In an April 12th interview with the Italian daily La Repubblica, Archbishop Georg Gänswein confirmed that Benedict the Abdicator has read Amoris Laetitia and is well aware of the crisis surrounding it.
Even so, according to Gänswein, the Pope Contemplatus has “no intention of entering controversies that feel far away from him.”
Really? It feels far away from him?
It would seem that the only persons who could possibly feel distant from the havoc being wrought on the Church by the blasphemous and heretical text of Amoris Laetitia are those who are either outside of her, invincibly ignorant of the magnitude of the situation, or so self-absorbed as to be utterly ambivalent.
So, which one is Benedict?
My money is on none of the above; rather, it seems to me that Benedict is a man who dares not to speak.
And why might that be?
“Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”
From the earliest days of his pontificate, Benedict made it plain that, for him, the urge to take flight in the face of diabolically driven forces was going to be an ever-present temptation; one to which he has apparently succumbed.
Sure, the neo-conservative crowd will scoff at such a conclusion; dismissing it as a conspiracy theory unworthy of consideration, and yet it is the only charitable option.
To insist otherwise is to suggest that Benedict no longer holds the Faith; for instance, as it concerns the immemorial practice that is “based on Sacred Scripture … of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments” such as he confirmed it in Sacramentum Caritatis.
Does anyone really want to argue that Benedict now wishes to repent of this teaching?
Look, the man is a dyed-in-the-wool modernist, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is the case.
This being so, he, more so than anyone else alive at this moment, should find himself compelled to move swiftly into the controversies surrounding Amoris Laetitia!
I suspect that he does, and yet, there is another force of greater intensity that keeps him from doing so…
In these days of unprecedented turmoil; much of it emanating from the newly “expanded” Office of Peter, the weaker among us apparently find the abandonment of reason and the denial of common sense more attractive than simply acknowledging the inconsistencies and mysteries surrounding the status of Benedict XVI and therefore his humble replacement.
So be it.
For my part, I prefer to look at these things head on; unafraid to admit that I don’t know the answers, but unwilling to deny that they are of the utmost importance.
For instance, Archbishop Gänswein said that Benedict has “never regretted” resigning, and that he is confident that he “did the right thing, for the Lord’s sake and for the good of the Church.”
So let me make sure I got this right…
Benedict is perfectly aware of the grave crisis of faith stemming from Amoris Laetitia – the Love Letter to Satan that was published on Peter’s letterhead at the hand of the very man for whom he stepped aside – and he honestly believes that this is “for the good of the Church”?
Archbishop Gänswein added that there is a “touching peace, which suggests that in his conscience there is the certainty of having done well in the sight of God.”
I am not buying a word of it, and frankly, why anyone with even a drop of common sense does is beyond me.
This talk about Benedict’s contentment has all the hallmarks of protesting too much. In fact, if I were a betting man, I’d wager very heavily on the likelihood that Benedict is a man tormented, but who, motivated by fear, is at pains to put on placid airs.
That is, when he is “allowed” to make public appearances.
In October 2014, Benedict responded by letter to an invitation that he received to participate in a Pontifical High Mass as part of a Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage in Rome.
“My state as a ‘cloistered monk’ does not allow me a presence that is also exterior. I leave my cloister only in particular cases, [when] personally invited by the Pope.”
In all sincerity, it amazes me just how many otherwise intelligent people seem to find no cause for concern whatsoever in the fact that Benedict is not “allowed an exterior presence” unless personally invited by Francis.
This is a far cry from what Benedict said when he announced his resignation:
“With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.” (Benedict XVI, February 11, 2013)
How did we get from choosing “a life dedicated to prayer” to becoming a “cloistered monk” who can only leave his cloister when personally invited by the Pope?
The solitary conclusion that can be drawn is that the veritable imprisonment of which Benedict spoke wasn’t his own idea; it had to have come from Francis himself.
This, to me, is of monumental importance, and the simple fact that this information has been made known to us is quite remarkable in itself.
Consider: In spite of whatever fears he may have, Benedict made it a point to let the world know that he is not free to come and go!
I think this qualifies as rather big news; don’t you?
Look, there’s nothing “normal” about any of this “Pope Emeritus” nonsense. If one of the new features of the newly “expanded” Petrine Office concerns the “cloistering” of the “Emeritus,” whose freedom of movement requires the “personal permission” of the “active” bishop in white, don’t you think it would have been mentioned at some point between February 2103 and October 2014?
As it is, this particular tidbit of information was made known in a clever, almost underhanded, way.
The tone of the letter reads, “As you know, I am bound to the cloister unless Francis grants his personal permission otherwise…”
The problem is, no one knew this beforehand. If it was known, the invitation would have been sent to, and the RSVP come from, Francis.
Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that His Humbleness desired that it should ever be made so plainly known that his “retired” predecessor is being kept under lock and key.
Think what you wish, but it looks to me as if Benedict pulled a fast one in his letter. He had a perfect opportunity to respond to the invitation simply by reiterating what he said back in February of 2013:
I lack the strength of mind and body to accept, but thank you.
He chose instead to get a signed letter before the public letting those who still have the wherewithal to make simple observations know that he is not “allowed to leave his cloister” apart from the “personal permission” of Francis.
Does anything about this sound right?
In an interview with EWTN Germany that aired over the weekend (translation courtesy of National Catholic Register), Archbishop Gänswein said:
“Pope Francis is said to be happy about having a grandfather like Benedict — a ‘wise’ grandfather: an adjective not to be omitted!”
Ah, yes… How often most of us must recall telling our grandfathers to stay home and keep their traps shut unless permission is granted for them to do otherwise…
Of Benedict, Gänswein went on: “His successor often told him that he shouldn’t hide.”
Really? Which is it? Does Francis “often” encourage Benedict to leave his cloister – as if he is freely allowed an exterior presence – or does he require of Benedict a personal invitation from himself prior to emerging therefrom?
Someone is lying.
Indeed, many are lying; obfuscating, hinting, cowering and the like, but no one – absolutely no one – is speaking plainly and consistently on the matter Pope Benedict XVI.
Unfortunately, very few people seem to care, or perhaps better stated, have the sensus Catholicus to recognize that they ought to care very deeply.
There is more content in Archbishop Gänswein’s EWTN Germany interview that merits our attention, but I will pick up this conversation in a future post.
In the meantime, I wonder, is it really too much to ask of people of good will and good sense to admit that when it comes to the status of Benedict XVI something is terribly wrong?
Most certainly Benedict is in fear. Exactly what he fears is an unknown. Is it death? The destroying of his character? Who knows, but it’s real to him and he obviously fears it greatly. I would say that his fear is misplaced. He should fear Almighty God, whom he will shortly appear before and have to render an account of his life, especially his reign as pope. He has been a key part of the revolution in the Church and its almost complete destruction. May God in His mercy grant Benedict the kind of fear that he really needs; His impending judgement. Not the fear of what the wolves at the Vatican may threaten him with.
I think that it was evident to Traditional Catholics that things weren’t right with PB’s sudden abdication & the electioneering that was carried out by the Sankt Gallen Mafia (which they admitted) together with the refusal to abide by JPII’s rules for electing a pope. Because of false obedience very few Catholic websites at the time actually were prepared to say so. Fear & threats are obnoxious weapons & together with bad- mouthing faithful Catholics are being daily used by PF & his gang of usurpers.
Evidence is apparently emerging to suggest that the last US Government under Obama colluded with Soros, Clinton, Sankt Gallen Group & Podesta to get rid of PB & bring about a ‘Catholic Spring’ under PF (known for his sympathetic approach to Marxism). President Trump has now been asked to investigate the emerging evidence & if true could very well prove our misgivings that PF is not, indeed, a valid pope. If this is so, then PB is still the reigning pontiff as his ‘resignation’ was given under threat.
28th June 2016 Emeritus Pope Benedict “First of all, thank you, Holy Father! Your goodness, evident from the moment of your election, has continually impressed me, and greatly sustains my interior life. The Vatican Gardens, even for all their beauty, are not my true home: my true home is your goodness. There, I feel safe. Thank you also for the kind words of gratitude, for everything. We hope that you will continue to go forward with all of us on this road of Divine Mercy, showing us the way of Jesus, toward Jesus, toward God.”
You reported on these statements made by Benedict at the time, Louie.
In resigning, Benedict created his own rod for his back. In doing so it may well be the case that he is “under house arrest” at the Vatican. However Benedict also said at his resignation that his public life had ended. In resigning, Benedict gave up his right to publicly express any of his views. He knew this would be the case before resigning.
Why Benedict resigned is a different matter. My own view is that he did so under duress. This duress explains the fear that your article alludes to. There are very sinister forces operating at the Vatican and Benedicts fear is very understandable.
However that fear can be countered and overcome through trust in God. Easier said than done.
Could it be that Benedict is leaving a trail of bread crumbs, hoping someone picks up on it? Could he be creating novelties (expanded Petrine Ministry) and making inconsistent statements hoping people start thinking that something isn’t right?
When I think of the book of the martyrs by St Alphonsus de Liguori I see this notion that Ratzinger is being slick, as not only an impossibility, but also as an affront to the GREAT Saints that St Alphonsus wrote about. Fr Ratzinger was always an enemy…he isnt some Catholic hero “in hiding”.
To paraphrase an old adage:
“If it looks like a coup, sounds like a coup and acts like a coup…It’s a coup”
For sure it’s not the workings of the Holy Ghost or if it is a Ghost, there is nothing holy about it.
This makes me wonder which pope was Jacinta talking about when she was so deeply saddened by a vision of a suffering pope? I know there’s been speculation of a man in the past who many believe could have been that pope, but still many don’t even know for sure (Cardinal Siri???), but everyone knows that Benedict was or should I say IS a pope.
Also, all this song and dance about him stepping aside is for a reason. Unfortunately, like Louie mentioned, not many people who call themselves Catholic even care. We’ve grown up learning the bare minimum or falsehoods. How could one truely Love the Catholic Church if it were never even presented to him…so why care? So many poor Catholics are just out grazing….bahhing out in the pasture. Just where these evil guys want them.
Pope Benedict is the Pope. Even if I said I am no longer the parent of my children because I am getting old, and i am exhausted, and some even may say not all there mentally, even if I called in the nanny, I’d still be the parent of my children. ..why? Because that’s the way God made it. You can bail out on your duties, but you can’t bail on Truth.
Most Catholics don’t care, and the rest of us are told to believe the opposite of common sense.
Side note..I just read that little, precious, Blessed Jacinta and her dear brother, Francesco’s canonizations are being discussed. I just thought that Our Lord wouldn’t allow them to touch these favorite children of His. I hope He does something fast for their sake. I always imagined that God would have that Great Holy Prelate, whom Our Lady of Good Success promised would be with the Church during its complete restoration, canonize them. Oh well, God knows best, but I still pray that He keeps their grubby little hands off of them…then again it is 2017. Hopefully something great will happen in our Church.
As far as this Pope Benedict goes, perhaps Our Lady of Good Success was referring to him among others when she mentioned:
“In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent.”
Absurd, he is Pope.
“Domine, Quo vadis?”
“Eo Romam iterum crucifigi.”
Take the ax to the root!…. (one of many roots)
As a President of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, had a lot to say and write.
This is, but one example:
In his book Entretien Sur La Foi (Discourse on the Faith), Ratzinger labels himself as a “well-balanced progressive.” He favors a “peaceful evolution of [Catholic] doctrine” without, however, “solitary breakaways ahead of the flock,” yet “without nostalgia nor regret for times irretrievably past”; meaning, of course, quietly leaving behind the Catholic Faith (pp. 16-17). Although he shrinks back from extreme “progressivism,” Ratzinger cares even less for Catholic Tradition: “We must remain faithful to the present day of the Church [l’aujourd’hui de l’Eglise], not to its past [non a l’hier], nor its future [ni au demain]” (Entretien sur la Foi, p.32).
What is to be said about the more discreet, yet very effective publicity methods used by Ratzinger the Prefect in promoting the “new theology”? No sooner had Walter Kasper been named bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart than Ratzinger wrote to him, “You represent, in these stormy times, a precious gift from Heaven” (30 Giorni, May 1989).
Long ago, Pope St. Pius X noted that all modernists are in no way able to draw from their erroneous premises truly inevitable conclusions. (cf. Pascendi).
Pope Francis is a very good, and obedient pupil of his predecessors.
We, Catholics have blood on our fingers….we are not without a ‘spot.’ Our very Just God gave us Popes that we deserve, a real kindness to Catholics, to repent. So it was with the ‘once’ chosen people in the Old Testament. We ought to ponder about it. Much was given us, and much we are squandering…..from the top, down, down, down. Our Lord in His agony prayed to His Father…..”Father, I do not pray for the world, I pray for those Thou hast given Me.” From broken heart, terrible fear (strengthened by the angels), He sweated blood….we should all tremble!…Ave Maria!
Here it is…….he saw every Peter, Thomas, Judas, Pharisee, the lame, the crooked, the blind, and deaf….Catholics.
Domine, miserere nobis!
Let us pray for Emeritus Benedict XVI, and for the Pope in Rome, they desperately need our prayers. We truly are “Our brother’s keepers”. Let us pray that God in His Mercy, with our cooperation (prayer, penance, faith, hope and charity), will soon send us a holy Vicar of Christ, many holy priests, and many holy religious vocations!…..lest many will perish!
All, for the Greater glory of God, for the Triumph of the holy Church, for the Triumph of the Immaculata, for the good of saving souls, especially our own soul!
Viva Cristo Rey!
No matter if he is free or prisoner, what does not make sense is, why continue to wear papal white? Why live there at the Vatican? Was there really no other sanctuary for him, where he could live out his life in prayer and meditation? Or is it thought necessary that he be near, he may be easier to keep under wraps that way. PB’s words about the Vatican gardens and those ingratiating sentiments toward Bergolio, ugh. Does that even sound like him? It has more the sound of a Tucho, or whatever his name is. I’m embarrassed at how effeminate and weak it all sounds. Ew.
We now see that the man in the Chair of Peter felt free to tell Fra Festing he may not come to Rome for the election of a new head to the Once Sovereign Order of Malta. There seems a comfort level with control under the guise of “holy obedience”.
Blaming all on Pope Francis, is same as blaming all on Obama……this is the blindness (given by God), to so many Catholics.
What a scandal for the holy Mother Church, caused by foolish Catholics, who are seeking help from a heretical government! An enemy of God, and His Church!
God Will Not Be Mocked!
The truth is that, before God will grant us this victory of an America converted and Catholicized, we have to want it. And we have to be worthy of such an immense grace. Is there a wonder that we, Catholics have not converted this Protestant country, yet! Why? Because, the Protestants, and every ‘stripe’ does NOT SEE…..how we love one another, especially, since the Father of Lies has convinced the ‘sects of every stripe’, but worse, Catholics, that……. ‘we do not want Peter the denier, Thomas the doubtful, Judas the traitor……etc.,’ foolishly imagining, that the Catholic Church is for saints, exclusively…..or else, it cannot be the Church of Christ’.
Contrary, to God’s Design! Not our will, but God’s Will Be Done!
‘Rome was not voted into a Christian Empire, but converted into one,’ says Charles Coulombe. It will not be done at the ballot box, nor, thru some political action (as if they are without ‘spot’). First, and above all, Catholics must abandon the religion of Americanism, and realize that we are living in a heathen country, that needs our prayers, and sacrifices for their conversion. We, Catholics need to spread His Light in charity, but surely, in ‘fearless faith.’ As Our Lord Jesus Christ, said: “I Am the Way, The Truth, The Life”, our ‘true brothers and sisters in Christ’, have done just that, at a time of the wicked Roman Empire…..their love for God, love for the Church, their fearless faith, has been the ‘greatest witness’ to the heathen world, till today, in spite of so many gnashing their teeth……. of the true followers of Jesus Christ, the Son of God! These true believers, true Christians have paved the road for us…..that is, The Royal Way of The Cross!
What is this life, but a vapor…..Eternity in Heaven, or Hell……forever!
Catholic America…….this is what it means……Love of neighbour!
Let us pray for the conversion to the One True Faith, of the President, and his family, and the Protestant United States of America, lest many will perish!!!
All of this hinges on the assumption that Benedict is motivated by fear. But what exactly would a 90 year old man with only one living family member (a 93 year old brother) have to fear? Seriously? His greatest (and only fear) should be his state of grace in the face of his imminent death that could literally come at any moment in his advanced age. So given that reality, I ask in all sincerity:
What in the world does a supposedly deeply devout man of Christ who is well past the normal human life expectancy have to be afraid of?
Can someone list a few credible things? And I mean truly credible.
Louie wrote: “Does anyone really want to argue that Benedict now wishes to repent of this teaching? Look, the man is a dyed-in-the-wool modernist,..”
Stop right there. You just answered your own question:
Benedict IS a modernist. Period. Can you name ANY modernist in the Church whom you could EVER trust? Do they EVER speak clearly and consistently throughout their lives on doctrine or ANY matters of theology? Isn’t the very foundation of Modernism built upon confusion, contradiction, obfuscation, and ultimately spiritual ambivalence?
Perhaps not fear:
“May the seven years which separate us from the centenary of the apparitions hasten the fulfillment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity”. (Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVI, Esplanade of the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima Thursday, 13 May 2010;
“What you are about to do, do quickly.” John 13:27;
“Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.” – Emperor Claudius – (I, Claudius)
Wasn’t Pope Celestine V, who also abdicated, also imprisoned by the successive Pope Boniface for the prudent reason that many might doubt the validity of what he did and claim his succesor was an AntiPope?
One might believe Francis is doing likewise. Not very humble of course, but presuming this is the case then we know that even amongst the Francis group that not even they are so confident about Benedict’s abdication either…
If only it were that simple.
That Benedict is a dyed-in-the-wool modernist doesn’t even come close to explaining the situation described in this post. Yes, modernists operate from the presumption that doctrines can and must change, but common sense tells us that there are limits to the way in which this belief is applied on the part of particular men.
For instance, if a document emerged wherein Benedict allegedly stated that he now considers the Traditional Mass harmful and desires that it should be abrogated for the good of the Church, no one in the their right mind would say, “Oh, well, what did you expect? He is, after all, a modernist!”
In a similar way, the fact that he’s a modernist is insufficient for explaining the suggestion that he now believes that allowing Eucharistic sacrilege – an about face from what he confirmed in Sacramentum Caritatis – is “good for the Church” (to say nothing of Francis’ assault against various other doctrines he spent decades defending).
And then there is the matter of his “cloistered” status; free only by “personal permission” of Francis – something we learned only by sleight.
Something is truly rotten in this matter.
“Yes, modernists operate from the presumption that doctrines can and must change, but common sense tells us that there are limits to the way in which this belief is applied on the part of particular men.”
Again, you just answered your own question – and then defied it:
“but common sense tells us that there are limits to the way in which this belief is applied on the part of particular men.”
First of all – is there any “commonsense” to Modernism? If so – what is it?
Secondly – what “limits” are there to Modernism? Cite them.
Thirdly – “this belief (Modernism) is applied on the part of particular men”? Really?
Again I ask – is there ANYTHING of “commonsense” that is held or applied by the ideology of Modernism or Modernists themselves?
If you step back for a moment, you will see that you are arguing with and against your own premise. This is characteristic of cognitive dissonance.
Louie wrote – “For instance, if a document emerged wherein Benedict allegedly stated that he now considers the Traditional Mass harmful and desires that it should be abrogated for the good of the Church, no one in the their right mind would say, “Oh, well, what did you expect? He is, after all, a modernist!”
Are you serious? After all, your counter-argument must hold that EVEN THOUGH Benedict is a Modernist – he surely wouldn’t ACT LIKE A MODERNIST!
And….. that makes sense to you?
“In a similar way, the fact that he’s a modernist is insufficient for explaining the suggestion that he now believes that allowing Eucharistic sacrilege – an about face from what he confirmed in Sacramentum Caritatis – is “good for the Church” (to say nothing of Francis’ assault against various other doctrines he spent decades defending).”
Again – seriously? So your counter-argument is that the Modernist Benedict surely would never allow Eucharistic sacrilege – EVEN THOUGH HE’S A MODERNIST?
Remind me again what a “Modernist” actually is?
“And then there is the matter of his “cloistered” status; free only by “personal permission” of Francis – something we learned only by sleight.”
That’s the easiest point of all to explain:
The Modernist Benedict no longer has to hide his heretical Modernism. He has in fact, been freed by his allegiance and servitude to the very man HE ALLOWED to usurp the Chair of Peter.
A simple follow up retro-question:
How do we know that the actual “wolves” that Benedict was fearful of – *weren’t actually the few FAITHFUL CATHOLIC factions remaining in the Vatican who knew about his Modernist intentions all along?*
Again – ask yourself: What would a *Modernist* Pope have to fear?
In humility I suggest, as you well know, the Modernist affirms what he denies, while playing this purported denial as his so called, “face-up card”, and denies that which he affirms within his internal forum. This charade utterly optimizes the art of deception, delivering it to its summa and summit. This level of deception requires a particular malignity to be present within the Modernist’s own heart, as this speaks as res ipsa loquitur. With that as the premise, their weapon of absolute destruction is of course, Hegel’s dialectic of synthesis. One particular psychological tactic that plays from within that dialectic, is to be found in the concept of, “controlled opposition”. The argument can readily be made thus, that Pope BXVI as the quintessential evolutionist that he is and always has been, which finds its expression from within his theological work penned over a lifetime, masquerades in some capacity as though he is being held captive. A prisoner does not however, as prisoner, speak with such rhetorical respect and filial admiration for his own captor, both in word and publically visible gesture, as does Pope BXVI for the anti-Pope Jorge Bergoglio as Francis. They are “twin sons of a different mother”.
It was His Holiness, Pope Pacelli as Pius XII, who promulgated “Constitutio de Sede Apostolica Vacante” (Constitution of the Apostolic See is Vacant) on 8-12-1945, whereby in paragraph 99, he commanded, the Roman Pontiff may NOT resign (“Cheisa viva”, July-August 2014). BXVI did not loose that edict, as had he done so, it would have been a public proclamation avoiding the scandal which his false abdication has created, simply serving to further foment chaos within the visible ecclesial structure. In caritas.
If the Church was not the work of God…….Worried about the Papacy? Christ is the Point.
Louie wrote, “In the meantime, I wonder, is it really too much to ask of people of good will and good sense to admit that when it comes to the status of Benedict XVI something is terribly wrong?”
I would say that when it comes to the status of ALL the conciliar “popes,” something is terribly wrong.
Although I am new to Tradition and am not very learned in these subjects, I will say that I have come to believe in my heart that most, if not all, of what we “hear” coming from Rome are lies and that there are very, very few people we can truly trust to be honest about what is truth. It is sad for me that finally finding the truth in the true Catholic Church, there are very few I can really trust who actually speak it. I am grateful to Mr. Verrecchio, this site, these articles and the comments as I think I have learned far more from them than I could have otherwise.
Louie: I await your response to Lazarus Gethsemane’s questions: “Is there any commonsense to Modernism”, “what limits are there to Modernism”?, and “this belief (Modernism) is applied on the part of particular men”? Really” (How and which particular men?
Might I suggest you read this excellent six-part series on Modernism which, as we know, is complex and that is why it is truly “the synthesis of heresies”?
While we know that Christ is triumphant in the end, it does no good to try to compare the unprecedented and extensive diabolical machinations in control of the minds and hearts of the hierarchy and through them, the laity, since the documents of Vatican II were signed to any other time in Church history.
linda8264, what is important is the fact that you were given the graces through God to know the lies and turn your mind and heart towards knowing the Truth. It is the Truth that sets us free and God will’s no one to be ignorant of it and always reaches out to those who have not yet hardened their hearts so that the Truth cannot be heard.
May God bless you and help to increase your knowledge and then practice of our Holy Catholic Faith.
I don’t see what’s so hard for you guys to understand what Louie is saying.
Not all Modernists are created equal. Some are progressively worse than others. Some are only willing to go so far.
It comes down to character.
John Paul II many call a modernist.
However we know from John Paul II’s reputation that it’d be a cold day in Hell that he would ever tolerate what Bergolio is doing with regards to Holy Communion for Adulterers.
Modernists, like sinners don’t just arbitrarily change their whim on a dime, unless you in particular subscribe on a conspiracy that Benedict was just playing pretend all along. If you have any evidence please present it. Otherwise Louie is right to suspect an about-change with regards to what Benedict of today allegedly says and does compared to the Benedict of 4 years ago.
On the contrary Johnno, I don’t see what’s so hard for you and Louie to understand.
“Not all Modernists are created equal.” – Really? Modernism by its very definition is the “mother of all heresies”. Explain for us the various degrees of such an expansive ideology of destruction.
“Some are progressively worse than others. Some are only willing to go so far.”
– Oh I see. Like Judas Iscariot only wanted the Thirty Pieces of Silver but he really DIDN’T mean for Christ to be tortured, degraded, and slowly executed. Because hey, that would be far TOO MUCH evil for his small harmless intentions. Right?
Seriously, do you people actually listen to yourselves? Here, let me help you:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” ~ Matthew 7:15-20
Let me put it all together for you:
– Ratzinger is a Modernist. He always has been.
-Modernists operate from a continual mode of deception, especially the intellectuals among their ilk.
-Ratzinger is about as intellectual as they come in the papacy. He knew exactly what he was doing and where it would lead.
-No pope should ever *EVER* resign. They are to hold their Chair even unto torture and death.
– Remind me again of Ratzinger’s theological justification for stepping down?
– Ratginzer’s resignation opened the easy and predictable pathway for Bergoglgio. The open politicking for Bergoglio behind the scenes was well known – it is impossible for Ratzinger not to have known that this would have been inevitable.
– Ratzinger now speaks glowingly of Papa Francis. Why? He’s been seen in public recently – what’s stopping him from making an open comment to counter this if it is a ruse? What possible threat could the 90 year old pope “emeritus” possibly fear? Death?
– But more to the point: Where exactly did we ever get this notion that Ratzinger was really an advocate of Traditional orthodoxy in the first place? Does his track record really reflect that? If you look back – you will find that the real conspiracy was the mainstream media’s reportage on Benedict that inaccurately painted him as a “conservative” traditionalist.
If you want to understand how we got here, then just look back over the last 60 years. Then go back about a century and a half. You will see a clear path of descent and deception forming. And you will read plenty of warnings. All of this was planned. And it’s outcome was foreseen long ago. Pope Francis didn’t happen overnight in a vacuum. And Ratzinger was no victim. He was either a coward, or an accomplice. But again I ask – what exactly was he (a Modernist) supposed to be afraid of? Other Modernists? Really?
Good morning Johnno,
Our Blessed Dominus Deus, Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, commanded His Apostles, “Let your yea be yea and your no be no, anything else is from the devil”. There were simply and utterly no qualifications, no limiting categories of error, as though one could somehow be lesser than another, placed by our Lord and our God as He commanded precision and pristine clarity in His Apostle’s teaching. For an apostle, especially, to move one iota away from the explicit Truth, that which has always been taught in the same language and understanding from within the general Magisterium, and as thus objectively known precisely as it was known in the minds of the original Apostles, is tantamount to that Apostle speaking as the devil. Now suggest again, in the light of this understanding, just how one Modernist can somehow be “less guilty” than another. They are anathema and outside the Church there is no salvation, which is of course a deFide teaching of Holy Mother Church until the end of time. I hope this helps. In caritas.
True Catholics know the distinction between the Chair of St Peter and the one who sits in it at a particular time. We should also remember that fidelity to the chair of St. Peter does not mean the unconditional acceptance of everything the person who exercises the papacy does. The Church instituted by Our Lord distinguishes the cathedra from the person. Therefore, the supreme fidelity to the Chair of St. Peter is to know this distinction and act accordingly.
Louie, I have to disagree a little bit on this one. Common sense tells me that Benedict’s modernism tells him that he has to “go along” with his fellow modernist Francis, even though he may disagree on some of the finer points of implementation.
The theory that Benedict has a knife to his throat and doesn’t dare step out of line has too many holes in it.
The article is about Gänswein on Benedict. Most Catholics were very concerned at his abandonment of them & have not had acceptable reasons for it. Even PB’s declaration that he voluntarily abdicated doesn’t somehow hold water, especially with his successor being a Marxist elected to the Papal Office by skullduggery & not the Holy Ghost. The fact that PB remains in the Vatican quarters wearing the white robes of the Papal Office but confined and only allowed to speak when the present incumbent wishes him to does not bode well. If he truly resigned he would have left the Vatican & now be wearing a Cardinal’s rig-out & we would not have a dual papacy foisted upon us. His supposed refusal (via Gänswein) to speak on AL & its heresies is further proof IMO that his mouth has been duck-taped.
I am not a fan of any Post Conciliar Pope or Hierarchy but this present holder of the title beats all that went before him. He is actually trying to change Catholic Doctrine, the Ten Commandments & Sacraments to his ‘Liberal Theology’ way of thinking, i.e. Communism, & is thus far succeeding. He has to be called out but the effeminates in the present Hierarchy are not up to it.
I don’t think it’s Benedict. He’s under house arrest. There are too many people behind all that is happening. It smells like s*** Only the Lord can save us from these evil men.
Johno, 99.99% trad orthodox and .01% modernist makes you a modernist. There is no compromise with error. Never, not in the slightest of details. A Catholic is 100%. To deviate in evem the slightest of teachings is to fall into heresy. JP2 was a material heretic. He spoke heresy. He taught heresy. His example was heretical. These issues were brought to his attention by Abp Lefebrve and he retracted nothing. Objectively, one would have to say he was a heretic. If one holds the Catholic faith, one cannot recognize a heretic as Pope. Its a contradiction of logic.
Linda, if what you are hearing are lies and falsehoods, then it must follow by logic that it is not coming from the Church of Christ, the immaculate bride of Christ.
If the Church WAS NOT the work of God, that is His Mystical Body on earth, ……only then, such thing would be imaginable, that is, to change the Catholic Doctrine. In every age, she is mocked, betrayed, spat upon……in vain.
She is His Church. He gave life to her by dying on the Cross. The Church lives by Christ alone (not the pope); she is holy with His holiness……in spite of the traitors, and faithless …..
“Christ sustains the Church in a divine manner; He lives in her to such a degree that she is, as it were, another Christ.” (Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII).
May God subdue all her enemies!
Tom A, In caritas, and especially Lazarus Gethsemane.
Let me spell this out for you all very very simply.
Modernists, like the devils, are a house Divided; some not willing to go as far, and some entirely willing to go much further.
There are even things Martin Luther as a heretic would not be willing to change that other protestants of his ilk, the scourge of modernism of their day, went and did on their own.
The point Louie is making, is whether or not Benedict is of like mind as Francis on the point of Amoris Letitia.
Cardinal Burke for example is, as you often remind us, from the VII Sect and is therefore also some XX % modernist like Benedict and Francis.
But are any of you going to actually state that Cardinal Burke agrees with Francis about Amoris Letitia?
If Cardinal Burke suddenly disappeared from public life, only to show up on Francis’ call for photo ops, and if other people started attributing to Cardinal Burke that he had no concerns about Amoris Letitia and that he said everything was dandy… would you not be suspicious about the circumstances?
Would you actually believe that Burke would just flip on a dime tomorrow without any explanation or trace of how he would reach the complete opposite conclusion?
The same case is true here for Benedict, and Louie is suspicious.
Yes the Modernism they all share, like the Protestantism of their forebears, is the root and logical slippery slop that can move a Benedict to a Francis. But as common sense human observation and historical facts show, not every Modernist, nor Protestant is equal. Some are further down the slope than others. Rather the ones preceding them made it possible for others to slide even lower.
Johnno, your analogy of Burke doesn’t fit.
Benedict didn’t just disappear, he RESIGNED FROM THE PAPACY.
Now stop right there and tell me: Was he a coward – or was he complicit in the setup for Bergoglio?
Im confused here. If every person who doesnt die in a state of grace goes to hell….as the Catholic Church teaches us….then how is every modernist not equal to every other modernist? Dont they all have to go to hell, if unrepentant as they take their last breath, based on God’s perfect justice? Do some lesser modernists burn at 1000 degrees in Hell as opposed to those “bad” modernists who burn at 2000 degrees in Hell? Is that what we are arguing? What is the actual discussion here?
Johnno, I think you are an excuse maker who is giving credence to mortal sin as long as its not a “really bad” mortal sin. No wrong can be justified. Why are we discussing the “levels of modernism”?
Good morning Johnno,
To pick up where Rich left off. Murder is murder. Whether a murderer is “merciful” and kills innocence quickly with a bullet to the head or a murderer is particularly malignant and kills innocence with slow torture, the end result remains the same, as the death of innocence. Murder is murder. A “Modernist” murders Truth, who Is a divine Person as the Son of God. A “Modernist” is a deceiver of deceivers who wishes the same hell for you as he is destined for himself, as through his own free will assent, he denies the teaching of Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, twisting that which Is the Son of God as Truth Himself, into his own likeness and image, and as thus he divorces himself from the Supernatural Faith, outside of which there is no salvation with certitude, as the deFide teaching, extra ecclesia nulla salus commands. Again, our Blessed Lord and Savior commanded His Apostles as teachers of the One True Faith, “Let your yea be yea and your no be no. Anything else is from the devil.” That which is from the devil cannot take the Apostle to Heaven, now can it? In caritas.
Johnno: You wrote “The point Louie is making, is whether or not Benedict is of like mind as Francis on the point of Amoris Letitia.”
You can’t answer for Louie but I wonder why he is so obsessed with Benedict.
As far as it goes, what difference does it make whether he agrees or disagrees with Francis on AL/ Benedict isn’t the pope. It isn’t important whether or not he agrees with Francis on AL; what is important is to know and understand the damage his career has made on the propagation and defense of the true Catholic faith and how he was instrumental in not only creating the crisis in the Church, but without his career in heresy and participation in the Modernist revolution, there might never have been a “Francis”.
“Why are we discussing the ‘levels of modernism'”? The diversions taken up to create more confusion and division, in my opinion. Keep the “traditionalists” in a state of perpetual guessing as to the latest machination from Rome and the hero of conservatives, Benedict, and less time is spent speaking and writing about the important issue which is the great apostasy and goal of the Modernists to destroy the Catholic faith.
Johnno, the point I am making is that ot really doesnt matter how far Benedict or Francis is willing to take AL. As you correctly stated, they are modernists. You seem to want to quantify their modernism by drawing some distinction between B16 and PF, as if modernism had a sliding scale. The Church has taught for centuries that the obstinate deviation from any teaching of Holy Mother Church made a soul guilty of heresy.
Johnno said – “Modernists, like the devils, are a house Divided; some not willing to go as far, and some entirely willing to go much further.”
Please read the following warning. And then contemplate the sheer magnitude and deception of such a dangerous heretic who resides *ON THE CHAIR OF PETER*.
And then ask yourself: “what level of deception would such an unprecedented heretic NOT go to to install his agenda?”
“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” ~ Encyclical on Unity of the Church by Pope Leo XIII, 1896
“(…)what, in fact, is a good shepherd, if not he who walks before his sheep, before his lambs, and who leads them there where they can find good food? Now Our Lord says that He is the Good Shepherd. He is the Good Shepherd because it is He Who gives true nourishment to our intellects, to our wills, to our hearts: the nourishment of truth, the nourishment of charity, the nourishment of the desire to sanctify ourselves. This is the nourishment that Our Lord Jesus Christ came to bring us.
He Himself told us that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is the Way: He walks on the way to draw us after Him, like the Good Shepherd. He is the Truth: He enlightens our intellects to show us where we are going and what God promises us if we follow Him. And finally, He is the Life: for He truly gives us the food of life, in giving us Himself, particularly in the Holy Eucharist. This is what the Good Shepherd is.
Now Our Lord Himself warned us . . . He took the trouble to warn us: There are also mercenaries. What, then, are these mercenaries? These mercenaries are those who assume power over the flock so as to lead it to death. Because at the least danger, these mercenaries flee and leave the flock abandoned. And the wolf comes and disperses the flock. Our Lord thus warned us that there would be times when the flock would be abandoned. . . abandoned because those who were supposed to lead it lost their bearings or at least did not want to fulfill the role of the true shepherd, and considering themselves as mere mercenaries, abandoned the flock.”
Father Groenings tells us that Jesus left Jerusalem forever through the gate called “The Garden Gate” because it led through a beautiful garden at the foot of Golgotha, the Place of the Skull. From this garden, Our Lord struggled upward, His back against Jerusalem and its inhabitants, which had obstinately rejected Him. Thus, those who sent Him away were now abandoned to their sins. Many a nation since then has likewise seen the Savior’s back, as He accepts their will, and abandons them in their pride to their eternal destruction. And now, we see this happening even to the “Chief Priests” of His own Church and those who follow them, rejecting their Savior.
Although His enemies gloat in their seeming victory, we, for our part, abide with Mary and John at the foot of this Cross, beseeching our Savior to grant us the grace to be with Him always and never forsake Him. Like the disciples at Emmaus, let us say to Him, “Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent.”
Yes, it is towards evening and the day is now far spent. We must therefore, make firm our wills, for “the night comes when no man can work.” (John, 9,4)
Please, pray the Rosary and confound satan and those who serve him!
The analogy does work and that’s precisely the point.
If Benedict a coward or complicit?
That’s the question Louie is asking, and so far it seems that there is plenty of suspicion to believe that Ganswein and others aren’t being frank with us.
The press release ‘letter’ to Steve Skojec with regards to the 3rd Secret of Fatima and the Mass that oddly quotes Benedict and doesn’t contain his signature is one example.
These interviews with Ganswein and others is another. We only have them as mouthpieces and outside of them nobody has access to Benedict on pertinent issues.
There is quite a stark difference comparing the Benedict we know now to the one before, despite his other modernist leanings.
Frankly I see an ironic comparison with Benedict now compared to how Sr. Lucia was treated. Information given from the Apparitions itself and other prophecies also start to call attention to the fact that something screwy is going on here.
All well and good, but that doesn’t solve the question about the situation here.
No one is trying to absolve Benedict of his modernism.
We want to know whether he is actually in the Francis camp, or is he a ‘hostage’ of sorts?
We have word that plenty of modernists themselves are regretting Francis’ election because he is going too far to fast for their liking. As well as we have the more conservative VII modernists who do have lines they will not cross and Francis is way over on the other side of it. Where does Benedict fall, and why is it so hard to access him and get straight answers out of any of the likes of Ganswein?
I suppose because Louie wants to uncover the mystery behind the Fatima cover-up and its prophecies that seem to indicate a deception of sorts with regards to the role of the Papacy.
The cost of ignoring this is the Annihilation of Nations. We could all be very dead within the next few years or even months of U.S./Russian relations.
Louie isn’t defending Benedict’s career in heresy. That’s not the point of this article.
I don’t disagree with that, but that doesn’t have anything to do with what precisely is going on here with Francis and Benedict, nor all the weird things Ganswein, Mueller etc. have been saying regarding dual papacies, Benedict’s silence, and virtal imprisonment, no different than Celestine’s, except we know Celestine’s circumstances. Add to that other prophecies of the suffering Holy Father etc. There is a lot more going on here. But I understand that the Sedevacantist view firmly rejects the recent Popes as false popes. But the rest of us are still operating under the assumption that prior to Francis we have had legitimate yet modernist Popes. Louie is operating under the assumption that Benedict was a legit Pope with a suspiciously clumsy exit and that Francis might either be invalid or a formal heretic who suffers no diabolical confusion as to Catholicism. He specifically hates it.
I understand this. But as I explained before. This article and Louie’s thoughts are not about absolving Benedict of his heresies, it has to do with his relationship with Francis and what could be multiple factions within the Church hierarchy. The Churchmen within have finally become like that of the world they love so much. Warring political factions who will further and further divide just like the Protestants they want unity with without a return to Truth.
Who is making excuses? Does anyone read what I or Louie said?
Sigh… do I really need to explain this over and over again?
Read up the history of Protestantism.
Look where it was when it started and look at where it is now. How do you think that happened? Magic? Do you recall the history of the Tower of Babel?
‘Levels’ of Protestants, like ‘Levels of Modernists’ exist.
They are divided into factions.
-Some modernists like Benedict and Burke like the Traditional Latin Mass.
-Some modernists like Francis and Dolan, don’t like the Traditional Latin Mass.
-They don’t agree and each one ends up stepping on each others toes and does things their own way.
-If Vatileaks taught us anything, there was a large scale revolt and significant resistance against Benedict.
-Does that indicate to you that everything was hunky dory between the modernists groupies?
-Was not Francis openly defying Benedict about the Mass and Islam in the past?
-Was Francis not also said to be the opposite opponent of Benedict’s in the last Papal election?
Do the math. If you want to know what the heck is going on in the Church, then obviously this matters a lot!
Modernism is not some specific doctrine. It’s the synthesis of all heresies. The only commonality is that these men believe somewhere along the way the Church erred. For Benedict it was the Galileo trial. For others it’s contraceptives and sex. For others it’s for fighting Marx and socialism. Etc. etc. They all have their faults but they are NOT THE SAME and obviously at some point the fractions with get so large that they cannot hold themselves together.
We are seeing the cracks in their tower to heaven. It ends the same way. Fire falling from the sky to devour us all and scatter us.
Wrong, this whole dual papacy thing is very relevant to that very same Apostasy and mystery of iniquity that is occurring.
Are you going to blame the Queen of Heaven and the saints next for alluding prophetically to something fishy with regards to a future Papacy?
Johnno, thanks for your reply.
If Louie wants to “uncover the mystery behind the Fatima cover-up”…good luck to him. Expecting the liar and the thief to come clean is a fruitless effort in my opinion. The history of the widespread demonic machinations within the heart of the Church for the past 50+ years is the obvious answer to this mystery.
We individuals have no control over the Papacy nor what the popes do. If “the cost of ignoring the Fatima cover-up is the Annihilation of Nations”, that is what God has willed to happen. All we can do, and should always do, is live for Christ as if it is our last day or last moment on earth.
For those who believe that a non-Catholic (Modernist Benedict) or an anti-Catholic (Modernist Francis) could be the head of the Catholic Church, making him an enemy of Christ, then how is it possible to find anything this non-Catholic does suspicious? Why would you expect him to teach, preach and act as though he were Catholic when he is not?
Why can’t you see that it doesn’t matter what kind of Modernist you are; you are still a heretic. There are no “levels” of Catholics.
Johnno said – “The analogy does work and that’s precisely the point.”
No it doesn’t. Like I pointed out before: Benedict didn’t just disappear, HE INTENTIONALLY STEPPED DOWN. Now tell me, do you REALLY think he didn’t know WHO would be selected to stink up the Chair of Peter?
Johnno said – “There is quite a stark difference comparing the Benedict we know now to the one before, despite his other modernist leanings.”
Just WHO IS this the Benedict you THINK you knew? Look back at his track record and tell me what exactly this Modernist did that was supposed to be so detached from the ultimate Modernist’s goal culminated in Bergoglio?
Johnno said – “Wrong, this whole dual papacy thing is very relevant to that very same Apostasy and mystery of iniquity that is occurring.”
And…… WHO is personally responsible for this dual papacy nonsense?
Answer: THE MODERNIST HERETIC, BENEDICT.
Now tell us again how the Modernist Benedict is somehow being held prisoner against his will- by the other Modernists. And tell us exactly what leverage this Modernist cabal could possibly have over him. Go ahead, brainstorm. Think of the worst possible thing. What would it be?
And again: NO ONE BUT BENEDICT is responsible for this Pope “emeritus” nonsense.
Hello again Johnno,
You and I are speaking a different language. The “question” as you refer to it, is “solved”, as your term of use, from within the utter reality of the proper understanding of precisely just “who” a “Modernist” is. As was demonstrated in the analogy above, a “murderer is a murderer” in the same understanding as “murder is murder”. It is the metaphysical form of that which we are discussing and that “form”, as properly understood metaphysically, just so happens to be the form of a “Modernist”, for the purpose of our discussion. The metaphysical “matter” of the “Modernist” speaks specifically to precisely “who” the individual Modernist is: Joseph Ratzinger vs. Jorge Mario Bergoglio in this case. Just as a “murderer is a murderer”, a “Modernist is a Modernist”. The specific “method” of murder, speaks to the metaphysical “matter” of the specific “act”. In other words, whether the murderer uses a gun, a club, or arsenic, the act of murder is precisely the same, as murder is murder. This precise, “sameness”, if you will, speaks to the “form” of the “act” of murder but it does not speak to the “matter” of the act of murder. The object used to commit the act of murder, speaks to the matter of that same act.
With that basic foundation established, all those opining here seem to be in agreement that Josef Ratzinger is a Modernist and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Modernist. That “agreement” although helpful for the purposes of our discussion, is certainly not necessary, as the truth itself speaks. The reality can only remain that a Modernist is a Modernist, as a murderer is a murderer. It is irrelevant as to what the specific “matter” (read as–just who is the individual person, Ratzinger or Bergoglio) of the Modernist is, just as it is not relevant as it regards the specific matter (read as weapon) of the murderer. Rather, it is the reality that he freely chooses to reconfigure the Truth, Who is Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God, into his own creaturely, Modernist likeness and image. This literal reconfiguration of the Truth, which Christ Jesus commanded Himself to be, from an ipso-facto understanding, literally and truly places the Modernist, each and every one, outside of the Mystical Body of Christ, His Bride the Church, where there Is No Salvation, as the deFide teaching, “extra ecclesia nulla salus” so commands as a matter of the Faith and as thus our very own salvation.
Therefore, when you Johnno or Louie, get caught up in the “matter” of, “is Pope BXVI forcefully held captive or is he voluntarily “silent”?, what you in actual fact are doing, is getting lost in the question of the “weapon” used for the murder, while at once you are then blinded to just whom the “murderers” are, and where the murder is occurring, as it continues. Josef Ratzinger as Modernist, is a murderer of Truth, because he declares his theology as he has and does, in the written word and published ad nauseam, for all eyes who can see to see, and this over his entire ecclesiastical career. He makes no excuses for it as he in years past pronounced his disgust for the Aristotelian-Thomistic method of proper, rational thinking, as a “stifled” and “closed system”. That same method of thinking which Pope Saint Pius X stated, if it was not the foundation for rational thinking in the Church, those who refused to use it ran the risk of committing, “grave error”. Rather he, with perhaps an hubris the likes of which Holy Mother Church has never before known, continues at age 90 and close to his death by virtue of his nature, proudly celebrates his foundationally errant evolutionary theology and continues to fortify it, now in his action perhaps more than his word. This can only ever remain a deep, deep, sorrow for Holy Mother Church. Perhaps this is what our Lady was telling us at Akita or Fatima (I don’t remember which), when She said, “and the one who should speak will remain silent”.
Lastly, Ratzinger as the valid and still reigning Pope BXVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the anti-Pope Francis, and all their Modernist ilk, are murderers of Truth, as they proclaim themselves to be and not as I, the perfectly and infinitely miserable creature that I can only remain this side the veil, or as any other creature proclaims them to be. The great and ineffable beauty of Almighty God’s Reality, which He in His infinite Caritas has shared with us lowly and miserable human creatures, reveals as res ipsa loquitur, all of the acts of the “other” to which we bear witness. Whether our “acts” are words or deeds, these things themselves speak, and when viewed from within the context of the person offering the act, these “fruits” indeed speak to the character of the tree, whether its root be good or evil. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.