The Final Attack on the Petrine See, in living color

Mirroring Miss Banhardt’s most recent video here, for the sake of the combox. The content is very well put together; a veritable compendium of the knowable facts of the matter.  As you watch, keep reminding yourself that there are very prominent Trads who still insist that there is ZERO evidence that Bergoglio is an antipope.

Pro tip when commenting: If you start out with, “I haven’t watched the video, but…” just save yourself the time, because it’s getting deleted.

Enjoy!

———————————————-

NEW BARNHARDT VIDEO: Part 2 – “The Bergoglian Antipapacy: The Freemasonic/Teutonic Final Attack on the Petrine See

I told you that there would be lots of new content in June!

Forgive the “mood lighting”.  Phone-Camera number one failed at launch, so we had to use the backup phone-camera, and it did this charming lighting effect.  Hey, this is about the content, folks.

Speaking of content:

The Part 1 Video from November ARSH 2018

Link to PDF of Slide Presentation: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8h1ti84ww4j…

Mark Docherty’s NonVeniPacem blog.

Link to Sandro Magister September 2014 piece on Canon Lawyers questioning the validity of Pope Benedict’s February 2013 attempted partial resignation: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/…

Link to J. Michael Miller’s Doctoral Dissertation, “The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology”. Available for electronic purchase. https://play.google.com/store/books/d…

Kilian McDonnell “WALTER KASPER ON THE THEOLOGY AND THE PRAXIS OF THE BISHOP’S OFFICE”
http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/63/63.4/63.4.3.pdf

Link to Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God”. https://www.communio-icr.com/files/ra…

As always, I strongly encourage downloading, mirroring, reposting, as that is the best defense against censorship.

I hope this helps.  Keep praying folks!  Hang in there!  Things are happening!  The enemies of Christ, His Holy Church and the Papacy are NOT going to get away with this!

Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for us!

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!

26 thoughts on “The Final Attack on the Petrine See, in living color

  1. I love Ann’s videos. It is so satisfying to watch something so coherent and informative, to say the least. I have a question: The criticism out and about on blogs I have read since watching Part Two of the Barnhart Video, is that the Pope is not under (subservient to) Canon Law, that he can change Canon Law. What is the true relationship to the Pope and Canon Law? How can we answer those who indicate that Benedict was not under the directives regarding his resignation that are stated in Canon Law? Help me out here, Mark.

    1. Clarity, precision, and truth. We were made to love these things because God Himself is these things.

      The error that is currently circulating is that since the pope has the power to change canon law, then he is not subject to canon law. First of all, it’s a logical fallacy to assume the latter is proven by the former; as it certainly is not. But it seems to me that there are two clear proofs against this error.

      1. When Christ conferred the Keys, he did it in such a way that power to bind and loose goes both ways – on earth AND in heaven. In other words, Christ Himself is bound to canon law, precisely because He bound Himself to it. There is no risk of error for Him of course, due to the supernatural negative protection enjoyed by Peter and his successors. Now if Christ Himself is bound, yet not the pope?

      2. There exists an entire section within the code that deals specifically with the Roman Pontiff. In our case we find Can.332.2 very relevant. Now, if popes are not bound by canon law, why is there a canon law that binds popes?

      1. Breaking it down more simply still.

        Say you’re playing a game of poker. The dealer has the power to set house rules.

        Is the dealer bound by the house rules when playing a hand of poker?

      2. “Now, if pope’s are not bound by canon law, why is there a canon law that binds the pope?”

        lol! Hilarious.

      3. Mark, what of the Virtue of Equity/Epikeia that the commenter Fr. Belland suggested about a week ago? Is Equity the virtue that when applied by a pope to Canon Law for the Common Good does not require derogation? As noted by others here and elsewhere, the best we can do is to speculate on Pope Benedict’s mindset. He alone knows all the facts and players involved in the circumstances surrounding his decision and choice of words. Moreover, many of the same players and circumstances are still present with no overt signs of substantial change on the horizon.

        And yet Benedict maintains the munus and that reality alone does not strike me as the action of one who has fled or colluded or redefined. Rather his not fleeing the “lion’s den” shouts loudly in the midst of this present turbulence. In the face of such unbridled, demonic rot and filth that has been and is yet to be exposed in the establishment church and the world, are we not naive to expect an engraved invitation and flashing neon signs in order to rally around Pope Benedict? Like he asked Cdl Brandmuller, what other way should he have affected the revelation of rot and at the same time protected the promises of Christ to His Bride?

    2. There is an easy demonstration to prove the self-defeating premise of this logical fallacy:

      If the Pope is not subject to Canon Law, and if he is judged by no man because he is the King of an absolute Monarch deemed by Christ Himself, then:

      – Those who hold this fallacy MUST submit to EVERYTHING the Pope proclaims.

      And I do mean EVERYTHING.

      They must accept it completely, at face value, submit to it fully, and fully believe it themselves as an infallible unquestionable dogma of Truth itself.

      – And when they attempt to cite Canonical LIMITATIONS of “infallibility”

      – REMIND them that Canon Law does NOT apply to the papacy. Thus Canon Law can NOT possibly limit the pope’s statements and personal beliefs as anything other than absolute Truth itself. Because after all, NO human-being can possibly doubt (much less judge against) that premise since the Pope IS the self-sovereign King of Christ’s temporal Kingdom whom NO HUMAN can question.

      Then ask them if they personally adhere to these unconditional absolutes of their own paradigm.

      And if not – then why?

      Ask them by what authority they reject them?

      Then ask them WHY they are personally in Schism with not only their Pope but also

      – Ask them WHY they are in Schism with their own stated premise?

      1. I have used the military as an analogy before.

        Soldiers take an Oath of Enlistment to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic” – not to their commanding Officer, not their Battalion Commander, the SecDef, not even to the President. The Oath is to a Document and to principles that transcend any man or any moment.

        So, the President cannot command a soldier to commit a war crime, as defined by the UCMJ (the equivalent of Cannon Law). He cannot command his subordinates to kill non-combatants to send a message or take personal revenge. The President can give only *lawful orders*. Any unlawful order not only *can* be disobeyed … it *must* be disobeyed.

        Execution of an unlawful order will result in Court Martial and punishment, even if the President himself commanded it.

        In other words, the President has *IMMENSE* power … within the legal structure of the Office he holds. Outside of that legal authority, he has no more power than you or me or the guy changing my tire.

        It is just so for the Pope. His power is exponentially more than any President … as.long.as he governs within his Divine and Canonical authority. Outside of that, his opinion is worth as much as any other Catholic. And if his opinion is contrary to Dogma and the Word Of God, then his opinion is as damnable as any other man who stands contrary to God and God’s Law.

        And such a Pope *must* be “confronted to his face”, or those in authority who participate *or do nothing to stop him* are just as guilty as the soldier who committed a war crime because he was just “following orders”.

      2. Before the faithful become totally confused concerning the nature of the Papacy and his relation to Canon Law, let us listen to one of the most renowned Canonists of the last Century, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani. In his book entitled “Canon Law” He teaches that “The Supreme Pontiff is THE CHIEF, THE ORDINARY AND UNDYING SOURCE OF CANON LAW, BOTH GENERAL AND PARTICULAR.
        “(a) In proof of this we have only to read Canon 218 [Old Code]: § 1. As successor to the primacy of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has not only the primacy of honor, but also supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, in matters of faith and morals as well as in those pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”
        “(b) The pope’s plenary, absolute and strictly monarchical jurisdiction, manifesting itself in the exercise of judicial, administrative and especially legislative power, is restricted by NO HUMAN AUTHORITY. Accordingly, the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction over the Church of Christ is not circumscribed by General Councils, by the College of Cardinals, by any group of Bishops, nor for a stronger reason, by the faithful, of by civil rulers, or by any human power whatsoever.”
        “(c) The Power of the Pope is limited ONLY by Divine Law, both natural and positive. The Roman Pontiff cannot make any law at variance with this law, nor can he strictly speaking, dispense from it.”
        “(d) The primacy of jurisdiction accounts for the vast power of the Roman Pontiff, whereby he has the right : (1) To make new laws, both universal and particular: hence the fact that a Pope enacts new laws, ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NECESSITIES OF THE TIMES [INCLUDING WHEN INVOKING THE VIRTUE OF EPIKEIA], SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS SOMETHING STRANGE. (2) To interpret laws, both ecclesiastical and divine, for he is the Universal Doctor and the Supreme Teacher. (3) To safeguard laws and to enforce them, for he must be their defender against attacks (hence the Holy Father obliges bishops to bring him a report (Relatio) on the state of their dioceses, especially for the purpose of learning whether discipline prevails and the cannons are obeyed. (4) To abrogate, derogate, and change human ecclesiastical laws, whether they be laws of his predecessors, since, ‘an equal has no dominion over an equal’, or the laws of ecumenical or particular Councils, or even those of the Apostles. (5) To grant dispensations, privileges and indults. Rightly, therefore, did Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) assert that the Roman Pointiff has all laws in the Archives of his heart (in scrinio sui pectoris; c. 1, ‘De Constit.’, in VI).”

        Concerning epikeia Archbishop Cicognano states: “EPIKY. We have enumerated certain cases in which this ars boni et aequi (equity) is to be applied. Frequently, however, we speak of equity only in reference to positive laws. A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforeseen cases to results which agree neither with the intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and the general principles of natural justice. Law in the strict sense (jus strictum) is,
        therefore, positive law in its literal interpretation; equity, on the contrary, consists of the principles of
        natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with the former.30 Epiky (Gr. ‘Επιεικειεα, equity) is therefore defined: The benign application of the law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be included under his general law.”

        My contention regarding Benedict’s renunciation is that the indomitable demonic forces within the Vatican, were both manipulating him to do what he knew was not good for the Church and preventing him from doing what he knew ought to be done. In other words, the very “exercise” of the powers of the Papacy became impossible, but he was also under pressure to resign the OFFICE. However, he, Benedict, would not allow the Petrine Office to be placed in the hands of a vicar of Satan (God using Benedict as a “secondary cause” for the preservation of the Papacy. So he retained the Petrine Office by giving up the “exercise” of those powers, which “exercise” is NOT the power itself. Hence, in my opinion, Bnedict invoked Epikeia, and applied it to Canon 332 §2, (the Canon setting the requirements for resignation of a Pope), the situation in the Church demanding that Benedict retain the Papacy.

        In resigning from the “exercise” of the Powers of Office, then, Benedict placed himself in a position analogous to a Pope in hiding (Caius), a Pope in exile (Pope Gregory VII, and a Pope in captivity (Pope Pius VII), all of whom had limited, if not total, deprivation of the “exercise” of the Powers of Office. Hence Benedict in no way changed the essence of the Papacy.

        As far as the “expanded ministry” about which Abp. Ganswein speaks in his talk on 20 May 2016, he mentions that there are TWO MEMBERS involved in that “ministry” not two POPES. And since, as those previous three Popes were pretty much alone in their hiding place, their place of place of exile or place of captivity, Benedict added Abp. Ganswein, his Prefect of the Papal Household, to his “Apostolic See,” for tasks, housekeeping activities surely, but as will become manifest at the death of Benedict, most likely other more important acts ACTS by the Supreme Pontiff. As mentioned above, this is NOT a change in the nature of the Papacy, but only in the “exercise” of the Powers of the Papacy, especially that of Sanctifying, through Benedict’s prayers and sufferings as requested by Our Lady, by VIRTUE OF EPIKEIA, when the current laws and practices of the Holy See would only tend to the harm of Holy Mother Church.

      3. @ frdbelland:

        Well put and very useful. Thank you.

        I make special note of “limited only by natural and positive divine law … cannot make any law at variance with it.”

        Catholics willingly defer to the Pope and honor him as Christ’s earthly Monarch. But Christ’s Divine Law is vast, pervasive and touches everything in Canon Law and Sacred Tradition. The moment the Pope leaves this by even a punctuation mark, he has left his divine authority.

        This is normally true, and Popes are typically very careful in everything they say and write. This failed abdication disaster is at variance with divine law and its resulting anti-Pope is a wrecking ball of all that is Sacred and true.

        And so it is our duty to point this out in the name of our true Monarch and Lord, Jesus Christ,

      4. frdbelland says:

        “The Supreme Pontiff is THE CHIEF, THE ORDINARY AND UNDYING SOURCE OF CANON LAW, BOTH GENERAL AND PARTICULAR.

        And therein lies the paradox that spawns confusion.

        From this we have Catholics who claim the Pope is outside of Canon Law. He is not bound by Canon Law.

        But of course – ALL OF THESE DEFINITIONS ARE DEFINED, ADVANCED, AND MADE LEGALLY BINDING *BY CANON LAW ITSELF* which of course is written by human beings.

        So the paradox of course is that in reality – the Supreme Pontiff would have no effective jurisdiction over Canon Law NOR could he be the source of Canon Law – if Canon Law itself did not FIRST enable him to do so by defining and enforcing such a paradigm.

        And THIS is precisely why The First Vatican Council was effectively a train-wreck, and why the heresies of Vacuum II were ONLY made possible as an INEVITABLE RESULT OF THIS overly-broad (and frankly) self-conflicting paradigm based upon a LOGICAL FALLACY.

        It is also no small irony that a mere 14 years after the First Council – the succeeding Pontiff (Pope Leo XIII) had his prophetic vision of Satan boasting to God that he could NOW destroy the Church within a century, and God then granting him the time to do so.

        And why do you suppose Satan felt confident enough to make such a boast at that time – after nearly 2000 years?

        ANSWER: Because the First Vatican Council GAVE HIM THE ERROR HE NEEDED TO GERMINATE HIS INFECTIOUS HERESIES AND ULTIMATELY HIS PAPAL APOSTASIES.

        Just as the Marian Prophecies have been warning us.

        And if anyone truly doubts this – then I invite them to examine the steady and increasingly accelerated decline of orthodoxy in the Magisterium ever since the First Council. And then look around at where we are now.

  2. I watched the entire video. Excellent. Barnhardt
    takes the evidence and lays it all out there. And there is so much evidence that it is laughable and downright embarrassing how many in the Catholic media choose to ignore it. For the compelling material and potentially juicy interviews alone, how anyone in Catholic media could think it wise to ignore this is disturbing. Be on the lookout for certain trads tempting people into sedevacantism like Ann said. One on twitter already said that there is nothing Bergoglio is doing that JPII hasn’t done. No matter what one thinks of JPII, that is a lie. Bergoglio attacks the Eucharist and the family, but JPII tirelessly defended them both in many encyclicals.

  3. It’s obvious Pope Benedict only retired from active ministry and believes he retains the office till death, the question is why, was it to counteract behind the scenes efforts to force him out, or to radically alter the the Petrine Office

    1. If we want to believe H. E. Gänswein, Pope Benedict wanted to fundamentally change the papacy by this peculiar act of resignation from ministey without resignation from office. Ann Barnhardt points out that Pope Benedict came into contact with such ideas through “German” theology. I am confident that the promise of Christ that Peter will convert at an advanced age (Luke 21:28) refers to Pope Benedict.

  4. The Trads who refuse to see the obvious reality of Bergoglio’s anti-papacy rationalize that contradictory paradigm by claiming that his “papacy” is our chastisement.

    But that is a flawed thesis derived from a fallacious theology. More to the point:

    The Church exists in this world as the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men. And as such, the sacraments redeem us in our suffering – they do not cause our suffering.

    But if Bergoglio IS the real Pope – then that means his heresies of ambiguity, his implied apostasies, his sins of omission, et-al – RUPTURE the Church’s communion of God and men.

    In short – The Gates of Hell would have truly overtaken the Chair of Peter and made Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection, and ultimately our eternal redemption – null and void.

    All of which reveals the madness of the FrancisTrads ultimate position: That it is better that Hell itself should occupy The Chair of Peter – than the Chair should be empty.

    And if ever there was a more radical example of a Pyrrhic victory than this spiritual suicide pact utilizing the noose of reality and the 30 pieces of coinage from the bankruptcy of intellectualism –

    I can’t imagine what it would be.

    1. Dear Lazarus Gethsemane, It is not Fr. Belland who says: “The Supreme Pontiff is THE CHIEF, THE ORDINARY AND UNDYING SOURCE OF CANON LAW, BOTH GENERAL AND PARTICULAR. (Para.) “(a) In proof of this we have only to read Canon 218 [Old Code]: § 1. As successor to the primacy of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has not only the primacy of honor, but also supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, in matters of faith and morals as well as in those pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.” I was quoting from Canon Law by Abp Amleto Giovanni Cicognani. So you are really charging Archbishop of causing confusion: “And therein lies the paradox that spawns confusion.” Please provide your credentials proving your competence in disputing the renowned Archbishop, as well as for saying that Vatican I was a “train wreck.” Father Belland.

      1. frdbelland says: “I was quoting from Canon Law by Abp Amleto Giovanni Cicognani. So you are really charging Archbishop of causing confusion”

        Why would I charge the Archbishop when he is merely parroting Canon Law?

        No, I am charging the First Vatican Council for this obvious logical fallacy.

        frdbelland says: “Please provide your credentials proving your competence in disputing the renowned Archbishop, as well as for saying that Vatican I was a “train wreck.”

        Logical discernment needs no credentials. And why?

        Because Objective Reality is it’s own competence. How do I know this?

        Because Our Lord and Savior told us so: “By their fruits you will know them.”~ Matthew 7:16

        If you can provide the name of the mere mortal man who thinks he possesses the pharisaic “credentials” and moral “competence” to correct the King of Kings – then I can provide you with the name of a False Teacher who aids the AntiChrist.

        With all do respect Fr. – your reply was nothing more than:

        “Shut up!” explained the righteous pharisee “Who do you simple sheep think you are?”

      2. The purpose of this thread is commentary on the Benedictine “abdication.” Need to leave the Trad vs sede vs Old Catholic stuff at the door please.

  5. @Fr. Belland: To be clear, you are saying that Pope Benedict both in his authority as Pope and in knowing more than any other person on earth about the several circumstances surrounding his own and the Church’s situation made his decision and chose his words without ignorance, negligence, or malfeasance. He did not split or redefine the papacy; he has not fled for fear of the wolves nor has he abandoned his sheep or Holy Mother Church. As I think Lazarus Gethsemane has stated, Satan in person or in the guise of a proxy can never and will never occupy the Chair of Peter. Thus, (per Fr. Belland) Pope Benedict’s use of the virtue of Equity (in line with the intent of the lawgiver of Canon 332.2 etc…) has insured this reality both temporally and spiritually. Is this a correct summary?

    1. Dear Islam_Is Islam, Yes, Benedict’s use of the virtue of Equity addresses a situation, the planned, ultimate Masonic attempt to destroy the Papacy, foreseen by him (Benedict), if not revealed in the still unpublished part of the Third Secret, prevented Satan’s vicar from officially occupying the Chair of Peter, and hence “insured this reality both temporally and spiritually.” Because the Popes throughout the 20th Century refused to obey Heaven’s demand for the Consecration of Russia and then Pope John XXIII disobeyed Our Lady’s command to reveal the Third Secret in 1960, God, as it were, turned to Plan B, that of using a SECONDARY CAUSE, namely, Benedict, to prevent that against which Christ protected His Church–that “the Gates of hell shall not prevail,” a tactic which God can use and has done throughout history, e.g., David showing up when the cowering Israelite army hesitated to attack the Philistines. Besides, I believe it is more fitting that God, in defeating an enemy, uses unheard of solutions which are legitimate rather than by using deceit (Benedict knowingly–given his acting as Pope right from the beginning– “making a mistake” to invalidate his ‘resignation’ and hence keep the Papacy), or that he lied when he said his resignation was valid (having emphatically repeating he was free and his resignation was valid). Let’s give God credit for He just doesn’t have to have his human “secondary causes” using subterfuge bring about something good–indeed, the end does not justify the means.

      1. @Father Belland: Yes!!!! The analogy of David as a second cause when the Church Militant of his time (so to speak) cowered before the powers that be. This fits well with my perception of the way God has so often shown us that the the battle is His as is the victory. Thank you for your insights. The possibility of Pope Benedict being deceitful or mistaken or an outright liar has never set well with either reason or my sense of what it means to be Catholic and a follower of Christ. Rather, I give God credit for bringing about good in His way and in His time which are seldom if ever mine. Thank you for your discussion of the virtue of Equity.

  6. frdbelland says: “…prevented Satan’s vicar from officially occupying the Chair of Peter”

    A point of theological reality:

    Is it quite possible for Satan’s minion to occupy the Chair of Peter “officially” – But NOT *LICITLY*.

    I would argue that those two terms (officially – licitly) are not synonymous in the ontological reality of this paradigm. Especially if one is to consider the obvious truth of this lost age that the majority members of the magisterium are in fact heretics if not outright apostates.

    1. Dear Lazarus Gethsemane, you haven’t provided your credentials yet, so I won’t comment on your accusation that the First Vatican Council for [is to blame] this obvious logical fallacy. However, your hair splitting just doesn’t make sense. If there is an illicit President of the U.S. can he really be officially the President? Illicit means unlawful! You seem to have a Kantian mentality whereby mind becomes the source of reality, rather than the mind conforming to reality outside the mind.

      But lets get to the nuts and bolts of the matter, and look at Sacred Scripture, Mt 16: 19: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” Are you going to tell me that if Satan’s vicar binds the Church with an official law (as Bergoglio has supposedly done in placing it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) that allows divorced and remarried Catholics living as man and wife, demanding Marriage rights, Our Lord is going to bind such a thing in Heaven? Give me a break! You’re making a hypocrite out of Christ, whereby he says it’s not OK for those in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion, but it is OK for those in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion. I’m sorry, Mr. Gethsemane, but if you really mean what you say, you’re not Catholic and you blaspheme Our Dear Lord already so outraged today.

  7. @frdbelland

    I would love to respond to you point by point – but unfortunately I was told by the author of this site to stay on the original topic. Which is completely understandable:

    (Mark Docherty says:
    June 22, 2019 at 1:58 pm

    The purpose of this thread is commentary on the Benedictine “abdication.” Need to leave the Trad vs sede vs Old Catholic stuff at the door please.”)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.