Given the diabolical inversion of truth that flows so freely through this man (now including demon worship), I can’t imagine how bad this book must be. Not ordering it to find out. Will have to rely on the editorial description:
Learn how to rebuke the devil and avoid his snares with this new book from Pope Francis’s teachings. In this powerful collection, the pope lays bare the devil’s ploys and tactics, to help you avoid getting ensnared. Listen with care, as the pope tells the story of the devil’s history, character, and works, and consider the pope’s suggestions about what you can do to see victory over the devil.
Rebuking the Devil will be an important and sobering awakening to those who have forgotten the reality of the spiritual battle that humanity is undergoing. And to those already fighting hard in spiritual battle, they will find great reassurance in the pope’s certainty that we can overcome through Spirit-filled discernment and the power of God in Christ Jesus. Through the course of this book, you’ll learn from Pope Francis about the practical tools of spiritual battle.
This book is vital. Those from youth, to adult, to the wisdom of age will appreciate the pope’s guidance on dealing with our perennial foe. This collection will be readily used by students, parents, educators, faith formation groups, faith-sharing groups, priests and deacons preparing for homilies, and all Christians seeking to rebuke the devil. Pick up this easy-to-read, digestible collection of Pope Francis’s meditations on accessing God’s power over the devil, as your next weekend read!
Notice with him it’s never the Holy Spirit, it’s just ‘Spirit.’ And ‘Spirit-filled’ even suggests the plural. I mean, if we are going to have an Antipope lead the Antichurch straight to Hell, what better way than to stir up the spirits? ¡Hagan lío!
“Learn how to rebuke the devil.” This is so dangerous. The laity should not be directly engaging demons at all, let alone engaging Satan himself. Trust me, you’ll lose. The laity must engage God, or God through the intercession of the saints, whom we then ask to engage the demons. Binding prayers, wherein demons are directly commanded to leave a person or place, are only for trained exorcists who have received apostolic authority to use them. That’s right, even priests should not be engaging in these prayers, without having received specific permission and authority from the local bishop.
Not hyperbole: If millions of people were to actually buy this book and start directly engaging with demons and the devil, the resulting spiritual destruction would be incalculable. In fact, one would have a tough time dreaming up a more devastating tactic to be deployed by the probable False Prophet forerunner of the Antichrist.
I will need to write a follow up post, because there are several people in Tradland who don’t understand this (and who should know better), and are encouraging these binding prayers for use by the laity.
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
BREAKING: At meeting with International Association of Penal Law, #PopeFrancis says church plans to "introduce ecological sin against the common home in the catechism of the Catholic Church because it is a duty." pic.twitter.com/X4RAPFb3Go
Time for a re-post! It’s from three years ago, so I’ve cleaned it up a bit. Have a great weekend!
Wherein the backyard barbeque becomes mortally sinful, with all its paper plates, plastic cups, kids running through the sprinkler…
How can anyone, at this point, take the Catholic Church seriously? Can you imagine trying to evangelize a soul who is hungering for what is supposed to be the Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth?
I renew my dialogue with “every person living on this planet” (Laudato Si’, 3) about the sufferings of the poor and the devastation of the environment. God gave us a bountiful garden, but we have turned it into a polluted wasteland of “debris, desolation and filth” (ibid., 161).
The memory of why I couldn’t ever manage to get through Laudato Si’ when it first came out just came rushing back: It is physically nauseating to read.
The perpetual genuflection to Goddess Earth now includes the enumeration of non-recycling as a capital sin, and mandating ecology as both a spiritual and corporal work of mercy. You can’t make this stuff up. HERE
Let us learn to implore God’s mercy for those sins against creation that we have not hitherto acknowledged and confessed…we can acknowledge our sins against creation, the poor and future generations…we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation.” This is the first step on the path of conversion.
The first step on the path of conversion is to embrace the utterly false ideology of man-made global warming? It’s as if the people writing all this made bets with themselves as to who could contribute the most ridiculous claim.
As individuals, we have grown comfortable with…a “disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary” (Laudato Si’, 123), and we are participants in a system that “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature.” Let us repent of the harm we are doing to our common home. After a serious examination of conscience and moved by sincere repentance, we can confess our sins against the Creator, against creation, and against our brothers and sisters. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the confessional as the place where the truth makes us free.”
Has any other document, in the history of the Church, universally condemned all of humanity for committing a particular sin? Does Antipope Bergoglio really believe that every single person possesses a disordered desire to consume more than what is necessary? Would taking up an entire floor of a hotel as your personal living space fall into this category? And apparently it’s not venial, nope, most def MORTAL SIN, for it requires sacramental confession to be absolved.
Examining our consciences, repentance and confession to our Father who is rich in mercy leads to a firm purpose of amendment.
We laff. How come we didn’t see that phrase in Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia?
This in turn must translate into concrete ways of thinking and acting that are more respectful of creation. For example: “avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse, cooking only what can reasonably be consumed, showing care for other living beings, using public transport or car-pooling, planting trees, turning off unnecessary lights, or any number of other practices” (Laudato Si’, 211).
Wherein the backyard barbeque becomes mortally sinful, with all its paper plates, plastic cups, kids running through the sprinkler, the big black trash bag, charcoal and lighter fluid, leftovers, bug spray (“other living beings”), patio lights, and any number of other practices. Confessing in kind and number is going to be tough. I might need a notepad.
Bergoglio and his toadies continue their relentless rage against the First Commandment. They choose to worship Goddess Earth instead. That is, when they aren’t worshipping Man instead. Notice the dichotomy at play: Worshipping man requires subjugating God. Worshipping Goddess Earth requires subjugating Man.
When people start coming into the confessional saying, “Bless me Father, it’s been two weeks, I left a light on,” how will good priests express their unity to the Petrine See? How can the source of unity be the vector of schism? May I suggest to Father, “THOSE AREN’T SINS, HE’S NOT THE POPE.”
Bergoglio must be exposed as a usurper, charged, removed, and Pope Benedict be acknowledged as the one and only living pope since April 2005.
Arouse in Your Church, O Lord, the spirit with which blessed Josaphat, Your Martyr and Bishop, was filled when he laid down his life for his flock; so that, by his intercession, we, also moved and strengthened by the same spirit, may not fear to lay down our lives for our brethren.
Collect, Feast of Saint Josaphat, Martyr (14 Nov, 1962 calendar)
Josaphat was his religious name. His real name was John Kunsevich, born in present day Ukraine and later a Ruthenian Orthodox archbishop in Poland during the 16th century, who lead his archeparchy into union with Rome under the Union of Brest.
His insistence on unity with the pope, not to mention his zeal and asceticism, drew the ire of many enemies. He was so hated, that Orthodox, Protestants, and pagans conspired together to murder him, and they got their wish upon instigating an angry mob on 12 November 1623. He was shot, his skull smashed to bits with axes, wild dogs set upon him, then weighted with stones and thrown into the Dvina river. Catholics would later recover his body, which now resides at St. Peter’s in Rome.
He is a martyr not just for the faith, but specifically for unity with the one true pope, even unto death.
“I rejoice to offer my life for my holy Catholic faith. Grant that I be found worthy, Lord, to shed my blood for the union and obedience to the Apostolic See.” HERE
UPDATE 13:12 MST. From “Aqua,” a frequent combox contributor:
“Luke 12:54-57. Jesus tells His disciples, they not only can, they must use their God-given grace, intellect, wisdom and judgement to make judgement and know Truth, standing there staring them in the face, so as to follow and act:
54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth (the weather); but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”
2 Tim 4:3-4
As mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, God gave us a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71). There is no greater reality in the universe than Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. What did He expect of His disciples when it came to the question of His true identity? He expected them to use their rational intellect and sensory perception to FIGURE IT OUT.
And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. Matt 16:13-20
And Jesus went out, and his disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. And in the way, he asked his disciples, saying to them: Whom do men say that I am? Who answered him, saying: John the Baptist; but some Elias, and others as one of the prophets. Then he saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ. And he strictly charged them that they should not tell any man of him. Mark 8:27-30
And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples also were with him: and he asked them, saying: Whom do the people say that I am? But they answered and said: John the Baptist; but some say Elias: and others say that one of the former prophets is risen again. And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God. Luke 9:18-20
After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve. John 6:66-71
So now we are being asked to FIGURE IT OUT in terms of how it could be, that for 2000 years, Satan was prevented from overtaking the Petrine See by a rigorous supernatural enforcement of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32), but the supposed current occupant is somehow capable of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry; and has officially approved adultery, fornication, and cohabitation?
And yet, now we see another attempt to correct an apostate antipope, while still trying to stay in union with him:
November 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – An international group of 100 priests and lay scholars published a statement today to protest the pagan worship of Pachamama that took place last month during the Amazon Synod in Rome with Pope Francis’ (sic) active participation and apparent support…
On October 4, Pope Francis (sic) attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. (1)
He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter.
He participated in this act of idolatrous worship by blessing a wooden image of Pachamama. (2)
On October 7, the idol of Pachamama was placed in front of the main altar at St. Peter’s and then carried in procession to the Synod Hall. Pope Francis (sic) said prayers in a ceremony involving this image and then joined in this procession. (3)
When wooden images of this pagan deity were removed from the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, where they had been sacrilegiously placed, and thrown into the Tiber by Catholics outraged by this profanation of the church, Pope Francis (sic), on October 25, apologized for their removal and another wooden image of Pachamama was returned to the church. (4) Thus, a new profanation was initiated.
On October 27, in the closing Mass for the synod, he accepted a bowl used in the idolatrous worship of Pachamama and placed it on the altar. (5)
Pope Francis (sic) himself confirmed that these wooden images were pagan idols. In his apology for the removal of these idols from a Catholic church, he specifically called them Pachamama (6), a name for a false goddess of mother earth according to pagan religious belief in South America.
Some visual aids, as I’ve posted before:
Maybe, just maybe, when you see the abomination, you should check your base premise.
He is not the pope. How could he be?
Scolding an apostate antipope isn’t going to get the job done. It’s true that stunts like this can be helpful in terms of getting the word out, and even the MSM is starting to pick up on things. Ross Douthat openly questioning who is the legitimate pope, in the New York Times, is certainly Overton Window worthy. So thank you, sort of, to everyone who laid out the horrid details and signed their names to the protest, but I’m afraid it’s just not good enough.
Do yourself a favor. If you have Twitter, check out this thread. It will make your day.
Today Bp Talley of Memphis wrote about the USCCB meeting “The knives of the bloggers and opinion makers and spotlight seekers are out in force. They thrust their opinions like sabers, lustfully, guided by a self-certainty that speaks of strength but appears as.chaff. (Mt 3)
A couple thoughts on the Douthat-Burke interview. The story starts off like this:
I had never met him before, but he was as I anticipated: at once obdurate and guileless, without the usual church politician’s affect, and with a straightforward bullet-biting to his criticism of the pope. The Burke critique is simple enough. Church teaching on questions like marriage’s indissolubility is supposed to be unchanging, and that’s what he’s upholding: “I haven’t changed. I’m still teaching the same things I always taught and they’re not my ideas.” What is unchanging certainly can’t be altered by an individual pontiff: “The pope is not a revolutionary, elected to change the church’s teaching.” And thus if Francis seems to be tacitly encouraging changes, through some sort of decentralizing process, it means “there’s a breakdown of the central teaching authority of the Roman pontiff,” and that the pope has effectively “refused to exercise [his] office.”
Except, that’s impossible, right? A pope has no more power to change moral teaching on the reality of marriage than he has to change math to say 2+2=5, right? So if something impossible is apparently happening, shouldn’t we be looking for the false base premise?
It was also in discussing the Amazonian synod that Burke brought up the specter that hangs over Francis-era debates, the idea of a schism in the church.
Burke: While the final document is less explicit in the embrace of pantheism, it does not repudiate the statements in the working document which constitute an apostasy from the Catholic faith. The working document doesn’t have doctrinal value. But what if the pope were to put his stamp on that document? People say if you don’t accept that, you’ll be in schism — and I maintain that I would not be in schism because the document contains elements that defect from the apostolic tradition. So my point would be the document is schismatic. I’m not.
Douthat:But how can that be possible? You’re effectively implying that the pope would be leading a schism.
Whoops! If a true pope could lead a schism from the true Church, explain to me again how Christ isn’t a liar? How have the Petrine Promises not been broken, if this statement is true? How could any of the faithful have a moral duty to pledge unity and submission to a man or to an office which is capable of such monstrous error?
Douthat:Isn’t that a deep contradiction of how Catholics think about the office of the papacy?
Burke: Of course. Exactly. It’s a total contradiction. And I pray that this wouldn’t happen. And to be honest with you, I don’t know how to address such a situation. As far as I can see, there’s no mechanism in the universal law of the church to deal with such a situation.
So Bergoglio apparently has the power to violate the law of non-contradiction? That’s amazing. Do you see where a false base premise leads? You start out with this (false) thing that you think is true, you are sure of it. So sure of it, that you re willing to take any number of other known truths, even from scripture, and doubt their validity because their validity would violate the base falsity.
Folks, THINK. How can the Standard of Unity also be the Vector of Schism?
The most appropriate response I can think of is this post from just one week ago:
Action Alert: Top three questions to ask anyone who refuses to examine the nullity of Benedict’s resignation
Be they cardinals, bishops, priests, laity, friends, family, bloggers, Trad Inc., or whomever, I think now is the appropriate time to cut to the chase. Contained herein are three questions to be asked, privately or publicly as the case may warrant, of every single Catholic, no matter their rank, who professes Jorge Bergoglio to be the one true living pope. The timing seems right, because all the bad things hatching out of the Roman sewers are redpilling a lot more people these days. Something isn’t right, and the open worship of demons inside the Vatican has shifted the Overton Window in a way few other things could have done.
It is of crucial importance to state at the outset that this has nothing to do with Bergoglio “losing his office” or trying to craft some mechanism in which to “depose” him. Folks, Bergoglio is a criminal usurper, which means he needs to be removed, not deposed. We have to get past the false base premise that Bergoglio is now, or ever was, a true pope. All of this heresy/apostasy has no effect on who holds the office of the papacy, because the office of the papacy has been held continuously by Pope Benedict since April 2005. Note well: It would have made no difference – at all – who was “elected” at the faux conclave of 2013, no matter if it had turned out to be someone totally orthodox, that person would still have been an antipope. There was no election, because there was no conclave, because there was no resignation. The personal apostasy and orchestrated demon worship of Jorge Bergoglio upon the high altar of St. Peter’s is not a causal factor as to why he is not pope.
However, the heresy/apostasy of Antipope Bergoglio does serve as a helpful proofset of the fact that he has never held the office, and so does not enjoy any of the supernatural protections of the papacy promised directly from our Lord Himself. If you think about it, this is actually a tremendous grace, because it would have been much harder to find the truth if everything appeared to be “normal.” It’s really not that confusing if you get your base premise correct.
“Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared….” 1 Tim 4:1-2
The questions which follow are of solid linear reasoning, which drill immediately to the core base premise. But they are also questions of grave matter to those professing submission to, and union with, an apostate heretic. It is out of fraternal charity that these questions must be asked, and answered.
Ready? Let’s get started!
Question One: How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would permit the Church Militant to be put into a Catch-22 position of having to be in union with, and in submission to, a Pope who demands apostasy from the One True Faith in order to be in union with him, wherein we are literally damned if we do, and damned if we don’t? How is this not a clear violation of the Law of Non-contradiction, wherein the Standard of Unity is also the Vector of Schism?
If acceptance of heresy/apostasy/demon worship is the requirement in order to be in union with Bergoglio, which it clearly is, then how is that to be squared with the moral obligation of submission to, and union with, the Roman Pontiff under pain of mortal sin? Both things can’t be true.
“Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” 2 John 1:8-11
Yes, we’ve had bad popes in the past. We have had dozens of men hold the papacy who were less than stellar when it came to personal morality, to put it mildly. But we have never had a pope personally conducting himself as an apostate heretic, with the dethronement of God and the deification of Man as his central Freemasonic theme (and now an open worshiper of demons, because that’s where Freemasonry leads), who is also intent on forcing heresy on the faithful by preaching objective mortal sin as a moral good, willed by God (AL#298, 300, 303 HERE; AL footnote 351 HERE; inter alia). That’s supposed to be not possible, and we don’t need some future council to explain this to us. God gave you a rational intellect and sensory perception, and He taught us to use these things together to discern reality (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71).
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” 2 Tim 4:3-4
Let’s take it one step further. When a true pope is elected, it is dogmatically certain that the transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors, (Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus, 1870, HERE) not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church, but rather directly from Christ, immediately upon a validly elected successor’s acceptance of the office… (if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)… which leads us to Question #2:
Question Two:How is it possible that Our Lord Jesus Christ, being perfect, infinite good, would force the Church Militant into a Catch-22 position by His own divine will, by conferring the office of the papacy upon a man known to Him to be a wretched apostate heretic, and then WITHHOLDING the negative supernatural protection of the Petrine Promises (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18-19, and Luke 22:32), so that the wretched apostate heretic could openly approve fornication (cohabitation), adultery, sacrilegious Communion, and even perform idolatrous demon worship upon the high altar at St. Peter’s? HERE,HERE,HERE, and HERE.
Said another way: If you are a person who believes Bergogio is a true pope, validly elected at a valid conclave after a valid resignation, then it is an article of faith for you to also believe that the papal office was bestowed BY CHRIST HIMSELF on Bergoglio at the moment of his acceptance of the papacy. If that’s true, then how is it possible that “Francis” could be permitted BY CHRIST HIMSELF to wage war on the Catholic Church, raping His bride, yet somehow the Petrine Promises have not been broken? Both things can’t be true.
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.” 2 Peter 2:1-3
Souls are at stake, so I highly recommend everyone engages with those closest to them, pose these first two questions, demand that people actually think, and get them to answer. Put it on facebook and twitter. Permission to cut and paste from here with no attribution. Imagine if just a hundred people started doing this; it would exponentiate in mere days.
The answer to these first two questions, with a high degree of moral certainty, is that it is impossible for Jorge Bergoglio to be pope. Once the false base premise is out of the way, the next logical question to be asked is… what could have caused this? Which leads us directly to Question Three…
Question Three: Will you now, honestly and thoroughly, engage the publicly available data and argumentation that demonstrates that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope, and has been since 13 March 2013, not by reason of heresy/apostasy, but as the result of an invalid conclave due to the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict? If you will not, why not?
Yes, the heresy/apostasy/demon worship is awful, but these things are clues, not causes. Bergoglio did not cease being pope because he worships demons. Bergoglio is not pope because the conclave was invalid because Benedict’s resignation was invalid. This is the root, nothing else.
Summary of events surrounding the invalid resignation:
Canon Law forcefully shows that Pope Benedict’s purported resignation in February of 2013 was invalid and that he remains the one and only living Pope. There are a multiplicity of violations which nullify the abdication, rendering also null the subsequent conclave and its result. Violations of Canons 17, 36, 38, 332.2, 188, 359 have been demonstrated, and Canon 131.1 is also in play HERE. For example, he used the term “ministerio” (ministry, lower case) in the essential clause of the renunciation, instead of Munus (Office). The Office and the ministry are not the same thing, and although he could have properly manifested his resignation in accord with Can. 332.2 without using the word Munus, that’s not what he did, explained HERE. Prominent Canonists and Theologians were already crowing about the faulty Latin and nullity of the act within hours of it taking place HERE.
Another subset of evidence includes Benedict’s “always and forever” discourse during his last General Audience 27 February 2013 HERE. This is where he revealed his belief that the papacy imparts an indelible character upon acceptance of the office.
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (the day Ratzinger accepted 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…
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 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.
Benedict admitted in that same speech that by instituting the role of “Pope Emeritus” he was creating a “novelty,” which means that he intended his “resignation” to be different tfrom any before, thus “remaining in a new way.” This concept was explained in great detail during Archbishop Ganswein’s epic “Expanded Petrine Ministry” discourse of 20 May 2016 HERE, wherein he explained how the papacy now consists of one “active member” and one “contemplative member,” and then (I’m not making this up) equated Benedict’s decision to bifurcate the papacy to God’s decision to spare His Blessed Mother from Original Sin via the Immaculate Conception HERE. The plain words of Benedict and Ganswein in these two speeches, if they were sincere and not subterfuge, demonstrate “Substantial Error” as a nullifying factor, as anticipated in Canon 188, since a bifurcated papacy is an ontological impossibility.
Speaking of subterfuge, there is also the possibility that the nullity of the resignation was intentional; four dimensional chess executed by Benedict in order to protect the papacy and keep it out of the hands of the heretics. There is no direct evidence which supports this angle, but it also cannot be disproven at this time. I mention it because it has a certain appeal, and although I think this scenario far less likely, it is possible.
Finally, there is furthering evidence visible to this day, which to the naked eye would appear we have “two popes.” This includes Benedict’s retention of title, form of address as “His Holiness,” his continual presence inside the Vatican, wearing white, wearing his not-destroyed Fisherman’s Ring, writing books and papers, blessing new cardinals, imparting “My Apostolic Blessing,” etc.
The notion that Benedict really, truly, completely retired, retaining not a shred of the papacy, is absurd. And since a partial abdication is not possible, his Declaratio is therefore juridically null, reverting the situation to the status quo. This is true even if he has seemingly delegated the power of governance, as stated in Canon 131.1: “The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.”
Benedict XVI is the one and only living pope, and has been since April 2005.
Battlespace awareness is critical to truly grasping what is happening here. Understanding the bigger picture of interconnected forces means going far beyond the tactical elements and individual breadcrumbs which have been provided for us.
Thank you to Ann Barnhardt for her contributions to this piece. The bigger picture is explained in great detail in Part Two of her Bergoglian Antipapacy video below. You don’t need to watch Part One first, as everything you need is contained in Part Two. For people risking their souls by being scandalized out of the Church because of the actions of a man who isn’t the pope… two hours of video is well worth your time.
I was a little lost at first, because I didn’t realize it was to be a votive Mass, and not the Mass of the Sunday. I knew something was up before it even started, because the color was violet. Also a little lost because it was High Mass, and I still have trouble navigating, as I’ve only attended maybe a dozen times. I don’t always keep up with the choir overlapping with whatever is happening at the altar. Funny, the ten year old girl with Down Syndrome sitting next to me, with a hand missal, didn’t skip a beat.
It turns out the Mass they used today was the Mass for the Conversion of Pagans. In older missals it is called Mass Against the Heathen. Which sounds particularly awesome.
I am traveling and don’t have my missal, and I can’ find the Mass propers for the votive online. If someone could paste them in the combox, I will update the post.
The sermon was mostly excellent, by the way. Except at the end, where he concluded that it was wrong speculate who might be pope. “It’s not our place. We just have to pray for the pope.”
Yes, of course we should pray for him. And Bergoglio too.