On Wednesday, July 19, Dr. Peter Chojnowski kindly published on his blog a brief article that I wrote entitled:
Diocesan priest questions validity of BXVI’s resignation
The “diocesan priest” in this instance is Fr. Ray Blake, who writing on his own blog from the Diocese of Arundel & Brighton in southern England, had floated a theory about the resignation of Benedict XVI that caught my attention. (Please, click on the hyperlink to visit Father’s blog if you wish to read his complete post).
You see, Fr. Blake posited that a “key factor” in Benedict’s resignation “was the threat that his brother George might be implicated not only in the physical abuse but also in the sexual abuse of school pupils.”
Fr. Blake went on to say that even if the implications were untrue, such a thing would have placed Benedict in an “untenable situation” had he remained in the papacy.
Simple enough, right?
Even so, let’s recap:
According to Fr. Blake’s theory, a “threat” (from unnamed wolves) against his brother was a “key factor” in Benedict’s decision to flee.
Since then – more than four years later – Fr. George Ratzinger hasn’t been implicated in any such scandal.
That being so, if one grants that Fr. Blake’s theory is correct (and it’s as reasonable as any other), one would then be left to logically conclude that the threat has been averted in light of the resignation.
Again, there’s nothing terribly complicated about Fr. Blake’s theory, but he went even further by suggesting that “pressure from groups like St Gallen mafia and Cardinal Martini” may have also been a factor in the resignation.
At this, I trust that readers can see why Fr. Blake’s post caught my eye.
As I pointed out in my article, the Code of Canon Law is unambiguous in the matter of papal resignations, stating:
“If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.” (Canon 332 §2)
Now, you tell me folks, does a pope resigning in the face of a “threat” (Fr. Blake’s word) from unnamed sources against a loved one, and “pressure” (his word as well) from a self-described “mafia” group, add up to an act “freely made”?
Not to my mind.
As such, I concluded:
“Fr. Blake essentially opines that Benedict’s resignation may have been invalid – a theory that necessarily calls into question the validity of the conclave that followed, to say nothing of the heretic they elected…”
Well, Fr. Blake took great exception to my article; or as the British might say, he threw a bloody paddy over it in a follow-up post entitled simply, Francis is pope.
Please, do yourself a favor and read Father’s response in full. Trust me, the insults that he hurled about in this post alone are worth your time.
Getting to the meat of his rebuttal (of his own theory, mind you), Fr. Blake wrote:
“Very few of us act with absolute freedom; age, advice or pressure from others, fear or even threats might well influence our decisions but unless someone was physically forcing Benedict’s hand to write his name at the foot of his resignation, and pressed his seal to it amidst squeals of protestation, he did indeed act ‘freely’.”
Now, I’m no canon lawyer, and obviously neither is Fr. Blake, but I am willing to bet dollars to donuts (or pounds to crumpets, if you prefer) that his “gun-to-the-head” interpretation of Canon 332§2 is, shall we kindly say, quite a distance off the mark.
In any event, as readers can plainly see, Fr. Blake’s argument isn’t really with me, but with the Code of Canon Law.
Be that as it may, Fr. Blake indicated that he is expecting a correction to be issued in light of his argument, and so with a genuine sense of urgency, I am happy to oblige.
I concluded my article on Fr. Blake’s “theory” concerning Benedict’s resignation:
“I applaud Fr. Blake for his willingness to address this elephant in the room that most are pleased to ignore.”
In light this grave error in judgment, I humbly offer my apologies and ask that readers henceforth consider this statement well and truly retracted.
Louie, one way or the other, there is so much smoke that the fire is certainly burning somewhere. No one, and, I mean no one, in the most influential of Catholic circles wants to address the question of the St. Gallen Mafia (i.e.- covertly coercing Benedict); or the now public confessions of prelates like Cardinal Danneels basically saying in more than one interview that his “group” forced Benedict to resign (thus, making the resignation invalid); or, conversely, IF Benedict’s resignation is valid, no one among the ecclesiastical circle wants to address the outright violations committed by the numerous cardinals both before, and during the conclave to conspire to elect a known heretic to the Chair of Peter (i.e.- violations of Universi Dominici Gregis, thus, producing an invalid election).
I am sick and tired of our prelates (read College of Cardinals…at least the truly faithful/orthodox ones) not willing to do the right thing. Given the current situation, the bishops of the SSPX MUST, I say again- MUST consecrate more of their own bishops to ensure the survival of the Faith.
It is sad to see so many theologians (clerical & lay), priests, bloggers & website owners going to such great lengths to assure us Catholics that PF is indeed a valid & legitimately elected pope because the priests & people of Rome accept him as their bishop. In that case, any criminal can be elected to the Papacy if he has enough backers. It is quite evident that PF was not qualified for such elevation & his appointment has been a disaster. Without any viable proof that the rules were fully kept both as to the qualifications of those going forward for election & the election itself, how can any faithful Catholic be obliged to accept the situation this pontificate has placed the CC at large in?
No-one seems to have been charged with overseeing the election of Jorge Bergoglio i.e. as in supervising that the JPII rules on future papal elections were carried out, nor did they apparently pay any attention to the manipulation & threats being carried out by the Sankt. Gallen Group (Mafia), which they later celebrated. Why shouldn’t papal elections be as strictly monitored as civil elections?
The destruction of the foundations of the institutional church is abhorrent & must be fully addressed but cannot be if most of the Hierarchy has been planted with liberals in league with the present usurpers. Either the silent members of the curia will have to step up to the plate & inform us as to what actually took place before & during the election or we must face, as a result of their apostasy & incompetence, a divine retribution unknown before to mankind.
Al the Silent Crusader–Here are two more MUSTs for the SSPX:
Stay away from and speak loudly against Demonic Rome. The SSPX cannot insure the survival of the Faith without these two crucial steps. Consecrating more Bishops just gives the enemies of Christ more victims to destroy. The SSPX MUST do the right thing also. From where I stand, I observe that the SSPX leadership has put the fight against the V2 pseudo-church on the “back burner” and their priests are following their lead. I hope someone sees a different picture for the encouragement of us all.
No bishop, nor prelate, nor priest, nor lay, who freely gives of his full assent into this summa and summit of deception, by virtue of each, his own reception of the “deceiving influence” of which Saint Paul speaks, that the “conciliar church” is the Church of the Son of God made man, will identify with this reality of our time made manifest, in keeping with Reality, that not only is Jorge from hell–as Francis –not the Pope of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church but neither could any other conciliar pope have been. This is our reality as Reality. It is, after all, simply Catholic to acknowledge that Truth is a divine Person, His name is Jesus the Christ, and that which He has revealed through His Holy Church simply cannot change ever and forever.
Turning our attention now to the Apostolic Constitution of Saint Pope Pius V, “Quo Primum”, we have an Apostolic codification of the singular Rite of the Holy Roman Mass as written in its Missal, as specifically codified in Quo Primum, in such a way, that it can never, ever, and forever be changed, as specifically stated by this Saint and Pope, with—“… the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”, to be incurred for any alteration of said Missal by anyone. This Saint and Pope opens Quo Primum acknowledging that it was the “sacred Council of Trent” which gave him stipulations to revise the Missal, among other things, and as such he was acting at the behest of the Council of Trent in his Apostolic act of Quo Primum.
We’ll now turn to scholastic metaphysics, shortly. As our Lord and our God commanded, as both true God and true man, in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 16, verse 18, the gates of hell cannot prevail against His Holy Church through the end of time. He simply did not command that the gates of hell would not prevail against Peter and in fact Saint Paul prophetically and mysteriously stated that the mystery of iniquity, which he acknowledged was already active in his Apostolic time, was held from bringing forth the “wicked one”, “…only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.”. For those with eyes that see, it is understood that there can only be a singular, “he”, of whom Saint Paul speaks, as he speaks of a “he” who will hold the mystery of iniquity from bringing forth the “wicked one” over the centuries, as we now know historically that this has been the reality, “until he be taken out of the way”, and then the wicked one shall be revealed. Therefore, we know that the person of the Antichrist was not made manifest for the first 2,000 years of the Church, simply because it was not God’s Will that he be, as Almighty God placed His Vicar in this world to, among other obvious things, hold off this “wicked one”, “until he be taken out of the way”, at which time the person of the Antichrist will come to full power under his complete allegiance to Satan. These truths are very hard and can only be received while under the reception of the grace of fortitude and perseverance, much like that which was required of the disciples when Christ Jesus preached His, “Bread of Life discourse”.
As being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect, we know with metaphysical certitude, that both of the Apostolic Constitutions, “Quo Primum” and “Missale Romanum”, cannot be from the Chair of Saint Peter in his infallible act of governance over the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We know this through the application of so called, “right reason”, that which as the Angelic Doctor taught, can only be understood in the mind of any human person, by virtue of his, “participation in the Mind of God” (Summa Theologiae). If “Quo Primum” was given infallibly to Holy Mother Church in 1570 by the Pope and Saint, Pius V, replete with the condemnation of “…the Wrath of Almighty God and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul…”, for any iota of any iota of change made to the Roman Missal, etc., then the profane and arcane attempt of the Freemason and sodomite (see “Paul VI Beatified?” by don Luigi Villa), Giovanni Batista Montini as Paul VI, in his so called “Apostolic Constitution–Missale Romanum”, simply cannot be from Holy Mother Church, rather from the church of the Antichrist. That which is infallible, cannot somehow, at any point in time and space, as Truth is a divine Person and He does not change, become also fallible. That is absurd as that is inane, placing an affront to the scholastic law of non-contradiction. If that which was “once” infallible, then becomes fallible, the gates of hell have prevailed against Christ’s Church which is as it can only remain, infinitely impossible. I beg Almighty God His mercy. I pray this helps. In caritas.
The reason I said the SSPX needs to consecrate more of their own bishops is to prevent the end of their Apostolic Succession. Should all of the SSPX bishops die without consecrating new ones, the SSPX would eventually die out. They must have bishops to continue.
Louie may I suggest one might intuit from the sheer ferocity and number of contrary comments Father Blake generously allows, and within which his public stance is rebutted in detail, may be instructive as to what Father Blake’s private position, and therefore, stratagem, may be?
He is a good priest. Discernment is wanted.
Bosco, what is your definition of a”good priest?”
“We pay a heavy, very heavy price for the superhuman dignity of our calling. The ridiculous is always so near to the sublime. And the world, usually so indulgent to foibles, hates ours instinctively.” – Georges Bernanos –
Al, the Silent Crusader–This is an excellent point and a logical next step for the SSPX. I fear that +Fellay believes he must have the approval of the Bergoglio “papacy” before proceeding and does not wish to jeopardize the much sought after “regularization”. If this is the case (and I pray it isn’t), then perhaps it is time for +Fellay to either man-up or step down. Dancing with the devil is no way to “restore all things in Christ”. No matter how many bishops are consecrated for the SSPX, they will be totally ineffective if they are aligned with Modernist evil Rome.
To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome [a false “pope”] is to be out of communion with the Church.” -St. Cyprian
To consecrate bishops without a Papal mandate for any reason is condemned, the last time by Pius XII. The chastisement Sr. Lucia warned was coming by 1960 happened and is in progress (1957 interview). The implications are far more horrifying than we can ever imagine, and we all must keep searching for the Truth because we’re surrounded by deadly traps at every turn.
As she said, we’re now either for God or against Him, there’s no grey area in her statement.
(To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome [a false “pope”] is to be out of communion with the Church.” -St. Cyprian)
Are you kidding? Since this battle of contradictions Fr. Blake is having with himself arose, he has banned more posts that Church Militant. He’s refused posting of several from me (he screens all posts first) and from several others from acquaintances of mine. I used to check his site every once awhile since he posted so infrequently. Since his post, anti-post controversy, he’s picked up rabidly. Louie? Fr. Blake? Mmmm. Think I’ll go with Louie on this one.
I used to read Fr Blake’s website for several years. Fr Blake didn’t publish several of my comments after Pope Francis took the Office of Peter. Gradually, a fear of acknowledging and speaking the truth seemed to take over at the blog. The truth doesn’t change yet after Francis came to be, many Catholics with public platforms seemed to alter truth so as not to acknowledge the great evil that Francis was doing and saying on a constant basis.
Fr. Balke identified several possible factors which seem plausible but to isolate just one as the reason Canon 332 was triggered does not seem a fair summation of what Fr. Blake wrote.
In any event, Bishop emeritus Ratzinger has, at least twice, said he freely resigned.
Franciscus is Pope
Saint Athanasius the Great did it out of necessity and so did Archbishop Lefebvre of sainted memory. Without true bishops who actually believe what the Church does, it cannot survive. What kind of confirmations and ordinations do you think you are getting with these Novus Ordo “bishops”? Logic, logic!