“WE ARE NO LONGER WITNESSES, BUT DESERTERS, IF WE DO NOT SPEAK OPENLY AND PUBLICLY”

In case you missed it…

Full story HERE.

“There are some issues that have such moral clarity, that we as a society have decided that the other side is not acceptable.”

This is a sitting U.S. Senator, proclaiming that baby murder is such an absolute moral good, that we’ve now reached the point where anyone opposing baby murder should be excluded from the public forum. Or perhaps imprisoned/loss of citizenship/deported.

Think I’m kidding? Watch the video.

Do you understand the connection between abortion, contraception, and sodomy? Do you understand the logical fallacy of thinking contraception is okay, but sodomy isn’t? Do you understand that acceptance of contraception, abortion, and sodomy by western civilization is AT THE CORE of the devaluation of human life and the overall nosedive of morality? If you really want to understand, and in a way “make sense” of the accelerating insanity in our midst, you can learn all about it HERE and HERE.

In a nutshell, Satan’s battlespace is anti-reality itself. All of these attacks coming at us from all sides are his attempt, since he is incapable of creating anything himself, to replace God’s creation, that is, REALITY, with an anti-reality.

“The final battle between God and Satan will be about marriage and the family.” – Sister Lucia of Fatima, in her letter to Cardinal Caffarra

We are upon the (belated) second anniversary of Cardinal Cafferra’s address to the Rome Life Forum, 19 May 2017, four months prior to his death. I reprint here an excerpt from his speech, and encourage you to read the whole thing HERE. It’s a sobering reckoning of what we are really up against.

This excerpt is from the second part of his talk, after he has already laid out how creation history, and the resultant human condition, “must necessarily give rise to two cultures: the culture of the truth and the culture of the lie.”

I would like to respond to the following question: in our Western culture, are there developments which reveal with particular clarity the confrontation between the attraction exerted over man by the Crucified-Risen One, and the culture of the lie constructed by Satan? My response is affirmative, and there are two developments in particular.

  • The first development is the transformation of a crime [termed by Vatican Council II nefandum crimen], abortion, into a right. Note well. I am not speaking of abortion as an act perpetrated by one person. I am speaking of the broader legitimation which can be perpetrated by a judicial system in a single act: to subsume it into the category of the subjective right, which is an ethical category. This signifies calling what is good, evil, what is light, shadow. “When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies”. This is an attempt to produce an “anti-Revelation”.

What in fact is the logic which presides over the ennoblement of abortion? Firstly, it is the profoundest negation of the truth of man. As soon as Noah left the floodwaters, God said: “Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by a man shall that person’s blood be shed, for in his own image God made man” [Gen. 9, 6]. The reason why man should not shed the blood of man is that man is the image of God. Through man, God dwells in His creation. This creation is the temple of the Lord, because man inhabits it. To violate the intangibility of the human person is a sacrilegious act against the Sanctity of God. It is the Satanic attempt to generate an “anti-creation”. By ennobling the killing of humans, Satan has laid the foundations for his “creation”: to remove from creation the image of God, to obscure his presence therein.

St Ambrose writes: “The creation of the world was completed with formation of the masterpiece which is man, which… is in fact the culmination of creation, the supreme beauty of every created being” [Exam., Sixth day, Disc 9, 10.75; BA I, page 417]. At the moment at which the right of man to order the life and the death of another man is affirmed, God is expelled from his creation, because his original presence is denied, and his original dwelling-place within creation – the human person – is desecrated

  • The second development is the ennoblement of homosexuality. This in fact denies entirely the truth of marriage, the mind of God the Creator with regard to marriage.

The Divine Revelation has told us how God thinks of marriage: the lawful union of a man and woman, the source of life. In the mind of God, marriage has a permanent structure, based on the duality of the human mode of being: femininity and masculinity. Not two opposite poles, but the one with and for the other. Only thus does man escape his original solitude.

One of the fundamental laws through which God governs the universe is that He does not act alone. This is the law of human cooperation with the divine governance. The union between a man and woman, who become one flesh, is human cooperation in the creative act of God: every human person is created by God and begotten by its parents. God celebrates the liturgy of his creative act in the holy temple of conjugal love.

In summary. There are two pillars of creation: the human person in its irreducibility to the material universe, and the conjugal union between a man and woman, the place in which God creates new human persons “in His image and likeness”. The axiological elevation of abortion to a subjective right is the demolition of the first pillar. The ennoblement of a homosexual relationship, when equated to marriage, is the destruction of the second pillar.

At the root of this is the work of Satan, who wants to build an actual anti-creation. This is the ultimate and terrible challenge which Satan is hurling at God. “I am demonstrating to you that I am capable of constructing an alternative to your creation. And man will say: it is better in the alternative creation than in your creation”.

Please click the link above and read the whole thing.

The reckoning is coming. Are you prepared?

Feast of the Sacred Heart: “The Divine Heart guards and loves them by living with them, as they live and abide in Him”

——————————————————–

In the pre-1955 liturgy, the Feast of the Sacred Heart had its own Octave. On the Thursday within the Octave, there was another feast called the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus. The interplay between the two feasts is cause for reflection.

In the 1955 “reforms,” the latter feast was completely suppressed, while the Feast of the Sacred Heart was retained as a Solemnity, with its Octave suppressed. However, by divine will, I just happen to be in possession of a 1948 Bugnini-free missal…

So let’s talk about the Heart of the Redeemer.

”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 He’s told you hurt Him 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 follows again 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 these two feasts together is the ontology of the Eucharist itself: Not only is it truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior, the actual re-presentation of Calvary itself for our consumption, 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 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.”

And finally, a short reflection on the Feast of the Eucharistic Heart from a priest at a Benedictine Priory who apparently has permission to celebrate it:

The adorable mystery of the Eucharist sums up, contains, and communicates to us the entire mystery of Christ: His incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit. If you seek the open Side of the glorious ascended Christ, you will find it in the Eucharist. If you seek the pierced Heart of Christ, beating with love for the Father and with mercy for sinners, you will find it in the Eucharist. The Communion Antiphon of the Mass of the feast is meant to be repeated and treasured. It is, at once, a promise and an invitation: “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” HERE

You can read about Eucharistic miracles and the human heart muscle HERE.

History of the Devotion to the Sacred Heart HERE.

“O Lord Jesus Christ, Who hast poured forth the riches of Thy love for men in
instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist: help us, we beseech Thee, to love Thy
most loving Heart and ever to make worthy use of so great a Sacrament.” Collect for the Feast of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus

 

“The Instrumentum Laboris for the Amazon Synod constitutes an attack on the foundations of the Faith, and in a way that has not heretofore been thought possible.”

Our Lady of Akita to Sister Agnes, 13 October 1973:

“As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.”

“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

“The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them”

This just in…

June 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the two remaining dubia cardinals, today issued a strong critique of the Vatican’s working document (Instrumentum Laboris) for the upcoming Pan-Amazon Synod, calling it “heretical” and an “apostasy” from Divine Revelation. He called upon Church leaders to “reject” it with “all decisiveness.”

“It is to be stated now with insistence that the Instrumentum Laboris contradicts the binding teaching of the Church in decisive points and thus has to be qualified as heretical,” the 90-year-old German prelate wrote…

“Inasmuch as even the fact of Divine Revelation is here being questioned, or misunderstood, one also now has to speak, additionally, of apostasy,” Cardinal Brandmüller, who is a world renowned-scholar of church history, stated…

Brandmüller stated that “we are witnessing a new form of the classical Modernism of the early  20th century” in this document, which is linked with a false understanding of the development of dogma, which “is sharply opposed to the genuine Catholic understanding.” Thus, certain aspects of the working document have to be assessed as either “heretical,” or even as a form of “apostasy,” he stated.

“The Instrumentum Laboris for the Amazon Synod constitutes an attack on the foundations of the Faith, and in a way that has not heretofore been thought possible. Thus it must be rejected with all decisiveness,” he added.

Read the rest over there.

 

“It’s a mistake for the Church to have clear answers for everything”

“As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.” Pope Leo XII, Immortale Dei #41, 1 November 1885

Are you obedient to the Roman Pontiff Francis (sic)? Because he’s 100% totally the pope, right? Do you “hold his opinion with firm grasp of mind?” Will you “openly profess” this:

—————————————————————-

Pope Francis: Church Must Learn to Abandon Old ‘Traditions’

It is a mistake for the Church to try to hold onto old traditions or to have clear answers for everything, Pope Francis said.

Jesus intentionally omitted telling his disciples many things so that the Church would learn to renounce the desire for clarity and order, the pope told participants in the 21st general assembly of Caritas Internationalis… By not always giving “clear rules” that would quickly resolve issues, Jesus was protecting the Church from the temptation of “efficientism,” Francis said, which is the desire for the Church to have everything under control, avoiding surprises, with its agenda always in order. This is not the way the Lord acts, he continued…

Jesus does not want the Church to be a perfect model (STRAIGHT UP DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF INDEFECTIBILITY. More precisely, this is the diabolical INVERSION of the doctrine: Not only is the Church NOT indefectible, its actually THE WILL OF GOD that she be imperfect), satisfied with its own organization and able to defend its good name,” he said… Living like Jesus demands the “courage of renunciation,” the pontiff said, a willingness to abandon traditions that are dear to us… In the end, they did not need a bunch of doctrines and traditions. but the simple announcement that “God is love,” Francis said, and in the face of this great truth, “even convictions and human traditions can and must be abandoned, since they are more of an obstacle than a help.”

THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D. 

——————————————————————–

Are you obedient to this?

Read the rest at the link. There is plenty more to the article.

And now a word from Our Savior:

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.”  Matt. 7:13-20

“He has not abandoned the OFFICE of Peter – something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the OFFICE”

Have you heard about the mysterious case of Archbishop Ganswein and the obscure, “unpublished,” 41 year old sermon by Joseph Ratzinger, then Cardinal Archbishop of Munich-Freising, delivered at his Frauenkirche Cathedral (Cathedral of Our Lady) on 10 August 1978? Well, pull up a chair!

First, here is an excerpt from +Ganswein’s infamous speech at the Greg, 20 May 2016, in which he mentions the mystery sermon:

Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.

It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.

You can read the unabridged English translation of the speech from Diane Montagna HERE. The original reportage from Ed Pentin is HERE.

There is a lot to unpack just in this brief excerpt, starting with “demythologized the papacy.” This concept appears over and over in the +Miller book, which lays out the desired end result of transformating the nature of the papacy, dissolving the monarchy into a synodal ministry, that was being pushed around all the best German cocktail parties of the 60s and 70s. In particular, this idea was the pet project and lifetime work of Cardinal Walter Casper, antipope Bergoglio’s “favorite theologian” HERE . Are you telling me +Ganswein had no knowledge of this fact, and randomly pulled a fifty dollar word like “demythologized” out of thin air?

I’ve already written several posts on this speech that I won’t rehash here. Just read the plain words that the man spoke. Read the headline of this post. It’s right there in front of you.

Now, about that sermon he referenced; what exactly was the “possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich…” What in the word was he talking about, and how would he have ever known about it or remembered it unless someone (cough) tipped him off that there was some stunning clue left there 41 years ago?

Guess what? Someone conveniently made it readily available, in the strangest way. Not only was I able to dig it up in five seconds, in English, but it also turns out that it had remained unpublished until… June of 2013, three months into the Bergoglian Antipapacy. That’s quite a coincidence, folks.

Here is the intro to the homily as published by EWTN:

“Four days after Paul VI’s death, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, celebrated Mass in his Bavarian Cathedral on 10 August 1978 for the late Pope. His homily was printed in the archdiocesan bulletin, ‘Ordinariats-Korrespondenz’. For the 50th anniversary of Pope Montini’s election (21 June 1963), ‘L’Osservatore Romano’ translated and published the text in n.141 of the Daily and a synthesis was published in the English weekly edition, n. 26. The following, however, is an unabridged translation.”

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ratzdethp6.htm

Paul VI died on the Feast of the Transfiguration, 6 August 1978. Benedict crafted his homily to draw parallels between the Transfiguration and…wait for it…the possibility of the “transfiguration” or “metamorphosis” of a pope and his pontificate. Here is the relevant passage to latch onto, emphasis mine:

The transfiguration promised by faith as a metamorphosis of man is primarily a journey of purification, of suffering. Paul VI increasingly accepted his papal service as a metamorphosis of faith into suffering. The last words the Risen Lord spoke to Peter after making him the shepherd of his flock were: “when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go” (Jn 21:18). It was a hint of the crucifixion that lay in store for Peter at the end of his journey. It was, in general, a hint of the nature of this service. Paul VI, increasingly, let himself be taken where, humanly, by himself, he did not wish to go. For him his pontificate meant more and more allowing another to clothe him and allowing himself to be nailed to the cross. We know that before his 75th birthday — and also before his 80th — he fought strenuously against the idea of retiring. Moreover, we can imagine how heavy the thought must be of no longer belonging to ourselves; of no longer having a single private moment; of being enchained to the very last, with our body giving up and with a task that day after day demands the total, vigorous use of a man’s energy.. “None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord” (Rom 14:7-8). These words of today’s Reading word for word defined Paul VI’s life. By bearing it as a suffering he gave new meaning to authority as service. He took no pleasure in power, in position, in having had a successful career; and precisely because he bore authority as a responsibility “another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go” — his authority became great and credible.

So we have references to bravely resisting retirement, being clothed by another, being taken you where you do not wish to go, becoming a prisoner/crucified, giving NEW meaning to authority as service, and bearing authority as a responsibility, presumably referencing the last years of Pope Paul’s life, when he clearly was no longer governing the Church himself, yet he still bore the authority as the holder of the Office. Moreover, Ratzinger thinks Pope Paul’s suffering actually increased the greatness and credibility of his authority, even though outwardly he was no longer governing.

 

He says of Pope Paul that he was enchained to the last, with his “body giving up and with a task that day after day demands the total, vigorous use of a man’s energy.” Compare this to the Latin Declaratio, where Benedict says a lack of vigor is to blame for his own inability to adequately fulfill all of the day to day demands:  “in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength (literally “vigor” in the original Latin) 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…”

He says of Pope Paul, “we can imagine how heavy the thought must be of no longer belonging to ourselves; of no longer having a single private moment…” That sounds an awful lot like what Benedict said about himself in the crucial passage from his last (so far) General Audience:

Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. 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…

The “always” is also a “forever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. 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.

Was Benedict a prisoner as pope 2005-2013, being crucified by his tormentors? Is he a prisoner now, enchained to the last, 2013-present? Did he, with the step he took in February 2013, “give new meaning to authority as service?” Does he see himself as imprisoned, as if in exile, and yet remaining “in a new way, so to speak, in the enclosure of St. Peter?”

Ahem. Popes in prison and Popes in exile are still the pope. Capisci?

There are breadcrumbs everywhere, folks. Sometimes they show up out of nowhere after 41 years.

Happy Nativity of Saint John the Baptist!

 

Would it have been possible for Pope Benedict to resign properly without using the word “Office” in the Declaratio?

Well, yes, it would have indeed been possible. Nowhere is it written in canon law that the word “office” must be used. Canon law simply says the resignation must be “properly manifested” per Can. 332.2 (which is a canon specifically regulating PAPAL resignations, so to anyone using the “pope is above canon law” thingy… that dog won’t hunt).

So how could Pope Benedict have properly resigned without specifically using the word “Office?”

Let’s take a trip down memory lane. Here is an excerpt from President Nixon’s resignation speech, 8 August 1974:

From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that because of the Watergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require.

I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad.

To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.

Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow.

See how clear and simple that is? Notice anything similar to the Benedictine Declaratio? Notice anything different? I was only seven years old, but I don’t recall there being any Nixovacantists in the aftermath of this, so even though he didn’t use the word “office” in the essential clause of the text, he must have done his resignation properly.

Why?

Because he NAMED the office he was resigning. The Presidency IS the office. He speaks earlier in the passage of the DUTIES of the office, and the difficulties in his carrying out those duties, due to current circumstances (as did Pope Benedict in a very similar way). But then when it got down to actually, you know, RESIGNING, he did not say, “I shall resign the DUTIES of the Presidency,” because if you only resign/delegate the duties, then you’re still the President. For the resignation to be effective, you have to resign the Presidency itself.

It was also helpful that when Nixon left on his helicopter ride, he really left. Benedict, not so much.

Remember, this is an issue because Pope Benedict only attempted to resign/delegate the ministry/duties, not the Papacy/office. If Benedict had simply said, “I resign the Papacy,” then it would have been finished, because the Papacy is synonymous with the Office. “The ministry of the Bishop of Rome,” is clearly not synonymous with the Office. Check the Latin Declaratio; he didn’t even bother to capitalize “ministry:”

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

There is just so much to talk about in this sentence. First we see that he is intending to delegate the “ministerio” or the duties (Active Ministry) of the Office, but every reader of this space knows from Canon 131.1 that delegating the duties does not confer the Office, HERE.  Notice that he also inserts “Successor of Saint Peter,” which seems strange, because Benedict remains such whether he is present pope or retired pope. He forever will have been Successor of Saint Peter. We also have the controversy surrounding the Future Indicative vs Potential Subjunctive (“ita ut a”, “vacet”) where the notion that the See will be vacant goes from being a statement of fact to merely an opinion or possibility, depending on which Latinist you consult. See HERE and modified HERE. The phrase that I first latched onto, the one that first raised my eyebrow and nudged me to dig into this whole mess, was that he attached “ita un a,” (meaning, “in such a way”) as a modifier to to the resignation in connection to the (possible?) need for a conclave. If you really are resigning, why is the phrase even needed? But if you are only attempting to resign/delegate the duties, well then you might have to be splainin’ how even though you are retaining the office, you’re doing it “in such a way” that we might need a conclave and a new pope anyway. Is it plain enough that this entire paragraph is utter chaos?

The idea of the exactness and correctness of the Latin text being crucial to the validity of an act is ancient and well-documented. The following is from an article titled, “A Null Act?” printed two days after the Declaratio HERE. It provides several examples worth considering. Forgive the horrible google translate from Italian French:

It is a certain principle in traditional canon law that any rescript, brief or papal bull that contains a Latin fault is null. St. Gregory VII ( Registrum 1.33) declared a privilege granted to a monastery by his predecessor Alexander II, “because of the corruption of the Latin” , which constitutes “a very obvious sign” .

The decretal Ad audientiam of Pope Lucius III, which appears in the body of canon law (Decretals of Gregory IX, I, Title III, Rescriptis , v. XI) posits that ” the false latinity invalidates a rescript of the pope” . The pope forbids to believe a pontifical letter “since it contains an obvious fault of construction” . The gloss (in the official corrected text published on the order of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582) explains in this respect that a rescript of the pope “must contain no fault” , since it is “elaborated with a lot of time”A Latin fault constitutes such a presumption of nullity that no evidence to the contrary can be admitted.

In the same article, you will read that the original Latin Declaratio currently posted on vatican.va is NOT the same document written and read aloud by Pope Benedict HERE.  Although the Vatican originally published the real document, it was quickly taken down because there were even more serious errors in the Latin than what remain in the version we see today. The two most glaring being:

  1. Mixing tenses and grammatical incoherence, where declares was changed to declaro, and commissum was changed to commisso. The fact that these errors appeared in the crucial clause of the text is a serious matter.
  2. The time at which Benedict stated he would resign was 28 February 2013 at the 29th hour.

Wait, what?

Yeah, he will totally not be the pope anymore at the 29th hour of the last day of February. (Keep in mind, the entire non-anglo world uses what we would call military-style 24 hour clock, with the addition of the colon. So what we in angloworld call “1:00 P.M.,” everyone else says “13:00”) So the syntax is not an issue, if only he would have actually written and read out “20th hour” or “20:00,” which is 8 P.M., which is what “they” amended the text to read. UPDATE, 11:09 MST 23 June: Although 29th Hour was in the written Declaratio, it sounds as if Pope Benedict stumbles a bit in the video, but then does say twentieth hour, “hora vicesima,” at the 01:24 mark.

Can you imagine if Nixon had said, “I shall resign the Presidency effective at 29 O’Clock tomorrow?” Do you think someone would have suggested to him that this was a nonsense statement, and that he needed to personally correct it, or else the resignation would not be properly manifested?

The Final Attack on the Petrine See, in living color

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

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

Enjoy!

———————————————-

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

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

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

Speaking of content:

The Part 1 Video from November ARSH 2018

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

Mark Docherty’s NonVeniPacem blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for us!

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!