In the aftermath of Amoris Laetitia, with its bald faced blasphemy and hair raising heresy, one may well have been tempted to believe that the stench of infidelity emanating from Rome couldn’t possibly become more putrid than it already is.
And yet it has…
Archbishop Gänswein, a doctor of canon law who serves as both personal secretary for Benedict the Abdicator and Prefect of the Pontifical Household, recently confirmed what Italian journalist Antonio Socci has been saying for over two years now.
Socci, who is by no means a sensationalist (nor is he a self-described “traditionalist”), endured no small amount of criticism for pointing out (in February of 2014) that Benedict’s resignation was not complete, as in the case of Pope St. Celestine V, but rather it involved a deliberate intent on his part to assert a “distinction between ‘active exercise’ and ‘passive exercise’ of the Petrine ministry.”
As such, Socci suggested, there is an unprecedented situation in the Church today wherein two men, Benedict and Francis, propose to somehow share in the Petrine Office, each one exercising a particular aspect of the papacy; as if to divide the duties that are incumbent upon Peter’s Successor.
Several months later, the widely read Vittorio Messori penned an article for Corriere della Sera under the title “Here is why we truly have two Popes” wherein he quoted at length Stefano Violi, the highly-regarded Professor of Canon Law at the Faculty of Theology in Bologna and Lugano.
According to Professor Violi:
Benedict XVI divested himself of all the power of government and command inherent in his office, without however, abandoning his service to the Church: this continues through the exercise of the spiritual dimension of the pontifical munus entrusted to him. This he did not intend renouncing. He renounced not his duties, which are, irrevocable, but the concrete execution of them.
Messori then asks, “Is it perhaps for this that Francis seems not to be fond of calling himself ‘Pope’ aware as he is of sharing the pontifical munus, at least in the spiritual dimension, with Benedict?
While many have chosen thus far to dismiss these claims (to say nothing of the grave implications to which they give rise) as unworthy of serious consideration, avoidance of the matter is no longer a viable option thanks to the speech given by Archbishop Gänswein at the Pontifical Gregorian University on May 20th.
As reported by Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register:
Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.
“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”
According to Gänswein, Benedict’s intention was nothing less than to “transform” the Petrine Office itself!
Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.” He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.”
“Therefore,” according to Gänswein, “from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.”
The words of Antonio Socci, written more than two years ago, come to mind yet again:
“One cannot pretend that everything is normal, because the situation is almost apocalyptic.”
What kind of man endeavors to profoundly and lastingly transform the Office of Peter?
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, some idea may be gained of the reforming mania which possesses them: in all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten … Ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches … What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed according to their principles? (cf Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis – 38)
According to Gänswein, Benedict could so “expand” (and effectively divide) the papacy “because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”
So there you have it – Benedict could dream it, therefore, he did it.
But was it valid?
That’s the unavoidable question that must be answered.
If it wasn’t – if Benedict’s intent rendered the act of resigning invalid – this would mean that Antonio Socci had it right, Non È Francesco; i.e., the blaspheming heretic from Argentina that wants us to believe that adultery is no longer necessarily a mortal sin isn’t the pope.
The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated.
Regardless of where one stands on matters ecclesial – wild eyed progressive, head-in-the-sand neo-con, or so-called “traditionalist” (aka Catholic) – the common thread that binds us all at this historic moment in time is confusion.
For many, this confusion is not for lack of intelligence, nor is it for lack of a desire to know and understand the truth; rather, it is due entirely to the behavior of certain men of questionable faith whom the Lord allows to occupy the highest places in Rome, even to the Office of Peter.
The Holy Ghost is not the Author of confusion, and everyone worthy of the name Catholic knows who is.
With every passing day it becomes ever more evident that God has withdrawn His grace in such a way that diabolical influence is wreaking havoc in the Church; most notably among the shepherds.
So, if you are awaiting clarity from the bishops and cardinals as to the validity of Benedict’s quasi-renouncement of the Papal Throne, his intention to recreate the Office of Peter according to his own wishes, and therefore the status of that terrible scourge on the Body of Christ known as Francis, you do so in vain.
Clarity from these men is not forthcoming; in large measure, we are become orphans without a father.
What then shall we make of all of this?
We do well to recall the wise counsel that was given to readers of this space a couple of weeks ago by Fr. Demetrius:
“Do not be misled by the novelties … Apply the Catholic Smell Test: if something does not seem to be consistent or compatible with what the Catholic Church has always believed, taught and practiced, then it is probably not Catholic.”
My friends, I will not tell you what to make of this mess; I am but an orphan just like you.
That said, I will let you know what I make of it, and if doing so earns me more scorn and persecution, by the assistance of His grace, I will thank God for the privilege:
We know very well that the constitution of the Church, including the Office of Peter, is not subject to the whims of mankind; it was willed by Christ and it is immutable.
Archbishop Gänswein could not have been clearer than when he said of Benedict’s attempt to “transform” the Petrine Office (i.e., change the unchangeable) in such way that the papal ministry is not the same as before:
“He has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry…”
A “personal office,” indeed.
The stench of infidelity emanating from Rome has never been more putrid; in fact, it literally reeks of evil. To say that the convoluted quasi-resignation of Benedict XVI doesn’t pass the Catholic smell test is a magnificent understatement.
Sure, in some sense confusion still abounds as there is more to this story than we will ever know, but one thing is entirely certain, at least to me:
The presentation given by Archbishop Gänswein, which one is hard pressed to dismiss as unreliable, does not describe the Office of Peter upon whom the Church of Christ is built.
While some, no doubt, will take the position that Benedict’s resignation is valid until proven otherwise, I choose as my starting point the same that Fr. Demetrius suggested; namely, what the Catholic Church has always believed, taught and practiced.
As such, I cannot help but conclude that the alleged resignation of Benedict XVI is invalid until proven otherwise; which even though I will, in humility, allow as a possibility, I do so convinced that the burden of proof is all but insurmountable.
What about Francis?
Let us turn to his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, who prophesied:
At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.
Is the Argentinian Jesuit that man?
One can debate (and certainly many will) whether or not Francis, by virtue of Benedict’s novel intentions, validly occupies the Office of Peter. Fine, let the debate ensue. To the extent that men worthy of respect so debate, I will follow with interest.
In the meantime, Francis is, as we have known for some time now, a blasphemous heretic that we must not allow to draw us, or anyone else if we can help it, into error and death.
On this note, even though Archbishop Gänswein’s conference is a “game changer” indeed, nothing has changed. Keep this in mind as you go about deciding for yourself what to make of this unprecedented mess.
Beyond this: We must pray, fast, and make reparations for Holy Mother Church as her passion is clearly at hand.
Are there any gas masks available in liturgical colors appropriate for visiting the Vatican?
Very scary times. I wonder what John Salza thinks about this latest development. Could you ask him, Louie?
Here we go again. When will we all realize that this trick of the devil has caused all of us to become completely moronic. When we can’t even see that within the one definate, unchangeable, indisputable thing we have (ie. Math) truth has been completely blurred to the point that WE, of all people, have to wonder whether or not, 1+1=2, than we should at least be able to admit that our simplest abilities as human beings have been tainted. We are scattered beyond belief. Of course we have 2 popes. Simply for the mere fact that 1+1=2. Common! Who needs a council for that?
Ho ho ho…tea anyone??
Ladies and Gentlemen, let us get hold of ourselves…it’s simplest math.
Prophecy of the two popes:
All of this time I thought Benedict was forced out. In a strange way it is a tenuous comfort for me to know that Benedict is still the Pope. A comfort in the sense that there is still the possibility that the Holy Spirit has a chance of acting through Peter’s successor.
OK, so with our God given abilities to perform basic math + this Anne Catherine Emmerich prophecy provided here by my2cents, and everything else going on in our Church + Our Lady of Good Success and Our Lady of LaSallette prophecies + Fatima+ etc. etc., what more do we need? Perhaps there’s an identical time in our Church which is yet to come of which Anne Catherine Emmerich was referring to the 2 popes – but what are the odds of that? We’re just as bad as any neocon if we can’t see this right in front of our faces.
Was the task too heavy??
Moses said to his father- in- law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. When they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between one person and another, and I make known to them the statutes and instructions of God.” Moses’ father- in- law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. You will surely wear yourself out, both you and these people with you. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone.
What a total disaster this v2 mess is. I would only add, for those who may still think that Benedict is somehow a good guy in any of this….please look at his deplorable track record dating all the way back to the council. Benedict scares me much more than Francis ever could.
“And he asked him: What is thy name? And he saith to him: My name is Legion, for we are many.”
Simultaneously one and many. Diabolical.
Even if Benidict’s resignation was invalid, he still may not be Pope and Francis is. I say this because the Church almost unanimously regonized and accepted Francis as Pope and Benidict as having resigned. So, God may have over looked the legality of Benidict’s resignation. The universal acceptance of a man as Pope is suppose to “heal at the root” any problems and it is supposed to be an infallible sign that the man is Pope.
But…..maybe it was not universal enough since some contested it right away. I would not be sad if Francis was not Pope in the least.
The situation is apocalyptic. St. Francis has it right about Bergoglio. Jorge is an anti-pope with Benedict XVI being the real pope. All punishment for sin. Pope Benedict XVI is the “bishop in white – we thought he was the Holy Father” in the published part of the 3rd secret of Fatima. Expect some major chastisement to arrive to wake us all up so that we turn back to God, just as what occurred repeatedly in the past as punishment for loos of faith. Major things like asteroids hitting the earth and such.
Yes, Father, punishment for sin. But, according to Cardinal Mercier (d. 1926), “putting the religion of Divine origin on the same level as the religions invented by men is the BLASPHEMY which draws God’s punishments on society, much more than the sins of persons and of families.” And haven’t we seen this taking place since V2? “Mortalium Animos” lies in the dustbin of history and Koran kissers and Menorah lighters are canonized. Our Lady protect us all.
If benedict were the real pope then why is he hanging out and goofing off in the background? He’s a real pope like you or I are the real pope. The guy is a master enemy of the Church.
Since that surreal day, I have questioned. Why did he, Benedict, look so bad, as if he were close to death, and now, as if he has a new lease on life? Yes, he uses a cane now, and sometimes a walker, but many in later years do. Was his abdication forced? Did someone, or a group of someone’s stage this whole thing? There are some on the web that have intimated that something underhanded went on during the whole abdication and election. I cannot say with certainty that they are wrong. I have my own ideas. Maybe 2017 will clarify everything. At l sat I pray there will be an intervention from on high.
The Apostle Paul forewarned of the rebellion that must come in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2. It turned out that St Paul’s namesake, Paul VI, launched the rebellion at Vatican Council II. When St Francis forewarns about a destroyer not canonically elected, can there be a doubt that he is referring to his namesake, “Pope Francis”?
So, “Catholics Have Two Daddies?”
Baleful= Vindictive, sinister, nasty ,evil , menacing, antagonistic ect ect… How chilling to think about the meaning of the word used by Anne Catherine Emmerich to describe the existence of the two Popes. These highly educated men have lost their humility and truly believe that they are in charge and can change at a whim what our Divine Savior has mandated. Pope Benedict XVI is still the Vicar of Christ ( whether he’s good or bad, he’s still the Pontiff). Bergoglio is a legend in his own mind , nothing more and all the little boys in the Vatican in crowd are having the time of their lives……for awhile anyway. Praying faithfully for their conversions because Eternity is a forever deal.
I sometimes wonder if it would be poetic justice if B16 lived a VERY long life which would allow him to see “pope” after “pope” come and go, each more destructive than the previous as he is forced into silence. This is the result of YOUR council! Perhaps, if he is truly repentent, this could be his purgatory.
I agree with rich on this one. Benedict duped the neo-cons because they wanted to be duped: smells and bells without substance. What does it matter if Benedict is the real pope if he says nothing to counter the nonsense coming from Francis? In a way, that level of silence is even worse than the nonsense itself!
Our Pope Emeritus has a very fine intellect and his ability to transmit the Truths of Catholicism are unparalleled. Just go to the denzingerbergoglio post for May 24th! The difference between him and Francis is ABSOLUTELY stunning. He makes Bergoglio look like a real yokel from the planet’s fetid backwaters.
Something strange is afoot. Pray!
Akita, too bad he didn’t use this fine intellect at the Council to scream:”Stop, stop, this must be stopped!!” Archbishop Lefebvre could have used his help. He could have been a Saint!!
It is befuddling. He was a young man then, caught up in the whirlwind. I do believe his act of 07/07/07 will exonerate him in the coming centuries for those taking the long view.
Why? He caved into pressure through weakness. The first pope did that too, right? Did he lose his office? Here is Emmerich’s prophecy on that. Leaving Rome means resigning as we can now see.
October 1, 1820
“The Church is in great danger. We must pray so that the Pope may not leave Rome; countless evils would result if he did. They are now demanding something from him. The Protestant doctrine and that of the schismatic Greeks are to spread everywhere. I now see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. A great devastation is now near at hand.”
“In those days Faith will fall very low and it will be preserved in some places only.”
I suggest that you listen to Peter in Chains, an audio series by Malachi Martin. Pope B16 had his weakness overcome him, like St. Peter. Recall how newly elected Pope B16 said to pray for him that he didn’t flee from fear of the wolves. Unfortunately he did. He will die for the faith as the 3rd secret of Fatima says, the bishop in white.
The first pope was crucified upside-down. Regardless though, Benedict simply caving into weakness and/or fear wouldnt bother me nearly so much if he werent the very same Fr. Ratzinger of vatican 2 fame.
Quite. The problem is not Ratzinger’s alleged weakness… the problem is that he has professed and taught pretty much the same heresies as Wojtyla and Bergoglio (the only difference being that Bergoglio does it much more openly and without hiding behind a “conservative” mask). I fail to see how one could condemn one but praise (and put hopes into) the other. Ratzinger, if anything, was more dangerous, precisely because so many were fooled (or wanted to be fooled) by his alleged conservatism.
Huh? Why would he have screamed “stop, stop”?? He was , after all, one of the most radical of the heretical theologians at the Council.
Too bad he’s kept clinging onto his non-Catholic beliefs and ideas until his old age (as is obvious from his writings, speeches, books, etc – including the more recent ones).
I didn’t say he WOULD have. I meant he SHOULD have if he had a fine intellect regarding the Truths of the Catholic Church.
Like you I have questioned seriously what the resignation of Pope Benedict was all about. It was surreal to witness a Pope abandon his office. Almost as surreal was the near mute response to this resignation by Catholics internationally and by Catholics here in Ireland. It was as if this resignation did not matter. No one questioned it. Even when Pope Benedict’s former pupil theologian Fr.Vincent Twomey stated – 12 months after his resignation – that Pope Benedict looked like a fully rejuvenated man at their annual meeting with the emeritus pope, there was no response from Catholics. The coup d’etat had been witnessed but the foot soldiers stood there not bothering to even shrug.
The ramifications from that resignation – and all the ramifications from Francis papacy – continue to reverberate.
Archbishop Gaenswein muddies the waters further. Why? And for who’s benefit?
We live in times of extreme disorientation. And that should be warning enough. God help us.
Why would Pope Benedict XVI stand for such disgraces as these if he were so “fearful of the wolves”?
Why does he look so happy with this grotesque statue?
Why does he look so happy with Francis?
His face and actions do not match with “fear” …. nor with disappointment over this pontificate.
Could please provide a link to that comment of Pope Benedict XVI?
I cannot find it.
Exactly. There still exists this myth, even among traditional circles, about Benedict being this good and holy man, when in fact he was one of the people who helped create this entire disaster in the first place.