True charity vs forced redistribution (aka theft)

True charity is the means by which the Catholic Church built western civilization. Hospitals, universities, monasteries, churches, libraries, laboratories, infrastructure were all borne from true charity.

But now the world chooses the slavery of Marxism, which makes the state the sole administrator of “charity”. Since the state possesses no wealth of its own, it must forcibly confiscate half the slaves’ wealth (or more, depending on the country). As the state assumes control of a diverse range of institutions, notably education, the process of societal lobotomization can begin. The slaves really truly believe that a state with no wealth can provide stuff for “free.” Once all the mechanisms are in place and the slaves resigned to ever more labor for ever less reward, so long as they’re permitted their Game of Thrones and football, the only thing left for the Leftists is to see how far they can take it (this includes all areas of morality). The Church, itself thoroughly infiltrated, also has to get in on the game, because the Church survives no longer on true charity alone, but also forced redistribution, which flows through the state.

So the next time Antipope Bergoglio abuses the poor, by using them to advance his agenda of redistributive criminality, remember this:

August 10.—ST. LAURENCE, Martyr.
ST. LAURENCE was the chief among the seven deacons of the
Roman Church. In the year 258 Pope Sixtus was led out to
die, and St. Laurence stood by, weeping that he could not
share his fate. “I was your minister,” he said, “when you consecrated
the blood of Our Lord; why do you leave me behind
now that you are about to shed your own?” The holy Pope
comforted him with the words, “Do not weep, my son; in
three days you will follow me.” This prophecy came true. The
prefect of the city knew the rich offerings which the Christians
put into the hands of the clergy, and he demanded the treasures
of the Roman Church from Laurence, their guardian. The
Saint promised, at the end of three days, to show him riches
exceeding all the wealth of the empire, and set about collecting
the poor, the infirm, and the religious who lived by the
alms of the faithful. He then bade the prefect “see the treasures
of the Church” Christ, whom Laurence had served in his
poor, gave him strength in the conflict which ensued. Roasted
over a slow fire, he made sport of his pains. “I am done
enough,” he said, “eat, if you will.” At length Christ, the Father
of the poor, received him into eternal habitations. God
showed by the glory which shone around St. Laurence the
value He set upon his love for the poor. Prayers innumerable
were granted at his tomb; and he continued from his throne in
heaven his charity to those in need, granting them, as St.
Augustine says, “the smaller graces which they sought, and
leading them to the desire of better gifts”

Reflection.—Our Lord appears before us in the persons of the
poor. Charity to them is a great sign of predestination. It is
almost impossible, the holy Fathers assure us, for any one
who is charitable to the poor for Christ’s sake to perish.

Lives of the Saints, by Alban Butler, Benziger Bros. ed.
[1894], at sacred-texts.com

Bling, Bling, Fisherman’s Ring!

UPDATE: Some commenters have noted Benedict may not be wearing the Fisherman’s Ring in this photo. It’s not clear. I assumed it was, given his insistence on keeping it even after “retirement”. Nevertheless, this changes nothing about the material covered in the post. Another commenter dug up a piece about Antipope Bergoglio’s ring, which you can read about in the comments. While it is a design belonging to Paul VI, it’s not the same one Paul VI wore as pope.

UPDATE 2: Gloria.tv has picked up on this. H/T Frank Walker HERE.

_______________________

The latest public photograph of Pope Benedict helpfully provides another visual reminder of his failed partial abdication of the Petrine Ministry: Full frontal display of the Fisherman’s Ring.

fishermans ring

We have previously demonstrated by weight of the evidence, and declared with moral certainty, that Pope Benedict is still the sole living pontiff. This is due to his intention to bifurcate the papacy into an expanded ministry with two living members, one active/governing member and one passive/contemplative member.  It is this novel impossibility, attempting to alter the intrinsic nature of the Divinely Instituted Petrine Ministry, that renders invalid Benedict’s attempted partial abdication, as it clearly rises to the level of Substantial Error as foreseen by Canon 188.

Anyone who denies the essential truth of the preceding paragraph must support their counterargument with facts that refute the evidence presented.  Any appeal to emotion, any appeal to “who are you to make such claims?”, any appeal to “but Francis is universally accepted!” are all fallacious. The truth doesn’t depend on your emotions, it doesn’t depend on earthly authority, and it most definitely doesn’t depend on popularity. The Passion comes to mind.

Recall that the most convincing evidence of the failed abdication comes from the words of Pope Benedict himself, in his last (so far) official General Audience, later echoed by his personal secretary Archbishop Ganswein (pictured here with Benedict). We’ve covered that ground quite extensively, and the silence has been deafening.  You might call it a dictatorship of crickets.

But what I haven’t written about too much is Benedict retaining the papal vesture. Most infamously, he claimed to be retaining the white cassock (sans pellegrina) out of necessity – because “no other clothes were available.” Yeah, I’m sure Gammeralli was just too busy. Reminds me of the necessity to resign due to fear of jet lag from WYD. Oh and he retained the papal title and name and form of address (His Holiness) out of “convenience.” Whoppers, they are.

Now, about that Fisherman’s Ring. This ring is cast for each pontiff according to his own unique design and conferred at the “inauguration” (formerly coronation) and imposition of the Pallium. Both the Pallium and the Fisherman’s Ring are symbols of the power of the papal office. The ring itself is unique to each pope due to its historical use as not only visual symbol of power, but also as a physical seal to be used when executing official documents in the governance of the Church. At the end of every pontificate, the former pope’s ring is destroyed, smashed with a special silver hammer made expressly for this purpose, in the presence of the College of Cardinals, therefore ensuring no curial misconduct such as generating false documents. Then the new pontiff selects his own unique design and away we go.

Except that’s not what happened this time.

After announcing his intent to (partially) abdicate, the press began running all sorts of stories about things Benedict would be forced to give up in his (false) retirement. Chief among them, of course, was the Fisherman’s Ring.  You can do a quick search and find dozens of articles on this. Then, Benedict intervened to inform everyone that oh no, he wasn’t giving up the ring, see? He was keeping the ring, but he was having an “X” applied to the seal to “negate” its power of governance. Because, as we have learned, Benedict intended for the governance aspect of the ministry to be be passed to the new pontiff. But Benedict kept the ring, because “always” is also “forever” when it comes to acceptance of the Petrine Ministry. Notice here Abp Ganswein showing it off quite nicely.

None of this is conspiracy theory. Nothing is being twisted to fit a narrative. These are facts. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar or in denial. Do your own research. Don’t be afraid of the scoffing, the bullying, and being accused of “being on the crazy train.” Think for yourself and act accordingly. The Catholic media, even Trad media, if they are making any sort of income from being Catholic, are not going to admit to any of this until prelates start going public.

One last thing. You know that part about every pope designing his own unique ring as the unique seal for his pontificate? Well, guess what? Antipope Bergoglio didn’t do that.

He ordered a copy of Paul VI’s ring.

You can’t make it up.

 

 

The Swamp wins again

mccain-4

What a traitorous wretch.

Conservative Tree House has all the sickening details HERE.

Look, as explained here and elsewhere, the entire “healthcare” system in the U.S. is a total scam. There is no such thing as “repeal and replace”, so long as the “insurance” companies are ensured oligarch status and their built-in profit growth of 9% per year, which is what we’ve been handing them. Which, in turn, is by far the greatest threat to the sovereignty this former republic.

However, despite all this, it is still sickening to one’s core to see the downright nefarious, iniquitous, diabolical actions of these people. They have no conscience.

Senator McCain’s vote holds much larger ramifications than just the continuance of ObamaCare.  Inherent within the retention is a reality that any tax reform, tax cuts to benefit the middle-class, will also necessarily be diminished.

The expansion of Medicaid within ObamaCare has, by intention and design, blown a massive hole in the federal budget.

When tax reform legislation is now proposed the CBO scoring will have to factor in a large projected need for additional tax revenue.  This reality essentially dooms the middle-class tax proposal of the White House unless adjustments are made.

When considering the cost of ObamaCare and expanded Medicaid expenditures, it  is now likely the middle-class tax-paying workers will not only have the cost of skyrocketing health insurance premiums locked in, but they will now need to contribute more of their tax dollars to subsidize Medicaid.

Yes, this is a double-whammy impact; and yes, it was done by design.  The original goal of ObamaCare was always to facilitate a collapse in the system creating single-payer as the default setting for any possible financial exit.

The swamp wins again.

 

FAQ: Did Pope Benedict reveal his intent to bifurcate the papacy in the actual Declaratio?

Answer: He absolutely did.

It’s far more subtle than the devastating evidence shown previously, but it is clearly visible when read within the context of Benedict’s erroneous ideas about the papacy, which we shall review as a primer. Also, the subtlety within the Declaratio is strategic, due to the criticality of this particular speech/document.

Before I explain this, we need to go over a couple things just to make sure you are framing this up properly in your mind, working from a true premise, and allowing linear thinking to do its work. The majority of reader comments I’ve received, whether they be positive or negative, reveal a disturbing level emotive reasoning. Don’t fall into this trap. Wishing  for Francis not to be pope cannot play any role in your search for truth. Arriving at the conclusion that Pope Benedict failed in his attempt to bifurcate the papacy, therefore rendering his abdication invalid by reason of substantial error, cannot in any way be influenced by your dislike of Francis or out of a desire to see him removed/expunged. That’s called intellectual dishonesty. The flip side of this, and equally dishonest, is resisting the truth out of fear of ridicule or being seen as some sort of freak. PLEASE STOP… THIS ISN’T ABOUT YOU.  Your feelings don’t have any bearing on what’s true, and the truth doesn’t care about your feelings. So put Francis out of your mind, demand absolute objectivity from yourself, and start with the Substantial Error supposition. Work through the available evidence, rationally judge the weight, and make your conclusion based on where the weight lies.

Before we get to the Declaratio, we need to review the smoking gun. This is from Benedict’s final general audience of 27 February 2013, the day before his invalid resignation did not become effective, where he exposes his erroneous notion of the indelible nature of the Petrine Ministry. In doing so, he directly contradicts all those previous statements where he claimed he was “renouncing”, “leaving”, and would then be Pontiff “no longer, but a simple pilgrim”. This is the lens through which we must evaluate the Declaratio (comments/emphasis mine):

Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (Ratzinger’s elevation to the papacy). The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.

The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. (<in his mind> the papal coronation indelibly anoints the pontiff in a distinct way, which is different from, and more profound than, the priestly or episcopal ordination/consecration). My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. (the indelibility is <in his mind> irrevocable – Benedict is pope forever, but <in his mind> now exercising only part of the Petrine ministry). I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God. HERE

“I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.” I wish I could find video to see if he winked when he said that.

In summary, Benedict erroneously believes that acceptance of the papacy itself confers an indelible and irrevocable character on the man who accepts it (similar to the indelible marks of ordination to the priesthood and consecration to the episcopate, except in the case of becoming pope, there is no such thing). Therefore <in his mind> he (Benedict) remains pope even after he “resigns” the governing office and passes the throne to the next “pope”.

This is SUBSTANTIAL ERROR. Honestly, I don’t understand how anyone doesn’t see it already at this point. But let’s press on.

In the original post where I declared with moral certainty the invalid abdication, we also entered into evidence as Exhibit B, Benedict’s decision to retain the papal title as an “emeritus”, to retain the vesture, to physically remain at the Vatican, etc etc. We also reviewed Exhibit C, Abp. Ganswein’s comments last year where he dropped the bombshell of an “Expanded Petrine Ministry.” These were not off the cuff remarks, but rather a formal, well-prepared speech on Benedict’s papacy, given at the Greg in Rome on 20 May 2016:

Archbishop Gänswein…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.”

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”

He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’. (Not in its “Office”, the governance of the Church in the world, but in its “essentially spiritual nature”, through prayer and suffering.)

“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.“ (Do you see how this echoes Benedict’s erroneous idea of the papal coronation being an irreversible event, creating an indelible/irrevocable mark on the recipient forever? It’s exactly the same idea Benedict put forth in his final general audience).

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.” HERE

Not that we need any additional evidence, but many are clamoring that they just won’t accept reality unless it can be shown that these ideas/intentions can actually be found in the Declaratio itself. So let’s have a look at that, shall we?

As I said at the top, the evidence in the actual Declaratio is far more subtle, out of necessity. Benedict, knowing the extraordinary nature of what he was about to do, would have spent an enormous amount of time writing this short speech. Every single word would have been chosen with great care. Keep in mind, the actual Declaratio was written and read out by Benedict in Latin, so you need to take a look at that as well. But the point is this:

THE DESIGN OF THE DECLARATIO IS PRIMARILY DIRECTED TOWARD ITS LONE OBJECTIVE: TO HAVE THE ABDICATION ACCEPTED AS LEGITIMATE BY THE CARDINALS, AND THUS, A CONCLAVE CONVOKED TO NAME A “SUCCESSOR.” THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE BENEDICT’S ENTIRE PLAN HINGED ON THIS OUTCOME.

So it’s not surprising that Benedict did not speak of the false bifurcation as openly in the Declaratio as he did several weeks later, in his final general audience, at which point he knew his plan had worked, all the wheels in motion, conclave convened, etc. But he also couldn’t help himself, and made sure his meaning was clear if we look with eyes to see.

So now let’s break down the Declaratio of 11 Feb 2013 in its entirety, bathed in the light of the aforementioned evidence. English, Latin, and seven other languages  HERE .

“Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.

He’s saying he is inadequate. His faculties are insufficient to fully execute the entire Petrine Ministry.  He needs help.

“I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.

He’s still up for the prayer and suffering part, but not the words and deeds.  The governance part will need to go to someone else, a new participant in a new “expanded Petrine ministry”, because he feels inadequate for the governance role.

Now comes the money quote. This is the part that Benedict absolutely had to get right, to ensure the resignation looked so rock solid that no one would question it. But yet even within the same sentence we can, with hindsight, see what he did here.

“For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

“In such a way?” Why are those words in there? Those words are a qualifier. He didn’t renounce completely, he renounced in a certain way. Because as we’ve already seen from his own lips, Benedict doesn’t believe it’s possible for him to completely renounce the Petrine ministry, due to its <in his mind> permanent and irrevocable nature. So he is <in his mind> vacating the “See of Rome”, such that a successor must be named to administer the governing office, while Benedict retains the spiritual role of the prayerful suffering servant pope. Nowhere in this sentence, in any language, will you find the words, “I fully renounce the Papacy,” because in Benedict’s mind, that’s not possible.

“Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.  And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.”

So there you have it. Come join the party.  The truth will set you free.

Reading Benedict through Meisner through Ganswein

The other day, we got another glimpse into the mind of Pope Benedict. The comments attributed to him were read out by Abp. Ganswein at Cardinal Meisner’s Requiem, and the underlying message reinforces perfectly the “logic” behind Benedict’s failed partial abdication of the papacy.

Remember, Pope Benedict’s SUBSTANTIAL ERROR is the idea of a papal diarchy, with one “active” member controlling the worldly affairs of the ecclesiastical office (munus), and one “contemplative” member with an essentially spiritual role dedicated to prayer and suffering. Remember those words, “essentially spiritual role, prayer and suffering” – that was the actual phrasing he used in the Declaratio. We’ll come back to this later.

Also remember that it is absurd to think a mere man should or could alter the intrinsic nature of the divinely instituted Petrine Ministry out of, irony of ironies, some kind of Supplied Jurisdiction. We’ve covered this over and over again. Benedict did not, in reality, bifurcate the papacy. He only thinks he did, and thus in accordance with Canon 188 Benedict remains the only true living pope, his attempted abdication rendered invalid by means of substantial error.

Whatever his reasons for doing so, Benedict sought to maintain some level of control within the Petrine Ministry, not only by (falsely) expanding it, but also by giving himself the greater portion of the ministry, by “delegating” the temporal governance role to his successor while retaining the supernatural, contemplative, spiritual warfare role for himself.

Is there anything else that more accurately explains the observable evidence? What about the confidence, the serenity…the man seems truly at peace. Like he thinks he’s winning.

So now let’s have a look at what +Ganswein read out, supposedly from Benedict’s hand, supposedly regarding the mentality of Cardinal Meisner, in his final days:

“We know that this passionate shepherd and pastor found it difficult to leave his post, especially at a time in which the Church stands in need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age…However…he learned to let go and to live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even when the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.”

Talk about patting yourself on the back.

Everyone is taking this as an attack specifically on Francis. You have to stop looking at Francis as the disease instead of merely a symptom of a long-term illness. To stay with the analogy, the boat was already in danger of shipwreck long before Francis, but the damage was below the waterline. Now that the waves are crashing over the bow, it’s just more visible to everyone.

Aside: There actually was a part of the address that specifically mentioned the Eucharist, Confession, Adoration, etc, and that’s the part where he seemed to be drawing distinctions regarding Francis Doctrine. That will be the topic of another post.

Pope Benedict knows exactly how bad – how systemic – the problem really is. He probably even realizes he himself is part of the problem, but at this point it’s too late for him to do anything about it, at least in the mortal realm. Imagine what a horrific moment of clarity that must have been. Maybe that would explain why he attempted to give up the governing office of the papacy, so that he could concentrate all of his strength toward a supernatural solution. He likely knows there is no earthly solution at this point, that if there is any solution at all short of the apocalypse, it will have to be supernatural in nature. And when we need a supernatural remedy, what are our most effective tools?

Prayer, fasting, offering suffering in reparation… an “ESSENTIALLY SPIRITUAL ROLE”.

Benedict chose to deploy this strategy, thinking it was the best way forward, even while knowing the identity of his likely (invalid) successor.  Oh yes, Benedict was fully in attendance at the 2005 conclave which elected him, and he most assuredly knew full well who came in second. And since the forces behind Bergoglio only strengthened and multiplied during the Benedictine pontificate, it would have been no surprise to him when Francis was (invalidly) elected. Pressing this line further, it’s conceivable that knowledge of the inevitability of the Francis or someone like him may have not only hastened but also shaped Benedict’s attempted abdication, not the other way around.  Think about it. This is why his decision looks like a strategy.

Because it IS a strategy, in the mind of Benedict, in SUBSTANTIAL ERROR, still reigning, in the thirteenth year of his pontificate.