Inés San Martín of Crux recently reported a claim alleging that Pope Benedict XVI “wanted Bergoglio as his Secretary of State.”
An Argentine priest [Father Fernando Miguens, the former rector of San Miguel Seminary in Argentina] who knew Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires prior to his election as Pope Francis claims that in 2005, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI offered Bergoglio the position of Secretary of State, effectively the second most important position in the Vatican after the papacy itself, but the future pontiff turned it down …
As San Martín notes, “this is the first time anyone has claimed Benedict wanted Bergoglio as his Secretary of State.”
Whether or not this claim is true is irrelevant. If it is, however, then surely Fr. Miguens would have had no reason to guard it as a well-kept secret for the past decade-and-a-half; in particular the most recent six-plus years.
So, why is Crux choosing to report it now?
As journalist Randy Engel has noted, “Crux news site [is] part of Opus Dei’s vast international outreach media machine;” the prelature having a reputation for being unabashedly pro-papacy. Inés San Martín, for her part, “earned her degree in journalism and social communications in part from Opus Dei’s flagship, the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain.”
As a review of San Martín’s page on the Crux website indicates, her specialty is “Covering the ‘Francis Effect’ in the Pope’s native land.” In other words, her job is to run defense for Jorge Bergoglio.
A perfect example of San Martín’s spin-mission can be found in her article of July 15 wherein she confronted Francis’ largely negative public approval ratings. She writes:
But scraping beneath the surface, another truth arises: None of those who so willingly gave an opinion on the pope have actually read anything he’s said, seen any of his monthly prayer videos or even follow him on Twitter.
She went on to address the so-called “Francis Effect” directly by quoting Father Jose Maria Klappenbach, an Opus Dei priest from Buenos Aires:
A common question is whether having an Argentine pope has produced a quantitative effect in reception of the Sacraments in Argentina … Klappenbach say[s] that even though impact on Mass attendance cannot be measured yet, there has been a change in the way the Church is perceived.
“I always say that any baptized person, as a son of God, is as Catholic as I am, even if they don’t practice their faith,” Klappenbach said. “And those people today, feel they belong to the Church more than they did before. There’s no statistic to measure that, but I believe God has a way to do so.”
In other words: Who cares if anyone goes to confession, shows up for Mass, or marries in the Church? Parishes may be closing left and right and dioceses may be going broke, but hey, more people feel Catholic in spite of their unbelief thanks to Jorge!
At this, it seems rather clear that the reason Inés San Martín and Crux have chosen to publish Fr. Miguens’ claim that “Benedict XVI offered Bergoglio the position of Secretary of State” is to lend some CCC (that is, Conservative Catholic Credibility) to the latter at a time when he is coming under increasing fire; e.g., for his relentless assault on Catholic doctrine, his role in covering for homo-clerics, and his designs for the upcoming Amazonian Synod.
San Martín practically admits as much, writing:
Almost from the beginning of Francis’s papacy in 2013, the popular narrative has suggested a tension between Benedict the arch-conservative and Francis the progressive reformer. In reality, sources who know Bergoglio say the two men enjoyed a deep personal respect.
“I had heard from him [Bergoglio] that the relationship between them was unsurpassable, that it was personal,” a former aide, who today works in the private sector told Crux.
“Whenever the cardinal was in Rome, he would go to Benedict’s office almost without requesting an audience, which was confirmed to me by several Rome-based journalists.”
The two would speak on the phone regularly, even once a month at times, another source confirmed.
Though San Martín is obviously keen to demonstrate continuity between Benedict and Bergoglio in an attempt to fortify the bona fides of the latter, what she inadvertently ends up doing is exposing both men as co-conspirators in the present, and unprecedented, assault on the Catholic faith.
She went on to write:
The fact that Bergoglio was the runner-up in the 2005 conclave that elected Benedict is well-documented, as is the fact that the then-Argentine cardinal told those who were propelling his candidacy, without his encouragement, that he supported Ratzinger for pope.
Notice that, in spite of the oath of secrecy that binds the participants in a papal conclave under pain of excommunication, San Martín – like many other Catholic journalists – has no issue reporting such details as “fact.” One reason, it appears, is that Jorge himself has seen fit to spill the beans; even going so far as to allow them to be published in L’Osservatore Romano.
At this, consider very carefully what Benedict stated of his so-called resignation in the 2016 book, Last Testament: In His Own Words.
It was not a retirement made under the pressure of events or a flight made due to the incapacity to face them. [Emphasis added]
Wait just a minute! In his Declaratio of 11 February 2013, he plainly stated:
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 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. [Emphasis added]
So, which is it? Was his departure necessary “due to incapacity” relative to unnamed “events” or not?
Look, if you wish to hang your hat on Benedict’s words, by all means have at it, but please don’t embarrass yourself by suggesting that his words put the matter of his supposed resignation to rest when, in fact, the exact opposite is true!
If Benedict hasn’t raised enough red flags already, get this. After having stated in his book, “Practical governance is not my strong point and this is certainly a weakness,” Benedict went on to say of Francis:
He was an archbishop for a long time, he knows the trade. He was a superior of Jesuits and has the ability to put his hands to action in an organized way. I knew that this was not my strong point.
OK, so he knew that organized action wasn’t his strength. Fair enough, but doesn’t his manner of speaking suggest that Benedict knew for whom he was stepping aside; namely, this Jesuit who supposedly had just such an ability?
It certainly sounds that way to me. At another point, Benedict says of Bergoglio’s election:
No one expected him. I knew him, naturally, but I did not think of him. In this sense it was a big surprise. I did not think that he was in the select group of candidates.
Seriously? It is a “well-documented fact that Bergoglio was the runner-up in the 2005 conclave that elected Benedict,” and yet “no one expected him” in 2013?
Based on all that has been said, it is a matter of moral certainty that Benedict XVI did not “resign” for the reasons given in the Declaratio; this based not on conjecture or mere speculation, but on the plain and objective meaning of his very own words.
It is also a practical certainty that he stepped aside (in whatever sense he may have intended to do so, whether reluctantly or not) knowing full well that he was making room for the ascendancy of Jorge Bergoglio.
In conclusion, I will close with what I consider to be matters of absolute certainty that are readily discernible to all with eyes to see:
Jorge Bergoglio is not Catholic. He is an enemy of Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church; a man whose claim to the Chair of St. Peter, albeit dubious in the extreme, was made possible only with the cooperation of Benedict XVI.
For the same reasons that Bergoglio is not a Catholic and is an enemy of the Catholic Church, so are Ratzinger, Wojtyla, Montini, and Roncalli. The claim to the Chair of St Peter by these fakes was made possible by the soft stance taken against modernists after Pope St Pius X.
While reading this article, John the Baptist’s proclaiming: i must decrease and He (our Holy Lord Jesus the Christ) must increase.
The complete opposite, Ratzinger decreased to allow an anti-Christ to increase.
John the Baptist was clear about his position: he was not worthy to untie our Lord Jesus’ sandals. Oppositly, Ratzinger’s behavior has caused much confusion and heated debates among Catholics.
Jesus Is The Truth. The Vatican II revolt produced documents of lies, covered in a veneer of ambiguity. Karol Wojtyla’s 1986 meeting at Assissi, where he worshipped with numerous sects of demonic creatures, was revealing. False Francis’ many evils are so dark and destructive against the faithful, that Wojtyla’s fraudulent cloak of humanism can not cover them.
Jesus Is The Truth, almighty God bless the faithful.
There is no way to reconcile Bergolio’s words and actions with Catholicism. He promotes a different faith altogether, and his plans for the Amazon Synod take it to the sphere of the ridiculous, and Satanic to boot.
Most Catholics appear ready to accept anything that comes to them on Sundays, whatever it is, whether or not it is Catholicism, they seem ready. I just read a study where only about 50% of Catholics could explain transubstantiation, so I suppose there is the reason most Catholics are sleepwalking through this demonic papacy and just don’t get it. It is not on their radar or they are deficiently catechized.
We were told to consider anathema anyone who preached a different gospel, and what Francis promotes is completely different from the gospel and Catholic teaching and practice. Therefore he is anathema, and we don’t feel the need for a bishop or Cardinal to “call it”, any longer. As it turns out our sense of spiritual discernment and use of reason and logic was sufficient. We have the TLM but many don’t. It is much harder for those Catholics.
Benedict has been saying a lot of contradictory things. This makes him highly suspect, unlike Francis, who usually means what he says, unless he’s lying to a sucker.
Dubias should be presented to Benedict about a good many things before we bother with Francis.
Benedict needs to be grilled before an international press conference, just like that doddering wimp Robert Mueller and his fake Trump/Russia collusion fairy tail, which is obvious to all now that given his memory, he’s either getting senile or he never wrote any of it in the first place. Just a chump following orders according to script.
Are Benedict and/or Francis also chumps following scripted orders?
Is the Papacy about as useful a figurehead position as the U.S. Presidency?
To my way of thinking, the “catholic” church (post V2) is nothing more than a corporation of evil CEOs who don’t know the meaning of the word TRUTH, nor do they proclaim the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Who is TRUTH). What does it matter who is where on the corporate ladder or how he got there? For AKA Catholics, it might not matter. However, Louie and those who open the eyes of the Faithful must be thanked. TRUTH matters!
Even if Benedict was grilled, and he again said unequivocally that he resigned the papacy, those that believe he is (still) pope will not believe him. They will make up some excuse for why he really didn’t mean it, was pressured not to tell the truth, etc. etc.
Exactly. Whether Ratzinger truly resigned or not is what’s irrelevant.
Evangeline,
Very well stated. We have grown through the Holy Word, we know the voice of our Good Shepherd, Jesus.
False Francis’ is strange, to we faithful.
.
Almighty God strengthen the faith of your children.
“Jorge Bergoglio is not Catholic.”
Neither is B16.
^ veritas.
V II popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI were material heretics (JP I, excepted), who were all elected after the Revolutionaries captured the flag, and shoved the Church into eclipse (Our Lady of LaSalette).
Bergoglio on 02-13 (6) -2013 (6) the (6)’th post conciliar pope, is the formal heretic ushering the age of the False Prophet and the Antichrist.
I refer all who are interested and have the time to critically delve in depth at the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, and look closely at all his writings from when he was Fr Ratzinger until he was elected Pope, to the Website WarAgainstBeing.com. You will realize that Ratzinger was the conservative façade of the revolution, and was no less of a material heretic, in fact was the most visible Architect of the Revolution and the shrewdest modernist of the whole bunch!
In the very End, we are left with only two weapons, as Our Blessed Mother forewarned: “The Rosary and the Sign of my Son”.
May Our Most Merciful Triune God shorten these days and bring us to Everlasting Life.
“It seems to me that in the theme of divine mercy is expressed in a new way what is meant by justification by faith. Starting from the mercy of God, which everyone is looking for, it is possible even today to interpret anew the fundamental nucleus of the doctrine of justification, and have it appear again in all its relevance.” (Benedict XVI)
We see here an example of the blasphemy of universal salvation. Ratzinger and Wojtyla were, in my view, the pointmen for the propagation of this atrocity, with Wojtyla being the more effective of the two. Thank you, VeniSSancto, for the link to waragainstbeing.com. I encourage all to visit it. God bless you.
Louie, thank you for your blog posts. I notice that since you re-opened your com box, it’s become an echo chamber of sorts. So sorry because it used to be a place to come for sometimes biting yet mostly helpful information for truth seekers. Anymore it doesn’t seem to have room for discussion but only piranha-like piles on by regulars should an unsuspecting passerby have the audacity to disturb the reverberations of the echoers. And no, a person doesn’t have to comment or even read the comments. It is merely a nostalgic observation of a one time passerby.
Please do share examples of these so-called “pile-ons”. I have yet to see one since the combox was reopened. Or is it more likely that you just don’t like what many of the commenters are saying?
2V, I echo your sentiments entirely!
Does complimenting a fellow blogger for making edifying comments and/or for providing website links to rock-solid Catholic material constitute examples of “echo effect” activity? If not, then what DOES?
Concerned Commentator must be confused, the “echo chambers” are on Remnant, CM, and 1P5 sites.
lol
@Tom A, I’ve been banned from CM; so I agree with your estimate of echo chambers. You might consider adding this one to the bunch. @2V: Case in point of pile-on–I just tipped my toe into y’alls pool of smiling, piranha-like jowls and look who bites? You, Tom, MMF, and Fr Monk. Go figure.
We’re Catholics here, ConcernedCommenter, and that means that we temper our comments—including the ones addressed to you—with charity.
Temper…as in tantrum, MMF? Lol
Did anyone see Michelle Malkins’ talk at WeBuildtheWall Symposium that occurred this last weekend in Sunland Park, TX? We know the USCCB is corrupt, but Mrs Malkin comes on strong with the facts of the matter. My question to you all is: Is she Catholic enough for this echo chamber? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OJGgmZuAKA
No Tom, just you and your rabid sedevacantist side-kick, 2Vermont, are being called out again for your pack-like behaviour again.
MMF,
Bewsre–TomA, and 2 Vermont are self described rabid Sedevacantists, and therefore have left the barque of Peter which puts them outside the Church.
They are starving out there, so they come here looking for scraps and will attempt to pull anyone into their void.
Aw, poor Fleur.
Ah, Concerned Commenter is playing the victim now. That was predictable. What happened here was you made an accusation that was false, and we challenged it. Here’s some advice: don’t make false accusations.
Beware all: fleur and concerned commenter are purposely stirring the pot here, so they can then tell Louie he should shut down combox again or to ban sedevacantists or those sympathetic to the sedevacantist thesis. Things were peaceful here until they showed up.
The above comments between 2Vt, CC, fluer, and myself prove that this combox is many things, but echo chamber is not one of them. For that we have Louie to thank since he allows all respectful debate no matter the position held.
You do the devils bidding (or stirring) 2V — stop pretending you’re here to offer anything of Truth, as you belong to the devil and his camp–the Sedevacantists, who are the worst kind if Protestants, as they tear down rather than build up.
They (you) live in that darkness and will prove it by your wailing and gnashing after any fraternal correction.
But your parroting to TomA is not nearly as dangerous to the faith than are his clever postings. Just a wee bit of Sedevacantist arsenic per-post will do to unsuspecting readers real spiritual harm.
So, you have my prayers, because I’m Catholic.
You just continue to prove my point.
Thank you for posting this, mmf. This is the crux of the entire apostasy in which we find ourselves, not the liturgy, but the foundational doctrines of the Catholic Church. Christ founded His Church for the salvation of souls. Everything else pales in comparison.
2Vt, their loyalty to the institutional structures outweigh the loyalty to the Faith demanded of them by Divine Law.
That is why the ad hominem attacks appear when we attack the institution. They never get upset when the Faith is compromised.
Amen. We are to flee from enemies of God and the Holy Faith, flee and never look back. God’s enemies rule the temporal institutions that claim to run the Church. God grant us the graces to resist the constant, ubiquitous pressure to compromise, cooperate with public unrepentant sin, heresy, apostasy, the diabolic. Viva Cristo Rey!
Amen. We are to flee from enemies of God and the Holy Faith, flee and never look back. God’s enemies rule the temporal institutions that claim to run the Church. God grant us the graces to resist the constant, ubiquitous pressure to compromise, cooperate with public unrepentant sin, heresy, apostasy, the diabolic. Viva Cristo Rey!
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.
Though clouded in affable deceit, ultimately the conciliarist’s behavior betrays his intent. Mores mente hominis traditur.
I would like to know which other websites, besides Church Militant and Crux are Opus Dei. Thanks for a good article and info.
So, any response to WeBuildtheWall and Mrs. Malkin’s outstanding research on what TomA surely refers to as, those “institutional structures”. Did any of you all watch the video?
In case you didn’t here is the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OJGgmZuAKA
” …only about 50% of Catholics could explain transubstantiation”. WHAT? That many?! I thought it was more like 0%. Can you “explain” it? Do you mean ‘define’ — state what it is? Maybe you are just quoting the study so the choice of words is not yours. Please cite the study so we can go and bop them on the nose — well, ask them to __explain__ themselves.
Thanks for the link. (But please put future links on separate line.) It’s a whole new battle I’m now aware of. (Though I have argued that the Pope should lead by example by tearing down the Vatican walls, and remove all other impediments to free passage — gates, grilles, guards and guns — allowing all-comers free access to papal appartments.) So now I’m looking into this Michelle Malkin’s books… as if I didn’t have enough to do studying TnT, Church Militant, OnePeterFive, LifeSitenews, etc. (Oh, and now this site which I’ve just stumbled on.) Thanks a lot!
Ditto.