Tell me more about how it’s all oh so confusing; if only there were some visible sign…

How about moving the demon worship from the Vatican gardens inside… inside St. Peter’s…

36 thoughts on “Tell me more about how it’s all oh so confusing; if only there were some visible sign…

  1. The Lord talked all the time about ‘blessed are those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear’. We are seeing, in living color, that of which he spoke in the people and faces of those around us. Never has it been more apparent that the greater part of blindness and deafness is willful. Blessed are those with a hunger and thirst for righteousness, for TRUTH – for we see that they are all too rare. May we be counted among that number in the end.

  2. I think Whoregay is frankly surprised it has taken this much ….. and still no schism! “What is it going to take?!” He wants one really bad, obviously. But, since there are no takers, his backup plan is fine too – take the entire Church with him into antichurch.

    I used to think I had to profess my antipope beliefs to the Priest to ensure he was appraised prior to offering me Holy Communion.

    Now I think I need to hear the Priest’s antipope beliefs before I am willing to receive Holy Communion from him.

    I don’t even want to hear the “consecration is still valid” argument. We need to insist our Priest’s (at least) choose a side. Idols, demons, shaman stand sticks and assorted paraphernalia riff raff in our holiest of sites, directly above the relics of St. Peter. The silence and inaction is completely unacceptable.

    Where is the Priest with holy crazy eyes that walks up and kicks that stupid demon boat, and its evil contents to kingdom come – right in the face of Whoregay himself.

    1. I think the sign to abandon ship is coming, quickly. Once he takes away the continual sacrifice we will know it is time to cross the rubicon, so to speak.

      1. I think so too Uriel. We will know when it’s time, and when that happens it will NOT be the faithful in schism, it will be the demons in miters that are in schism….heck, they are in schism as we speak! I suspect for a time we may be able to find a renegade here and there that is standing firm in opposition where we can receive the sacraments, but there may even come a time where all we will have is the Rosary and God’s grace to see us thru. The only consolation we will have to hang onto is that it won’t last long. Our Lady of LaSalette said that the Church will be in ‘Eclipse”. As you know an eclipse doesn’t last very long. It may get darker and darker and seem to disappear for a short time but it doesn’t last.

      2. Genuine question from ignorance.
        Have not the altars, sanctuaries, churches etc where the abominable idolatry has taken place been desecrated already?
        Does that not mean that (exorcism and?) reconsecration is required for valid Masses to be conducted in these places?

      3. They have been desecrated. Prudence demands, at a minimum, exorcism and reconsecration. But Jesus STILL DESCENDS. Even into the heart of darkness he descends.

        And when the altar lamp finally goes out, then, and only then, should we leave. Until then, “Could you not watch one hour with me?”

  3. Aqua, yes, that is a great question and one I have asked myself. Why has not one person, preferably someone in the clerical state, done exactly that. Is there not one man in Rome willing to do it. Do we not have one iota of the convictions of the sons of Mohammad. We’re so polite. We’re so polite we allow God to be insulted and mocked, his altar strewn with objects for false gods while He is there, His image as well as the Holy Eucharist. We have no fire in our belly for God. Or those that do are on the wrong continent.

    1. Can no one even mention this in a homily? At the Parish level, Priests should be educating their flock – inoculating then unaware and perplexed to aid them in extreme spiritual distress?

      As far as I can tell, it’s just business as usual. The little demon boat, those evil characters of stone, wood, fabric that represent something much, much bigger than their brick-a-brack selves, and adored by Bergoglio and his Cardinals as the precursor to eviscerating the One True Faith …. just part of the new Conciliar Faith in the opinion of Priests – one and all.

      1. @Aye, Aqua. The damnable frustration of waiting for those with authority to do their jobs. I see it as my job to let them know not only what the “gig” is BUT to let them know–as you have–that you have their back especially since it is not we who are the mutineers.

  4. “Tell me more about how it’s all oh so confusing; if only there were some visible sign…”

    We have had sufficient warning by Our Lady of hundreds of years that today’s reality was coming. No one who knows and believes her should be surprised. See Forge and Anvil today:
    tps://forge-and-anvil.com/2019/10/13/they-wont-release-the-3rd-secret-of-fatima-because/

    1. Thank you for the link, Mr. Dowd. It seems there are mainly two intepretations among BiPpers that are now competing to explain the nature of Benedict’s declaratio.

      Substantial Error
      1. According to the first view, the declaratio represents Benedict’s sincere, but erroneous, belief that two men can legitimately hold the Petrine Office, whether he was threatened or not.

      Substantial Trick
      2. According to the second view, the declaratio is but a ploy, or stratagem, used by Benedict to save the papacy and dupe his enemies, who certainly had threatened him. So the document actually does not mean that Benedict sincerely believes two men can legitimately share the Petrine Office.

      Something like this division seems right to me. The first camp seems open to the idea that Benedict may be captive right now, but given the evidence, still holds he likely holds an erroneous view of the papacy, whereas the second camp takes this supposed erroneous view to represent but a ploy. Am I reading this correctly?

      1. Yes, these seem to be the competing thesis, and the difference comes down to intent, which there is no way for us to definitively judge. But either way it still comes down to the fact that he did not resign the Office. It’s right there, plain as day.

      2. My main concern is not about who’s on first but rather that what we are witness in line with Our Lady’s a kind of end game for the Church as it has been for many centuries. We may also be at the point where God employs some sort to mass punishment to get our attention. In other words what is happening now is the play-out of world shattering events and very few seem to know or care.

      3. @Cam: Thank you for your succinct distillation of the two possible views of BiP. Perhaps you would consider that Pope Benedict could still be a prisoner under the second view–a willing prisoner, but a prisoner just the same.

        Questions: Would you call what Rebecca counseled and Jacob employed, in order that Isaac’s Blessing be bestowed as God desired, a Substantial Trick in which God tests faithfulness to Him and His plans? Was the Immaculate Conception a Substantial Trick that God employed since He saw that it was reasonable, He could do it, and He did? (Many Protestants view this Johnny-come-lately Catholic Dogma in this way.)

        Others have posited before and I have repeated here and elsewhere that the same “Substantial Trick” employed by God MAY apply to Pope Benedict: He saw that to resign the administration of the Petrine Munus while at the same time retaining IT (and thus the Keys) IN FULL was reasonable, he and he alone could do it and he did.

        I think, like Job, (and as it seems you too are coming around) we have to resign ourselves to the fact that we weren’t there “in the beginning” so to speak. While we do not need to know (and probably never will know) intent, we are commanded to be charitable. Perhaps you would admit that View #1 does not lend itself towards charity regarding Pope Benedict’s intellect, imagination, or will and since at it’s root it tends toward lack of charity, it is divisive and thus should be cast off.

        Please don’t misunderstand me. The work that Miss B and Mr Docherty have done to reveal the German-Modernist-School-of-Bologna Plan to undermine and end the Divinely instituted Papal Monarchy is most important since to defeat the enemy we must know him and his plans. That revelation has been a great service to the laity. Since we now know yet another piece of the demonic plot to destroy Christ’s Bride, we can be prepared to address it from the “roof tops”, ramparts, and pews as “gentle doves but wise serpents”.

      4. III: “Perhaps you would admit that View #1 does not lend itself towards charity regarding Pope Benedict’s intellect, imagination, or will.”

        I think I could admit that only if I interpret View #1 itself uncharitably.

        III: “it is divisive and thus should be cast off.”

        To be charitable, however, I would draw a different conclusion.

        I would say View #1 represents a good faith effort by Catholics to understand the evidence we currently have available, and because this view finds some measure of evidence, it should rather be considered (like View #2) by interested parties than faulted for inevitable qualities like divisiveness.

        Does View #1 ascribe an error to Pope Benedict? Sure, but I don’t think that’s necessarily uncharitable any more than I think it’s necessarily uncharitable to tell people they’re in error when they say two and two is five (telling people they’re in error, as we tell Protestants, can even be demanded by charity).

        I think critics of View #1 have to say as much; otherwise, they’ll find themselves in the incoherent position of saying that, while ascribing error to Benedict is uncharitable, it isn’t uncharitable to ascribe error to exponents of View #1.

      5. @Cam: Very well. Thank you for your clarification. To be fair I did not say that View #1 IS uncharitable but that it tends toward a lack of charity of course as you say only if one interprets it uncharitably as commenters like Lindsay Wheeler aka Lazarus Gethsemane’s unmistakable tenor suggests.

        Would you revisit the questions that I also asked you? Namely, “Would you call what Rebecca counseled and Jacob employed, in order that Isaac’s Blessing be bestowed as God desired, a Substantial Trick in which God tests faithfulness to Him and His plans? Was the Immaculate Conception a Substantial Trick that God employed since He saw that it was reasonable, He could do it, and He did? (Many Protestants view this Johnny-come-lately Catholic Dogma in this way.)”

        Thank you. I appreciate your comments and reasonable presentation of your position. They aid me in coming to and articulating my own conclusions.

      6. @IiI:

        Regarding Rebecca’s counsel and Jacob’s lie, and also the Immaculate Conception: Would I call these substantial tricks? I don’t see a trick at all in the latter, and in the former case, I can’t deny there are grounds for the charge (after all, there is a reason Isaac was surprised).

        In any case, it seems you’re contending that, if Benedict viewed his act as reasonable, then his act doesn’t amount to a substantial trick. If so, then I’d say two things:

        1. I’d first say the conditional is false, and for this reason: formally, an act can be attempted as a non-trick (without the intention to deceive) while materially it does trick others (objectively misleads). For example, I don’t intend to trick others by my pseudonym, but in fact some might be tricked by it (if they naively assume I’d want to use my birth name online).

        2. The second thing is that the conditional possibly constitutes a view altogether distinct from View #2. As View #2 would have it, Benedict wrote what he did in his declaratio both to deceive some (that he’s resigning) and communicate to others (that he’s under duress). The above conditional, however, appears to represent a Benedict with nothing duplicitous at all in mind when he wrote his declaratio. Is it possible, then, your view might be something like a ‘View #3’? It seems it is if deception isn’t something you’d like to attribute at all to the declaratio.

      7. @Cam: Yes, Cam! Resoundingly YES! View #3 per the “difficult and triumphant” decision that is mentioned by Fr. Schweigl after his interviews with the real Sister Lucy (since the interviews took place in 1952).

        “Apologia Pro Benedicto Sexto Decimo: Why Benedict is Still Pope” (from the same anonymous priest in the Sept. 14th article from Bishop Gracida’s blog):

        “The most convincing piece of information concerning the intention of Pope Benedict not to give up the Papacy, that is, his deliberate will to renounce only the Petrine Ministry is an article by Fr. Joseph Schweigl, S.J., a professor at the Gregorian University in Rome, entitled Fatima and the Conversion of Russia. This article was published in 1956 in a journal issuing from the Russicum College in Rome, where the Commission For Russia instituted by Pope Pius XII was operating. Fr. Schweigl was a member of the Commission For Russia and had been granted authorization by Pope Pius XII in 1952 to undertake a mission for interrogating Sr. Lucy concerning the message of Fatima. He had 31 questions which he presented to her and which she addressed candidly and amply. Before he left Portugal, however, he was instructed by the Holy Office through the Chancery at Coimbra, the Diocese where the Carmelite Convent where Sr. Lucy resided was located, that he could not reveal anything of the interview he had had with Sr. Lucia.

        What Fr. Schweigl wrote, however, was definitely connected with the message of Fatima, though probably through paraphrasing or summarizing in his own words what Sr. Lucia said more directly, as others have done with information they have about the 3rd Secret, e.g., Cardinal Ciappi. In any case Fr. Schweigl stated on page 15 of his article: “The Third Secret [of Fatima] deals with a victorious, triumphal decision by the Pope, triumphal, yes, but also difficult and heroic”.

        Source: This information comes from tape #4 of an 11 tape recording of a series of talks by Guido Del Rose (RIP) entitled Fatima and the Last Times Apostasy. A former Custodian of the National Pilgrim Statue for the U.S., Mr. Del Rose was attending conferences on Our Lady’s message by Fatima experts in Europe during the ‘60’s & ‘70’s.”

        ***

        Here is another excerpt from the ‘Apologia’, and perhaps a consideration for those who are unrelenting in their attacks against Pope Benedict, as is demonstrated in this very combox; not to mention the possible moral culpability of Mr. Hirsch to allow such calumnious remarks to be published in the first place.

        “The Vision of Jacinta

        Since Pope Benedict’s renunciation, I have been greatly disturbed by the almost immediate change of attitude concerning Benedict, especially by those who consider themselves traditional, which continues to this day. While he was Pope, Benedict was commended and praised for the various moves he made to tradition. But with his renunciation, there was a sudden about-face. Benedict was considered a coward, a traitor, a liberal, a modernist among so many other things. I couldn’t help but imagine him to be the one in the scene described by Sr. Lucia in her 3rd Memoir–taking it figuratively and even literally.

        “One day we spent our siesta down by my parents’ well. Jacinta sat on the stone slabs on top of the well. Francisco and I climbed up a steep bank in search of wild honey among the brambles in a nearby thicket. After a little while, Jacinta called out to me:

        “Didn’t you see the Holy Father?’

        “No.’

        “‘I don’t kow how it was but I saw the Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house, there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones, others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.” …

        There seems to be no situation in the last hundred years which could come even close in reality to what is depicted in the vision–except, except for Benedict’s presence and spiritual ministry in that convent in the Vatican, remodeled to house him.

        Hopefully, what has been provided herein will be sufficient to establish the possibility that Pope Benedict’s renunciation is tied to the 3rd Secret of Fatima. Thus, to say that he did it under duress, out of fear, as a compromise or, as some would insinuate, as a traitor to Christ and His Church and flock would not be in any way accurate, and could even be a defamation of a loyal and courageous Pope of the Church.

        For, those who say or intimate such things offer no concrete evidence to support their charge except the standard parroted charge “He’s a modernist from way back.” Admittedly, there could have been a threat demanding that he cease and desist from his effort to bring back the traditions of the Church. However, that in no way had an influence on what he ultimately did, namely, to retain the Petrine Office, by his renunciation of the Papal Ministry only and keep it (the Papal Office), as will become more and more clear shortly, out of the control of the demonic forces that were determined to destroy the Church. In this way, God is using Benedict as a secondary cause in making good on His promise to be with His Church until the end of time.”

        Source: This information comes from tape #4 of an 11 tape recording of a series of talks by Guido Del Rose (RIP) entitled Fatima and the Last Times Apostasy. A former Custodian of the National Pilgrim Statue for the U.S., Mr. Del Rose was attending conferences on Our Lady’s message by Fatima experts in Europe during the ‘60’s & ‘70’s and can also be found Vol. 3 of Frere Michel’s excellent trilogy: The Whole Truth About Fatima on page 252 Footnote #39.

    2. @IiI:

      That’s really interesting. We’re about due right now for a good status quaestionis on these issues, so I think this is helpful for everyone to know.

      I still have a hard time understanding View 3, however. For example, if View 3 is true, then:

      a) What are we to make of Ratzinger’s involvement in theological discussions about the mutability and reversibility of the papacy? (Barnhardt and others like me have seen this as evidence that Benedict attempted a ‘synodalization’ of the papacy, especially in light of Ganswein’s comments at the Gregorian.)

      b) What are we to make of Benedict’s perception of Francis? That is, does View 3 hold that Benedict sincerely believes Bergoglio is a valid successor?

      c) How do we account for the possibility of a pope validly resigning the Petrine Ministry? (I’ve yet to find a satisfactory explanation of this. I view the Petrine Ministry like a proper accident, i.e., as something necessarily following upon the nature of something, e.g., risibility and our nature as rational animal. So the Pope’s ministry strike me as something metaphysically inseparable from the Petrine Office. How, then, can he resign from it any more than a man can resign from his ability to laugh? Are we to think the renunciation preserves a metaphysical connection but not a moral one? How exactly does View 3 account for the nature of this ‘renunciation’? By ‘resign’, View 3 means what?)

      Those are my questions for now. (The Fatima material was helpful to understand your view. Thanks.)

      1. @Cam: Man, oh man, Cam! You and Aqua–think, think, think. Lol I will do my best.

        a) My take on academic “collaborations” are not that collaborators necessarily agree with each other BUT they do comment on and critique each other’s work. Also, IF their was substantial agreement to be found in that which Ratzinger contributed to the collaborative discussions, his later actions as Pope toward honoring and reinstating tradition may be indicators of conversion away from Modernist thought regarding the Papacy. My opinion is that judging intent from the “theological discussions” as assertively as Miss Barnhardt and others have done is not unequivocally possible. As for Ganswein’s comments in May of 2016, I tend toward the anonymous Priest’s explication of the “expanded ministry” along lines of Pius VII’s enjoining God’s participation in the Ministry while that particular pope was a prisoner of Napoleon. (I cite some of this argument below while the rest is available in full at Bp Gracida’s blog.)

        b) I take everything that comes from Vatican news sources including Pope Benedict’s perception of Francis with a grain of salt knowing the hijinks that have hailed from those sources as well as MSM sources as far back as V-II. Chapel veils, for example, were never done away with although the MSM reported it and the Vatican never corrected the mis-reporting. Is it Frank Walker at Stumbling Block and Canon212 who calls the Vatican’s voice of Benedict the “Benedict Bot”? That’s my take on what we are told is Pope Benedict’s perception of Francis. In fact as Br Bugnolo has indicated, after Cdl Bergoglio refused the “olive branch” offered by Pope Benedict in 2005 to be the Secretary of State in the Vatican, the jig was up as to the intent of Bergoglio and the mafia to have their man on Peter’s Throne and not merely wielding the power available as the Secretary of State. Moreover, having been the head of the CDF for so many years, it beggars belief that corruption in Argentina and Abp/Cdl Bergoglio’s part in it was hidden from Cdl Ratzinger.

        c) I made an earlier comment to you somewhere using Bp Gracida’s post from Sept 14th wherein the anonymous author speaks to your point of the necessity of some ministry that is even possible to be carried out under the mutinous circumstances because of the duty to minister that is inherent in the Papal Office. (Those are my words not the author’s and I hope that their meaning is close enough to “metaphysically inseparable” to be pertinent to your question.) Here are those portions of the Sept 14th blog post which I hope speak to your points (emphases in bold are mine):
        “So Pope Benedict, by explicating the ‘spiritual essence’ of the Petrine Office in no way does an injustice to that Office as established by Christ. For, the nature of the Petrine Office certainly demands that the exercise of the Power of Order in a personal way cannot be isolated from the public exercise of that Power of Order.” (p. 11) AND
        ‘Throughout the history of the Church, many “innovations,” ministries if you will, were introduced into the Vatican’s operating structures according to the needs of the time. … Hence, as long as there was a real need and as long as the proposed additions or changes were not opposed [to] the nature of the Papacy or the Divine Law, those changes were certainly legitimate.

        Until it is proved otherwise we must admit that Benedict was by no means ignorant of the history of the Church, of Canon Law or of the teaching of the Church that the Papacy is strictly a monarchy. Moreover, having argued from the wording of his resignation that Benedict intended to maintain the Petrine Office and that with no extraneous intimation whatsoever that he wished to share the Papacy with anyone, it ought to be accepted that he did not attempt to set up a Diarchy. Indeed, as Pope he could add any kind of ministry which was NOT contrary to the nature of the Papacy or to any Divine Law, according as he saw fit for the situation in the Church confronting him. So it is necessary look to what he actually did. And for this purpose we turn to Dom Gänswein, Benedict’s Secretary and Prefect of the Papal Household, who provides the arrangement that Benedict instituted. We provide herewith three paragraphs from his 20 May 2016 talk wherein the details are set out, and then present an analysis of those three paragraphs in order show that Benedict in no way established something contrary to the nature of the Papacy.’ (p. 25) AND

        ‘The point here is that, although the exercise of the powers of an office are not the office itself, it would be a grave injustice for the holder of an office, capable of carrying out some type of “ministry,” while intending to maintain the office, to resign from the “ministry” only and then refuses to undertake some type of obligation (duties or “ministries”) proper to that office. Therefore, having resigned from the usual “ministry” for commensurate and just reasons, Benedict intends to undertake some type of “ministry.” He cannot act in the usual manner, but there are other possible ways to “minister” within the nature of the Petrine Office. As Pope and prior to the date set for his withdrawal from the “ministry as usual,” he arranges for the change or addition of a certain type of “ministry” and the reduction of the size of the Curia. It is Dom Gänswein who sets the program out. However, before looking at his explanation, it should be added that if a Pope were to be totally and absolutely incapacitated by some ill-fated accident, or even reduced [to] a vegetative state, he would still be Pope.’ (p. 29)

        The remaining six pages of the article posted by Bp Gracida on Sept 14th explain in great detail the ministry that Pope Benedict has been conducting since Feb 28, 2013. It is complicated and involves more discussion of the Subjunctive Mood, but for me it is sufficient for my ability to rest in View #3.

        To be fully transparent, Cam, I have also read this anonymous author’s full Apologia which is merely summarized in the 35-page article.

      2. @III (10:57pm):

        1) Thanks. This helps some. But could you say more about how your position interprets Benedict’s current perception of Bergoglio? Putting aside all the remarks by Benedict Bot, for example, what does your view at least imply about Benedict’s perception of Bergoglio right now? Does your view imply that, right now, Bergoglio is viewed by Benedict as a valid successor?

        2) Regarding the idea of a pope resigning the Petrine Ministry, I have a speculative question to help me understood your view better: What happens if the same pope wants his Petrine Ministry back again? Is a ‘resigned Petrine Ministry’ something a pope could recover at will? How does that work?

      3. @Cam: You asked, “Does your view imply that, right now, Bergoglio is viewed by Benedict as a valid successor?” This is only my view, Cam, that Bergoglio is God’s perfect man for the job. The job being the one whose presence allows the revealing of the filth and rot percolating for a hundred or more years in His Church–in Her but not of Her. Benedict is the only living successor to St. Peter, but Bergoglio is the perfect man I suppose as Judas was the perfect man for his own job. Neither of them HAD to do those jobs, but they are done nonetheless. Just as God continues to put before each of us our own “Garden of Eden” moments/choices, so Bergoglio has his. And he is doing one bang up job, isn’t he? I mean like abortion with the advent of ultrasound, the choice cannot be more visible. Can it? Life or death, blessing or curse, Church or anti-church?

        Next you ask (brilliantly, I might add), “Regarding the idea of a pope resigning the Petrine Ministry, I have a speculative question to help me understood your view better: What happens if the same pope wants his Petrine Ministry back again? Is a ‘resigned Petrine Ministry’ something a pope could recover at will? How does that work?” My gut reaction is, “Yeah, he should be able to get the whole kit and kaboodle back.” Since he is the one who occupies the Chair and has thus retained the binding and loosing powers, it should just be a matter of, “Because I say so. That’s why. You all NEVER should have been messing around especially since I told you ‘provided the See be vacant’. You all knew you couldn’t trust Sodano. What the _____ were you thinking?” Those are just my thoughts. What do you think?

        (The reality, when considering prophecy, is that more likely Pope Benedict will be publicly murdered like the children of Fatima have reported with the question of BiP still not settled. The Schism that has been hidden will manifest and people will choose Church or anti-church. I will be surprised if the results of an official examination of the Declaratio-evidence will be promulgated within my or my children’s lifetimes. Only a very few “Athanasius Gracida Contra Mundum” martyrs will step up, but they will lead in Spirit and Truth (without writing so many BOOKS–lol); the real estate will belong to anti-church; and world-wide, Christ’s faithful will be like China’s are now. The apparent devastation of Our Lord’s Vineyard will continue. We will be like the Israelites wandering in the desert until the vestiges of “good ol’ Egypt” died out of them. For us God will look for the generational remembrances of the “good ol’ days of CONTRACEPTION” to die out before leading us to the Land of Milk and Honey. Sounds pretty sad, BUT there is so much evil blinding so many souls…and yet I am hopeful. There are points of Light everywhere.)

      4. I-II–

        “The Schism that has been hidden will manifest and people will choose Church or anti-church.”

        I have suggested this same idea on a number occasions myself. Hilary White responded with agreement.
        But why bother setting up an Alt Catholic Church. All we have to do is attend sedevacantist services.

        I agree that Bergoglio is a sign from God for folks to really see what is happening in the Church. Unfortunately this obvious indictment of the hierarchy will be insufficient, 98% will stick with their Vatican II Protestantism now augmented by New Age Paganism. They will love the freedom of it all. Few will realize it is all a plot to corral them into Communism.

        Therefore, and in line with many prophesies my guess is God will visit us some kind of significant chastisement,, maybe within the next 10 years or so.. .

      5. An addendum with what seem to me reasonable yet perhaps unsatisfactory thoughts about why the matter of BiP will likely remain unsettled: Faith. Who do you say I am? Who do you say My Church is? Who do you say My Vicar on Earth is? Will you choose Sede-ism and make your own Pope? Do you think that I don’t keep My promises?

        Where Peter is, there is My Church. Choose Peter and don’t turn back.

        Perhaps this is Christ’s test for each of us individually in this time–for BiP to remain unsettled by an authoritative statement from the sure authority of the Church. Lack of authoritative statement does not make BiP less true BUT it does test one’s individual Faith. Does it not?

      6. 1) III 8:21: “Benedict is the only living successor to St. Peter, but Bergoglio is the perfect man I suppose as Judas was the perfect man for his own job. . . . ”

        I’m kind of getting your view better, but I still don’t understand what it’s saying about what Benedict’s own perception of Bergoglio is supposed to be. Simply put: If I accept your view, does that mean Benedict sees Bergoglio as an antipope?

        2) On the issue of a resigned Petrine Ministry, I can only say your final guesses are about as good as mine.

        3) Another problem I’m having understanding your view is the idea that Benedict is a hero. Fr. Schweigl’s follow-up on his interview affords good food for thought on that score, I have to say. But then there are the words of Our Lady of Good Success. Fred Martinez has a nice post on this right now. On the one hand, Our Lady’s words seem to support, very much, the Prisoner Hypthesis:

        “The Supreme Shepherd and Vicar of Christ on Earth, who, being a prisoner in the Vatican… in that greatest crisis of the Church, he who is obligated today speak in due time will remain silent.”

        The first part of the quote makes the point very well. It is plain as day. But what about the second part? The second part would seem to mean that the the prisoner pope will ulimately fail to be a hero. All he has to do is speak and he won’t even do that! Is it possible, then, that, on your view, Benedict made a heroic decision initially but, in the end, might not be a hero in the end?

  5. Speaking if good movies, some Man on Fire needs to ”burn their playhouse down.” Starting w La Casa Della Fagga.

  6. Anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima—The Miracle of the Sun
    October 13, 1917 A. D.

    Where’s a Man on Fire to burn their playhouse down?

    There’s a war on.

    Time to chose sides.

    It’s clear we on the Catholic side have no champion in the public forum, establishment catholic media or hierarchy. We’re going it alone like David against the Philistine army.

    Are we ready?

  7. We may take heart from three Lessons from history:

    1. The more the Moors the greater the spoils. —Spanish proverb;

    2. “We happy few!” —Shakespeare, King Henry V; and

    3. “We must risk something for God!”

    —Hernando Cortez

    1. Brother B:

      Hernando Cortez burned and sank his ships. No turning back to Espánia for his men. “Conquer or die!”

      “We’re surrounded, that simplifies the problem”. “All right, they’re on our left, right, in front and behind … they’re not getting away this time”. “Retreat? Hell! We’re just attacking in a different direction”. (WW II General Chesty Puller)

      Too many Catholics wring their hands in woe, and wonder when God will deliver them from this Pope and his faithless ones. Deliver yourself! Defend God and God’s honor. Act. God wants action, no less than Gideon, David and all the others. Do what you believe. If the Priests are offering to the Aherah poles and the Baals, knock them over and burn them, but by all means don’t follow them up the mountain.

      Clarity, confidence, certainty in one’s belief to risk everything – that is what lies behind your quotes and mine.

  8. You uploaded this photo on October 12, that is, on the feast of Nossa Senhora Aparecida, Brasil. 302 years passed when fishermen fished out a clay figurine of the Virgin from the Paraiba River: first her body and then her head. The head of a woman is a man. Santa Ecclesia is a woman, so the miracle of Paraiba shows that it is about fishing for her visible head, that is, her spouse and father (pope) of the family which is the Church. They fished out this head in the state of San Paulo because it is about a Little (= Paul), inconspicuous, who, like the Apostle Paul, can chase Saint Peter himself.
    Let’s look without unnecessary emotions at this happening in St. Peter’s Basilica (probably on Sunday, October 6): A woman who is about to give birth will soon give birth to her head – She has a straw hat and a basket for catching fish (= souls) prepared for him. Our Mother the Holy Church did not abandon her children to an unknown fate: after the liquidation of the papacy in Rome, She wants to give them something better, or rather someone. Whom? Paraclete, Father the poor promised by Jesus Christ himself, who will bring the chosen (from among many called) to the Kingdom of God on earth.
    Oct. 14, the feast of Our Lady of Protection
    P.S.
    Let me remind you that the second of these women (in the form of wooden figurines from Amazon), the Great Whore, gave birth to Antichrist (this boy without a diaper) on the lawn in the Vatican Gardens on October 4, 2019.

  9. A saw a still photo of them carrying that “boat” into St. Peters. It looked like a type of ark and reminded me of the Israelites carrying the Golden Calf. Terrible.

  10. I’m really not sure where to share this but I really wanted to share this with someone and hope that it helps them or gives them some insight.

    Last night, I was turning over some thoughts in my head, asking God a few questions, when something popped into my brain that may, or may not, have been from Him. It certainly had a kind of multilayered, ultracondensed meaning that I only associate with Him, because I sure can’t come up with it out of my own brain. I think it’s useful and beautiful, and since I hope it did come from Him and is true, I’d like to share it – even if it’s disgustingly nerdy.

    To contextualize what I saw, I need to go back to an older analogy. For a long time folks have compared God to an author, writing a story. They say that like an author is outside his work, God is outside the world, and, like an author writing a self-insert character, he’s free to descend into his work, and did.

    As a characters in that story, we learn about His descent and His message, and desire to become more than characters – become Real. And, if we’re, well, not lucky, but blessed, I suppose, after our character arcs are finished he pulls us off of the pages to become Real Boys.

    But that isn’t the end of it, and where what I saw last night comes into play. I had been pulled out of the story and made Real – all my previous triumphs and sufferings only so much ink and paper – and I now found myself in a great stadium or whirlpool of people surrounding God. And God wasn’t just an Author, but a DM, and the world wasn’t just a story, but a great game he was running for his Players – let’s call them the Games of Divinity 😉

    And I was a Player now, listening to the story unfold, and like the other Players, every once in a while I would be given the honor of making a move in the Games. Nobody was making these move under their own power, but rather only by the power of the DM incorporating it into the Games; but he was delegating us the power to do so. And I may be mistaken, but I think maybe he wasn’t dispensing the honor of the moves indiscriminately, but rather whenever each Player had something valuable to contribute to the Games, some more often than others. And nobody was jealous or wanted to take a move when they weren’t being asked to by the DM, because they didn’t want to contribute if they didn’t have something valuable to add.

    I really got the sense that it was terribly great fun. There was an energy and joy about the whole thing that gave me the sense of a really fun sports or other game, or a big party. And I think that while it was serious – serious fun – really the only players who tried to take themselves seriously were the Bad players, the ones who were too wrapped up in themselves to really care about the story being told, and who just wanted to ruin everyone’s fun.

    And the characters from the story were being pulled out of the story and becoming Players! And everyone had their favorite characters, and when their time in the story was done they were becoming REAL – like if Aragorn and Luke Skywalker and King Arthur suddenly were real people as well as characters in a story, and were walking with and talking with and celebrating with everyone.

    And here’s where it’s really important to us – and I may be mistaken, but I’m extrapolating a bit here. The world was a story, a campaign the DM was running for his Players, and it’s reaching the climax. He’s weaving the plot threads together and getting ready to tie them off. He’s ending the story, but it’s a GOOD ending, a consummation, and a story without an ending is just sad and incomplete. And nobody, not even the players, knows exactly what’s coming next, only the DM. We have to stick it out, be the heroes of the story the DM wants us to be, so that we can finally meet him, and become Players, and maybe even join in on the next Campaign 😀

    The whole thing left me with a tremendous sense of peace and joy – and even if this is an ending, the ending of the whole story of this world of ours, it isn’t THE ending, is it?

    1. @Uriel: THANK YOU!!!! for sharing this insightful gift! I can not wait to share it with some of my avid role-playing adult children. What a timely gift this insight of yours is. Thank you!

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.