From Father Zed:
You have seen the logo for the 2025 Jubilee?
It’s really something. I can’t tell you what that makes me think of.
A lot of people submitted designs. This is the fellow who designed it.
His name is Giacomo Travisani. There is a story in Italian HERE.
Someone today mentioned an additional fact about him, so I looked around.
I think it may be. If so, he is a specialist in all sorts of techniques of massage.
From the site:
Il mio bagaglio professionale vanta di diverse tecniche di massaggio quali:
The antichurch had quite a busy day today. Blessed feast! First, Bergoglio invited Pelosi to receive Communion, both of them obviously dejected over Friday’s ruling on Roe. So of course the Body of Christ must be weaponized and desecrated.
But then he delivered such a warm and welcoming sermon, promising:
“a Church without chains and walls, in which everyone can feel welcomed and accompanied, one where listening, dialogue and participation are cultivated under the sole authority of the Holy Spirit… A Church that does not linger in its sacred precincts, but is driven by enthusiasm for the preaching of the Gospel and the desire to encounter and accept everyone. Let us not forget that word: everyone. Everyone! Go to crossroads and bring everyone, the blind, the deaf, the lame, the sick, the righteous and the sinner: everyone! This word of the Lord should continue to echo in our hearts and minds: in the Church there is a place for everyone. Many times, we become a Church with doors open, but only for sending people away, for condemning people. Yesterday one of you said to me “This is no time for the Church to be sending away, it is the time to welcome”. “They did not come to the banquet…” – so go to the crossroads. Bring everyone, everyone!”
And then came the letter! Turns out, he didn’t mean everyone.
“I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council – though it amazes me that a Catholic might presume to do so – and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium.”
Well, he got it half right, anyway. Can anyone explain that dichotomy?
“I want the beauty of the Christian celebration and its necessary consequences for the life of the Church not to be spoiled by a superficial and foreshortened understanding of its value or, worse yet, by its being exploited in service of some ideological vision, no matter what the hue.”
“Let us abandon our polemics to listen together to what the Spirit is saying to the Church.”
Haha ha ha ha.
“The non-acceptance of the liturgical reform, as also a superficial understanding of it, distracts us from the obligation of finding responses to the question that I come back to repeating: how can we grow in our capacity to live in full the liturgical action? How do we continue to let ourselves be amazed at what happens in the celebration under our very eyes?”
He has a duty to affirm that “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite… As I have already written, I intend that this unity be re-established in the whole Church of the Roman Rite… all the bishops, priests, and deacons, the formators in seminaries, the instructors in theological faculties and schools of theology, and all the catechists” heed his command not to “go back to that ritual form which the Council fathers, cum Petro et sub Petro, felt the need to reform, approving, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and following their conscience as pastors, the principles from which was born the reform.”
Dear seminarians, brothers, deacons, priests, bishops: You’re going to have a lot more credibility by calling out the antipapacy before SHTF. If you wait to do it afterward, it’s just going to make you look like a bunch of sore losers. Man up.
The ladies at LesFemmes continue to knock it out of the park. Following from Mary Ann Kreitzer:
Why Are They Raging When Abortion Is Still Legal?
For the benefit of the ignorant in the raging mobs, let me underline what happened last Friday. Dobbs overturned Roe, but did not ban abortion. It is still legal except in those states that had trigger laws linked to the end of Roe. And even in those states, many allow abortion in certain circumstances. Our work to end the murder of babies is just beginning.
So, yes, abortion is still legal in the United States and, in fact, many who desire abortions will benefit financially from Dobbs. A growing list of Fortune 500 companies, who want to avoid paying for maternity leave and insurance packages for families, are bribing female employees to kill their children. (All of a sudden, the leftist media is recognizing women as women again.) They essentially say, “Hey, we’ll pay you $4,000 (Dick’s Sporting Goods) to go to a slave abortion state to destroy your property baby and throw him/her in the medical waste can, the garbage disposal, or the landfill.”
In view of this, why are the pro-aborts raging and having hysterics?
Proverbs explains it for you.
The wicked are never satisfied with their own wickedness! Let me repeat. The wicked are never satisfied with their own wickedness. They want everyone to join them. And those who won’t join willingly must be vilified, shamed, and canceled.
For they [the wicked] cannot rest unless they have done evil;
to have made no one stumble steals away their sleep.
For they eat the bread of wickedness
and drink the wine of violence.
The way of the wicked is like darkness;
they know not on what they stumble.
But the path of the just is like shining light,
that grows in brilliance till perfect day. (Proverbs 4:16-19)
The left says that Roe settled the question of abortion and that overturning it sends us back — 150 years according to Biden whose address to the country amplified the division. But that’s a lie. Rather than settling the issue, Roe magnified the division that already existed. The debate was raging even before Roe and the pro-life message was winning. Even radical New York’s legislature voted to rescind their liberal abortion law. Governor Nelson Rockefeller vetoed the bill when it arrived at his desk. Makes you wonder where he is now after facing the eternal judge.
I was on the battlefield already back in 1973 and remember the pro-aborts saying that the debate was over; they won. Their claim couldn’t have been farther from the truth! Roe lit the fuse on a powder keg. Thousands of pro-life educational and political groups and crisis pregnancy centers sprang up overnight. Pro-lifers prayed, picketed, gave pro-life presentations, engaged in debates, sidewalk counseled, offered help in the form of medical care, baby items, etc.
All of us fought the satanic practice of child sacrifice. Roe took us back 2000 years to the days of Moloch, Baal, and the Roman empire where Roman soldiers prevented Christians from rescuing babies exposed to the elements and predators under the law of paterfamilias. Dobbs undid one of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated on this great country and citizens who love life. That Roe was actually the work of Catholic justice William Brennan was a monumental scandal. That Dobbs is the work of an Episcopalian and four Catholic justices is a shining light to God’s truth…
Read the rest, including video of Satan’s press conference: https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2022/06/why-are-they-raging-when-abortion-is.html
I’m pasting below what Nurse Claire wrote on Ann’s site. It’s not to be viewed as pessimism, at all. It’s a reality check. Roe was the first step, and despite it taking 49 years, it was by far the easiest in terms of logic colliding with bad legal reasoning. The Roe opinion was garbage. Even RBG knew it, and knew it would eventually fall, hence why she begged for years for Congress to codify it.
Fetal-pain laws, heartbeat laws, 15 week bans… all well and good, better than nothing, but none of them grounded in reality. A unique human being is created at conception. This is science, not religion. At the very instant of the sperm merging with the oocyte, the creation of a human zygote, that single-cell creature is fully human: A wholly distinct individual with its own 46 chromesomes packed with the unique DNA of the new human being, which then self-directs its own development. Note well that words are important. Calling it a “fertilized egg” is incorrect, and leads to charges like, “You think an egg is a human…” and “You think and egg has more rights than a woman…” etc. Mammals don’t have eggs, they have gametes, male and female. Reptiles have eggs.
But Team Unreality doesn’t believe in male nor female, and neither could they define what a woman was, barely five days ago.
Lastly, you can say what you will about Donald Trump, but this wasn’t possible without him. In the matter of nominating judges, he did what he said he would do. One of the few promises he kept, TBH. To all the tweed lined professional Catholics who turned up their noses, and publicly admonished other Catholics to not vote for Trump, to all the RINO never-Trumpers, you owe a lot of us an apology. Or just shut up and get over yourselves would be fine too.
The commentary after the Tucker clip is all Nurse Claire:
I have a few problems with this clip that recently aired on “Tucker Carlson Tonight”.
First, the suggestion that a fetus feels pain from 15-20 weeks is demonstrably false. In 1984, former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, then a pro-life convert, sought to show the world the brutality of abortion by airing actual video footage of a 12-week, ultrasound-guided abortion. In the video (which can be viewed here), the unborn child is clearly seen opening its mouth to scream, and recoiling from the abortionist’s instruments. My graduate school training in anesthesia taught that pain pathways as well as EEG brain waves were present in children as early as 9 weeks’ gestation, and probably sooner. So I take issue with the physician on Carlson’s show – his technical info isn’t exactly accurate.
And second: what is the point of this interview? Is the point to assert that murder is okay as long as it’s painless for the victim? Because if that’s the argument being made here, then I assure you the pro-aborts will push back with early-term “pain free” abortions using things like RU486, otherwise known as the abortion pill. And there are already abortionists out there touting their digoxin abortion methods, which involve injecting an unborn child with high-dose digoxin to stop the heart. The baby dies before the dismembering begins. These are sold to mothers as “painless”.
Out of charity, I will assume Tucker is airing this interview to offer some perspective on the brutality of abortion and the humanity of the unborn, who have been so thoroughly dehumanized for the last several decades. Most militant pro-abortionists do not care about the pain felt by unborn children. But, I do think there is a younger generation out there who truly are so intellectually lazy that they haven’t realized exactly what an abortion entails. Or they think of the fetus as some magical sleeping baby that neither perceives nor feels anything until it takes its first breath. So I’ll give Tucker credit for trying to start that conversation.
However, as pro-lifers, we must be vigilant not to fall into these arguments. Arbitrary conditions on abortion, such as “is the fetus feeling pain” or “is there a heartbeat” are logical fallacies – avoid these traps. In a conversation I had with Dr. Beep earlier today, he pointed out that sedating people to death is also “painless”, just like two-to-the-back-of-the-head of your political enemy. These atrocities are still murder regardless of how pain-free they may be for the victims.
And as for the heartbeat argument: life begins at conception. Full stop. The heartbeat laws enacted in several states are nice, but they do not acknowledge nor do they prevent the earliest abortions that are happening every day: abortifacient contraceptive pills, IUDs, and the “morning after” pill.
Let us celebrate the overturning of Roe while still being mindful that a tremendous uphill battle faces us. Our culture is a thoroughly pagan one, so we must articulate carefully that abortion is always wrong no matter the method or circumstances.
By Chloe Atkins and David K. Li
Judges in Louisiana and Utah on Monday temporarily blocked prohibitions on abortion in their states following last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ends a national right to the procedure.
The high court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, which for nearly 50 years had granted women the constitutional right to an abortion. More than a dozen states set so-called trigger laws to take immediate effect, banning or severely limiting abortions, in the event Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Trigger laws were also being challenged in Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi and Texas.
A Louisiana judge on Monday issued a temporary restraining order against the state from enforcing its ban on abortions, leading to the immediate resumption of the procedure.
Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge Robin Giarrusso granted the request of plaintiffs Hope Medical Group For Women and Medical Students for Choice.
Hours later, Utah Third District Judge Judge Andrew Stone halted that state’s trigger law effective immediately, under a 14-day temporary restraining order requested by the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah.
“There is irreparable harm that has been shown,” Stone said in granting the order. “Affected women are deprived of safe, local medical treatments to terminate pregnancies.”
Planned Parenthood lawyer Julie Murray argued that because patients had access to abortion for five decades, halting the procedure with such short notice had reverberating impacts for Utah women.
The nonprofit’s facilities in Utah had more than 55 patients scheduled for abortion appointments this week, the organization said in its emergency request Saturday for a temporary restraining order.
Utah Solicitor General Tyler Green argued that there’s nothing in the state’s constitution that specifically protects a right to abortion, and the interest of the unborn weighs as heavily as the harm to would-be patients under prohibition.
Today is the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, born without the stain of Original Sin, thanks to the miraculous grace of his gestational Baptism at the moment of the Visitation. When John leaped in the womb of Elizabeth, at the approach of the Blessed Virgin carrying our Lord in her own womb, John was Baptized in his own amniotic fluid. Pretty cool.
That moment of his Baptism, the Visitation, is the Second Joyful Mystery of the Most Holy Rosary. The fruit of the mystery is Fraternal Charity. St. John loved our Lord, and so he loved the law. The two things go together like a horse and carriage; you can’t have one without the other, as the song goes. As the great Forerunner of Christ, John never suffered from mission creep, and his mission was to point to the truth: Point to our Lord, and point to the Law.
For this he would give his life.
The reason for his beheading was his intransigence on the commandments, which he loved dearly, because he loved our Lord. But I repeat myself. The subject matter in this case was the sanctity of marriage. Fraternal Charity is exactly what St. John was practicing when he rebuked Herod over his adulterous sham “marriage.” St. John laid down his life out of love of our Lord, out of love for His law, AND FOR THE SAKE OF HEROD’S SOUL. That’s Fraternal Charity, folks. We would do well to meditate on this, and pray to be given an ounce of his courage. We are going to need it.
St. John the Baptist, pray for us.
At that time, Herod himself had sent and apprehended John, and bound him prison for the sake of Herodias the wife of Philip his brother, because he had married her. For John said to Herod: “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.” Now Herodias laid snares for him: and was desirous to put him to death and could not. For Herod feared John, knowing him to be a just and holy man: and kept him, and when he heard him, did many things: and he heard him willingly. And when a convenient day was come, Herod made a supper for his birthday, for the princes, and tribunes, and chief men of Galilee. And when the daughter of the same Herodias had come in, and had
danced, and pleased Herod, and them that were at table with him, the king said to the damsel: “Ask of me what thou wilt, and I will give it thee.” And he swore to her: “Whatsoever thou shalt ask I will give thee, though it be the half of my kingdom.” Who when she was gone out, said to her mother, “What shall I ask?” But her mother said: “The head of John the Baptist.” And when she was come in immediately with haste to the king, she asked, saying: “I will that forthwith thou give me in a dish, the head of John the Baptist.” And the king was struck sad. Yet
because of his oath, and because of them that were with him at table, he would not displease her: But sending an executioner, he commanded that his head should be brought in a dish. And he beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head in a dish: and gave to the damsel, and the damsel gave it her mother. Which his disciples hearing came, and took his body, and laid it in a tomb. -Mark 6:17-29
Extra special this year, falling as it does on the birthday of St. John the Baptist, whose feast is transferred to tomorrow. Make an act of reparation, then be happy and feastly!
“The Divine Heart guards and loves them by living with them, as they live and abide in Him”
”I understood that devotion to the Sacred Heart is a last effort of His love towards Christians of these latter times, by proposing to them an object and means so calculated to persuade them to love Him… This devotion was the last effort of His love that He would grant to men in these latter ages, in order to withdraw them from the empire of Satan which Jesus desired to destroy, and thus to introduce them to the sweet liberty of the rule of His love, which He wished to restore in the hearts of all those who should embrace this devotion.” St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, vision of the Sacred Heart, 1673
“An object and means so calculated.” Thus did St. Margaret Mary introduce to the world a special weapon reserved for these latter days. It is very compelling as a means of amending your life. Have you ever set aside time and reflected on the Sacred Heart? On what it means? How it so fully expresses God’s love for us, in a very special way? Spend some time on it, because it’s really helpful. It’s a deeper meditation on the reality of the Incarnation: That God himself stitched together His own physical human heart, with the specific intent of having it pierced by us, for our sake.
Pierced by you, for your sake. You can find a good article HERE.
“The sweet liberty of the rule of His love.” The heart is where we discover the intimacy of Jesus’ love for us. It is very important to understand that this love is not simply for all mankind collectively, but for each one of us individually and specifically. He loves you personally, one-on-one, and more than anyone else loves you. His love is not just in real time, but throughout time. He loved you before He created the universe, He loved you from the Cross, and He loves you now. He desires to have His love reciprocated. We do this by adoring him in praise and thanksgiving, and by ordering our lives according to His Word. If you’ve never understood that thing about having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” this is exactly what it’s all about. When you really love someone, you try really hard not to hurt them, especially in the things They’ve told you hurt Them most.
“The heart stands for love. The human heart of Jesus stands both for His human love and for the infinite love of His divine Person. His love was not just a shimmering, dreamy softness; it was wisely strong and true to its eternal purposes. Despite the anguish of Gethsemane, His love yielded His human life to crucifixion. His love had all the majesty and fullness of God, a height and a depth that make paltry the wisdom of men. Every mystery of His life, every miracle, sermon, and kindness, was a new revelation of divine love that enlightens and warms mankind.” (quote from a hand missal, Feast of the Sacred Heart)
His love for us burst forth physically in the spilling of His Sacred Blood. Not just in a general sense all through His Passion and death, but rather acutely as the lance, the Spear of Destiny, pierced his side and reached His heart. That lance is you.
“They dug therefore, and they dug through not only His hands, but also His feet, yea, and His side also; and the very recesses of His most sacred Heart, they pierced with the spear of rage, though it had already been wounded with the spear of love. ‘Thou hast wounded,’ says the Spouse in the Canticles of love, “thou hast wounded my Heart, my sister, my spouse.’ O Lord Jesus, Thy spouse, Thy love, Thy sister has wounded Thy Heart. Why then was it necessary that that Heart should be wounded further by Thine enemies?” St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Vitis Mystica
Here again is our Lord instructing St. Margaret Mary; note whom He cites as hurting Him most:
“Behold the Heart which has so loved men that it has spared nothing, even to exhausting and consuming Itself, in order to testify Its love; and in return, I receive from the greater part only ingratitude, by their irreverence and sacrilege, and by the coldness and contempt they have for Me in this Sacrament of Love. But what I feel most keenly is that it is hearts which are consecrated to Me, that treat Me thus.”
The thing that most strikingly ties this feast together with Corpus Christi and the Eucharist is the ontology of the Eucharist itself: Not only is it truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior, but it is literally the Heart of Jesus, the Heart of God. Yes, that’s right, and there have indeed been examples of the host turning into visible flesh, and this flesh has been confirmed scientifically as actual heart muscle. Reflect on this as you read Pope Benedict XV on the institution of the (now supressed) Feast of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, 9 November 1921:
“The chief reason of this feast is to commemorate the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the mystery of the Eucharist. By this means the Church wishes more and more to excite the faithful to approach this sacred mystery with confidence, and to inflame their hearts with that divine charity which consumed the Sacred Heart of Jesus when in His infinite love He instituted the Most Holy Eucharist, wherein the Divine Heart guards and loves them by living with them, as they live and abide in Him. For in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist He offers and gives Himself to us as victim, companion, nourishment, viaticum, and pledge of our future glory.”
You can read about Eucharistic miracles and the human heart muscle HERE.
History of the Devotion to the Sacred Heart HERE.
Surely by now, everyone reading this space has purchased their copy of (now archbishop) J. Michael Miller’s The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development and Mission of the Papacy. This book was published in 1995 by Our Sunday Visitor, and is an expansion on +Miller’s 1979 doctoral thesis, which the Gregorianum published in 1980 under the title, The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology.
Chapter 16 of this book is titled: “Facing the Future: 21 Theses on the Papal Ministry”
What might the future hold, in terms of the form and function of the Papal Ministry? Turn to page 357:
Thesis 14: In order to fulfill its specific mission, the Petrine ministry has assumed many different forms in the past and will continue to do so in the future
Because the people of God are on a pilgrimage, the pope must have the freedom to respond to new challenges, thereby revealing new facets of the Petrine ministry. We must be on guard, therefore, lest we too quickly identify contingent forms with what is dogmatically essential to the papal office. (Do you see here how the ministry is obviously distinct from the office? -NVP)
Miller immediately goes on to support this thesis with a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF at the time:
“The Petrine ministry…while preserving its substance as a divine institution, can find expressions in various ways according to the different circumstances of time and place.” -Cardinal Ratzinger (as Prefect of the CDF), Communionis Notio, 28 May 1992, P.18
From the Latin: “quodque, salva substantia divina institutione definita, diversimode pro varietate locorum et temporum se manifestare potest”
I looked up the source, and indeed it is an official document of the CDF, signed by Ratzinger:
The topic at hand, obviously, is the possibility of changing the structure of the papacy, to meet the varying needs of the Church and its members, while maintaining the essential nature of the office. This was Ratzinger’s dream, to somehow overcome the Petrine stumbling block for the sake of unity. And if changing the structure of the Petrine ministry was necessary, he was open to it.
Back to the Miller book, page 358:
Ratzinger admits that “without a doubt there have been misguided developments in both theology and practice where the primacy is concerned.” A particular way of exercising the primacy might well have been the pope’s duty for the Church’s welfare at one time, without its being so in the future. In the words of Hermann Pottmeyer, “the present juridical and organizational form of the office of Peter is neither the best imaginable nor the only possible realization.”
Now let’s take a look at Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1997 book-length interview with Peter Seewald, Salt of the Earth, page 257:
Seewald: “Do you think that the papacy will remain as it is?”
++Ratzinger: “In its core it will remain. In other words, a man is needed to be the successor of Peter and to bear a personal final authority that is supported collegially. Part of Christianity is a personalistic principle; it doesn’t get vaporized into anonymities but presents itself in the person of the priest, of the bishop, and the unity of the universal Church once again has a personal expression. This will remain, the magisterial responsibility for the unity of the Church, her faith, and her morals that was defined by Vatican I and II. Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change, when hitherto separated communities enter into unity with the Pope. By the way, the present Pope’s (JPII) exercise of the pontificate—with the trips around the world—is completely different from that of Pius XII. What concrete variations emerge I neither can nor want to imagine. We can’t foresee now exactly how that will look.”
Ahem. “I neither can nor want to imagine.” Oh man, how unknowingly prophetic is that? Then again, if you self-fulfill your own prophesy, is that cheating?
“Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change”
He’s not exactly on the fence about it, is he?
Now let’s move to the following year, and another document written by Cardinal Ratzinger in his official role as Prefect of the CDF, The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, 18 November 1998:
At this moment in the Church’s life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation”…
“The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing”.44 For this reason too, the immutable nature of the primacy of Peter’s Successor has historically been expressed in different forms of exercise appropriate to the situation of a pilgrim Church in this changing world…The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit’s voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.
Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff… (ahem, you mean like delegating the Governance role without relinquishing the Office, per Canon 131.1? -NVP)
In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church’s concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,Prefect, CDF, Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church (published in L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 18 November 1998, page 5-6) HERE
But wait! There’s more:
It’s 2008 and Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. This collection of essays, in various forms, goes back to 1987. The 2008 edition was translated by our new friend, Archbishop Miller. Turn straight to page 38 to read Benedict waxing poetic about the idea of not one, not two, but THREE members in an expanded Petrine ministry. He literally uses the term “papal troika.”
Talk about shifting the Overton Window. How about having a book published after you’ve become pope, introducing the radical idea of a papal troika as being plausible, and then pulling back to the slightly less radical idea of a diarchy, making the latter seem positively moderate by comparison.
But remember, there is absolutely zero evidence that Pope Benedict ever once, even for a moment, considered the idea of altering the structure of the papacy, you stupid layperson.