In a recent interview with German journalist Paul Badde (writing for Bergoglian News Agency), Archbishop Gänswein was asked to clarify remarks made in his presentation of 20 May 2016 concerning the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI.
The Prefect of the Papal Household and personal secretary to the would-be Pope Contemplatus stood by his previous remarks.
Badde informed the archbishop that a number of Cardinals are “upset when hearing that the Church currently has two living successors to Peter.”
[NOTE: Who are these “upset” cardinals, and why are they in hiding? A rhetorical question as they are hirelings indeed.]
Badde then asked, “Recently you spoke about an ‘expanded’ Petrine office, that Pope Benedict is said to have introduced. Could you explain that a bit further?”
I saw from among the reactions that I was imputed to have said a number of things that I did not say. Of course, Pope Francis is the legitimate and legitimately elected pope. Any talk of two popes, one legitimate, one illegitimate, is therefore incorrect.
This is a straw man.
No one, as far as I am aware, has ever claimed that Gänswein said that either Francis or Benedict is illegitimate.
What he was asked to “explain a bit further” are his remarks concerning the “expanded” Petrine ministry that now allegedly has both “an active member and a contemplative member.”
The only potentially useful explanation Gänswein gave, however, was to say:
“You have to use common sense, faith, and a bit of theology. Then you have no trouble at all understanding what I have said correctly.” [A direct translation of the original German copy with help from my friend Dom Laurentius.]
So, what conclusions would any Catholic in any age draw upon applying “common sense, faith, and a bit of theology” to the idea of a “profoundly and permanently transformed papal ministry” that has been “expanded” into a “quasi-shared ministry” that has “a collegial and synodal dimension”?
There can be no doubt whatsoever that such a person would conclude that even if a pope were to declare as much that this simply is not possible; no more than it is possible for a pope to expand the Blessed Trinity to include another member.
Are there any among those Catholic commentators now claiming that we must defer to history, or to a future pope, in order to rightly judge the present circumstances, who would deny that they would have immediately drawn the very same conclusion if confronted with this scenario even one hour before Benedict issued his Declaratio of 11 February 2013?
Of course not. What, one wonders, has changed?
In any case, the more one ponders this unprecedented fiasco, the more it appears as if Benedict and Gänswein are playing a twisted game of “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Could it be that Benedict fancies himself Christlike for attempting to deceive the wolves, albeit misguidedly so?
And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.” (Mark 4:10-12)
This entire affair, from day one, has been presented to the world in the form of a glorified riddle.
Consider, for instance, that Benedict issued his Declaratio in Latin.
Sure, one would have expected the official text to be in Latin, but how many of the cardinals present as he spoke understood what he had to say? I dare say precious few. So why not make a vernacular announcement that could be easily understood?
These questions aside, upon examining the Latin text, there were those relatively few “with ears to hear” who spoke up almost immediately; e.g., Professor Stefano Violi and journalist Antonio Socci.
Recall as well the letter that Benedict sent to journalist Andrea Tornielli in February 2014 wherein he stated:
“I continue to wear a white cassock and kept the name Benedict for purely practical reasons. At the moment of my resignation there were no other cloths available.”
Seriously? Rome has more black cassocks per capita than any other city on the planet!
At this, the number of those with ears to hear expanded considerably, as one could not possibly help but conclude that this was Benedict’s clever way of confirming that something more profound is afoot; something he does not feel at liberty to discuss openly.
Fast forward to 20 May 2016: Archbishop Gänswein confirmed it plainly:
“Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock.”
Regardless of the position one takes today, all concerned should have no difficulty whatsoever acknowledging that subterfuge has been a part of Benedict’s plan from the very day he made his historic announcement.
One naturally wonders why this is so.
While no one other than Benedict, presumably Gänswein, and perhaps a small number of others can say with certainty, one thing all of us know is that deception such as this is not of God.
But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. (Matthew 5:7).
My friends, we are living through a pivotal moment in the life of the Church, and it is entirely appropriate on at least one level to speak of the judgment of history:
When future generations of Catholics look back on those in our day who refused to condemn as evil Benedict’s deception; failed to reject as impossible the terms of his resignation such as they’ve been revealed (even George Weigel has done this), and refrained from denouncing the conclave that followed, they will not do so kindly; nor should they.
After all, it only takes “common sense, faith, and a bit of theology.”
Yogi Berra said it better: “I didn’t say everything I said.”
“Are you saying I’m being deceived? I’m not saying anything. I did not say anything then and I’m not saying anything now.” -Babylon 5, In the Beginning
Man I just can’t stand reporters or interviewers today!
Why no cross examination?
Why do they never bother to dig or point out that obviously they are dodging the precise question?
Nobody does a damn thing! And the ones that would do so are kept from doing it!
Perhaps Catholics need to take a page out from the citizen journalists that run independently to get in front of their faces with a microphone or camera on the street and hound them. They might just slink away like dogs, but if there are enough brave young men and women out there confronting Bilderberg and the like, then why no underground Catholic media?
Michael Voris at least tired on occasions.
“If I had something to say, which I don’t, my only comment would be ‘No comment’, but please don’t quote me on that.” – A.C. Smith, former British cricket manager.
If 10% of the world’s poulation knows what Bilderberg is, then id say maybe 5% of those people know what real Catholicism is. Basically there arent enough people who care about our Church who are ALSO hard hitting journalists.
Our modernist hirelings wouldn’t know common sense, faith or theology if they tripped on it.
So are you saying Francis is a false pope?
Louie, I am a big fan of yours, however, Father Paul Kramer has posted this several times. Benedict was forced out. This comes directly from officials inside the Vatican. Benedict is not working with Bergoglio, at all. The two are opposed to each other. Remember, Benedict has said nothing for 3 1/2 years. Zero! The only way to confirm your thesis, or have it rejected, is to get an on camera interview with Benedict, without his minder(overseer), Ganswain, around. Ganswain is no friend of Benedict’s. He most likely is a freemason. There is a good chance Benedict is being drugged. The only way to know for sure, is for someone(Louie) to get a private on camera interview with Benedict. Maurizio Blondet, published the real reason, last September, on why Benedict stepped down. The P2 Lodge of Freemasonry in Italy, one of the most powerful of all lodges, along with their allies, the Rothschild Jews of London, closed down the Vatican Bank, 2 months before Benedict’s resignation. They told Benedict and others, it would not be allowed to have access to the international SWIFT system, until Benedict was gone. If you are not allowed on the Swift system, there is no way to conduct business transactions, and no way to pay employees. Fortunately, China and Russia have created their own version of SWIFT. Our Lord is keeping Benedict their for a reason, and we have to suck it up buttercup, and be patient, and continue our prayers for His Church.
I echo Louis’ Note: Where are these “upset” Cardinals? I only shake my head in despair when I read of people stating that at some point conservative Cardinals and Bishops are going to stand up and demand an accounting from Bergoglio. To those people I have a nice bridge to sell them in the Florida everglades. From whence will arise these stalwart prelates? The ones who sit at attention at his Santa Casa Marta assemblies while he intones his blasphemies? The Bishops who pollute their Diocesan newsletters with paeans to the Joy of Adultery? I fear that is not fertile ground for rebellion.
Something is triggering my memory regarding the Last Days and two Popes reigning at the same time. I think this is contained the Fatima Prophecies.
Perhaps that’s where we stand today.
Benedict was suspected of heresy by Pope Pius XII back when francis was a teenager.
With every passing day, we can see why lightning struck St. Peter’s twice, 3+ years ago…actually, it was the last time there was any supernatural light in or around the Vatican, which is now submerged in the darkness of Bergoglio.
“why lightning struck St. Peter’s twice”
One strike for each Pope.
Probably Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
Sorry for the multiple posts. A quote from “Pope” Francis: “And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err. He made a medicine for the Church…”. You can read the entire article at Barnhardt.biz.
Is that the same interview where he said we have to forgive homosexuals for “marginalizing” them? I lose track.
Too bad someone could’nt make a medicine for Francis…one which numbed his mouth to the point of not being able to open it.
Try dropping a tube of superglue into the collection basket with a note to forward it to Rome so Jorge can glue his mouth shut.
Sounds like a good idea to me! If he would only SHUT UP!!!!! We could all use a break from his idiocy!
“Hidden in plain sight” is the motto of the freemason.
Yes, Louie, as you have said, they are telling us all the time what they are doing. We only must have ears to hear, as you say.
“Benedict and Gänswein are playing a twisted game of “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.””
Keeping the name POPE (Emeritus) Benedict XVI.
Francis, BISHOP of Rome.
They have been telling us all throughout these 3 1/2 years. Are we listening?
Hidden in plain sight. Think like a freemason.
Right in front of us the whole time.
“In a few words I would like to show you how much the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, in this painful crisis that the Church is going through, should be our guide and our model. With her we are certain not to go astray. We shall look to her, we shall ask her what she did during the course of her life, what she has to teach us, and we shall see that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary teaches us just what the Church has taught us ever since, in the course of twenty centuries.
The first element that concerns the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, and that announces her, is found in the protogospel, in Genesis, where already Mary is presented as a queen going forth to battle, as the queen of hosts, queen of armies, who gathers about herself all the forces of God, all the graces of God, and this to fight. To fight whom? To fight what? To fight the devil.
It is God Himself who announces this to the devil: “I shall place between thee – the devil, Satan – and the Virgin Mary an enmity.” So the Virgin has an enemy. And not only an enmity between the Virgin Mary and Satan, but an enmity between the progeny of Satan and the progeny of Mary; between the world, between everything represented by those of Satan, by those who are the children of Satan, by those who struggle against God, who detest God and the Son of Mary, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and all those who will be the children of the Virgin Mary.
There are then, by the will of God, two armies in the world: an army of the children of the Virgin Mary, and an army of the children of Satan. And between them, God has placed an enmity, an enmity that will last until the end of time, until the end of the world. Consequently, the Virgin Mary, already, before being born, promised by God, draws us into a combat, into her combat, into the combat which will lead her to victory. A combat, however, which, alas, will often be waged in painful, in difficult, and in trying periods. But if we follow the Virgin Mary we are sure with her to achieve victory.
This victory that the Virgin Mary desires is a victory against Satan and, consequently, against sin. The Virgin Mary is the symbol of those who do not want to sin, who do not want to disobey God. This is the battle that the Virgin Mary is going to wage through the ages. So it is a great lesson that God gives us in announcing the birth of His Mother, in announcing that we shall have a Mother, a heavenly Mother, a Mother who will do battle. So we shall do battle together with her and we must do battle against the common enemy – Satan, and all those who with Satan are against God.”
Dear mpoulin: This is a capital idea. However, before gluing his mouth shut, I would also recommend pouring some molten lead in, so that his entrails might burst and spill out, as happened with his master, Judas Iscariot.
mpoulin–rumor has it that this was done. However, it was mistakenly sent to Burke. Now he is addicted and uses it every day. Sometimes he shares it with his friends–the other “good” bishops. Explains the silence, doesn’t it???
Forgive my slowness, but what exactly is Louie saying is the ‘real message’ that Benedict and Gänswein are communicating for those with ‘eyes to see…’?
The message is that Pope Benedict XVI (even with all his acknowledged public errors in the faith) has been and still is the pope, whereas, Jorge Bergoglio is only a bishop, cardinal, at best, but NOT the pope.
Of course, rich and all others who take the sedevacantist position will not agree that either one is the pope.
But this, I think, is not only Louie’s message, but Ganwein’s as well.
Since freemasons speak with forked tongues, we have to figure out their riddles to find the truth which is always “hidden in plain sight.”
Dear Servant of Our Lady, I truly hope your take is correct, just viewed another photo of a rare appearance of BVXI with Jorge today and read some complimentary remarks from Pope BVXI about Jorge’s papacy…..it seems we aren’t reading between the lines quite correctly. Our beloved Pope Benedict has been drinking the Cool Aid or maybe it’s in the water supply in Rome. I really feel like I’ve totally entered the twilight zone. Not losing Faith because I know we have Our Lady’s Promises and remedies but I don’t think I could ever have remotely imagined what we are seeing before our very eyes.
Thank you for your response SOL.
The follow up question(s):
To what end are they trying to communicate for those ‘who see’? To communicate duress (to the remnant faithful)?
And if so, why does Louie so severely chastise Benedict’s hidden plea of duress as evil deception?
Perhaps Louie doesn’t believe that it’s duress that is being communicated but rather that Benedict is party to some nefarious destruction of the Papacy itself, posing as the ‘orthodox’ dialectic to the ‘liberal’ Bergoglio?
STOP THE PRESSES!
We can now confirm that Benedict XVI is on board with the Francis Revolution!
On Tuesday, Benedict XVI gave his second public speech since his final day as Pope, expressing gratitude for a lengthy priesthood and for Pope Francis’ “goodness,” which he said moves him deeply.
Speaking to Pope Francis and members of the College of Cardinals gathered inside the Vatican’s small Clementine Hall for the 65th anniversary of his priestly ordination, Benedict said the Greek word “Efkaristomen” (let us give thanks), expresses “all that there is to say” for the occasion.
“Thank you, thank you everyone! Thank you Holy Father – your goodness, from the first day of your election, every day of my life here moves me interiorly, brings me inwardly more than the Vatican Gardens.”
“Your goodness is a place in which I feel protected,” he said, and voiced his hope that Francis would be able to “move forward with all of us on this path of Divine Mercy, showing Jesus’ path to God.”
Benedict XVI on a ‘Transubstantiation of the World.’
Benedict then returned to the word Efkaristomen, which he recalled a fellow priest ordained on the same day had written on the memorial card for his first Mass.
This word, he said, hints not only at “the dimensions of human thanksgiving,” but also “the deepest word that is hidden,” and which appears in both the liturgy and Scripture in the expression “gratias agens benedixit fregit deditque,” meaning “having given thanks, he broke it and gave it.”
“Efkaristomen sends us again to that reality of thanksgiving, to that new dimension that Christ has given,” Benedict said, explaining that Jesus has transformed into thanksgiving “the cross, suffering and all of the evil in the world.”
In doing so, Jesus “fundamentally transubstantiated” life and the world, he said, adding that the Lord both has given and continues to give us daily “the bread of true life, which overcomes the world thanks to the strength of his love.”
Benedict closed his address by expressing his hope that all would, with the help of God, help in the “transubstantiation of the world: that it be a world not of death, but of life; a world in which love has overcome death.”
So now, the world and everything in itself has been ‘transubstantiated’ and therefore I guess the Eucharist ceases to be anything remarkable, right?
Interesting use of words, “deepest” “hidden” “He broke it”, something deep and hidden being broken in two portions?
So the world can be transubstantiated and broken?
Can then the Papacy also be ‘transubstantiated’, changed integrally while retaining an outward appearance, and then broken?
Maybe I’m just going mental and reading too much into it no? Or maybe that because masons. modernists and the like are the worth of love putting deeper, hidden meanings into everyday phrases that they cease to mean what they commonly mean and hiddingly mean what the speaker intends?
You are on the right track Johnno….check out Larson’s excellent articles to gain a greater understanding of what is happening with regard to Benedict vis-a-vis Francis.
Thanks for pointing this out. Looks like ol’Benny still is joined to the same errors as before.
I never did buy the line that Benedict’s decision to resign was one made freely.
The excuse given for the resignation at the time was Benedict’s health. The subplot being that his health could not withstand the rigours of the office. I can understand that. Great office brings great pressure. I can understand this axiom.
Irish theologian Father Vincent Twomey is a former pupil of Ratzinger. Each year there is a re-union of Ratzingers former pupil in Rome. Describing Benedict at August 2013 reunion, Father Twomey said that Benedict looked physically shattered in an Irish radio interview following the reunion.
In September 2014, following August 2014 reunion, interviewed again on Irish radio, Fr.Twomey described how he could not get over the apparent physical well being of Benedict at their recent reunion. Father Twomey said the contrast in Benedict’s appearance could not have been greater.
In June 2016, Benedict’s physical well being remains apparent
I don’t buy any explanation given by Gaenswein, Benedict or Bergolio.
I never thought I’d ever arrive at a point where I would doubt or refute assurances given by men of that rank.
We live in extraordinary times.
These men and others need to remember :
Matthew 10:26 and Luke 12:2.