"As it stands, Bergoglio was never the pope, because Pope Benedict never resigned the papal munus, nor has he ever indicated that he has ever intended to resign it, because he considers the munus to be the grace and vocation of the Papal Office, to which he gave his irrevocable “yes”, never to be taken back." (cf. Final Address, Feb. 29, 2013).

A Father of Lies cannot be the pope

Dec5by The Editor

A Father of lies cannot be pope, because, since Christ prayed for Peter that his faith not fail, a man who is pope could not give himself up to perpetual lying about matters of faith and morals and everything else. Therefore, either one must call Christ a liar, in His claim to be God and the beloved Son of God, or one must hold that Bergoglio is not the pope. There is no middle ground.

The safer ground is to hold that Christ told the truth, and that the Cardinals, who hold Benedict’s resignation to be valid, are in error. As a rule of practical conscience, one must chose always that which is not evil, even if your peers consider it is politically incorrect. You may not particularly care if Christ is God, but on the chance that He is, you better not call Him a liar. Likewise, no one ever taught that the Cardinals are infallible on anything, so why believe their novel claim?

Unfortunately, after Feb. 11, 2013, a legion of false apostles sprouted up, or might I say, a legion of devils took possession of a lot of men’s minds and hearts.

There are a lot of false voices out there. Unlike Mr. Walker, in the video above, they want to gaslight you into not believing in what you see and hear on a daily basis, and they want you to idolize the Cardinals in their judgement of a canonical act, wherein the Cardinals have no more authority to judge than you or I do, and then they want you to draw the conclusion that Bergoglio is not the worst pope ever by comparing him with some evil man of he past (such as Dr. De Mattei recently attempted), so that you remain in communion with a public idolater, blasphemer, heretic and apostate. Because, as Mr. Walker says of these false apostles, to them “Nothing is more important than being in communion. …. Sounds like Hell, doesn’t it!”

I say, there is nothing more ignoble in a man, than that he be a boot-licker. Because such men to not worship God or Christ, they worship their career or their visible superior. And that is a sin of idolatry, even when your superior is or seems to you to be the pope.

As it stands, Bergoglio was never the pope, because Pope Benedict never resigned the papal munus, nor has he ever indicated that he has ever intended to resign it, because he considers the munus to be the grace and vocation of the Papal Office, to which he gave his irrevocable “yes”, never to be taken back (cf. Final Address, Feb. 29, 2013).

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

The common denominator in the platform statements of all of the Democrat candidates for the Presidency of the United States in next years election is the totalitarian impetus to control our society down to the grassroots level through state planning and imposed change. What just happened in Howard County, Maryland illustrates this dangerous trend in American politics. Socialism is not just about money, it is about total control of peoples' lives.

Forced Busing and George Soros Come to Your Neighborhood

The George Soros-funded project to take over suburban counties has extended from district attorneys to school boards.In Howard County, Maryland the fanatics of the radical left took control of the local school board and imposed forced busing on people who did not want it.

Against deep opposition, the board voted to begin a program in which students will be bused out of their neighborhoods and forced to go to schools in other communities based on their parents’ income.According to the Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak, “the board received 6,650 pieces of verbal and written testimony opposing the plan and 150 pieces of testimony in support of it.”

In a free society, you would think a 46 to 1 opposition would kill an elitist idea. After all, we have all been proud of the recent vote in Hong Kong and stand firmly with the popular majority (over 80 percent). We have been saying loudly that we want the Communist dictatorship in Beijing to respect the rights of the people of Hong Kong.

Instead, enormous pressure is being brought on school board members to ignore the will of the people. As Rosiak reported:“Board member Kirsten Coombs voted ‘no’ after board member Jennifer Mallo motioned to move a swath of children out of their schools to try to balance poverty rates. It failed 4-3, and people clapped. ‘I move that we go into recess to consider the impact of the failure of that last motion,’ Mallo said.

“Coombs appeared to be crying when they came out of the back room and said the board should vote again ‘because otherwise the entire plan falls apart.’“The board redid the vote, with Coombs’ voice cracking as she said ‘yes.’ The vote was part of a series taken by the board that, together, resulted in the large-scale moving of children to different schools based on their parents’ income, effective in 2020.”

Across America there is a hardline, left-wing activist movement to destroy honors classes and magnet schools. The Left has given up on improving education in poor neighborhoods (for example the six Baltimore schools in which not a single student could pass the state exams in math and English). Now the Left wants to disguise its failure by busing students from good schools to bad.

This policy of forced busing to move students out of their neighborhoods and move them into schools they don’t know in communities they don’t know is a disaster. It was a disaster when it was first tried in the 1970s.

Theodore White, in The Making of the President 1972, spends a good bit of time on the enraging effect of court imposed busing on parents who had a deep sense of community. He notes that the first uprising in Florida was among Cuban Americans who saw this kind of government dictation as a reminder of what they had fled from Castro’s Communist dictatorship.

Rosiak notes in parallel some 47 years later that immigrants from the former Soviet Union and from China were among the most frightened people at the Howard County School Board meeting. They, too, saw the ruthless government imposition of rules destroying their neighborhoods as precisely the centralized bureaucratic government they had fled.

Similarly, the most pro-education parents, especially Asian and Indian parents, were the most frightened and angriest about the left-wing takeover of the Howard County School Board. They saw the radical left as the direct enemy of their children going to honor courses and magnet schools. The Left’s drive for equality of mediocrity and for masking failure by making everyone part of the failure was the exact opposite of their passion for their children working hard, studying intensely, and rising economically.

The emergence of the Soros-funded program to take over local government with radical candidates and fund their campaigns to drown traditional candidates is a historic turning point in American history.

In many ways the impeachment fight is a diversion while the real fight is beginning at the grassroots between normal citizens and the militant left-wing totalitarians who want to use government to change society.

Over the next few weeks I will be reporting more and more on Soros inspired and funded left-wing activities at the local level. A Soros designed America would be a very different country from what we have today.In some very real respects, the 2020 fight to shape America’s future and define America’s values may be between President Trump and George Soros. The weak and bland Democratic presidential candidates are far less dangerous than the billionaire building the radical network which has begun to take over one county at a time. This may turn out to be the real fight for America’s soul and future.


Your Friend, 
Newt Gingrich

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THIS POST WAS PROVIDED BY GLEN AND RENEE SZABLEWSKI, LONGTIME READERS OF ABYSSYM

ONE OF THE BEST OVERVIEWS OF THE INVALID NATURE OF THE PROCESS OF BERGOLIO TAKING THE CHAIR OF PETER, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A CANON LAWYER TO READ IT

04 WEDNESDAY 1911:15 AM (4 minutes ago)

Hi everyone, this was written by a friend of ours, David Martin, who is a Catholic speaker, PLEASE SHARE, Glen and Renee Szablewski.

Thank the Lord for Bishop Rene Henry Gracida.

He and Archbishop Vigano are truly heroes in our Church today….and most probably saints!!!

The article below….written by David Martin…. and published on Bishop Gracida’s blog is…. Golden….a compelling read……one of the best overviews of the invalid nature of the process of Bergoglio taking the Chair of Peter that I have seen. It is very readable…..you do not have to be a canon lawyer to read it.

Links to sources of the information presented……are peppered through the document.

It is very well worth reading every sentence.

So to David Martin….Well Done….Great Work!!!

Now given that it is a reasonably long document, maybe give yourself a rest half way through….go get a cup of coffee….then come back and keep going…… so you really do take it all in.

Henceforth..….. this can be a reference for you to use in helping others understand the magnitude and gravity of what is happening in our Church today.

If you have family, friends, priests, bishops who cannot get their heads anywhere near the idea of Bergoglio being invalidly elected……. send this to them and ask them for their considered opinion of it.

Before you Start…….Immediately below is a Issue Not Dealt with in the Article by David Martin

Here goes…

One matter at the very beginning of the process of the St Gallen group bringing Bergoglio to the Chair of Peter, which by itself would be enough to constitute an invalid election…. is the very, very, high likelihood (certainty) that he was a heretic before he was elected. I have said before…..it is ridiculous to think that he suddenly became a rampant, manifest heretic the day he took the Chair. Of course he has been this way for decades. It would be total naivety to think otherwise.

This was eloquently and compellingly laid out by a traditional Catholic journalist, Marcelo González from Argentina, of Panorama Católico Internacional, the very day he was supposedly ‘elected’, 13th March, 2013.  

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-horror-buenos-aires-journalist.html ). In this article Gonzalez opens with:-  ‘Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.’

Then further on he wrote, ‘Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.”

Now ain’t that the truth!!!

After nearly 7 years of Bergoglio on the Chair, what Gonzalez says here, is now as clear as a bright sunny day in the middle of summer.

If he was a manifest heretic before he took the Chair……on that basis alone he has never been a valid Pope……because a heretic is ipso facto out of the Church……no longer a Catholic!!!

And here in a Papal Bull from Pope Pius IV delivered to the Church on February 16, 1559, he states the Churches teaching on this matter. The wording from this document is forceful, compelling and very clear.

The Source:- http://www.thirdorderofsaintdominic.org/Prophetic%20Warnings.html

Pope Pius IV (1499-1565)

“We declare that if ever it should appear that any bishop, even one acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or Primate, or a Cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, whether prior to his promotion to Cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff, has beforehand deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, we enact, we decree, we determine, we define: Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid, and void. It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, not even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. Such promotion or election shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation be considered even partially legitimate in any way. Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected — and indeed, whatsoever flows there from — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office, and power. Therefore, it is permitted to no one to impair this page of Our approval, renewal, sanction, statute, wills of repeal, of decrees, or to go contrary to it by a rash daring deed. If anyone, moreover, will have presumed to attempt this, he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” -Pope Paul IV (1555-1559), Bull “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio,” February 16, 1559, sec. 9

A full investigation into the heretical ways of Bergoglio before he was ‘elected??’now screams out to be conducted.

With the global chaos, confusion, scandalising and hereticising of the flock by Bergoglio…. this has become a matter of extreme urgency and  importance.

Of course every other point in the process of the pseudo-election of Bergoglio… (as documented in the following article )… demands thorough and comprehensive research and examination also.

This is a matter for the orthodox hierarchy who will lead us in the ‘Remnant Church’ of these times ahead….that is the remaining True Catholic Church…..as compared to the New False Church prophesied through messages given to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich.

I was going to say, ‘Happy Reading’, but I am not sure ‘happy’ is the right word.

I guess it is happy in that there is a happy ending to all of this……an ‘Era of Peace’ like nothing we can imagine!!!

So stay close to the Lord in prayer…. and the Peace only He can give will follow….despite all that is happening. Your prayers are so much needed now…..and the potential fruit enormous!!!

God bless,

Tony

https://abyssum.org/2019/12/02/a-closer-look-at-pope-benedicts-resignation-and-the-ensuing-papal-crisis-we-are-now-embroiled-in-that-is-taking-a-daily-toll-on-the-membership-of-the-church/

A CLOSER LOOK AT POPE BENEDICT’S RESIGNATION AND THE ENSUING PAPAL CRISIS WE ARE NOW EMBROILED IN THAT IS TAKING A DAILY TOLL ON THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH

Posted on December 2, 2019by abyssum


A Closer Look at Benedict’s Resignation and the Ensuing Papal Crisis

 By David Martin

With the controversial buzz that surrounded the election of Pope Francis upon the resignation of  Pope Benedict XVI, it seems that we may have lost sight of a key element in this episode,  namely, that Benedict never fully resigned the papal ministry but only the active exercise thereof. On the eve of his resignation, he said:  

“Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church… 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.” (General Audience, February 27, 2013)

From these words it appears that there has been no revocation of Benedict XVI’s office. According to Church law, a pope must give up his office for his resignation to be valid. (Canon 332) The text indicates that Benedict XVI chose to retain his office “forever,” which is why he continues to wear the papal garb and to go by the name Benedict XVI.

This matches the explanation offered by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Benedict’s long-time friend and confidant who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household. Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University on May 20, 2016, he told the press that Benedict XVI did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine office in a way that better accommodated his frailty.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” adding that the renunciation of his office would have been “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

Enlarged Papal Ministry

Gänswein said that Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement of February 11, 2013, marked the introduction of a new institution into the Catholic Church: “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member.” He said we now have “two living successors of Peter among us” that “are not in competition with each other,” i.e. Benedict and Francis. https://veritas-vincit-international.org/2016/09/13/papal-secretary-archbishop-ganswein-speaks-on-benedict-the-two-popes-and-prophecy/

This indeed is the reason Benedict did not renounce his papal name or give up his white cassock as did Celestine V. “This is the reason why the correct appellation for him is ‘Your Holiness,’” Gänswein said. “This is finally the reason why he did not retire to an isolated monastery, but within the Vatican walls, as if to simply take a step aside to make space for his successor and for a new step in the history of the papacy.” 

If Archbishop Gänswein is right and Benedict XVI still occupies a “contemplative dimension” of the papacy, then there is no dimension of the papacy that he doesn’t occupy, i.e. he still has his powers. If this is the case, it means that Francis is not the pope, since there cannot be two popes. If Francis is the pope, then Benedict’s office is revoked, but Benedict says it was not revoked.

Benedict has never corrected Gänswein about his claim nor has Gänswein recanted it, but   continues to allege that Benedict XVI introduced a modified papacy consisting of “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member” whereby there exist “two living successors of Peter among us.”

Veteran journalist Paul Badde—author of Benedict Up Close: The Inside Story of Eight Dramatic Years—confirmed with this writer on Dec. 15, 2017, that Gänswein “hasn’t denied” saying this in his May 20, 2016 address, adding that “there was no reason for such a step.”

In an interview with Paul Badde on May 27, 2016, Archbishop Gänswein minced no words in saying that we have two popes in the Vatican today. “We have had for three years two popes and I have the impression that the reality that I perceive is covered by what I have said.”

Badde summed up his understanding of Gänswein’s position, saying:  

“If I understand you aright, he [Benedict] remained in the office, but in the contemplative part, without having any authority to decide. Thus we have – as you said – now an active and a contemplative part which form together an enlargement of the Papal Office.”  

Gänswein replied:  “That is what I have said, indeed, that – if one wishes to specify it – it is very clear.”

Interview: Archbishop Gänswein on Benedict, The Two Popes, and Prophecy

No Shared Papacy 

Naturally, there is no such thing as a “shared papacy.” Christ said to Simon, “Thou art Peter.” He didn’t say to Simon and John, “Thou art Peters.” And while the papacy indeed has various facets, i.e. contemplative, theological, active, etc., it is all one ministry. 1 The idea that two dimensions of the Petrine office can be cubbyholed into separate departments (active and prayerful), each with its own capacity and each occupied by a separate Petrine representative, is heresy. Gänswein no doubt realizes this, but his explanation to the press was apparently the best he could do to cover for a very embarrassing situation that caused his mentor to be dethroned.    

Benedict XVI Ousted

What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating the Chair of Peter, but this was done under the guise of a resignation so as to not split the Barque of Peter asunder with controversy. Credible reports from 2015 indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into stepping down, which was providentially foreshadowed in Pope Benedict’s inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” 

We know from the late Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it.  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, the same that had almost prevented the election of Benedict in 2005.

Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved. https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-great-reformer-francis-and-the-making-of-a-radical-pope/  According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013.  As the conclave neared, they then held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker.

On the eve of the 2013 conclave, Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga was busily on the phone (https://twitter.com/EdwardPentin/status/1034129674824241152) with cardinal electors from the Honduran embassy in Rome. His phone effort was the tail end of this intense lobbying campaign to secure votes for the election of Cardinal Bergoglio as pope.

That same day, Maradiaga attended a private meeting (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/new-book-on-pope-francis-election-reveals-the-main-kingmakers) of Bergoglio supporters, which included key players in the “St. Gallen Mafia,” and together they garnered pledges for up to twenty-five votes for Bergoglio. Not surprisingly, Bergoglio opened with twenty-six votes on the first day of the conclave, though that number would rise to 77 on the second day indicating that this campaign effort was gaining ground. Three days later the newly elected Pope Francis asked Maradiaga to head his powerful new Council of Cardinals, known as the “Council of Nine.” 

1. That is, the various facets all comprise part of the same Petrine ministry, all of which is active. 

On August 27, 2018, Vatican correspondent Edward Pentin tweeted concerning this political campaign.

“Cdls Danneels & Ex-Cdl McCarrick campaigned for Bergoglio to be Pope, as did ++Maradiaga on eve of Conclave, phoning up various cardinals from the Honduran embassy in Rome. Despite their pasts, all 3 prelates have since been special advisors of Francis or rehabilitated by him.”

Rules and Regulations Violated

Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work around the time of the conclave, which directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, governing papal elections. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it incurs automatic excommunication. Consider the following from his Constitution:

“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition.” (81)

This prohibition applies not only to the election itself but to that time just before the election when preparations are underway, since it is during this time that illicit political activity would exert its greatest influence on the vote. “Any form of pact” obliging electors “to give or deny their vote to a person” would be secured before the election.

The pope also says in his Constitution:

“Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.” (79)

A clique of cardinals did “make plans” to force Benedict XVI’s resignation and to campaign for “the election of his successor,” with up to 25 cardinals “promising votes” the day before the election, this having come about through “private gatherings,” thus revealing the illicit conduct of those cardinal electors to be.

Under the pain of excommunication latae sententiae, Pope John Paul forbids “each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election” to allow “all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.” (80)

Unfortunately, secular and political interference played a key part in the election of Pope Francis.  According to John Paul II, such interference renders the papal election null and void.

Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason 2 null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. (76)  

Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II  


A Pope “Not Canonically Elected”

Bearing this in mind, we turn now to the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a future pope. This is found in the Opuscula or Works of St. Francis, which was published by the preeminent Franciscan historian Fr. Luke Wadding in 1621. 

Shortly before his death in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the friars of his Order and detailed this prophecy of what was to come upon the Church in the latter days. The following is an excerpt taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham. 

At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer. 

Evidence of a pope “not canonically elected” would be his success in drawing “many into error,” something that has been ongoing since Francis’ election. For instance, on February 4, 2019, he signed a joint statement with the head of Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque, which states that “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” This blatantly contravenes the Church’s dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, yet this “religious diversity” heresy is now preached everywhere from the pulpit, courtesy of Francis.

There is also the issue of Francis’ ongoing collusion with U.N. globalists. On October 28, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences partnered with U.N. pro-abortion advocates to pledge fidelity to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) championed by socialist rebels like George Soros and Jeffrey Sachs. The pope has also honored abortionists Emma Bonino and Lilliane Ploumen for their work.

And let us not forget that Francis engaged in idol worship in St. Peter’s Basilica during the recent Amazonian Synod. The pope and several cardinals were filmed chanting, dancing, and praying before the Pachamama idol as part of the synodal effort to make “reparation” to “Mother Earth” for the “sins” committed against her. Vatican rep denies claims that alleged ‘pagan’ statue is the Virgin Mary

2. Only in cases of collusion involving simony does the pope lift the nullity in order that the election may remain valid (78).

Is it any wonder that two shafts of lightning struck the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica just hours after Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation on February 11, 2013? Clearly, this signaled that a time of divine retribution is at hand.  

Need for Episcopal Examination

It is high time that a committee of bishops convene to address the matter of Benedict’s resignation, seeing that it launched what is being called the most destructive pontificate of Church history. They need to bring into question the illicit nature of the 2013 conclave, Francis’ destructive path, and Gänswein’s assertion that Benedict XVI still occupies a “contemplative” dimension of the papacy. They need to ask themselves: “Was Francis’ election valid or did it simply appear that way?”

Unfortunately, Benedict won’t speak the truth about Rome’s collusion with Antichrist because he is bound by fears and kept under surveillance by an iron-clad Vatican bureaucracy, if in fact they haven’t threatened him physically. There could be more to Danneels’ “mafia club” than meets the eye.

Death Threat Against Benedict XVI

This is credible, when we consider that on February 10, 2012, almost one year to the day before Benedict XVI announced his resignation, it was reported that the pope was given only one year to live if he didn’t resign. The Telegraph UK reported that Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, said these things to a group of people in Beijing toward the end of 2011. 

“His remarks were expressed with such certainty and resolution that the people he was speaking to thought, with a sense of alarm, that an attack on the Pope’s life was being planned,” the report said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/9073811/The-Pope-will-die-within-a-year-Vatican-assassination-fears-revealed.html

The extraordinary comments were written up in a top-secret report, dated Dec. 30, 2011, and delivered to the Pope by a senior cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in January 2012. The report was written in German, apparently to limit the number of people within the Vatican who would understand it if it was inadvertently leaked. It warned of a “Mordkomplott” – death plot – against Benedict. 

Sr. Lucy’s Vision

Hence Pope Benedict XVI, in an emotional farewell speech at St. Peter’s on February 25, 2013, told a crowd of 100,000 that God had called him to step down and devote himself to prayer, and ‘to scale the mountain.’ “God told me to climb the mountain” – Pope gives farewell speech » YNaija
“God told me to climb the mountain” – Pope gives farewell speech » YNaijaby Rachel Ogbu 100,000 pilgrims gathered in St Peter’s Square to hear Benedict XVI’s emotional goodbye speech. T…
“God told me to climb the mountain” – Pope gives farewell speech » YNaijaby Rachel Ogbu 100,000 pilgrims gathered in St Peter’s Square to hear Benedict XVI’s emotional goodbye speech. T…

This would suggest that Benedict XVI is “the Holy Father” who scales the mountain in Sr. Lucy’s vision. If you’ll recall, it was in conjunction with the Third Secret of Fatima that Sr. Lucy of Fatima received this symbolic vision, which she penned on January 3, 1944. The following is an excerpt that was published by the Vatican on June 26, 2000. 

“We saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.” 

In her vision, Lucy sees two popes as it were. The first is a mirrored image of what appears to be the pope, but is actually “a bishop dressed in white” who gives the “impression” he is the pope.  The true pope [BXVI] and his followers scale the mountain amidst peril and danger, praying for the spiritually dead along the way, before which they pass through a city half in ruins, which represents the Church in shambles. At the end of their journey they are martyred for their allegiance to Jesus Crucified. It is a symbolic picture of the Church being put to death. 

We should note that a reflection in the mirror is not a reality, but only an appearance – an impression. Lucy makes the point that this impression is “a bishop dressed in white.” It doesn’t appear that the bishop dressed in white is Benedict XVI or any previous pope, but Pope Francis. 

Perhaps, this is something that an episcopal committee would want to consider as well.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A discussion about the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is proving to be the best revealer of which god your priest worships. It is absolutely stunning to see the responses of clergy on this topic. The truth frightens them. Literally.

The god of the Club

Dec4by The Editor

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/the-god-of-the-club/

The “chapel” of the Palazzo Roffia, Florence, set up for a Masonic Ritual

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As Catholics round the world write their Bishops and priests in regard to the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a crisis much more grave than pedophilia or homosexuality in the Catholic Clergy.

Time after time, Catholics are sharing with me the bizzare and even incoherent responses they are receiving from members of the clergy: arguments which range from sheer infantile petulance at loosing one’s rattle to absolutely diabolic attacks on God.

Underlying them all is a constant theme.  The ecclesiastical club is the arbiter of truth, not God, not Christ, nor Canon Law, not the philosophy of Aquinas or Aristotle, not reason, not facts, not history, and especially not words.

As an Anthropologist, I would sum up the responses as evidences of faith in the god of the club: the concept that one should do everything to keep the club of the clergy afloat (in whatever decisions it makes for itself), no matter what you have to deny or what you have to affirm.

Not being a youngster, I have personal experience with members of the club over 40 years. This mentality is not accidental, it did not infiltrate into the Church. It was cultivated, invited and required. If young men believed in absolute, eternal unchanging divine truth, they simply were either not accepted into the club, or they were progressively harassed and attacked and destroyed or driven out. The club works this way, whether they worship in Latin or the vernacular.

I know priests who were kicked out of their diocese simply because they preached that abortion was evil. I know priests who were kicked out of their Traditional Latin Mass society simply because they hung a curtain in the confessional. I could go on and on about cases of absurdity. To punish priests for absurdly unjust reasons became a hallmark of the post Vatican II era.

Hundreds of new communities and societies were founded. But a vast majority had a single unifying principle: abnormality. I mean ab-norm-ality: that is, a society not founded around the observance of God’s Law (nomos in Greek) but around some other human law: whether the will of the superior, the will of the bishop, the will of the founders: whether or not that will conformed itself to God or to Church teaching or not. Violate the “will” and you are out. Defend the Will of God against the “will” and you are out. It did not matter whether you were expelled for stealing or for kneeling at communion, both were equally grave.

The end result is that well over 60% of the clergy today simply do not worship Jesus Christ in practice. They worship the god of the club.

The problem with this moral error, over and above that it is explicitly demonic and idolatrous, is that when you accept as Head of your club a freemason or satanist, then your club has no problems at all with that.

The silence of the rest of the clergy, is thus, perhaps not so much a sign of disagreement, as many of us hope.

A priest who is silent must be questioned. I think you have the right to eternal salvation, and that you have the right to know which god your local priest worships.

And a discussion about the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is proving to be the best revealer of which god your priest worships. It is absolutely stunning to see the responses of clergy on this topic. The truth frightens them. Literally.

I myself saw that yesterday, when, after asking to meeting with the Head of an important section of the Roman Curia, I saw the head run down the stairs to avoid being seen by me. I guess having read my scholastic question on the Renunciation, a copy of which I mailed to him a few weeks ago, he chose flight over dialogue.

(Credits: The Palazzo Roffia is a Masonic Lodge, the image is from wikipedia https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palazzo_Roffia,_galleria_00.JPG: Notice how much it looks like a “Catholic chapel”)

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

WEIGEL ON PELL

DECEMBER 4, 2019

A Last Chance for Australian Justice

GEORGE WEIGEL

CRISIS MAGAZINE

My late parents loved Cardinal George Pell, whom they knew for decades. So I found it a happy coincidence that, on November 12 (which would have been my parents’ 70th wedding anniversary), a two-judge panel of Australia’s High Court referred to the entire Court the cardinal’s request for “special leave” to appeal his incomprehensible conviction on charges of “historic sexual abuse,” and the even-more-incomprehensible denial of his appeal against that manifestly unsafe verdict.

Thus in 2020 the highest judicial authority in Australia will review the Pell case, which gives the High Court the opportunity to reverse a gross injustice and acquit the cardinal of a hideous crime: a “crime” that Pell insists never happened; a “crime” for which not a shred of corroborating evidence has yet been produced; a “crime” that simply could not have happened in the circumstances and under the conditions it was alleged to have been committed.

Since Cardinal Pell’s original appeal was denied in August by two of three judges on an appellate panel in the State of Victoria, the majority decision to uphold Pell’s conviction has come under withering criticism for relying primarily on the credibility of the alleged victim. As the judge who voted to sustain the cardinal’s appeal pointed out (in a dissent that one distinguished Australian attorney described as the most important legal document in that country’s history), witness credibility—a thoroughly subjective judgment-call—is a very shaky standard by which to find someone guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It has also been noted by fair-minded people that the dissenting judge, Mark Weinberg, is the most respected criminal jurist in Australia, while his two colleagues on the appellate panel had little or no criminal law experience. Weinberg’s lengthy and devastating critique of his two colleagues’ shallow arguments seemed intended to signal the High Court that something was seriously awry here and that the reputation of Australian justice—as well as the fate of an innocent man—was at stake.

Other recent straws in the wind Down Under have given hope to the cardinal’s supporters that justice may yet be done in his case.

Andrew Bolt, a television journalist with a nationwide audience, walked himself through the alleged series of events at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, within the timeframe in which they were supposed to have occurred, and concluded that the prosecution’s case, and the decisions by both the convicting jury and the majority of the appeal panel, simply made no sense. What was supposed to have happened could not have happened how it did and when it did.

Australians willing to ignore the vicious anti-Pell polemics that have fouled their country’s public life for years also heard from two former workers at the cathedral, who stated categorically that what was alleged to have happened could not have happened how it did and when it did, because they were a few yards away from Cardinal Pell at the precise time he was alleged to have abused two choirboys.

Then there was Anthony Charles Smith, a veteran criminal attorney (and not a Catholic), who wrote in Annals Australasia that the Pell verdict and the denial of his appeal “curdles my stomach.” How, he asked, could a guilty verdict be rendered on “evidence….so weak and bordering on the preposterous?” The only plausible answer, he suggested, was that Pell’s “guilt” was assumed by many, thanks to “an avalanche of adverse publicity” ginned up by “a mob baying for Pell’s blood” and influencing “a media [that] should always be skeptical.”

Even more strikingly, the left-leaning Saturday Paper, no friend of Cardinal Pell or the Catholic Church, published an article in which Russell Marks—a one-time research assistant on an anti-Pell book—argued that the two judges on the appellate panel who voted to uphold the cardinal’s conviction “effectively allowed no possible defense for Pell: there was nothing his lawyers could have said or done, because the judges appeared to argue it was enough to simply believe the complainant on the basis of his performance under cross examination.”

The Australian criminal justice system has stumbled or failed at every stage of this case. The High Court of Australia can break that losing streak, free an innocent man, and restore the reputation of Australian justice in the world. Whatever the subsequent fallout from the rabid Pell-haters, friends of justice must hope that that is what happens when the High Court hears the cardinal’s case—Australia’s Dreyfus Case—next year.

 Photo credit: AFP via Getty Images

Tagged as George Cardinal PellGeorge Weigel25

George Weigel

By George Weigel

George Weigel is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and the author, most recently, of The Irony of Modern Catholic History: How the Church Rediscovered Itself and Challenged the Modern World to Reform (Basic Books, 2019).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WHO IS FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL? THIS WILL HELP YOU TO KNOW HIM!!!

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 03 dic 

A Pope With the “Myth” of the People

Anagni.jog

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2019/12/03/a-pope-with-the-“myth”-of-the-people/

*

[The following text is the talk that Sandro Magister gave at the study conference held on Saturday, November 30 and Sunday, December 1 in Anagni, in the Sala della Ragione, at the initiative of the Fondazione Magna Carta, on the theme: “To Cesar and to God. Church and politics in the pontificates of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.” Concluding with Magister’s reply at the end of the debate].].

*

THE POLITICAL VISION OF POPE FRANCIS

by Sandro Magister
Anagni, November 30 2019

The political vision of Pope Francis has its roots above all in his life experience, in Argentina.

Precociously appointed novice master, the then 34-year-old Bergoglio completely espoused the cause of bringing back Juan Domingo Perón, who in those years was in exile in Madrid. He became the spiritual director of of the young Peronists of the Guardia de Hierro, who had a powerful presence at the Jesuit Universidad del Salvador. And he continued this militancy after his surprise appointment as provincial superior of the Jesuits of Argentina in 1973, the same year in which Perón returned to the country and won his triumphant reelection.

Bergoglio was among the writers of the “Modelo nacional,” the political testament that Perón wanted to leave after his death. And for all of this he drew the ferocious hostility of a good half of the Argentine Jesuits, more leftist than he, especially after he surrendered the Universidad del Salvador, which was put up for sale in order to stabilize the finances of the Society of Jesus, to none other than his friends of the Guardia de Hierro.

It was in those years that the future pope developed the “myth” – his word – of the people as protagonist of history. A word that by its nature is innocent and a bearer of innocence, a people with the innate right to “tierra, techo, trabajo” and that he sees as overlapping with the “santo pueblo fiel de Dios.”

THE “MYTH” OF THE PEOPLE

But in addition to his experience of life, Bergoglio’s political vision also took shape thanks to the instruction of a teacher, as he confided to the French sociologist Dominique Wolton in a book-length interview that Wolton also edited, entitled “Politique et societé,” released in 2017:

“There is a thinker that you should read: Rodolfo Kusch, a German who lived in northwestern Argentina, an excellent philosopher and anthropologist. He made one thing clear: that the word ‘people’ is not a logical word. It is a mythical word. It is not possible to speak of people logically, because that would mean making only a description. In order to understand a people, to understand what are the values of this people, one must enter into the spirit, into the heart, into the work, into the history, and into the myth of its tradition. This point is truly at the basis of the theology called ‘of the people.’ That is to say, to go with the people, see how it expresses itself. This distinction is important. The people is not a logical category, it is a mythical category.”

WITH THE “POPULAR MOVEMENTS”

So according to Bergoglio, “it takes a myth to understand the people.” And he has recounted this myth, as pope, above all when he called around him the “popular movements.” He has done it three times so far: the first time in Rome in 2014, the second in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, in 2015, the third again in Rome, in 2016. Every time he rouses the audience with endless speeches, of around thirty pages each, which when put together now form the political manifesto of this pope.

The movements that Francis calls to himself are not ones that he created, they preexist him. There is nothing overtly Catholic about them. They are in part the heirs of the memorable anti-capitalist and anti-globalization gatherings in Seattle and Porto Alegre. Plus the multitude of rejects from which the pope sees bursting forth “that torrent of moral energy which springs from including the excluded in the building of a common destiny.”

It is to these “discards of society” that Francis entrusts a future made of land, of housing, of work for all. Thanks to a process of their rise to power that “transcends the logical proceedings of formal democracy.” To the “popular movements,” on November 5, the pope said that the time has come to make a leap in politics, in order “to revitalize and recast the democracies, which are experiencing a genuine crisis.” In short, to upend the powerful from their thrones.

The powers against which the people of the excluded are rebelling, in the vision of the pope, are “the economic systems that in order to survive must wage war and thus restore economic balance,” they are “the economy that kills”. This is his key for explaining the “piecemeal world war” and even Islamic terrorism.

TWO CONTRADICTIONS

But here already there emerges a contradiction between words and deeds, in the politics of Pope Francis.

Because while he preaches ceaselessly against the rich Devourers – whom he never identifies and calls by name – the richest men in the world and the superpowers of finance come thronging to be received by him. And he not only welcomes them with wide-open arms, but he heaps praises upon them.

In the initial phase of his pontificate, in order to get the curia and its balance sheets back into shape, Francis called to the Vatican the world’s most famous and expensive management and financial services firms, from McKinsey to Ernst & Young, from Promontory to KPMG.

He praised Christine Lagarde, received repeatedly when she was at the head of the International Monetary Fund, as “an intelligent woman who maintains that money must be at the service of humanity, and not the other way around.”

He received in highly visible audiences, accepting in front of the cameras their substantial offerings of money, Tim Cook of Apple, Eric Schmidt of Google, Kevin Systrom of Instagram. He accepted the financing of Paul Allen of Microsoft and of the Mexican magnate Carlos Slim, for many years at the top of the “Forbes” ranking of the richest people in the world.

And then there is a second contradiction, between – on one side – the narrative that Bergoglio continually presents of a world in which “the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer,” in a crescendo of the concentration of wealth into the hands of the very few and of a deliberate extension of poverty to ever wider segments of the population, and – on the other side – the incontestable data of the statistics.

Suffice it to say that, according to the figures furnished by the World Bank, in 1990 47 percent of the world’s population lived on less than 1.9 dollars a day. In 2015, twenty-five years later, it was less than 10 percent. In China, over the same span of time, those living in conditions of extreme poverty dropped from 61 to 4 percent.

THE “BUEN VIVIR” OF THE AMAZON

For more than three years Francis has not gathered around him the “popular movements.” But simply because his populism has changed its “focus,” which has shifted to the Amazonian tribes.

In the speech with which he opened the work of the synod for the Amazon last October 7, the pope returned to his Argentine experience of the 1980s, when, he said, “a slogan, ‘civilization and barbarism,’ served at the time to divide, to annihilate most of the original peoples.” And today, he continued, what is taken to be civilization continues to rage against the “bolitas, los paraguayanos, los paraguas, los cabecitas negras,” identifying barbarism in them. One more reason why we should instead approach the Amazonian peoples “on tiptoe, respecting their history, their cultures, their style of living well,” with no more “ideological colonizations” and the presumption of “disciplining” and “taming” these peoples.

In the final document of the synod, at number 9, the “myth” of the Amazonian tribes found expression as follows:

“The search for life in abundance by the indigenous Amazonian peoples is embodied in what they call ‘buen vivir’ and is fully realized in the Beatitudes. This is a matter of living in harmony with oneself, with nature, with human beings and with the supreme being, since there is an intercommunication among the whole cosmos, where there are no excluders nor excluded.”

This exaltation of the native innocence, as earthly paradise or as the Rousseauian “noble savage,” of the Amazonian tribes, must also be seen as the origin of the parasynodal affair – for some a scandal – of the prostrations in front of wooden statuettes depicting a nude and pregnant woman, identified by the pope himself as “Pachamama,” the Incan divinity of mother earth. Francis has denied that this was a surrender to “idolatrous temptations,” and in a postsynodal public audience he presented as an example the conduct of Saint Paul concerning the gods of ancient Greece, not taking into account however that the apostle carried out in regard to idolatry a radical critical exercise, entirely absent in the abovementioned affair.

Not only that. The exaltation of the “buen vivir” of the Amazonian tribes has been pushed by some bishops and experts of the synod to the point of acritically accepting practices like infanticide and the selective elimination of adults and elderly judged as incompatible with the demands of the community.

These in fact are the exact words spoken on October 15, in the Vatican press room, with imperturbable nonjudgmental detachment, by the Brazilian anthropologist Marcia María de Oliveira, one of the 25 official associates of the special secretaries of the synod for the Amazon:

“There are some communities that establish some collective procedures or initiatives of birth control. It is all in relationship with the size of the family and the extent of the groups. All is based on conservation, survival, food supply, the number of persons who make up the group… It also has a lot to do with internal relations, to what extent that child, that elderly person, that adult person is capable of following the group in what are its movements.”

POLITICAL TRIBUNALS

With the populist thread of Pope Francis’s politics there can also be woven two of his recent speeches of a juridical character.

The first was addressed on June 5 2019 to a summit of Latin American magistrates gathered at the Vatican, with extensive references to the second of the three addressed to the “popular movements,” the one given in Bolivia, and plainly written by a hand not his own even if in full agreement, perhaps by one of the Argentine judges present, Raúl Eugenio Zaffaroni, a prominent figure, member of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and supporter of a “critical theory” of criminology that traces the genesis of crime and the nature of justice back to the structure of the social classes and to inequality.

“There is no democracy with hunger, there is no progress with poverty, there is no justice with inequality”: this is how Francis summarized his vision, to thunderous applause.

The second speech is from last November 15 and was addressed by the pope to the participants at a congress of the International Association of Penal Law.

In it Francis accused criminal science of making itself comfortable in “merely speculative knowledge” and with this of “overlooking the facts of reality,” meaning that “divinized market” which in the name of the maximization of profit produces only “exclusion.” Jurists should instead “use their knowledge to oppose the macro-criminality of the corporations,” with which the pope associates “the punitive irrationality that manifests itself in mass imprisonment, overcrowding and torture in the prisons, arbitrariness and abuses by the security forces, expansion of the area of criminality, criminalization of social protest, abuse of preventive imprisonment.”

The idea doesn’t even seem to occur to Francis that this “punitive irrationality” is typical not of a “divinized market,” but rather of countries like China, where the market is under the supervision of a pervasive and liberticidal political dictatorship.

Francis came back to this speech to cite it during the press conference on the flight back from his trip to Japan. The same press conference during which – questioned about the financial turbulence that is shaking the Vatican – he stated that he personally promoted and authorized in word or writing the initiatives of the pontifical magistracy and gendarmerie, thereby making a hash of the golden distinction between judicial power and executive power.

FOR A “FRANCISCAN” ECONOMY

Lastly two appendices, connected to two events scheduled by Pope Francis for the spring of 2020.

The first will see gathered in Assisi from March 26 to 28 thousands of aspiring economists from all over the world, for “a festival of the economy of the young with the pope, a middle way between Greta Thunberg and the powerful of the earth,” as announced by the main organizer, Luigino Bruni, a member of the Focolare movement, professor of political economy at the LUMSA and adviser to the dicastery for the laity, family and life.

In the letter of invitation to the event, Francis proposed nothing less than “a pact to change the current economy” and to replace it with an “Economy of Francis” (read: Saint Francis of Assisi, but with a ready double meaning).

Among the figures who have already confirmed their presence, in addition to Bruni and Stefano Zamagni, president of the pontifical academy of social sciences, there will be the Nobel laureates Amartya Sen and Muhammad Yunus, the Malthusian economist Jeffrey Sachs, in this pontificate an inevitable guest at every Vatican event concerning the economy and ecology, Carlo Petrini, founder of Slow Food and previously a personal guest of Bergoglio at the synod for the Amazon, and the Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva, as lauded within the circle of the “popular movements” (she participated in their third worldwide gathering) as she is discredited by the scientific community worthy of this name.

Curiously, Vandana Shiva and Carlo Petrini anticipated by three years the punitive sanction against the sin of “ecocide” that Francis has said he wants to introduce into the catechism, in the second of the speeches to jurists cited above. In October of 2016, in fact, both one and the other staged in Holland, at the AIA, a mock trial in which they sentenced in absentia, for this very crime, the multinational biotech firm Monsanto.

SCHOOLS OF SOCIETY, BUT NOT OF JESUS

The second event is scheduled for May 14 2020 at the Vatican, and will be open to “all public figures” who “are engaged at the worldwide level” in the field of education, to whatever religion they may belong.

It comes as no surprise that a pope like Jorge Mario Bergoglio who is part of the Society of Jesus – for centuries a major educator of the ruling classes – should have at heart the schooling and formation of the new generations. But what is striking is the complete absence from his educational project of any sort of Christian specificity.

In the video message with which Francis launched the initiative, there is not the slightest verbal trace of God, nor of Jesus, nor of the Church. The dominant formula is “new humanism,” with its accompaniment of “shared home,” universal solidarity,” “fraternity,” “convergence,” “welcome”…

And the religions? These too grouped together and neutralized in an indistinct “dialogue.” In order to “reclaim the terrain from discrimination” the pope refers to the document “on human brotherhood” which he signed on February 4 2019 with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, a document in which even the “pluralism and the diversity of religions” are seen as “willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”

The new development of this initiative of Francis consists precisely in the fact that it is the first time a pope has made his own and taken the lead in a global educational pact that is so radically secularized.

But here, once again, Bergoglio is drawing upon his Argentine background. It was in Buenos Aires, in fact, that he founded a network of “escuelas de vecinos,” neighborhood schools, expanded little by little to other cities and nations, to the point of becoming today a network of half a million schools on five continents, called “Scholas Occurrentes,” schools for encounter, which in 2015 became a pious foundation of pontifical right with headquarters in Vatican City.

Of the “pious,” however, there is nothing to be found. In the numerous speeches Francis has given to the “Scholas,” the silence on the Christian God, on Jesus and on the Gospel is almost sepulchral. And the saints? Vanished as well. In the meetings of “Scholas Occurrentes,” complete with audiences with the pope, the guests are stars of entertainment and sports, from George Clooney to Richard Gere, from Lionel Messi to Diego Armando Maradona.

SUBMISSION TO THE WORLD

This secular flattening is not marginal, in the political vision of Pope Francis. In “Corriere della Sera” of last October 2 Ernesto Galli della Loggia hit the mark when he recognized in this pontificate the tendency to dissolve Catholicism “in the indistinct,” to interpret “the intimate missionary vocation of Catholicism toward the world as equivalent to the need to become confused with the world itself.”

Only that in the world, beginning in the second half of the 1900s, there is imposing itself “an ethical ideology of naturalistic inspiration” made of individual rights, of pacifism, of environmentalism, of anti-Semitism, which to religious discourse, when it does not exclude it altogether, assigns only a subordinate place, decorative.

So when Pope Francis lays down every trait of the Church’s historical identity and assimilates it with the ideology and language of the world, he is making a very, very risky choice. He would like to make the world Christian, with the serious danger instead of making the Church worldly.

—————

IN REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS

(s. m.) In the course of the discussion some have objected that Francis also says and does many other things – and in stark contrast – with respect to the profile that I have sketched of him. As for example last November 29, when the pope denounced the frequent and disastrous “judicial overreach in areas not their own” in a question of life and death like euthanasia.

It is true. Pope Francis does not fail to denounce in strong terms abortion, euthanasia, “gender” ideology, sometimes in even stronger words – “hitmen,” “assassins”… – than those used by his predecessors.

These condemnations of his, however, receive very little coverage in media circles. And Francis knows it, but it is as if he accustoms himself to this silence.

The reason is the “when” and the “how” of these words spoken by the pope.

To understand how decisive the modalities of communication are for the sake of its coverage and efficacy, it could be instructive to consider what happened in 1994, before and during the international conference for population and development convened in Cairo by the United Nations.

The objective of that conference was to “ensure reproductive rights,” a formula that John Paul II translated as “the systemic death of the unborn.” That pope, as the event drew near, spoke very strong words in defense of life and the family in a sequence of several Sunday “Angelus,” called ambassadors to the Vatican, sent to UN officials a memorandum with all of his objections, received American president Bill Clinton in an audience called “very tense” by witnesses.

The result was that the Cairo conference became in the worldwide media a pitched battle of the pope against the powerful of the world, for or against abortion, contraceptives, and sterilization. I was there and I remember that even the most famous war correspondents came, for CNN Christiane Amanpour.

Coming back to today, what is instead the form of the “magisterium” of Pope Francis?

Apart from the choice of times and interlocutors to get some statements amplified or silenced by the media, I would say that at its foundation is not the Aristotelian principle of noncontradiction, but rather a sort of principle of contradiction.

On many questions, some of them crucial, Francis systematically says and does not say, retracts, contradicts himself. Often within a single statement. Memorable, when he went to visit the Lutheran church in Rome, is his response to the question of a Protestant woman who asked him if she could receive communion when she went to Mass with her Catholic husband. The pope said a little of everything to her: yes, no, I don’t know, you work it out… The result was that from then on in the Catholic Church everyone does as he pleases.

Francis justifies this wordiness of his with the intention of setting in motion “processes” of exploration and evolution of doctrine, in which he judges it as wrong to fix the outcome beforehand.

“Amoris Laetitia,” with its absence of clarity in authorizing or not authorizing communion for the divorced and remarried, is an emblem of this magisterium of “process.”

When some cardinals presented to him the “dubia” thereby generated, he did not respond.

But that’s just the point, he couldn’t respond. Those cardinals had fully grasped the essence of his magisterium.Condividi:

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

A CATECHISM BY PADRE PIO

Padre Pio warned us

Dec3by The Editor

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/12/03/padre-pio-warned-us/

Now, as God has given us intellects by which we are able to think and understand, let us think about what Padre Pio said to Father Amorth, the chief exorcist at Rome for many years:

Satan. — Q. Which organizations worship Satan and are also known infiltrators of the ecclesiastical hierarchy? Hmm…… A. The Freemasons.

The bosom of the Church — Q. What could this refer to? Hmm.. A. Bosom is the center or heart. Many mistakenly think this refers to the womb, but it actually refers to the chest or thorax. The heart of the Church is without a doubt the Vatican.

Soon come to rule a false Church — Q. What does it mean to rule a Church? … Hmm.  A. To control the leadership and especially the top leader.

Church — Q. What is the Church? Hmm. … A: A world wide hierarchical religious organization ruled by the Bishop of Rome and Bishops in communion with him, with clergy who show their communion by naming the Bishop of Rome in the Canon of the Mass, and who promote and spread his teachings.

False Church — Q. What is a false Church? Hmm.  A. Not the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon truth, the power of the office of Peter and that of the Bishops, with the preaching of the Gospel and the Sacraments.  A false Church, therefore, will have a false Bishop of Rome, a false Gospel and will show itself by naming the false Bishop in the Canon of the mass.


Now, of whom could Padre Pio be speaking, but an uncanonically elected man who is regarded by Bishops and clergy as the pope, but who attacks Jesus Christ, undermines His Gospel, teaches falsehood and worships demons?

The facts point clearly to whom that is. Those who have eyes can see it. Those who say they do not see it already worship the darkness, even if they worship it in Latin.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A CLOSER LOOK AT POPE BENEDICT'S RESIGNATION AND THE ENSUING PAPAL CRISIS WE ARE NOW EMBROILED IN THAT IS TAKING A DAILY TOLL ON THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH


A Closer Look at Benedict’s Resignation                                                                      and the Ensuing Papal Crisis

 By David Martin

With the controversial buzz that surrounded the election of Pope Francis upon the resignation of  Pope Benedict XVI, it seems that we may have lost sight of a key element in this episode,  namely, that Benedict never fully resigned the papal ministry but only the active exercise thereof. On the eve of his resignation, he said:  

“Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church… 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.” (General Audience, February 27, 2013)

From these words it appears that there has been no revocation of Benedict XVI’s office. According to Church law, a pope must give up his office for his resignation to be valid. (Canon 332) The text indicates that Benedict XVI chose to retain his office “forever,” which is why he continues to wear the papal garb and to go by the name Benedict XVI.

This matches the explanation offered by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Benedict’s long-time friend and confidant who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household. Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University on May 20, 2016, he told the press that Benedict XVI did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine office in a way that better accommodated his frailty.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” adding that the renunciation of his office would have been “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

Enlarged Papal Ministry

Gänswein said that Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement of February 11, 2013, marked the introduction of a new institution into the Catholic Church: “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member.” He said we now have “two living successors of Peter among us” that “are not in competition with each other,” i.e. Benedict and Francis. https://veritas-vincit-international.org/2016/09/13/papal-secretary-archbishop-ganswein-speaks-on-benedict-the-two-popes-and-prophecy/

This indeed is the reason Benedict did not renounce his papal name or give up his white cassock as did Celestine V. “This is the reason why the correct appellation for him is ‘Your Holiness,’” Gänswein said. “This is finally the reason why he did not retire to an isolated monastery, but within the Vatican walls, as if to simply take a step aside to make space for his successor and for a new step in the history of the papacy.” 

If Archbishop Gänswein is right and Benedict XVI still occupies a “contemplative dimension” of the papacy, then there is no dimension of the papacy that he doesn’t occupy, i.e. he still has his powers. If this is the case, it means that Francis is not the pope, since there cannot be two popes. If Francis is the pope, then Benedict’s office is revoked, but Benedict says it was not revoked.

Benedict has never corrected Gänswein about his claim nor has Gänswein recanted it, but   continues to allege that Benedict XVI introduced a modified papacy consisting of “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member” whereby there exist “two living successors of Peter among us.”

Veteran journalist Paul Badde—author of Benedict Up Close: The Inside Story of Eight Dramatic Years—confirmed with this writer on Dec. 15, 2017, that Gänswein “hasn’t denied” saying this in his May 20, 2016 address, adding that “there was no reason for such a step.”

In an interview with Paul Badde on May 27, 2016, Archbishop Gänswein minced no words in saying that we have two popes in the Vatican today. “We have had for three years two popes and I have the impression that the reality that I perceive is covered by what I have said.”

Badde summed up his understanding of Gänswein’s position, saying:  

“If I understand you aright, he [Benedict] remained in the office, but in the contemplative part, without having any authority to decide. Thus we have – as you said – now an active and a contemplative part which form together an enlargement of the Papal Office.”  

Gänswein replied:  “That is what I have said, indeed, that – if one wishes to specify it – it is very clear.”

No Shared Papacy 

Naturally, there is no such thing as a “shared papacy.” Christ said to Simon, “Thou art Peter.” He didn’t say to Simon and John, “Thou art Peters.” And while the papacy indeed has various facets, i.e. contemplative, theological, active, etc., it is all one ministry. 1 The idea that two dimensions of the Petrine office can be cubbyholed into separate departments (active and prayerful), each with its own capacity and each occupied by a separate Petrine representative, is heresy. Gänswein no doubt realizes this, but his explanation to the press was apparently the best he could do to cover for a very embarrassing situation that caused his mentor to be dethroned.    

Benedict XVI Ousted

What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating the Chair of Peter, but this was done under the guise of a resignation so as to not split the Barque of Peter asunder with controversy. Credible reports from 2015 indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into stepping down, which was providentially foreshadowed in Pope Benedict’s inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” 

We know from the late Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it.  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, the same that had almost prevented the election of Benedict in 2005.

Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved. https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-great-reformer-francis-and-the-making-of-a-radical-pope/  According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013.  As the conclave neared, they then held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker.

On the eve of the 2013 conclave, Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga was busily on the phone with cardinal electors from the Honduran embassy in Rome. His phone effort was the tail end of this intense lobbying campaign to secure votes for the election of Cardinal Bergoglio as pope.

That same day, Maradiaga attended a private meeting of Bergoglio supporters, which included key players in the “St. Gallen Mafia,” and together they garnered pledges for up to twenty-five votes for Bergoglio. Not surprisingly, Bergoglio opened with twenty-six votes on the first day of the conclave, though that number would rise to 77 on the second day indicating that this campaign effort was gaining ground. Three days later the newly elected Pope Francis asked Maradiaga to head his powerful new Council of Cardinals, known as the “Council of Nine.” 

1. That is, the various facets all comprise part of the same Petrine ministry, all of which is active. 

On August 27, 2018, Vatican correspondent Edward Pentin tweeted concerning this political campaign.

“Cdls Danneels & Ex-Cdl McCarrick campaigned for Bergoglio to be Pope, as did ++Maradiaga on eve of Conclave, phoning up various cardinals from the Honduran embassy in Rome. Despite their pasts, all 3 prelates have since been special advisors of Francis or rehabilitated by him.”

Rules and Regulations Violated

Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work around the time of the conclave, which directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, governing papal elections. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it incurs automatic excommunication. Consider the following from his Constitution:

“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition.” (81)

This prohibition applies not only to the election itself but to that time just before the election when preparations are underway, since it is during this time that illicit political activity would exert its greatest influence on the vote. “Any form of pact” obliging electors “to give or deny their vote to a person” would be secured before the election.

The pope also says in his Constitution:

“Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.” (79)

A clique of cardinals did “make plans” to force Benedict XVI’s resignation and to campaign for “the election of his successor,” with up to 25 cardinals “promising votes” the day before the election, this having come about through “private gatherings,” thus revealing the illicit conduct of those cardinal electors to be.

Under the pain of excommunication latae sententiae, Pope John Paul forbids “each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election” to allow “all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.” (80)

Unfortunately, secular and political interference played a key part in the election of Pope Francis.  According to John Paul II, such interference renders the papal election null and void.

Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason 2 null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. (76)  

Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II  


A Pope “Not Canonically Elected”

Bearing this in mind, we turn now to the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a future pope. This is found in the Opuscula or Works of St. Francis, which was published by the preeminent Franciscan historian Fr. Luke Wadding in 1621. 

Shortly before his death in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the friars of his Order and detailed this prophecy of what was to come upon the Church in the latter days. The following is an excerpt taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham. 

At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer. 

Evidence of a pope “not canonically elected” would be his success in drawing “many into error,” something that has been ongoing since Francis’ election. For instance, on February 4, 2019, he signed a joint statement with the head of Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque, which states that “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” This blatantly contravenes the Church’s dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, yet this “religious diversity” heresy is now preached everywhere from the pulpit, courtesy of Francis.

There is also the issue of Francis’ ongoing collusion with U.N. globalists. On October 28, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences partnered with U.N. pro-abortion advocates to pledge fidelity to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) championed by socialist rebels like George Soros and Jeffrey Sachs. The pope has also honored abortionists Emma Bonino and Lilliane Ploumen for their work.

And let us not forget that Francis engaged in idol worship in St. Peter’s Basilica during the recent Amazonian Synod. The pope and several cardinals were filmed chanting, dancing, and praying before the Pachamama idol as part of the synodal effort to make “reparation” to “Mother Earth” for the “sins” committed against her. Vatican rep denies claims that alleged ‘pagan’ statue is the Virgin Mary

2. Only in cases of collusion involving simony does the pope lift the nullity in order that the election may remain valid (78).

Is it any wonder that two shafts of lightning struck the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica just hours after Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation on February 11, 2013? Clearly, this signaled that a time of divine retribution is at hand.  

Need for Episcopal Examination

It is high time that a committee of bishops convene to address the matter of Benedict’s resignation, seeing that it launched what is being called the most destructive pontificate of Church history. They need to bring into question the illicit nature of the 2013 conclave, Francis’ destructive path, and Gänswein’s assertion that Benedict XVI still occupies a “contemplative” dimension of the papacy. They need to ask themselves: “Was Francis’ election valid or did it simply appear that way?”

Unfortunately, Benedict won’t speak the truth about Rome’s collusion with Antichrist because he is bound by fears and kept under surveillance by an iron-clad Vatican bureaucracy, if in fact they haven’t threatened him physically. There could be more to Danneels’ “mafia club” than meets the eye.

Death Threat Against Benedict XVI

This is credible, when we consider that on February 10, 2012, almost one year to the day before Benedict XVI announced his resignation, it was reported that the pope was given only one year to live if he didn’t resign. The Telegraph UK reported that Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, said these things to a group of people in Beijing toward the end of 2011. 

“His remarks were expressed with such certainty and resolution that the people he was speaking to thought, with a sense of alarm, that an attack on the Pope’s life was being planned,” the report said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/9073811/The-Pope-will-die-within-a-year-Vatican-assassination-fears-revealed.html

The extraordinary comments were written up in a top-secret report, dated Dec. 30, 2011, and delivered to the Pope by a senior cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in January 2012. The report was written in German, apparently to limit the number of people within the Vatican who would understand it if it was inadvertently leaked. It warned of a “Mordkomplott” – death plot – against Benedict. 

Sr. Lucy’s Vision

Hence Pope Benedict XVI, in an emotional farewell speech at St. Peter’s on February 25, 2013, told a crowd of 100,000 that God had called him to step down and devote himself to prayer, and ‘to scale the mountain.’ https://ynaija.com/god-told-me-to-climb-the-mountain-pope-gives-farewell-speech/

This would suggest that Benedict XVI is “the Holy Father” who scales the mountain in Sr. Lucy’s vision. If you’ll recall, it was in conjunction with the Third Secret of Fatima that Sr. Lucy of Fatima received this symbolic vision, which she penned on January 3, 1944. The following is an excerpt that was published by the Vatican on June 26, 2000. 

“We saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.” 

In her vision, Lucy sees two popes as it were. The first is a mirrored image of what appears to be the pope, but is actually “a bishop dressed in white” who gives the “impression” he is the pope.  The true pope [BXVI] and his followers scale the mountain amidst peril and danger, praying for the spiritually dead along the way, before which they pass through a city half in ruins, which represents the Church in shambles. At the end of their journey they are martyred for their allegiance to Jesus Crucified. It is a symbolic picture of the Church being put to death. 

We should note that a reflection in the mirror is not a reality, but only an appearance – an impression. Lucy makes the point that this impression is “a bishop dressed in white.” It doesn’t appear that the bishop dressed in white is Benedict XVI or any previous pope, but Pope Francis. 

Perhaps, this is something that an episcopal committee would want to consider as well.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

OUR Lord Jesus Christ, WORKING THROUGH THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS WILL SAVE HIS CHURCH FROM THE NEAR DESTRUCTION IT IS EXPERIENCING THROUGH THE CELEBRATION OF THE NOVUS ORDO MASS

Catholic Monitor

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/12/francis-effect-counterrevolutionarytrad.html

Sunday, December 01, 2019

Francis Effect: “Counterrevolution[ary]” Traditional Latin Mass Attendees have “seen Unprecedented Growth during his Papacy” that may Overthrow the Novus Ordo Mass 

New York Daily News reported that the fifty year-old Novus Ordo Mass is destroying the Catholic Church in America “[s]ince the 1960s, Mass attendance has plummeted, from around 70% of U.S. Catholics every Sunday and Holy Day.” 

Ironically, however, the anti-Latin Mass Francis has inadvertently caused “a counterrevolution of sorts” that may overthrow the Novus Ordo Mass: 

“Fifty years ago this weekend, the Catholic Church debuted a new version of Mass following reforms made by the 1960s’ Second Vatican Council. From the use of vernacular language instead of Latin, to the priest facing the people instead of the tabernacle, the changes became mandatory at all parishes on the First Sunday of Advent 1969.”

“… The resurgence of the traditional Latin Mass started before Francis, but has seen unprecedented growth during his papacy, a counterrevolution of sorts that some (both admirably and critically) call an alternative Francis effect. Even bishops and priests who were not ordinarily interested in the traditional Latin Mass have been much more generous and vocal in offering additional such liturgies. Two distinct wings of the Catholic Church have emerged. Often, the new versus the old Mass is a defining characteristic of the opposing coalitions.”

“… But after five decades of experiments and decline, there is some growth to be observed within the Catholic Church. Ironically, it is with traditionalists joining the priesthood, entering convents and attending parishes that offer the very Latin Mass that was replaced 50 years ago.”

“… The past 50 years have not been good ones for the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict saw this when he wrote, of the new form of Mass, ‘we abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.'”
[https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-prayers-we-can-understand-20191130-allvqyirgzdtnccfgzmi2qgwci-story.html]

The Catholic Herald revealed that in the United States the Traditional Latin Mass attendees are the future real Catholics of the Church which will eventually out number the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) attendees.

It appears that if the trend continues the Novus Ordo Mass may be overthrown by sheer numbers:

Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) attendees are over overwhelmingly real Catholics while New Mass or Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) attendees tend be lapsed and heretical Catholics according to a new study by Fr. Donald Kloster:

Fulfill Sunday obligation:

TLM: 99℅ vs. NOM: 22℅

Approve of abortion:

TLM: 1℅ vs. NOM: 51℅

Go to Confession at least once a year:

TLM: 98℅ vs. NOM: 25℅

Approve of contraception:

TLM: 2℅ vs. NOM: 89℅

Support same-sex marriage:

TLM: 2℅ vs. NOW: 67℅

“TLM attendees donate 5 times more in the collection” according to Fr. Kloster.
(Catholic Herald, “Traditional Latin Mass attendees more devout and orthodox, study says,” February 27, 2019)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.Posted by Fred Martinez at 3:37 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

"MUNUS" AND "MINISTERIUM" ARE TWO DISTINCT WORDS SIGNIFYING TWO DIFFERENT REALITIES, TWO DISTINCT TERMS WITH DIFFERENT MEANINGS. THEY CANNOT SUBSTITUTE FOR ONE ANOTHER EVEN THOUGH BOTH MAY BE PRESENT IN ONE PERSON

Catholic Monitor

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/11/canon-law-and-latin-language-expert.html?m=1

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Canon Law and Latin Language Expert: “The only Sane Conclusion is, therefore, that Munus and Ministerium are Distinct Terms with Different Meanings. They cannot Substitute for one Another” 

The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.”
– Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says the only correct way to approach the validity or invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is an objective reading of what the two words ministerium and munus mean by means of using canon 17’s criteria and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict:

“Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41… requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.”
(From Rome, “Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

When I read that I thought it would be extremely helpful if he could go into detail on the above by going into canon 17, canon 332 S2, canon 145 S1 and canon 41. He has done just that.

But, before we get to that it is important to understand that Pope John Paul II promulgated the current canon law which is the supreme law of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, it is important to understand that canon 17 is the key to understanding the supreme law of the Church.

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains:

“Canon 17… states ‘if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places.'”
(CatholicWorld Report, “Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded,” September 28, 2017)

Now, finally, we get to Br. Bugnolo who has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/

Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to.

However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized.

For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.

First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect.

Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.

For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.

This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.

This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus….

The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2.  It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.

For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law.  I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.

This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.

According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.

Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law

This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com.  In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.

For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found:  Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium.  Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code.

Let us take a look at each, briefly.

Ministeria
The Nominative and Accusative Plural:  Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233,  237, 385, 611 and 1035.  Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..

Ministerii:
The Genitive. Occurs 13 times.  In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548.  These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis  officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:

In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:

Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

Canon 519:  The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.

Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.

And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of  announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:

756 § 2.  Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

756 §2  In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.

Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.

Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.

In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:

Can. 1389 – § 1.  Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.
2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.

Which in English is:

Canon 1389 §1  Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.
2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.

Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.

This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.Ministeriis
The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times.   In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.

And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:

Can. 1331 – § 1.  Excommunicatus vetatur:
1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel  quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;
2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;
3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.

The English  is:

Canon 1331 §1.  An excommunicate is forbidden:

  1. from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
  2. from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
  3. from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.

Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.Ministerio
The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.

This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.

Ministeriorum
The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.

And finally the Nominative Singular form.

MINISTERIUM
Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.
First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.The Latin reads:

Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.

The English reads:

Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.

Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.

Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.

Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.

Which in English is:

Canon 1384  Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.

The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.

To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.

This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.

In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.

Munus in the Code of Canon Law

Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.

The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).

While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.

I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.

But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:

First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.

This occurs only once in canon 145, §1

Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.

Which in English is:

Canon 145 § 1. An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end.

Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is  Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:

Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.

In English:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Eccleisastical Jurisdiction:

Can. 1484 – § 1.  Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.

Which in English is:

Canon 1484 §1.  The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.

Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.

Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:

4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia

Which in English reads:

  1. He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.

If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!

Note well, ministerium is not included in that list!  thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!

This study of Munis and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.

The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.

Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus.  thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.——(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.Fred Martinez at 4:00 PMShare

4 comments:

  1. Alexis Bugnolo5:41 PMFred, thank you for republishing this study. It is just a recitation of the facts of the law. I hope that bloggers everywhere republish it and translate it, because EVERY CATHOLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW that we were defrauded of our allegiance to Christ’s vicar in Feb. 2013, and the ones who did this to us are the ones who tell us we are extremists.ReplyReplies
    1. Fred Martinez9:39 PMBr. Bugnolo,

      In my opinion, your above treatise may be similar to the historical moment when Doctor of the Church St. Bernard of Clairvaux proved by “recitation of the facts of the law” the proclaimed pope (Anancletus) who ruled the Vatican and Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals was in fact an antipope.
  2. Fred Martinez5:48 PMBr. Bugnolo,

    Thank you for your continued courage and scholarship.Reply
  3. BrotherBeowulf9:20 PMGaslighting. Of course Bro. Alexis. You know the devil is the father of lies, and like his servant Cardinal Bergoglio who styles himself ‘Francis’ a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Two points in this regard which sadly is not an exaggeration. 

    A prominent intellectual priest in N. Y. C. gave a homily yesterday—at the traditional Latin Mass—suggesting that for Advent we pray, amidst many other afflictions of Holy Mother Church in these evil times, for “a pope who is murdering souls[!]”

    Point One: It is good to know the good priest sees that Francis is murdering souls. 

    Point Two: It is hard to see how anyone can fail to draw the conclusion that such a man doing such actions as murdering souls—and again I applaud the good father for having the courage to say it—but how can he fail to see that such a man cannot be a true pope; nor the Vicar of Christ on earth; nor hold the keys to bind and loose.

    We pray to the Immaculate Heart that we may with her—

    “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, alone thou hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world!”Reply

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments