house of Annas charged is that of “whispering“ —or hissing like vipers—which seems to refer to private influence on the judges in their administration of justice, whereby “morals were corrupted, judgment perverted and the Shekinah withdrawn from Israel.“
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, by Alfred Edersheim, pg. 667
Certainly, it is true, that the current priesthood in Rome lives a hedonistic, opulent lifestyle. And isn’t it fascinating how Pope Benedict, also, is located in the middle of a gaggle of effeminate, gossipy, “hissing” corrupt priests who can’t seem to exact any kind of justice or clean out any corner of their districts?
The scholar Edersheim drives home the point that Annas, in all reality, was the likely true and recognized high-priest, while Caiaphas was a mere figurehead:
“But although the expression “High-Priest“ appears sometimes to have been used in a general sense, as designating the sons of the High-Priests, and even the principal members of their families, there could, of course, but only one actual High-Priest. The conjunction of the two names of Annas and Caiaphas probably indicates that, although Annas was deprived of the Pontificate, he still continued to preside over the Sanhedrin – a conclusion not only borne out by Acts iv. 6, where Annas appears as the actual President, and by the terms in which Caiaphas is spoken of, as merely ‘one of them,’ but by the part which Annas took in the final condemnation of Jesus.”
Even the duration of Annas and Pope Benedict XVI’s tenure are somewhat similar, Annas having reigned for 9 years, and Benedict reigning for 8 years.
This far down the rabbit hole, I only feel more confirmed about this parallel when I reflect on Emmerich’s remark of “I saw also the relationship between two popes,” Melanie of La Salette’s mention of the “two shaky, servile, doubtful popes,” or how Sr. Lucy at Fatima saw a doubled, mirror image of a pope figure in her vision, such that one was real, tangible, and legitimate, while the other was a fake, phantom copy.
But these things all said, I would not go so far as to say that Pope Benedict is exactly like Annas. The latter came from a wealthy family, but Ratzinger was born to a poorer family. Annas was unscrupulous according to Jewish historians, but Pope Benedict was always careful and deliberate. Annas was spiteful and cartoonishly hateful to our Lord, but Pope Benedict has not been like that at all. I say: give credit where credit is due in that regard.
Yet, certainly, the arrangement and political structure of these two popes is the same as that of the two high priests at Christ’s execution. There is no doubt about it. The Lord likes to have world move through time in a vaguely repeating spiral. Once more, we see that history and world events are typological. The great edifying lesson from these moments: it’s all planned, it all has an elegant structure, and the Lord Above it All can see it in its entirety from end to end.
From Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers back in 1981. Which is as long ago as 1981 was to 1937. Dang.
Keep praying, folks.
TLDR: On 14 Feb 1130, a small number of Cardinals assembled a Conclave in secret and elected Innocent II. Later that day, the full college assembled and elected (antipope) Anacletus II. While the first Conclave was obviously illicit and non-canonical, it yet produced a valid pope, backed by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church. Perhaps this is an option today, but they better hurry.
Above: St. Bernard supported the controversial conclave.
As Bishop Joseph Strickland has warned the cardinal-electors:
If a public heretic, or a man who is reasonably suspected of being a public heretic, receives sufficient votes, faithful cardinals have an obligation to refuse to accept the validity of his election…
Your Eminence, if a false pontiff is presented to the world as the pope, I fear that many more souls will be lost. All those cardinals who consent to his invalid election will share that responsibility with him.
In the face of such an imminent danger, is there truly nothing that can be done except to bemoan and bewail after the fait accompli?
I believe there is.
I believe that Church history provides us a solution—perhaps the only solution—to this desperate situation.
In the early hours of February 14, 1130, Pope Honorius died. A handful of cardinals fearing the election of a particular candidate who might sully the Bride of Christ, dispensed with canon law and elected one of their own as Pope without even informing the rest of the college that the current Pontiff was dead. The new Pope was consecrated in the Lateran Basilica and took the name “Innocent II.”
When the rest of the cardinals learned about these early morning machinations, they immediately held their own conclave that afternoon, electing and consecrating “Pope Anacletus II.” Anacletus received the support of the majority of cardinals, clergy and lay people of Rome and after fighting in the streets between supporters of both claimants, Innocent fled Rome. Anacletus, on the other hand ruled from Rome for eight years, excommunicating Innocent and his supporters. But Innocent found a powerful protector in St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the greatest figure of twelfth-century Europe. The Cistercian abbot was a one-man dynamo in the cause of restoring Innocent to the Chair of Peter. The saint coaxed and cajoled the King of France, the King of England, and the Holy Roman Emperor in Germany along with scores of bishops and abbots into supporting Innocent as the rightful Pope until, in the end, only the Norman King of Sicily maintained his allegiance to Anacletus.
In 1138, Anacletus died, and St. Bernard then managed to convince his Roman successor to step down in favor of Innocent. Innocent then proceeded to convoke an ecumenical council of the Church, the Second Lateran Council in which he declared Anacletus an antipope and annulled all his actions.
How can this long forgotten episode in Church history provide a solution to our own impending disaster? Simply this. If the secret conclave in violation of canon law which produced Innocent II was subsequently validated and approved—why can’t the good cardinals of the Church do the same thing today? Why shouldn’t Cardinals Burke, Sarah, Muller et al not hold their own preemptive conclave and announce one of their own as the new Pope “Pius XIII” in order to avert an apostate from becoming “Francis II”? Possession is 9/10 of the law. Will all the heterodox bishops and the fake news media cry “schism”? Of course they will. But if world leaders like President Trump, Xavier Milei of Argentina and Giorgia Meloni of Italy, as well as faithful media backed the Traditional Pope (as did the Kings of Christendom 900 years ago) all that would matter is that he ultimately prevails even if the struggle took years as it did in Innocent’s case. As doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Ligouri teaches:
It makes no difference that in past ages some Pope was illegitimately elected or fraudulently usurped the Pontificate. It is sufficient that he be afterwards accepted by the whole Church, for by such acceptance, he is made the true and legitimate Pontiff.[1]
[1] St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Verita Della Fede, Part III, Ch. VIII
https://onepeterfive.com/the-non-canonical-conclave-that-worked/
Happy Feast of Pope St. Pius V. His Collect is timely.
“It’s almost as if this prayer were pre-ordained by the Divine Providence for us, now, on May 5th, ARSH 2025, as we beg God for a True Pope who will restore the Church and crush her enemies.”
Now, consider this:
Cardinal Robert Prevost by Marco Iacobucci Epp / Shutterstock
VATICAN CITY // In the lead-up to the May 2025 papal conclave, a notable pattern has emerged across legacy and Catholic media outlets: a surge of favorable coverage framing U.S.-born Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost as a leading papal contender.
In the span of 36 hours, The New York Times, the National Catholic Reporter, England’s Catholic Herald, Crux, and The Pillar, all run highly positive profiles praising the alleged many virtues of American Cardinal Robert Prevost, former prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, presenting him as a frontrunner papabile.
This trend, visible in outlets spanning ideological spectrums, draws questions regarding its timing and selective emphasis amid unresolved questions about the cardinal’s handling of clerical misconduct cases.
The Catholic Herald, The Pillar, and Crux highlight Prevost’s administrative experience, including his role as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, where he advised Pope Francis on global bishop appointments. His decades of missionary work in Peru and reputation as a “moderate, balanced figure” are repeatedly cited, with The Pillar noting his “heart of a missionary” and “years of ministerial experience.” The New York Times and The National Catholic Reporter underscore his multilingual skills and perceived diplomatic tact, framing him as a bridge between ideological divides.
Another commonality among the articles is that while acknowledging abuse-related complaints, the pieces often contextualize them defensively.
For example, a significant Chicago case — involving an Agustinian priest placed near a school in 1999 when Cardinal Prevost was his superior — is described as occurring “before the US bishops adopted new standards in 2002,” with Cardinal Prevost’s approval framed as a “formality.”
Allegations in Peru, where three women accused priests of abuse under his oversight, are countered with claims that Cardinal Prevost “opened an initial canonical investigation” and cooperated with civil authorities. The Pillar and Crux also cast doubt on the credibility of accusers’ legal representation, noting their canon lawyer, Ricardo Coronado, was later defrocked for misconduct.
The media profiles position Cardinal Prevost as a “pragmatic successor” to Pope Francis, allegedly favoring institutional stability over “radical reform.” Crux argues a Cardinal Prevost papacy would maintain Pope Francis’ “substance” but with “more pragmatic, cautious and discreet” leadership, while NCR emphasizes his “interest in dialogue.”
Read the rest: https://catholicvote.org/legacy-catholic-media-promote-cardinal-same-time-coincidence-or-campaign/
GOSPEL John 10:11-16.
At that time, Jesus said to the Pharisees: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
“I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
“My own know me.” The sheep know what’s what.
Sovereignty was 20 lengths back at the half mile mark, exploded in the turn!
