Culture

Merciless Mercy: On The Motu Proprio — Guest Post by Traditional Priest

The recent motu proprio – decree issued on his own initiative – of Pope Francis, along with its prefatory letter, clearly express the intent to abolish, at least eventually, the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. The decree causes great consternation and grief to those devoted to the old Latin Mass. The growing availability of the Traditional Latin Mass under the previous two popes has now been met with a determined effort to block and eventually end it.

Because the prefatory letter and the motu proprio are both brief and readily available, I will assume that you, lector benevole, have already read them.

The stated reason for the curtailment, and planned obsolescence, of the Traditional Latin Mass is that it has turned out to be divisive. Instead of drawing Traditional-leaning Catholics closer into the fold, the Mass is to blame for pitting them against both the Pope and the New Order of Mass promulgated in 1970. The Pope’s intention to do away with the Traditional Latin Mass is, he declares, for the sake of the unity of the Church.

Now the sin and crime of ecclesiastical disunity is called “schism.” “Heresy” involves actual doctrinal error, such as denying the divinity of Christ. Thus, the Pope is basically asserting that attachment to the Latin Mass is leading people into schism.

But let us look carefully at the proper definition of “schism” as stated in Canon Law 751:

Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

What we must note in these definitions is that heresy, apostasy, and schism are acts of an individual. True, one who attaches himself to a schismatic group does become schismatic by that fact. But in the present case of the motu proprio of July 17, no group dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass is declared to be schismatic.

Because heresy, apostasy, and schism are fundamentally acts of an individual, guilt or innocence must be determined on an individual basis also, at least by default.

It would be unjust to punish the innocent along with the guilty. This point is made very clear in Gen. 18, and in verse 23 in particular. Abraham asks God, “Will You sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?” As the conversation—negotiation—proceeds, it becomes clear that God is so unwilling to condemn the innocent along with the guilty that He would have spared Sodom if there had been even 10 just souls there.

When a penalty or a remedy is to be applied, one must first ascertain whether it is really applicable, and in some questions the effectiveness of the penalty or remedy must also be considered. It is of Natural Law—which not even the Pope can change or disobey—that the accused has a right to self-defense. No such opportunity has yet been allowed to those whom he deems schismatic.

Now some will say that our obedience must be unquestioning and absolute. They might refer to dogma defined by the First Vatican Council, 1870, in the decree “Aeterni Patris”:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd.

This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

Well and good, but it is not entirely clear that the sacred rites of the Church fit neatly and squarely under the heading of “discipline and government of the Church.” For one thing, some matters relating to the sacred rites are matters of divine law and cannot be changed or undone even by the Pope (e.g., the indissolubility of a valid marriage).

It is not my competence, in more than one sense of this word, to discuss these last points, but I would like to close with a consideration that should be in everyone’s purview, the consideration of mercy and compassion. Since yesterday was the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene, who experienced Christ’s tenderness in an extraordinary degree and had, in return, and extraordinary love for Him. Let us keep in mind the great words from Shakespeare:

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here

Categories: Culture

122 replies »

  1. “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff”

    This is why Catholicism is trash. Everyone who really believes in it will go to hell, just on this definition alone.

  2. There is a reason why America was invented by Protestants. Catholics are trained from childhood to submit to arbitrary authority, for the good of their souls.

    My, isn’t it odd that American Catholics vote overwhelming Left. It’s almost as if they had a different culture or something. (Catholics forming the various mafias [Italian, Irish, and Polish] is just a coincidence, I’m sure.)

    I respect the faith. I abhor the commie pinko church.

  3. The Church will regret certain of its pronouncements, if it doesn’t already. One such is “papal infallibility.” Another is the 1870 “Aeterni Patris” decree. However, as difficult as it is for most of us to admit to error, it’s orders of magnitude harder for an institution that claims the authority to pronounce the Will of God.

  4. Dear Briggs. Bergoglio acted ultra vires. He has no authority to abrogate a sacred rite that sanctified countless numbers of members of The Communion of Saints anymore than Ratzinger had the authority to claim, as he did in his Motu Proprio, that he had the authority to permit the celebration of that Sacred Rite if the peoples agreed that the Real Mass is the same as the Lil’ Licit Liturgy.

    What Ratzinger did was every bit an act of ultra vires as what Bergoglio has done because he unjustly usurped the authority conferred upon all priests by Quo Primum..

    Who do these modern Popes think they are?

    Well, it turns out they are Popes subsequent to Pius XII, who was the Pope who first hired the Bug Man (Bugnini) to reform the Sacred Rites. O, and Pius XII also, attacked Tradition in Mediator Dei and turned one of its principles on its head.

    Tradition teaches, first articulated by Prosper of Aquitaine (AD 390 – 455), Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi, what has commonly been called lex orandil lex credendi, the law of prayer establishes the law of belief, and that was inverted by the revolutionary Pius XII in Mediator Dei which tried to teach the law of belief is the law of prayer.

    C’est la vie.

    Every man ordained a Catholic Priest has the facility/right to celebrate the Real Mass according to Quo Primum.

    Modern Popes have erred in centralising control over The Real Mass but they will not admit their errors; they only publicly condemn the putative errors and sins of long dead Catholics who are unable to defend themselves.

    The infallible Council of Trent had this to teach about those, like Bergoglio, who claim the Real Mass is divisive:

    Session 7 Canon XIII

    “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disparaged, or be omitted at pleasure by the ministers without sin, or be able to be changed by whomsoever pastor of the churches into other new rites: let him be anathema.”

  5. Hagfish: What is your deal? If you don’t like what is written, it’s okay to note that once, but I fail to understand what’s going on with your comments. I have no comment today as I never understand the Catholic postings but it’s okay because I don’t have to understand everything Briggs posts. Nor do you.

  6. Dear Briggs the other day you were asking readers what they thought of the combox here.

    Well, the responses so far are a good example of how your work and interests are simply ignored so the write-backers can write about what they want to write.

    It will come to the point where all comments wil be refused because write-backers can not restrain themselves.

  7. Sheri — that first comment by “john the baptist” is just the sort of smelly combox turd that should be scraped up and trashed. Sorry if that was not clear.

  8. True Papal authority is not arbitrary. It must be in conformity with the Scriptures and with the teachings of the Church, as they have been passed down through the sacred Tradition. It is unfortunate that the moderen Popes, and I include Pius XII in this, have, to varying degrees, asserted their authority over what has been passed down to us. This has been particularly true in liturgical matters, but consider how Paul VI has been hailed as a prophet for promulgating Humane vitae, which is a rather weak restatement of traditional doctrine, that was stated quite strongly by Pope Pius XI in 1931 with Casti conubii. He was no prophet, but he was too timid to attack Quo primum directly. He just thought he could arbitrarily impose his authority over the liturgy, and then he whined like a spoiled brat because a (very) few people didn’t go along with him. Of courses, most people just stopped caring altogether, as Cardinal Zen (a living saint), recently observed. I count myself in agreement with the 82% who agreen with Ann Barnhardt et al. that The guy with the stage name “Francis” is not, and has never been close to being the true Pope. I won’t go into the reasons for that here, but this most recent vomiting of words is not the reason, but is very consistent with his being an anti-pope.

  9. Post #1 would be the poster child of why I generally avoid comment sections on any site. It offers nothing in the way of argument and is straight up malicious. Unfortunately, pretty common behavior for anonymous feedback.

    Yes, the poster is entitled to an opinion but I would expect at least a token whiff of their reason for it.

  10. Once you understand/accept that the original motivations of Church founders were the hoarding of money/material-goods, and access-to-and-control over children, all else is suddenly comprehensible.

  11. McChuck: “There is a reason why America was invented by Protestants. Catholics are trained from childhood to submit to arbitrary authority, for the good of their souls. My, isn’t it odd that American Catholics vote overwhelming Left. It’s almost as if they had a different culture or something. (Catholics forming the various mafias [Italian, Irish, and Polish] is just a coincidence, I’m sure.) I respect the faith. I abhor the commie pinko church.

    McChuck makes somewhat the same comment as that first cretin but does it in a way a man might address, rather than having to scrape it off his shoe and clean the carpet. I’ll respond to McChuck because he addresses the issue of the Pope’s authority, which is one subject of Traditional Priest’s original post.

    McChuck, Catholics are not trained from childhood to submit to arbitrary authority, but rather to properly constituted authority, as all children should be. Even Protestant children must obey proper authority, as I’m sure you would agree. The question, as always, is what constitutes proper authority. Since God himself founded the Church, in the person of Christ, it is reasonable to believe He would lend divine guidance to its leadership regarding doctrine and other such matters, even to the point of ‘papal infallibility”, under certain situations. Absent Divine Guidance and proper authority what you have is just a bunch of dudes making stuff up.

    Which is what you have with the Protesters. Since they split the Church how many divisions have they made? — what are there, some 30,000 different Protestant denominations now, each disagreeing with all the rest, each pulling some new doctrine out of their funky fundament. Does it make sense that God would lead His flock in 30,000 contrary directions? And, oddly enough, many of these contrary directors still have their lost flocks recite the Nicene Creed, which includes the line, “We Believe […] in one holy catholic and apostolic Church”.

    Which is not to deny there’s presently a problem with the Pope’s authority and the Catholic Church. But what is the nature of the problem? Fallen man is prone to error and corruption. We can see that much the same modernist corruption disfigures the Protestant churches and indeed Western Civilization. The Catholic church worked well enough for 1500 years through good Popes and bad and the occasional heretical hiccup. The current corruption is modernist revolution which has infiltrated and subverted like an insidious kudzu covering magnificent old oaks under a calamitous canopy of confusion. Rip down the kudzu you’ll find the faithful oak abiding beneath.

    The ideal of a Divinely guided Pope poses a problem in the person of Bergolio/Francis. He does not seem to be Divinely guided. Quite the opposite. What to do? Muddle along, say, “He’s the Pope, we’ve had good Popes and bad, we suffer the worst and wait for better.” Or there’s the “empty seat” crew who believe there hasn’t been a valid Pope since the tainted porridge of Vatican Two. And there’s the bunch who believe Frank is fake because true Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid. The underlying premise is that Christ will not lead His flock off a cliff. The flock may follow false shepherds off the cliff, but Christ will not lead them. Discernment is called for but if we can’t trust the Pope absolutely and instead use our own discernment in the event he may be a false shepherd, doesn’t that sound like a protestant?

    It’s a knot. I think what Traditional Priest is pointing out is that there is a vast body of established doctrine that even a Pope can’t change in which yet abides true guidance. So take the machete of true established doctrine, Christian warrior, and hack away at the confounding confusion of kudzu to reveal the stout oak standing true in sunshine. Sounds protestant. I think Barnhardt has it right, though, and for the reasons given, that the resignation was invalid, and Benedict is Pope. This is a conclusion requiring personal discernment that appears to defy Papal authority, hence protestant. But if he’s not Pope then it’s not right to be under Bergolio’s authority. At any rate, Christ’s True Church is there under the kudzu so let’s not be fooled by the all the fakery fermenting everywhere. On that I think we can all agree.

  12. Guest Priest, thank you for this essay, and for ending it with Shakespeare’s sublime ode to mercy.

    This week another guest essayist, Richard Greenhorn, wrote a fine piece about a bishop who is being accused of child abuse, post-mortem, decades after the incident(s) allegedly occurred; he noted that our Church hierarchy now presumes guilt, while promoting slander of the worst kind and publicly “cancelling” the accused; and he laid much of the blame on the effects of Vatican II.

    As you, Guest Priest, infer, the “quality of Mercy” is lacking in our modern(ist) Church. One aspect of this quality is encoded in our U.S. laws: “presumption of innocence” or “innocent until proven guilty.”

    We remember that we are living in Opposites World now, and so in our uncivil society, and in our Church, everyone may be guilty until proven innocent, depending upon our political party, our “traditionalist” leanings, and so forth.

    As Comrade Lenin proclaimed, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” The reason the “#MeToo” movement petered out, is that most of the mortalities were their own, fellow Democrat-Communists. When that happens, it’s time to pivot, because the goal isn’t justice, any more than it’s mercy…the goal is total power, by any means and at any cost.

    As Greenhorn pointed out, “The revolution is more important than the Church.” The surest and quickest way to revolution, is the destruction of long-standing laws.

    Guest Priest, some people don’t know that the Traditional Latin Mass, the Extraordinary Mass, along with Gregorian chant, was strongly affirmed by the Vatican II Council.

    Pope Francis seems to have tossed all that aside, willy nilly, which is ironic, considering that on January 31, 2021, he insisted and announced that “This [Vatican II Council] is the Magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you don’t follow the Council, or you interpret it in your own way, as you desire, you do not stand with the Church.”

    In other words, he unilaterally, for the first time, and in direct contradiction of prior Popes, proclaimed that Vatican II was/is magisterial teaching and therefore infallible; if you don’t “follow Vatican II” you are anathema, meaning cursed. [The first “anathema” of the Church was issued at the Council of Trent, “If any man say that he is justified by faith alone, let anathema sit”.]

    This proclamation by Francis, of the infallibility of Vatican II, directly and seriously contradicts the clear language of the Vatican II documents themselves, and contradicts Pope Paul VI, et al., who was present at Vatican II and later stated that Vatican II was “pastoral” rather than “magisterial”. Meaning, at the time of Vatican II, it was understood to be fallible pastoral guidance, not infallible magisterial teaching, which is always clearly defined as such.

    Thus, Vatican II, a “pastoral” council, begets “the Spirit of Vatican II”, begets Pachamama idol worship, Rainbow Masses, and finally, sets the stage to criminalize the Latin Mass, which before 1970-ish was THE Mass, and because of (not despite) these fruits, Vatican II must be proclaimed “infallible teaching”.

    It gives license for so much, apparently; because emanations of penumbras from Vatican II are far-reaching, much like “the smoke of Satan.”

    A few days after Francis made his Vatican II pronouncements, the always in-seaon Taylor Marshall did an informative podcast entitled “Pope Francis: Vatican II is the Magisterium”. I learned so much about Vatican II from this bookmarked one-hour podcast.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56a5biYJab0

    As Taylor Marshall points out in his video, Francis is “sitting on the branch of Papal Authority, while at the same time, sawing it off.”

    At the time of his podcast last February, he noted that “traditional” parishes were growing by 30%, while others shrank.

    Pope Francis’ response? Outlaw the traditional Latin Mass, as too divisive! [We can recollect that Jesus, our Lord and Savior, was also “divisive,” saying He would divide the sheep from the goats, promising family divisions, and so forth.]

    And so, the sawing of the branch of Papal Authority continues, un-abated. We are, apparently, to be cut off from The Vine… When WAS the last time Francis mentioned, even in passing, the Holy Name of Jesus?

    Whether one cares personally about attending a Latin Mass, the great irony, is that by outlawing it, he has violated his own dictum that we must “follow Vatican II or we don’t stand with the Church.”

    As Taylor Marshall points out, Vatican II, Santos Sacrum Concilium, states this (sec. 36): “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin Rites.”

    If Pope Francis is to be consistent, it is HE who is anathema, by recently banning the traditional centuries-old Latin Mass, in violation of not just the spirit, but the very letter of the law, of Vatican II, which he himself has deemed magisterial.

    Now, in direct VIOLATION of Vatican II, but under the orders of Pope Francis, the Latin Mass is made essentially illegal, and priests that celebrate the traditional Mass are being forced to stop. (In my own parish, our priest was ordered some time ago, to stop celebrating Mass ad orientum, facing the altar, because a couple of parishioners complained he was “turning his back on them.” [Better to turn his back on the Lord in the Tabernacle; in fact, it’s now a requirement.]

    Apart from the Latin language, what about the ‘bells and smells’? If Gregorian chant is not used with your Mass, do you not “stand with the Church”?

    According to Francis, you certainly do not: Vatican II document Santos Sacrum Concilium Sec 116, states, “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

    Because Francis said, “if you don’t follow Vatican II, you do not stand with the Church”… if you go to Mass, and they do not give pride of place to Gregorian chant, do you not stand with the Church?

    Bear in mind, this same council that affirmed the Latin Mass, also tipped its hat to Hinduism, Buddhism, and so forth, so there’s something for everyone looking for affirmation in the “pastoral” basket (-case?) called Vatican II, and we look forward to Vatican III, very soon, after they finish expunging and replacing all of the Cardinals, Bishops and Priest who still believe in Jesus!

    You people are SO annoying, and get in the way of the “evolving” Church, the Coronavirus Church, the state-approved Church, which might also be called “Our Lady of Perpetual Variants”.

  13. https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/grindr-priest-problem

    Given other recent headlines, what surprises me is that people are shocked by this decision. The hierarchy are literally people who *actively* practice sodomy and suppress what is Good and Divine.

    I’m part of the Ordinariate and it was a Latin Mass community that took us in as tenants when a Novus Ordo priest kicked us out of another church. They are kind, loving people with big happy families. The exact opposite to what the NWO wants. Never doubt that the elite hate life.

    Funny enough, my transfer out of the local diocese to the Ordinariate of The Chair of St. Peter happened two weeks ago. We shall continue practicing the old mass and LM group will likely join in with us. Our sung mass has almost as much Latin as the Extraordniary form anyway.

  14. @McChuck

    You have a screw loose. Are you actually saying that Catholics are the only people that form groups? That Catholicism is the overwhelming catalyst to crime? It has nothing to do with the grinding poverty and bigotry that the Irish, Italians and Polish found themselves in at the hands of “Protestant America”?

    Give your head a shake.

  15. The results of the poll on whether or not Barnhart is right in her personal opinion that Bergoglio ain’t Pope but Benedict XVI is illustrates the diabolical confusion modernity has cultivated.

    The four cardinals who submitted The Dubia to POPE Francis includes Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke who was what Catholics might call the Ecclesiastical version of the Chief Justice of the Catholic Church’s Supreme Court, The Apostolic Signatura.

    Cardinal Burke has a degree in Canon Law, he has had a long and distinguished career as a practitioner of Canon Law, including acting as the Prefect of Supreme Tribunal of The Apostolic Signatura and he knows that Bergoglio is Pope whereas the woman who has her own disciples sayin he ain’t Pope has never studied Canon Law, never practiced Canon Law and has never been responsible for applying Canon Law to any situation but she used to trade Cattle Futures, hectored Christians they were not real christians unless they stopped paying income taxes, and pontificated that any Catholic opposed to Usury is anti semitic so, of course, she is now considered a reliable source to settle consequential matters of made-up putative Canon Law controversies

    If one takes the Four Cardinals who submitted The Dubia to Pope Francis and added to that four the other Cardinals and Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church then one would realise that the vast vast vast majority of Catholics – well over 99% – accept that Bergoglio is Pope where as a teensy tiny number of Catholics claim he isn’t Pope.

    What doe the Bible teach us Catholics to do if there is a controversy amongst our own selves ?

    Well, the Bible teaches us to being the controversy/dispute to the Church and let it adjudicate it.

    Well, the tiny few who do not accept that Bergoglio is Pope can not do that because they know the Catholic Church has accepted that Bergoglio is Pope since his election and acceptance of the Papacy.

    Further, it is of Tradition (and old Canonists can be cited on this) that when the Church accepts so and so is Pope, he is Pope.

    Well, one can just go back to the posts of Ms. Barnhardt when Bergoglio was elected and discover that she too accepted him as Pope and called him Pope and, irony or irony, she was part of the virtually unanimous number of Catholics accepting him as Pope which means he is Pope; perhaps she was like John Kerry in that she was for him before she was against him.

    The idea that the personal opinion of Canon Law by a laywoman about who is and isn’t Pope is worthy of anything at all is a sign of the diabolical confusion of modernity.

  16. Well the jokes on Francis, because I began to grow sceptical of and started hating Vatican II and all of Frankie’s precious heretical gay friendly modernism all while attending the protestantized Novus Ordo Mass for most of my life!

    So what now?

    Let’s cut out all the bullshit…

    – As the Mother of God warned, the Church was infiltrated by modernists, heretics, marxists, communists, masons, Americanists and the sexually depraved.

    – These men laboured to transform the Church by undermining her morally and doctrinally.

    – Vatican II and their bastardized new mass was all part of their man-centered feeeeellllings-oriented Americanized-libertine woke revolution in the Church that brought about the deliberate destruction of her influence, her institutions, her religious orders, her wealth, her moral authority and so much else.

    – THE WOKE REVOLUTION HAPPENING IN AMERICA AND THE WESTERN WORLD IS THE SAME STRATEGY BY THE UNHOLY ONES AS WAS DONE TO THE CHURCH FIRST.

    – GOD IS PUNISHING THE WEST, AMERICA AND THE WORLD FOR THE SAME THING IT DID TO HIS BRIDE!

    – EVERY AMERUCAN, CANADIAN AND EUROPEAN DESERVES IT! YOU HAVE EARNED WHAT IS COMING! YOU DESERVE IT! EAT IT!

    – UNTIL THE SITUATION IN THE CHURCH IS FIXED, THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY BETTER IN THE WORLD! PRIORITIES PEOPLE!

    – They HATE the Traditional ancient Apostolic Latin Mass because it is focused on God, not man. It doesn’t give a F about your feelings, and *shock*horror* prays for the conversion of the Jews! And… And… *sputter* is TOO MASCULINE AND HIERARCHIAL AND THAT GRINDS FEMINIST GEARS!

    – The Traditional Mass greatly emphasizes things about the Eucharist that makes all the protties, anglican joys, and mask wearing democrat-voting abortionist ilk scared and soiling their panties to think about and is inherently NOT very inclusive towards their diversity of sinful fetishes.

    – Jorge Bergolio is one of these enemies of Jesus Christ. His election was doubtful from the start, his entire history is shady, the company he keeps is a dead giveaway, he speaks contradiction, error and heresy often and openly, and he KNOWS IT, AND LOVES TO GASLIGHT YOU AS THE PROBLEM! He hates every tenet of Christianity that can’t be warped by Marxism, and the man not only cannot be considered Catholic, he couldn’t even pass as any mainline protestant.

    – Everyone KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT FRANCIS IS, just like they know the U.S. election was openly and blatantly stolen and that there is no covid pandemic and the shots are poison and that the experts and bureaucrats are lying, but we just all prefer to tip toe and talk in hypotheticals and stretch the benefit of the doubt into other hypothetical multi-dimensions that do not exist because we know there are consequences for saying these truthful things.

    – Considering the weight of the evidence, Francis CANNOT BE THE POPE. He is as legitimate as Joe Biden, actually, even less so, considering the Holy Spirit cannot he fooled nor would bestow the Papacy on him if Benedict is still the Pope acting under a coerced and invalidated bifurcated attempt at a half-resignation, whereas Trump dropped out and Americans have accepted the con and can only sit around for 4 years where they can get cheated out of the election again and rinse amd repeat and ignore and come together because “unity” or something. Gee… sounds an awful lot like the same demons who have been running around the Church worm-tongueing you into universal peaceful acceptance and to go along to get along and be nice and orderly as they sharpen the knives and hang you one by one.

    – The revolution in the Church, like the woke one, knows time is short and that they are losing and people are seeing through their shit. So they are cancelling the Latin Mass because of its Catholic supremacy that rejects their woke theology, and they will do the same to the “conservative white supremacists” too!

    Take off your stupid do-nothing masks and start seeing the patterns.

    Francis has all the signs of being a globalist liberal China-controlled homo-lobby puppet, an obstinate heretic and an anti-Pope.

    Little wonder he had to be rushed in for intestinal surgery after passing this recent load out.

  17. Many people seems to be under the impression that if TLM is supressed then the only options available for the time being are to either submit to Novus Ordo or to schism. This is not the case. Questions to whoever so may read this, why stay in the Roman Rite? Is it sinful to attend an Eastern Catholic Church instead? Do the Byzantine or other Eastern rites lack the reverence of the TLM?

  18. ABS-

    The canon-law “experts” are asses who cannot be counted on any more than secular judges vacating their duties to hear cases of clear government violations of fundamental freedoms and procedural excuses not to hear cases of election fraud.

    Nobody cares if Barnhardt doesn’t possess some “degree” we care if what she argues is correct and worthy of investigation.

    Cardinal Burke is a coward who will never follow up on his dubia. No Athanasius is he. Some of them are already dead, having achieved nothing.

    The universal acceptance argument is stupid because it first depends on multiple factual criteria being true before it can apply. God doesn’t bow to democracy, and we already know that the consensus of Catholic universal acceptance has been wrong in the past when the majority accepted not one but then two successive Anti Popes! So much for that!

    Yes, at the end of the day, it is still up to the proper organs of the Church to settle the matter and establish the truth authoritatively for all time. But laypeople always have and still do have a part to play in bringing these things about.

    My friend, you don’t get to just sit back with your feet in the air and hope the clergy, like government will just do their job without coercion and a lot of yelling and stomping up and down. Especially when there are consequences.

    This is why BLM and the commies and sex-alphabet community are currently gaining ground. They have more zeal than do-nothing/say-nothing it’ll-all-work-out-somehow God’s-in-charge don’t-worry-be-happy hakuna-mattata Catholics and conservatives.

    THAT and not Barnhardt IS the diabolical disorientation, where everyone is so spun around and confused that you have just decided to lie down and sleep and hope things are magically better when you wake up.

  19. GP –

    So long as they are in union with the office of the Pope and Catholic Church then attending any of the other rites is perfectly fine.

    You CANNOT be in schism for doing what every Catholic, Pope and Saint has done since antiquity. Don’t fall for the gaslighting. Even a ligitimate Pope has no authority to do what Francis has done, anymore than Francis can abrogate the 10 Commandments or change the Lord’s prayer, the latter which the all-humble one has already attempted to do, and the former commandment of “Thou shalt not committ adultery” he has already abrogated as being an unnecessary obstacle for receiving the Holy Eucharist.

    Francis who has no shame violating the Commandments of God or improving the words of Jesus Christ, naturally doesn’t bat an eye about contradicting the very Popes he is claimed to be a successor of.

    So it is he who will always be in schism, not you. And you don’t need any pharisee canon lawyers to spin for you what is obvious anymore than that you require the state to rule that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself; but it would certainly be good and necessary to have it because as we clearly know there are a great many people whose opinions and beliefs hinge on what authority alone says, which is why bad people in authority can be so dangerous, not because of only what they do, but because at the snap of a finger multitudes of people can immediately alter their thinking and religion to conform to the prevailing narrative without a second thought or critical examination of anything being proposed.

  20. Dear John. You appeal to Tradition to try and justify being a follower of the former Cattle Futures Trader but It is God Himself who chose Bergoglio as Pope as Tradition attests:

    See Page 482, Good Friday Liturgy, “The New Roman Missal” by Father Lasance: Let us pray, also, for our most blessed Pope N, that our Lord and God, who hath chosen him in the order of the episcopacy , may preserve him safe and unharmed to His holy church, to rule God’s holy people.

    Now, us Catholics may not like what Our Lord has done but as He is Infinite Mercy and Infinite Justice and also possessed of Sovereign Liberty, we can not oppose His choices and it is a sin not to love what He does.

    God Himself also chose men like Nero, Mao and Biden to to rule over men (See Saint Augustine) and Bergoglio is Pope unto such time as The Catholic Church accuses him of heresy, tries him and rules he has by his actions vacated the Papacy and our dislike of Bergoglio is immaterial.

    Neither you or ABS can control what Bergoglio is going to do and has done so don’t sweat his reign. If you are a real male Catholic he can not disturb your belief in the Original Deposit of Faith or The Real Mass so, if he irks you too much, ignore him.

    As adults we are responsible for knowing and living the Faith once delivered and for following all of the Commands of Jesus Christ and so when Catholic a dies and stands before the Judgment Seat of Christ it will do nobody any good to try an offer the excuse of a liberal- My lack of Faith? It’s not my fault. It’s all the fault of someone else; Pope Francis

    Jesus created all men for His Glory and our happiness and we can only be happy eternally if we are eternally in the presence of His Glory.

    Trust in Our Creator and Redeemer, Our Lord and Saviour. Bergoglio may think he is in control but he is not. Jesus Christ has always been, still is, and always will be the head of His One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church which He promised would never succumb to the powers of Hell – or an Argentinian.

    Jesus is not a Lair. Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The life.

    ABS was reading Proverbs 3 today: Have confidence in the Lord with all they heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence. In all ways think on him, and he will direct your steps. Be not wise in your own counsel; fear God, and depart from evil; …

    My son, reject not the correction of the Lord; and do not faint when thou art chastised by him; for whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth and as a father in the son he pleaseth himself.</B

  21. I’m not going to spend much time adding to what I said last week about the motu proprio in another thread (glad to have seen some solid responses to Bergoglio from some good bishops in the meantime, however). But, the people claiming this somehow shows how Catholics were wrong about Papal infallibility, like Francis Perretto above, misunderstand a couple things about the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I and this motu proprio:

    1. By defining exactly what “infallibility” and “Papal supremacy” mean, and under what circumstances they apply, far from being some expansive power-grab by the Pope, Vatican I in fact limited infallibility (and was precipitated by some of the more extreme claims of ultramontanists of the time – in fact some of today’s neo-trad papolators, like Vermeule, Ahmari, Rafael de Arizaga, etc. – for whom Frankie can do no wrong, and about whom any criticism, however mild, will get you blocked – are more ultramontane than the original ultramontanists. Their view of the Pope is more like that of Rex Motram in “Brideshead Revisited,” and perhaps it’s no surprise most of these neo-ultramontanists also seem to be relatively recent converts. More Motramist than Catholic with regard to how they view the Pope. Vermeule, et al. must swoon when they read Dante or St. Catherine of Siena, for neither hesitated to criticize Popes of their days in the harshest terms for many things, or even to consign some of them to the Hell in Dante’s case – yet no one would claim Dante is not a deeply Catholic poet – the supreme Catholic poet (supreme poet, period, really) – or accuse him of heresy or schism, and he always distinguished between the Pope as a man and political actor and the office itself in its rightful capacity and authority as Vicar of Christ and successor to Peter, which he revered and held sacred).

    2. The issue here does not implicate infallibility anyway, insofar as it is a matter of discipline and the personal peccadilloes and arbitrary preferences of Bergoglio, not dogma. The next Pope could easily revert to Summorum Pontificum or even issue a decree even more expansive than that of Benedict XVI with regard to the traditional Mass (pray we get a truly Based Pope soon who not only allows more expansive use of the TLM, but actually suppresses the Novus Ordo of Bugnini-Paul VI instead!). Benedict himself said that not only did Paul VI never purport to have abrogated the old Mass, but that he COULD NOT HAVE, and that NO ONE COULD. So while Bergoglio may try his best to make it difficult for Priests to say and hope it falls by the wayside, he cannot abrogate it as such, and any attempt to do so would be overstepping his authority – and thus not an infallible act binding the faithful, or priests who want to continue saying the TLM (even if they must do it in secret in some new catacombs).

    3. Even if this act was arguably an “infallible” act…infallibility hinges firstly on the Pope making any such claim being legitimate. There are very serious questions about the legitimacy and sufficiency under Canon law of Benedict’s purported abdication. I’ve seen people claim that there simply can be no argument about Bergoglio’s legitimacy (“just because”…apparently) and if you don’t accept him you are a schismatic sedevacantist. But that’s simply not the case. There have been a number of anti-Popes in the past – without their challengers being guilty of any heresy or schism, or being seen as challenging the foundations of the Church itself – and there is no reason there can’t be one now (or more in the future). And in any case, the sede is not vacant, for Benedict XVI remains true Pope and Vicar of Christ, whether he likes it or not (interestingly, in the annuarium in recent years, Bergoglio has relegated the title “Vicar of Christ” to the section of “historical titles,” implying that it is somehow not currently applicable or that it has been renounced – which he could not legitimately do; another of the many acts of Bergoglio calling into question his legitimacy aside from the manner of legality of Benedict’s abdication and Bergoglio’s subsequent election – unless one sees it not as a renunciation of the title as such vis-a-vis the Pope, but as simply a sort of covert acknowledgement from Bergoglio himself that Benedict in fact remains true Pope and thus true Vicar of Christ…in which case…).

    As the Great Reset continues apace in so many areas of life, I think we are in for a long new “Time of Troubles” that will affect not only the Church but most secular institutions as well – there are crises of legitimacy all around…and Bergoglio may not be the last, or even the worst, anti-Pope in the troubled years to come.

  22. Dear John ABS will try one more time but he understands this will prolly be a stupid and futile gesture (cue “Animal House”)

    A well known and respected Canon Lawyer says claims to the contrary that Francis is Pope are made by those people who are acting in inexcusable ignorance (Barnhardt) of a particular Canon Law but, as you claim, all Canonists suck so you can follow the former Cattle Futures Trader personal opinion but let’s for a second stop here. OK?

    When she was making sacks of dough trading futures, what do you think she would have said if a person, ignorant about trading cattle futures, came along and said she sucked when it came to understanding the principles and praxis of cattle trading and that was corrupt and operating on, say, inside information?

    Would you have trusted her critic?

    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/lighter-fare-can-bad-latin-save-a-papacy/

    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/francis-was-never-pope-call-me-unpersuaded/

  23. I was most impressed by the Guest Priest describing how the Pope is punishing a group for what would be an important individual sin. He’s just doing what our government has been doing in so many areas for decades.

  24. Just how clever and devious is he who abdicated?

    Very….

    On February 11, 2013, Pope Benedict said he’d retire:

    On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that on February 29, 2013, at 20:00 Roman Time, the see of Saint Peter be vacant, and it is suitable that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convened by these same [competit convocandum esse].

    Hang on, it gets even more devious and diabolically clever.

    Yes, read it and weep Benevicanatist Barhnardists – Benedict strengthened his fake retirement by issuing new rules to elect his pretend successor.

    O, those clever Germans.

    After telling the world he was going to retire, this still double secret Pope then went on to issue this Motu Proprio February 23, AFTER he announced he was going to abdicate:

    https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20130222_normas-nonnullas.html

    Yes, new rules for the fake election of the fake Pope Francis…

    As Saint Strother Martin said, What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate because Cool Hand Barnhardt says that Benedict did not say he would retire, that he had no intention to retire and despite repeated public statements by Benedict XVI that he thinks it is absurd that some Catholics think he did not retire and that Francis is not Pope.

    How it is that a certain cattle futures trader knows the intentions of he who abdicated better than he who abdicated suggests an afflatic ability.

    Has the cattle futures trader shown evidence of afflatus?

    Those who trust what she has to say about Benedict XVI and His intentions rather than what he has said about his intentions and his acts is an example of the current diabolical confusion.

  25. Amateur Brain Surgeon: For the record, John and Johnno are two different persons. It looks like we agree on a lot of things. Anyway, I’m John. I can remember reading what Ed Peters had to say long ago on this issue, and I am even more unconvinced by his reasoning now than then. First, I agree with him that if violations of UDG could be proven, that would make my case a lot easier. Bishop Gracida supports the UDG route. But, the resignation is, in truth, a far easier and more straightforward case to make, and Peters misunderstands the argument being made when he says “Canon 10,” and drops the mic. He seems to think that it’s enough to cite this canon, such that he doesn’t have to even dignify the argument with a reply. I don’t even see how it’s particularly relevant to the conversation.

    Pope Benedict’s words in his renunciation, matter. If he said, “I renounce the “munus Petrinum,” there would be no doubt as to what he was doing. Since there is no law which forbids this, it would be valid. No problem. This would have fulfilled the “proper manifestation” clause from canon 332. But that is not what happened. He very clearly renounced the “ministerium Petrinum.” John Zuhlsdorf treated this topic recently. https://wdtprs.com/2021/06/the-question-of-two-popes-bothers-a-lot-of-people-some-thoughts/ Munus and ministerium are not the same. I can accept the validity of what he literally said. I don’t accept the validity of what he may have meant, without clearly stating.

    Then there is the matter of how Benedict himself, on the day before the renunciation took effect, spoke of how, in accepting Papal election, “the always is also a forever.” He has continued to assert this through Gänswein and Seewald. He was not misquoted. He believes that he is still “within the enclosure of Peter, whatever that means.

    The fact that, as far as we know, the entire College of Cardinals, at the time, agreed that Benedict was renouncing the papacy, doesn’t mean anything in and of itself, as papal renunciations are not, of their nature, capable of being accepted by anyone.

    I’ve never gone in for the idea that the lousy Latin of the renunciation meant anything. The canonical irregularities, that Benedict could have easily smoothed out in the 17 days between the announcement and execution, but didn’t, are what do it for me. The fact that the guy who was elected has been a complete disaster, from the moment of his acceptance of whatever he was elected to, add quite a bit of fuel to the fire. It’s hard to think God is pleased with the situation, and he is really the one who matters, as the true Pope is His Son’s Vicar on earth.

    I certainly do not condemn anyone who disagrees with me. I could certainly be wrong. I can also see that you love the Church. God’s will be done.

  26. ABS: What do you make of the ambiguity of Benedict’s own acts since Feb 2013 – continuing to wear the Papal cassock, continuing to impart “apostolic blessings” to people in correspondence, inventing the title (with no historic justification) “Pope Emeritus,” his and his secretary Georg Gänswein’s bizarre talk of “two popes” – one active and once contemplative. Very strange, and frankly unjustifiable, behavior if one is no longer Pope (and a situation that would have been inconceivable before. Hell, when Celestine V abdicated, Boniface VII had him locked up in jail).

    Also, Barnhardt is not the only person who believes Francis is an anti-Pope, nor is her argument the only one, so a bit of a red-herring to assume she is the only authority or basis for anyone who believes the same. Here’s Br. Alexi Bugnolo on the distinction between “munus” and “ministerium” and its importance in Canon Law (https://www.fromrome.info/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/) as relates to Benedict’s abdication.

    And the fact that some canonists disagree? Well, lawyers often disagree on either the interpretation of law or the application of law to particular facts, etc…that’s why we have lawsuits and trials to adjudicate between differing interpretations, allegations of facts, etc. Maybe your guy is right, but is he’s not the only canonist around, nor is he infallible as far as I’m aware.

    Even if originally validly elected, its arguable he has fallen into manifest heresy on certain matters which would justify deposing him and declaring him to be an anti-Pope, but that’s a very difficult process and would require universal Council.

    I only hope we needn’t suffer under Bergoglio much longer. When it comes to the TLM especially, the younger priests and laity seems more drawn to it than pre-Boomers like Bergoglio and the Boomers just behind him, who treast Tradition like the plague. It’s those superannuated generations who are so enamored of Vatican II and modernism, and who brought us decades of Novus Ordo clown masses, nuns in pantsuits, ugly modernist churches, etc., etc. Perhaps the younger generations will lead the Church toward true renewal and consign those disastrous generations and their progeny to oblivion soon.

  27. Dear John. The inexcusable ignorance that Prof Peters was referring to is that the putative bad latin of the resignation was not voided by his putative misuse use of particular words because the resignation had no canonical requirement to use specific terms that would make the resignation invalid if “bad latin” was used.

    Said otherwise, Benedict XVI could have resigned using Pig Latin.

    Was it bad Latin?

    No, according to an expert in Latin who has translated from Latin into English several books by Saint Robert Bellarmine.

    https://onepeterfive.com/benevacantists/

    The speculations by Father Zed are curious because he identifies Canon Peters as a friend and has quoted him frequently in the past but he does not bring up his canonical arguments in the matter of Benevacantism yet Father Zed still says the man who has his butt in the chair of Peter is Pope.

    C’est la vie.

    As for what Father Ratzinger says and does (when he abdicated he told the world publicly he wished to be called Father Ratzinger,) such as claiming not to be able to find any black clerical garb in Saint Peter’s after he resigned so he chose to wear white…Come on.

    As to his now calling his own self an emeritus Pope and wearing white (he did destroy his papal ring and ditched the red shoes) and pretending to give Apostolic Blessings, well, they are all novelties aren’t they and Brandmuller pleaded with him to quit it because he was causing scandal but Father Ratzinger prefers to do what he wants to do and to hell with any scandal given…

    O, yeah, and how’s that “I will now be silent” promise working out?

  28. Well, ABS just had a lengthy post disappear when he tried to post it so he will summarise it.

    Canonist Ed Peter’s reference to Canon 10 is crucial because it has to do with the Pope’s resignation in that even if Benedict XVI had used bad latin in his resignation that is immaterial because the resignation of a Pope is not a Canon that can be invalidated.

    There is no canonical requirement that a papal resignation use munus and ministerium. That is Benedict XVI could have resigned using Pig Latin, Was it bad Latin? Seemingly not, acceding to a Latin expert who has translated from Latin into English several texts by the Catholic Doctor Saint Robert Bellarmine:

    https://onepeterfive.com/benevacantists/

    After he publicly announced he was going to resign effectively on X, AFTER that date he issued a Motu Proprio of new rules and norms for the election of the next Pope.

    If he was still going to be a double secret pope, why would he have done that? To be even more devious, to mess with his supporters?

    ABS feels a bit like John Cleese trying to return a dead parrot to a shop keeper

    No, he is still Pope, he is just shagged-out after his pretend resignation. Of course he couldn’t find any black clerical garb in Saint Peter’s Basilica. Beautiful White Papal Plumage.

    Brandmueller pleaded publicly for Father Ratzinger to stop wearing white (he has destroyed his papal ring and doesn’t wear the red shoes) and giving pretend Apostolic Blessings but Father Ratzinger does what he wants to do and does not seem to care if he is the cause of scandal.

    ABS calls him by the title he first said he wanted to be addressed as, Father Ratzinger,

    O, and how is his promise to remain silent working out?

  29. Dennis. Isn’t it the true that Barnhardt preceded Brother Alex in claims of Benevacattsm?

    As to your hopes of a younger generation leading…

    ABS has always been of the opinion that Traditional Orders are producing the Pelayos and El Cids who will one day take back the Church from the invading revolutionaries of The 60s Synod.

    One hopes its won’t game 700 years like it did for Spain to regain its power.

  30. That was a spirited and provocative debate, thanks all. And thanks Traditional Priest for kicking it off.

  31. So, none of this is new. The “deep church” also known as the church system of man has existed within the Church, since the beginning of Christianity. See the Book of Revelation.

    I think that a bit of history would be good, so that all of this would not come across as that what is happening now is something new, but rather, that always this has been going on, and now, due to the multitude of sins of the church giving the enemy grounds, God is allowing the evil to manifest, to awaken His faithful to the times that we are in, to return to Him, to be fully His. We can read the red in the sky, but can we and do we read the times that we are in?

    Think of it this way. The premises pushing Vatican II, did not just suddenly come into being in 1960. Just as the openness for the passing of Roe v Wade in the U.S. did not just suddenly happen. No, evil remained suppressed, but now it is in the open.

    Regarding Mass: Many of us in our teens in the sixties, had the new Mass thrust upon us without opportunity of explanation nor opportunity to reject any of it. Two goods came from it. One was the priest faced the people so we can see, and the other is its acceptance of the vernacular. The worst that occurred is that the Mass was termed a Celebration of the Mass and was no longer the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the atmosphere of worship and holiness slowly dissipated to the tune of family gathering with folk type music and hand shaking and smiles all around. It is good to smile at family, but the place for all of that is before all starts.

    I think that Pope Benedict XVI became frail and unable to handle all of the crises breaking forth. He was and is a scholar, and most probably was and is not suited to the work of being Pope. Even JPII did not appear to handle many of the scandals very well, plus he bowed to the Koran.

    Thinking on it, have any Popes measured up to Peter when by the Holy Spirit, he told Ananias and a bit later, his wife, Sapphira, that due to their lying to the Holy Spirit, that they would die right then? How many Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, seek and listen to the Holy Spirit? How many instead say that Mother Mary, whom I love, will take care of us, rather than building relationship with God our Father and then teaching the faithful to do so too.

    So all went well in early Christianity, as they stayed with the Holy Spirit, and as the gifts given to the Church by the Holy Spirit were used and members increased by the thousands, as did persecutions and martyrdoms, for as Jesus told us that what they do to Him, they will do to you (us).

    Somewhere along the line, influences occurred that caused the Church to mostly stop using the gifts given to the Church, (See 1 Corinthians 12: 1-11; and all of 1 Corinthians 12: 27-31; and James 5: 13-18) and many, many verses in Acts and more of the gifts given by the Holy Spirit to the Church being used. And after a time, science got the upper hand without much questioning.

    Some might be interested in this link as it lists many of the common meds we use, which in one way or another, have used aborted babies, Tylenol, aspirin, and more are included.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/01/if-any-drug-tested-on-hek-293-is-immoral-goodbye-modern-medicine/

    Before this link was sent, I had already decided, due to the use of the killed babies, though the tissue has replicated many times, that I would not and I will not be vaccinated, and I was not aware of the facts contained in the link, until our daughter sent this link. Now that I know, I will seek out information and make informed decisions. The vaccines could have been made without baby tissue but for the speed to manufacture it and get it out. Big Pharma has no legal responsibility in of this, as I understand.

    God bless, C-Marie

  32. I’m not sure if Barnhardt or Br. Alex came first…and I read somewhere not long ago about a group of priests and some Bishops in Italy openly questioning Bergoglio’s legitimacy, but I can’t find the link. Viganò is probably the highest ranking person in the Church to openly question his legitimacy – and all of Vatican II for that matter (Or at least that’s the sense I get from Viganò, but not sure if he’s clearly stated he believes Bergoglio illegitimate).

    FWIW I do think Barnhardt a bit unstable and over-the-top at times, even when she is right about some things (she’s dead on about the Coronadoom, though perhaps a little too Ivermectin drunk – I have some in reserve if I were to ever feel a cold or flu coming on that may be the ‘doom, but she seems to do Ivomec shots on a regular basis. Not sure that’s quite necessary). Something not quite right with that chick. 🙂

    “If he was still going to be a double secret pope, why would he have done that? ”

    Well, no one claims he intended to do this (at least as far as anyone can tell), but that he too is simply mistaken about the sufficiency of his abdication and his actual present status (which his ambiguous behavior has helped muddle further). Some of his “post-Papal” actions are rather incongruous with a true and valid abdication. He should go back, then, to wearing ordinary priest’s or bishop’s habit, and sign himself Cardinal or Bishop or simply Father (I’m not sure what status he should actually “revert” to) “Ratzinger,” rather than having invented this “Pope Emeritus” thing and still issuing occasional statements under the name Benedict XVI and imparting “Apostolic Blessings,” while speaking oddly of some “Contemplative Pope” to Francis’ “Active Pope” (which almost implies he did in fact intend to effect some “bifurcation” of the office with his resignation – which cannot be done).

  33. C-Marie: “Regarding Mass: Many of us in our teens in the sixties, had the new Mass thrust upon us without opportunity of explanation nor opportunity to reject any of it…The worst that occurred is that the Mass was termed a Celebration of the Mass and was no longer the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the atmosphere of worship and holiness slowly dissipated to the tune of family gathering with folk type music and hand shaking and smiles all around…”

    It’s always flummoxed me how quickly people who grew up with the old mass (like my own parents’ generation, who were in their early 20s by the time the Novus Ordo came along, not to mention my grandparents who were daily Mass goers), just blithely went along with the NO without a peep, despite having had long experience with the beauty and solemnity of the old Mass, and seemed to just instantly forget all that went before (despite the fact that none of what came to pass with the NO was actually advocated or contemplated by the actual language of the Vatican II documents; problematic as Vatican II was, its actual language and intentions were really hijacked by revolutionaries claiming to embody the “Spirit of Vatican II” and twisting it to suit their own ends). Of course, it wasn’t just in the Church that this revolutionary ’60s agenda took hold and destroyed so much (and we’re still reaping its foul fruits today – critical theory, gender theory, etc. all have roots in ’60s-’70s academia)

    Despite having grown up with it for 22 years, I doubt my mom could still say any of the most basic prayers in Latin (Pater, Ave, Gloria, etc.). And it boggles my mind how someone who grew up with the solemn and beautiful music of the old Mass could actually like stuff like “On Eagle’s Wings.” SMH 🙁 So sad all that was lost (including all the beautiful old altars that were destroyed in many churches to make way for the new “Cranmer” tables).

  34. Maybe this will help. For myself and my sisters and brothers, and we were many, we were raised by a convert to Catholicism from paganism (know no more than that) Dad, and a Catholic Mom. My Dad said that I was the reason for his conversion. When I was five or so and onwards, my Dad and I would have our theology talks and I could ask any question I could think of, and then my Dad would say “Let’s see what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say.” Aquinas was the authority along with the book, Theology and Sanity. I actually was forbidden to ask any more questions in my highschool freshman year after the first day of Religion class.

    The Bible itself was used by the Faithful, as the Church did not approve of the faithful reading the Bible as they might misinterpret the verses. We did have a family Bible, but it stayed on the shelf.

    We were taught that all of the priests and bishops were very holy people along with all of the nuns and sisters.
    We used to go and see a friend of our family’s at the cloistered Carmelite Monastery. Her name was Clare. She was known to us children as very holy, and I have no doubt that she was. We attended Catholic Academies, which were Catholic way back then in the fifties, we even put J.M.J. (Jesus Mary Joseph) at the top of all of our school papers. We treated the sisters very reverentially because they were so holy. We also had two janitors who had been at Auchswitz and on one we could see his prisoner number on his arm.

    So that was our life. All of the religious, priests (Bishopd, Cardinals), whatever their rank, Pope, were holy, knew all there was to know, whatever they said goes, We respected them and their authority and had never known anything different, nor had the idea of not accepting and not obeying … as when Vatican II came about ..ever entered our minds. I have used the plural throughout, but it is definitely true for regarding authority and the Catholic Church.

    Somehow with Vatican Ii, I sensed the change in authoritarianism, and I started to change too. I think that many of us from then got lost as the Rock of Authority began its slippage as the progressives worked to worldlize the Church.. Somehow that boiled over into the terrible lawlessness that we have on every side with the drugs, disrespect for authority, murder of unborn babies, tearing relationships so as to not have families of father, mother, and children, and more.

    All thanks be to God for the Protestant Evangelical Prayer Groups which wholly recommended the reading and meditating on the Bible. I had never read a page of it until a Jehovah Witness at the door told me to buy a Bible, any Bible, but buy one and read it! Now I have as an adult the underpinnings of reality concerning people, no expectation that anyone is perfect, a momentously great love for Catholicism, love being Catholic.

    Hope this helps. Not knowing your reound about years, perhaps you were a seventies or more child. Much was already going on by then.

    God bless, C-Marie

  35. Correction: “The Bible itself was used by the Faithful, as the Church did not approve of the faithful reading the Bible as they might misinterpret the verses. We did have a family Bible, but it stayed on the shelf.”

    Should read: The Bible itself was NOT used …..

    God bless, C-Marie

  36. Dear Dennis. ABS is the same age as Israel and we were raised to be KJPLers (Knee Jerk Papal Loyalists) and the idea one could (like the Rule of Saint Benedict held) withhold obedience to an unjust order was literally unthinkable for the vast majority of lay catholics and so when the revolutionaries assassinated the Real Mass and replaced it with The Lil’ Licit Liturgy most Catholics were content to Pray, Pay and Obey no matter what form of worship was imposed on them but because the Lil’ Licit Liturgy is apt only for women and children, men drifted away.

    What was once its greatest strength – solidarity in faith with the Bishops and Popes leading – became the greatest weakness of Catholicism. It was the result of an incomplete and disordered catechetical upbringing of generations of American Catholics.

    We were raised in fear and obedience rather than love. Teaching the Faith must begin in love, not fear.

    God created us for His Glory and Our happiness.

    The Catechism of the Council of Trent began there (in imitation of Aquinas) but the Ambishops were more concerned with obedience for its own sake (and there sake of their programs)

  37. @JohnTheBaptist

    Your of ignorance of the New Testament , which is the history of Jesus and his Holy Catholic Church, is naked. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. He was the first Pontiff, the first earthly leader of the Church. Since Jesus picked Peter, submission to the Pope is Submission to Jesus.

    Francis is not the pope, he is an antipope. And is also a heretic. Anyone who follows what he says is also in schism, rebellion, along with all the Protestants.

    Benedict XVI, being a good German, screwed everything up. But he’s still the pope.

    This article misses the infallible words on the ancient mass by Saint Pius V. You can never get rid of the ancient mass. Indeed, the Novus Ordo was only permitted as an “expression” of the TLM. What Frank is trying to do is remove the context of the NO, the connection to Jesus in perfect mass, and have it stand on its own. But since he will incure the wrath of God for doing so, it will not stand.

    Indeed, watch what happens … Jesus is going to shock not only Bergolio and the filth in Rome, but the Protestants, Orthodox, (misnamed) and all the world.

  38. Marie and ABS: I just realized my mom is the same age as Israel as well! Lol. Yes, Marie, child of the ‘70s here, born 1974, so basically right in the midst of the early years of the post-Vatican II revolution.

    What’s funny is that by 1980 when I was starting first grade (Catholic school), and heard my parents talk about how the Mass used to be in Latin and the priest facing the altar, etc…I thought these seemed like long ago ancient days, when it was only 10 years ago! (it’d be as if we had a new mass just take effect in 2011 in relation to today, which seems like just yesterday). Funny how your sense of time changes as you age.

    One thing then that I did not realize until years later in the ‘90s, since it was never discussed even in religion class (nor did my parents ever mention it in this way), was that the Mass was not simply a translation. Until my early 20s I thought the new Mass was basically the exact same as before, just translated in the vernacular with the priest turned around (so no big deal eh? If that was all that was changed, it would be no big deal). I didn’t realize growing up that it was in many respects a wholly new rite, completely rewritten, and with a totally different emphasis (“communion meal” vs sacrifice, etc).

    That’s what blew my mind when I first realized and started reading about it, and began to find it so perplexing that not only the laypeople (who mostly had no choice, unless they were early SSPXers), but bishops and priests who knew better and we’re trained in theology and church history, etc, just so easily went along with the devastation of the traditional rite. It seems self evident to me which Mass is superior aesthetically and theologically, and I just don’t get why so many people, especially priests and bishops, like Bergoglio, still have such animosity towards the TLM, and are so fanatical about trying to snuff it out.

  39. We had missals with Latin on one side of the page and English on the other side.

    Also Masses with incense and more, were termed High Masses or Solemn High Masses and were not offered during the week.

  40. Regarding Traditiones Custodes and its accompanying letter, “Traditional Priest” (Thank you, Father) mildly asks us to consider a) whether its language and reasoning is imprecise and over-expansive, (b) whether a faithful Catholic may question its authority, and (c) whether it is merciful.

    But since one could reply that all these are matters of prudential judgment, which could be answered in various ways, I thought that Commenters here might use the OP as a jumping-off point — and I understand that.

    I thought at first that I could therefore have nothing to contribute. But I think I can contribute a little historical context. This ‘little’ turns out to be a mini-post in itself. There is meat here; that’s my only defense.

    I thank Ann Cherry for bringing up the point that Pope Francis has given the Council a (penumbra? emanation?) of magisterial authority which the Council never claimed, and which Paul VI explicitly denied.

    However, her point about the “Latin” Mass conflates the use of Latin in the New Rite, with the “Traditional Latin Mass.” This is inaccurate.

    The Council document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, was promulgated by Paul VI on December 4, 1963. Less than two months later (January 25, 1964) — lightning speed in Vatican time — Paul VI released a document which enacted a Committee to implement the general directives laid down by Sacrosanctum Concilium by revising all the liturgical rites. Within five years, the Old Rite — all of it — had been crushed almost out of existence.

    But there is, in the history of it, more than that horror. It might even be more believable — maybe even more wryly Catholic — to learn that this history began with a genuine, and genuinely realized, quest for beauty and meaning in the Traditional liturgy. And then, in others’ hands, it was twisted; and then, it all went to Hell.

    I would like readers to understand that even by the 1930s, there was a visible, organized, active, international Catholic ‘Movement’ to ‘reform’ the Catholic liturgy, often called the ‘Liturgical Movement.’ They were mostly priests, and many if not most were chaste, obedient, devout, even zealous. They held conferences, gave talks — and so on. They wanted the Catholic faithful to enter more fully into the joys of Catholic liturgy, and therefore, become even more faithful, even more devout.

    I have personal knowledge of this. My mother was for some years the organist/choir director of Holy Cross Church in a working-class German-American neighborhood of Saint Louis, Missouri. The pastor who hired her was Martin B. Hellriegel, one of the Catholic Liturgical Movement’s prominent figures. (You can look him up.).

    In an era in which lots of American Catholics avidly sought out the “Twelve-Minute-Mass,” at Holy Cross (and this is just one example of many from that parish) a schola of boys attending this otherwise completely ordinary Catholic parish school were trained to sing, at the daily Mass attended by all the schoolchildren, the entire Gregorian chant for each day, propers and commons, reading at sight a strange-looking music notation, right out of the 2000-page Liber Usualis, which had been assembled by the monks of Solesmes, and which included every chant that the Church sung.

    However, I do wish readers to understand that the Gregorian Chant itself — you know, the kind you hear in all kinds of movies to this day — was not actually ‘ancient’. The Chant today was itself the result of a kind of innovation, a kind of ‘reform’. For by the latter nineteenth century, Gregorian Chant had so fallen into universal disuse that nobody really knew what was in it — what the exact notes and texts even were — let alone, how it was to be properly sung.

    Over about 50 years, monks especially at Solesmes sought out every old manuscript, from every old monastery and every other source they could find, edited and regularized what they found, and then — even more critically — they decided — with no decisive authority backing it — what the chicken scratches on the ancient manuscripts ‘meant’ — how they were to be sung. They MADE IT UP, to be precise. What we hear in all the movies was their guess, and a standardized guess, meant for singing, never meant to be completely accurate historically.

    So when in 1910 Saint Pius X suddenly wanted to encourage the singing of chant, the Solesmes monks were — almost — ready. They worked frantically to ‘complete’ the project — meaning, get it out the door for the Pope.

    And this is ‘A’ genuine context for the Catholic Liturgical Movement. Devout, faithful monks, priests, religious, zealously desiring to share the riches of the Catholic liturgy more widely, more deeply.

    But there were not only Msgr. Hellriegels in the Liturgical Movement. From the start, there were… others.

    From the start, there was — as there always is, this is not meant to be a shock to any Catholic, ever — there was the possibility that something so good, so beautiful, so enlivening, could, in the hands of the less faithful, the less saintly, twist into something much less good, beautiful, and enlivening — that it could all go to Hell.

    I think this is a good moment to pick up the story in the 1950s, and refer to this commentary on the biography of Annibale Bugnini.

    What Bugnini Was Thinking When He Destroyed the Catholic Mass

    “…he was an earnest, hardworking, small-minded man, won over by the rhetoric of the Liturgical Movement, incapable of self-doubt in the wee hours of the night, utterly blind to the world-shifting implications of what he was doing, a diligent functionary with half-baked ideas and the stubbornness to push them along at every opportunity….”

    “…the one who comes off as the worst villain in the story is Paul VI.”

  41. Yes, I know, my mom showed me her old missal from when she was a kid. And I have a large St. Andrew missal I bought in DC at a TLM church around 2001. That’s the other thing about the old charge that people just couldn’t follow the Latin so it needed to change – they had a translation right there in front of them!, and after years of following the Mass, saying prayers in Latin, etc, one should know a good bit by heart anyway.

    As a corollary to my last post above: The other thing that gets me is that respect for and deference to Tradition are supposed to be key aspects of the Catholic Church that sets it apart from Protestantism (though Orthodoxy is more in line with the Church in this) with its sola scriptura and sola fide, and helps maintain the Church’s integrity and continuity in the face of shifting worldly fashion. Yet, since Vatican II we’ve been under the reign of almost endless novelty for novelty’s sake. Tradition – whether in the Mass, church architecture, music, etc – is now looked down upon and treated as something stale that must be overcome, yet there is nothing so stale as the latest attempt to keep up with the zeitgeist in hopes of getting a pat on the back from media or others for being so “with the times.” What’s more stale seeming – a TLM, or an NO novelty mass (whether 1970s guitar mass style, or perhaps even more up to date adorned with some rainbow flag banners or accompanied by “indigenous” dancers and pagan totems)?

    I don’t get why those who have such evident disdain for Catholic Tradition, including Bergoglio, even want to remain Catholic (or to be Pope). Same goes for groups like “Catholics for Choice” (though they are less a real group than an astroturfed letterhead PR campaign funded by the Ford Foundation) or similar “Catholic” LBGT groups and activists (like Fr. James Martin)…why so eager to still claim the mantle of Catholic and stay in a Church whose fundamental moral beliefs and rites they clearly despise? I guess some people just enjoy being fifth columnists and attempting to destroy certain institutions from within.

  42. “I didn’t realize growing up that it was in many respects a wholly new rite, completely rewritten, and with a totally different emphasis (“communion meal” vs sacrifice, etc).”

    That is the change in a nutshell “communion meal” which has had everything attuned to it in the New Mass, whereas the TLM is wholly about Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice.

    Change all round to be centered on “Sacrifice of Christ”, and worship will be enlivened again.

    Wonder what Francis would say or rule, if the change from “communion meal to Sacrifice”, took place?

    God bless, C-Marie

  43. If my memory is correct, Fr. Francis Dvornik, in his volume on the Ecumenical Councils for the 20th Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, says that the liberal bishops of France, Germany, and the United States at Vatican I were pushing for more use of the vernacular in the liturgy but were quashed. I don’t disagree with JohnK but merely say that there is background to the background. I personally regard the movie “Going My Way” not as “charming and nostalgic” but as advocating a new, hip, modern-day church, which contrasts the traditional, crotchety, old Barry FitzGerald with young, vibrant, modern Bing Crosby. Finally, “Passage on the Lady Ann” — a Twilight Zone episode, no less — is a remarkable and moving tribute to Tradition against “aggiornamento.” Thank you for your consideration.

  44. JohnK: Interesting stuff. Perhaps you’ve read it, but if not you might enjoy a book I read some years ago by Katherine Bergeron called “Decadent Enchantments: The Revival of Gregorian Chant at Solesmes,” about the history you mentioned of the modern revival (or “invention” some critics might say – though I think they overstate their case) of Gregorian Chant, and especially the influence of French Romanticism on Dom Guéranger (No surprise he was hugely influenced by Chateaubriand and “The Genius of Christianity”) and his revival of the Benedictines at Solesmes and their work Gregorian Chant.

  45. C-Marie, that was a wide-ranging and, as usual, beautiful and astute comment you made earlier.

    ABS, for what it’s worth coming from a laywoman, I give you the debate win on the “is Francis the true pope?” sidetrack, which you didn’t start. Even so, we’d all agree, he sure doesn’t act like one, sometimes. As Greenhorn noted the other day, with left-wingers, the revolution is always more important than the Church (or anything else).

    GP, I attended a small Byzantine Catholic Church for three years, and loved everything about it, except the copious (allegedly high-quality) incense during the liturgy; my otherwise mild asthma was aggravated so much I had to go back to a Roman rite church. The beautiful eastern liturgy lasts 90 minutes, much of it standing, so it isn’t for sissies. We enjoyed a full meal in the parish hall immediately afterwards, being nearly starved by then, and I once prepared Frito pie for 100.

    JohnK, I very much appreciated your knowledgable comments. When I referred to the “Latin Mass” I meant “traditional latin mass”…..I was just being lazy, rather than conflating, when I could have just abbreviated TLM for both laziness and clarity.

    john the baptist, our first commenter here, the one a “heavily moderated” site might have eliminated, actually got me inspired to chime back in…(so sorry).

    I think j the b’s rather venomous view of Church teaching is based on lack of knowledge, or reading only anti-Catholic stuff about Catholicism, which is a big mistake. Believe me, j the b, when Protestants actually understand Catholicism, they generally aren’t Protestants very much longer. Unfortunately, in Protestant circles like most everywhere else, the ones who don’t understand, talk the loudest and write the most books.

    Small-cap john the baptist, after quoting our guest priest: “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff”…. wrote, “This is why Catholicism is trash. Everyone who really believes in it will go to hell, just on this definition alone.

    j the b, that is so unfair, and anything can be “trash” when taken out of context or poorly understood.

    “Submission” [to the Pontiff], is not the same as “worship” which is reserved for God alone; remember that Paul instructed wives to “submit to their husbands.” Was that, too, “trash”? Hellfire and damnation on these husband-worshippers? No…of course not.

    There are lots of articles and entire books, written about papal authority from a Catholic perspective, and all of it is based on Holy Scripture, as pointed out earlier.

    For example, Jesus told Simon, “Thou art Peter (meaning Rock), and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”.

    Sometimes, “Rocky” is a knuckle-head (as was Peter), and other times, Rocky is downright sinful; but based upon Christ’s own promise, Rocky is protected, by virtue of his “Chair”, from error on specific matters of faith and morals; he is not protected from error, on every stupid utterance and pronouncement that falls from his mouth and pen, and future Popes can “reverse” any unilateral “executive actions” just as easily as he’s implemented them.

    Allowing that some Popes are better than others, because all are human, the papacy itself has kept the Church on a fairly even keel, and unified doctrinally, over the long centuries, while Lutheranism and Anglicanism aren’t doing so well, and there’s 30,000+ Protestant denominations who are anything but unified in their beliefs and doctrines.

  46. I was about 20 years old and just returned to the Catholic Faith after an adolescence of apostacy when the “Novus Ordo of everything” began to be imposed on our little country parish. After the inaugural novelty was inflicted on a portable tressel taken from the church hall placed in front of the very appropriately imposing stone altar where I had served Mass many times and regularly in my childhood, all the parishoners hung around the churchyard practically dumbfounded shuffling the stones around with their feet. A few demurred quietly saying things like “I dunno what’s going on” or “it don’t seem right somehow” when Father, beaming all smiles, entered the scene apparently expecting rapturous applause.

    A few parishoners began to murmur their disquiet then Father proclaimed “It’s been authorised by the Pope!” as though that should make everyone happy about it. An old woman spoke up saying “I don’t blardy care who authorised it. It doesn’t seem Catholic to me!”

    In my next (and the last) 50 years sloshing around in the bog of “newness” everywhere I came to realise that that old woman had the most succinct and precise evaluation of what “newness” is all about in both the secular and ecclesiastical spheres. Although she had no formal training in philosophy or theology she hit the nail right on the head. The whole purpose of the “new” thing was to transform the perception of ordinary folk so that the notion of an abstract and absolute One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith is “evolving” along with everything else. I guess that there are some who can remember the flood of “becoming” everythings that was an epidemic back in the ’60’s and ’70’s with the implication that even God is in a process of “becoming” according to a “universal consciousness” being generated out of random physical/chemical process… an undefinable “Omega Point” according to the fantasies of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and the more contemporary versions of “enlightenment” Gnosticism. A fantasy adopted, more or less, by popes and bishops even pre Vatican II and, almost unanimously, post V II.

    This process of “updating” everything began long before it was “institutionalised” in the Documents of Vatican II and the “reforms” subsequent to it. The Talmudists and their ideological serfs in Freemasonry knew well that the “Novus Ordo Seculorum” (proudly proclaimed on the Yankee Dollar) would have no chance without a “Novus Ordo Ecclesiam” that was produced by churchmen sympathetic to the esoteric gnosis of the “enlightenment”.

    This is obviously getting too long for a comment; I’ll leave off for now.

  47. Ann Cherry, I agree with almost all of what you’ve said.

    The Vatican I definition of Papal Infallibility was very timely and, as usual for dogmatic pronouncements, very precise. As I read the definition it says much more about when a pope is NOT infallible by defining the requisites for an infallible definition… always commonly assumed but not defined.

    Ever since then the Enemy of the Faith has had his minions exaggerate the principle to make it appear absolute, absurd or arbitrary culminating in the papalatry necessary to impose a new disorder contrary (or compromising) the Faith.

    Popes from way back have been political manipulators but there is no way that their political ambitions and convenient proclamations come within a bull’s roar of a defined statement of Faith according to the definition of Infallibility.

  48. I just don’t get why so many people, especially priests and bishops, like Bergoglio, still have such animosity towards the TLM, and are so fanatical about trying to snuff it out.

    Dear Dennis. Bishops arriving for The 60s Synod were exhausted and bored by the Real Mass and were hungry for change and innovation and the Roman ecclesiastics were unprepared for the revolution planned in advance via the Bishops’ conferences which used to meet daily in Saint Martha’s (where Bergoglio choose to live, no surprise) to strategerise.

    The revolutionaries were possessed of the “new theology” which was protestant in its orientation and they understood they needed to create a new rite to propagandise in favor of that new theology and that is why they assassinated The Real Mass and substituted th eLil’ Licit Liturgy in its place.

    If you have a real Missal, compare the Offertory in The Real Mass with the text based upon a Jewish meal prayer that was substituted for the offertory by the revolutionaries.

    Work of human hands indeed.

    The revolutionaries understood that The Real Mass taught Pete and Pam Pew Dweller a ton of truth about God and man and they rejected that fullness of truth and so they needed a nw vehicle, a revolutionary Lil’ Licit Liturgy, to teach Peter and Pam Pew Dweller the new faith and the attempt (it will fail) to kill The Real Mass is a rear guard action on the part of the revolutionaries to try and protect the gains of the revolution – which are unsustainable.

  49. I still contend, ABS, that the new disorder of everything is not about likes and dislikes of some rubrics, customs or practices. It is about the very notion that everything is in a state of becoming, a dialectical process of competition between the old (thesis) and the self generating new (antithesis) that is supposed to, in their competition, produce a superior result (synthesis) that becomes the thesis generating its antithesis on and on towards some “Omega Point” in which the “universal consciousness” is presumed to be the excellence of Nothing turning itself into Everything with no cause or purpose.

    Either the whole Universe was created by a competent Power, Intellect and Will for a purpose of His Own intention or it is completely absurd, self contradictory and doomed to fail before it began.

    It’s too much to expect the likes of me to answer all unheard objections in a comment (as if I could anyway). The God in a Man put it all in His parables so that all who have ears to hear can understand and the “organised bunch of idiots pretending that they’re smarter than God” will miss the point entirely.

  50. ABS –

    God has allowed AntiPopes to reign and even to be accepted by the MAJORITY of the universal Church. Antipope Anacletus II ruled for 8 years, uncontested and universally accepted by the majority of the Cardinals and Catholics. Then upon his death Antipope Victor IV was elected. Only a minority, which included St. Bernard, recognized that Innocent II was the real Pope, still living through two successive antipapacies universally but erroneously accepted by the overwhelming Catholic majority. So your reliance on that argument is demonstrably bunk.

    That God permits these things to happen, just as He permits people to be fooled by bigamists should not be confused as God positively willing these things to happen.

    God is not fooled like we can be, and therefore just as He would not join a man and woman together knowing one of them is already married, He would not bestow the Papacy on someone if there is already a Pope. No matter how much expense, pomp and ceremony and human recognition is bestowed on a fraud. Elementary logic 101.

    Here again is Benedict’s resignation, please note the following:

    ” On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005″

    As Barnhardt and yes even others and those who understand canon law made known even as early as the announcement  – Benedict must RENOUNCE THE MUNUS (Office), NOT THE MINISTERIO (ministry).

    Everything he declares after that is invalidated by that sentence.

    Benedict then even went on in follow up statements to state that his renunciation was NOT that of Celestine’s. I believe Mazza pointed out that this verbiage was akin to another Pope who had to renounce his duties temporarily in Rome because he had to run away.

    Benedict is also not confused about his precise words, here he is again:

     “The ‘always’ is also a ‘for ever‘ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.”

    And Benedict has clarifed it even to those closest beside him such as his personal secretary Archbishop Ganswein. Watch as he modernistically tries to square a circle here by equating that Benedict remains a Pope, while Francis can also lawfully be elected a Pope, and this is naturally quite abnormal, but we are in the new normal now!

    Badde reports in his interview that he knows of cardinals in the Vatican “who are still shocked that the Catholic Church has right now two living successors of Peter.” He continues: “You yourself have recently spoken about an enlargement of the Petrine ministry, of an exponentiation, I believe. Could you explain this a little more?”

    Gänswein answers, as follows:

    Yes, you refer here to the book presentation of an Italian professor, Roberto Regoli, who has written a book about the first evaluation of the pontificate [of Pope Benedict]. He is professor at the Gregorian University and that is where the book was presented, as well. I was one of the two persons who presented it, and indeed, I spoke about a exponentiated [enlarged] pontificate. It is clear – to say it clearly, because I have seen in some of the reactions how people insinuated things that I never said. Of course: Pope Francis is the lawfully elected and lawful pope. That is to say, there are not two popes – the one lawful, the other unlawful, that is simply not correct. And I simply said – that is also what Pope Benedict said – that he, after all, is still present with his prayers, with his sacrifices, in the “Recinto” of Saint Peter   [within the walls and precincts of the Vatican] – editor’s context???, and that, through these prayers, through these sacrifices, there shall come forth spiritual fruit for his successors and for the Church. That is what I meant to say, and now 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.

     Paul Badde then sums up how he understands what Archbishop Gänswein tries to say:

    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 Munus Petrinum [primacy and office of Peter]?

    Gänswein responds:

    That is what I have said, indeed, that – if one wishes to specify it – it is very clear, the Plena Potestas, the Plenitudo Potestatis [full power, incarnate authority] is in the hands of Pope Francis. He is the man who has right now the succession of Peter. And then there are no difficulties left, as I also have said it. These two are also not in a competitive relationship. That is where one has to make use of common sense, as well as the Faith and a little bit of theology. Then one does not have at all difficulties to understand properly [sic] what I have said.

    So here we are dealing with an ENTIRELY NEW NOVELTY. THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY CAN ONLY BE ONE MAN, BUT BENEDICT IS UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THAT.

    Benedict, even as a valid Pope, cannot do this any more than Francis can abrogate the Mass, adultery, the death penalty or change the Lord’s prayer, or insist that the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fish was really socialist redistribution, or the Hell doesn’t exist and bad souls are simply annihilated.

    CANON LAW STATES THAT GRAVE ERROR INVALIDATES A PAPAL RESIGNATION.

    This calls for a full formal investigation and for Benedict to be hauled before an Inquisition and made to clarify. But none of these dopes do it because they know it’ll provoke a crisis. It’s looney toons up there in the enclave of St. Peter right now.

    All Benedict has to do is make it clear that he believes in none of the above, that he merely got the precise latin wrong and was waxing poetic, and maybe we’ll gave grounds to accept it based on intention alone.

    But as we’ve seen, he’s gone further than that, he has let this be understood as precisely what he wants as dome ambigious novel internally divided Papal shared committee and he is unlikely to change his testimony.

    He has either screwed up royally or intentionally screwed things up for the rest if the homo lobby in Rome.

  51. ABS –

    I’ve seen this NORMAS NONNULLAS tossed around, but you, like the rest fail to make any argument similarily to how you repeat that Benedict has openly stated he is “retired” and that Francis is “the Pope.”

    How nice that we can trust the Vatican PR to selectively provide us with isolated and selective quotations of Benedict’s. It’s not like they have a shady history of photoshopping letters and selectively quoting Benedict to say the opposite of what he said about certain things or anything as petty as a book endorsement…

    But let’s take it at face value – it still doesn’t address the claims about his botched abdication. It only attacks strawmen by answering questions no one is asking while ignoring the questions we are actually asking.

    NOBODY IS ASKING WHETHER BENEDICT CONSIDERS HIMSELF RETIRED OR WHETHER HE INTENDED A NEW CONCLAVE.

    WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS WHETHER BENEDICT BELIEVES HE COULD SPLIT THE MUNUS, THE PAPAL OFFICE, SUCH THAT MORE THAN ONE MAN COULD OCCUPY IT TO EXERCISE TWO SEPARATE MINISTERIES OR FUNCTIONS. IN THIS CASE AN ACTIVE COMPONENT FOR A NEWLY ELECTED CANDIDATE AFTER A NEW CONCLAVE AND A CONTEMPLATIVE COMPONENT THAT HE CONTINUES TO OCCUPY ALSO AS POPE POSSESSING ALL TITLES AND SPIRITUAL FACULTIES OF THAT MINISTRY RESERVED ONLY TO A POPE.

    All Benedict’s subsequent actions of wearing white, blessings, signatures etc. are just curcumstantial evidence that could support his line of thinking.

    Depending on his answers this COULD invalidate his resignation due to grave error. And therefore he remains Pope, and no valid conclave took place anymore than that God would join together a new husband and wife if they still had a living spouse somewhere that they mistakenly believed was dead.

    You, like all the mainstream experts and canon lawyers that are allowed on TV because they won’t rock the boat, are continuing to dance around this question and mischaracterizing your opponent’s argument and are attacking strawmen and engaging in ad hominem.

    I DON’T CARE what Barnhardt’s background is or how many cattle she sold. I DO CARE that you engage with her data and arguments along with that of many others. Milo Yannapolis or Barack Obama or Joseph Stalin or James Martin could have come out with the same arguments and they’d still be valid for consideration despite their reputations. I care about the TRUTH.

    All I see from you here is repetitive shoot-the-messenger argument-from-authority ad-hominem fallacies. Which still wouldn’t get to the heart of the matter, because even if Benedict had validly resigned, Francis’ standing as a member of the Catholic Church, much less as a Pope, is in grave doubt due to his openly manifested obstinate heresy.

    The only thing that I agree with you upon is that the Church as an authoritative body needs to investigate and rule over this. Bht that doesn’t happen without opposition making strong points and beatibg the drum and causing a ruckus that makes them finally do their jobs. Considering they are incapable of solving the issues of homosexual predators in their highest ranks and can only ignore or cover it up, that they will do the same towards its front-man, Francis, means little hope if them doing anything without coercive force, and if we do not do it, then God will, but we are not going to like it.

  52. Dear Ann Cherry. Thank you. ABS also has assisted at The Divine Liturgy at a Greek Melkite Church and among the many things he loved was that the Priest was heavy-handed with the incense

  53. Here are the words of he who abdicated:

    I ask you to remember me in prayer before God, and above all to pray for the Cardinals, who are called to so weighty a task, and for the new Successor of the Apostle Peter : may the Lord accompany him with the light and strength of his Spirit.”

    The BISPers have to insert a new meaning to these clear words.

    Benedict XVI ain’t saying to pray for a new half/pope or semi-pope ; that is, his statement is not a rope-a-dope-semi-pope ploy.

    O, and Ms Barnhardt is wrong for there exists no canon that says a Pope must specific Latin words or she remains a convinced BISP

    Despite

  54. Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

    §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

    ++++++++++++++++++

    NOT. ONE. WORD. ABOUT. THE. USE, OF. LATIN.

  55. Yes, johnno, spot on, I think. Benedict’s actions since Feb 2013 are perhaps more troubling than whether he used the correct term in his abdication (some try to claim munus and ministerio are simply synonyms, but since the canon law section dealing with Papal resignations uses munus, why not simply use the precise statutory language when attempting to abdicate? It’s a very simple legal principle really. If a statute uses particular language with regard to certain actions contemplated therein, one is normally well-advised to track that language very precisely when one does act under said statute. Very odd in itself that he didn’t – and that no canon lawyers reviewing it apparently advised him otherwise).

    Had he subsequently acted differently though – gone back to dressing like a normal priest or bishop, using the name Ratzinger, not continuing to impart “apostolic blessings,” etc. – perhaps the resignation language would not have raised so many question regarding his intent or understanding of what he was doing. But this bizarre subsequent behavior that is essentially Papal in all but name (though he did create the pretend “office” of “Pope Emeritus”), and continued talk by Benedict and Gänswein of “two popes,” one active the other contemplative etc, is without justification historically or under canon law, and can do nothing but sow confusion (Also not helped by the fact that Bergoglio himself has not really taken any decisive action to clarify matters or put Benedict under any kind of interdict in acting as he has subsequent to his supposed resignation).

    I also think some of the increasing confusion and questions about what is really going on and who is true Pope have been enabled by the simple fact that he has continued to live for so long subsequently. When he resigned I assumed he must have some health issues and would probably be dead with 12-18 months. Yet, more than 8 years later, this anomalous situation of a “former” Pope living in the shadow the purported “new” Pope remains. And if he should happen to outlive Bergoglio, I think the confusion and legitimacy questions will ramp up further for the next conclave and his purported next successor.

  56. The disciples of Ms. Barnhardt should read this summa

    https://romalocutaest.com/2020/02/11/summa-contra-the-bip-theory-why-benedict-xvi-is-not-the-pope/

    As to accusations of ad hominem against those who think she is a silly person, all of her claims BISP are based purely on ad hominem – Benny intended to split the papacy – a heresy; Benny used the wrong latin words – ignorance of Latin ; Benny still wears white blah blah blah.

    ABS first became of Ms B. a long time ago the she used to post VIDS and arguments at Free Republic and exhibited imprudent behavior, irrational claims and delivered weird advice.

    Although he has only read a few of her howlers on the matter of BISP, including a post she titled Thermonuclear something or other in which she was clearly confused, he has no doubt she acts like she used to act at Free Republic.

    In her Thermonuclear thingy she posted excerpts from a book when he was Cardinal Ratzinger when he cited the theories and options of of others about an expanded Papacy but he never said he agreed with them.

    How could the sane reader know that?

    She posted the quotes from Ratzinger who identified by name the individuals he was writing about and identified the sources and never once- NEVER ONCE – did he say he agreed with their ideas/theories about an expanded Papacy.

    But, she used that to “prove” Ratzinger agreed with the idea of an expanded papacy

    Good Lord.

    That’s crazy, irrational, and insane behavior.

    O, and it is also scandalous and libelous, it is detraction and, thus. a mortal sin. and those who support what she is doing is, according to Catholic Tradition, guilty of a cooperating in her mortal sins by approval and repetition of them.

    Look, she has dug her own self a huge hole and it is only by ascending the ladder of humility that she can get out of that hole.

    Will she do it?

    Doubtful, but ABS prays she does and he is now going to disengage from this madness that BISP.

  57. Everyone has their own interpretation of what another writes. John Paul II ordered that No Politics be involved in the electing of a Pope. The St. Galens group actively did not agree, and so acted. This discussion is at an impasse. Name calling goes nowhere. Returning comments section back to Briggs.

    God bless, C-Marie

  58. ABS: I know you’re tired of the subject, as am I mostly since there is little more on either side to add, but the article “Summa Contra the BiP Theory (Why Benedict XVI is NOT the pope)” does little but simply assert “There is no reason or evidence – certainly not any known to us – that should lead one to reject the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation,” while providing a link to some 19-odd other articles.

    Frankly, I’m not going to wade through all of these. Is there one of these links in particular which addresses the language issue as relates to Canon 322.2 and the distinction between “office” and “ministry”? As I said in reply to Johnno’s latest, standard practice when dealing with an action contemplated by any statute – in secular or canon law – is to track that language precisely. 322.2 speaks of “muneri,” office. Yet Benedict’s resignation clearly did not do this, using “ministry” rather than “office.”

    The only article I’ve ever read addressing the issue some time ago claimed “office” and “ministry” are simply synonyms, and linked to a Latin dictionary supposedly proving this. Yet, the dictionary entry’s only reference to ministerio in the munus definition said, “cf. ministerio,” which means “compare to” not “synonym of.”

    Maybe I’m being too lawyerly, but I just find it bizarre that one would fail to use the precise terms contained in a statute when undertaking an action, then claim it simply doesn’t matter, and that neither Benedict nor any canon lawyers thought this was a problem when he first drafted and issued his resignation. Would have been very simply to revise – even if necessary after first issued but before conclave – to use munus in some fashion to eliminate any doubt about what he intended, especially given his and Gänswein’s ambiguous subsequent actions and statements that clearly seem to manifest some intent to bifurcate what cannot be bifurcated by speaking of “two popes” in some “active” versus “contemplative” ministry, and of him still being “in the enclosure of Peter” (what the hell does that even mean canonically?), etc…

  59. Dear Dennis You are not being over lawyerly.

    If you were you could have cited this canon:

    Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

    In The Catholic Church, the Pope is the Supreme Legislator, thus, it is canonically ineluctable that Benedict XVI resigned in a proper canonically way because he resigned as he did knowing that resigning that way was in compliance with Canon 322.2 as he construed it.

    In effect, had he desired to do so, Benedict XVI could have reigned by semaphore standing on an aircraft carrier fiddy five miles off the coast of Italy and that would have been proper because, as SUPREME LEGISLATOR, it is the Pope, not Ms. Barnhardt, who decides what actions are in sync/compliance with Canon Law.

    That is the long and short of it and if you don’t “get that” you are not Catholic, like Ms Barnhardt who is out of communion with The Catholic Pope and, thus, schismatic and outside of The Catholic Church which is necessary for salvation.

    If you think Ms Barnhardt is the supreme legislator, by all means remain in communion with her autocephalic church

  60. Fr. José Fortea has a simple argument, which I find conclusive:
    1. The only body in the world that can tell us who the Pope is is the Roman College of Cardinals.
    2. The Roman College of Cardinals says that the one and only Pope is Pope Francis.

  61. @father rickert

    You mean the College of Cardinals that has been bribed and blackmailed?

    If you have a man who says he is pope and offers heresy, who worships demons in the Vatican, who doesn’t believe in the trinity or basic Catholic beliefs of Heaven and Hell, who honors abortionists, he is NOT the pope. He is a heretic and automatically excommunicated himself.

    I feel sorry for you. “Fssp”.

  62. From: What Bugnini Was Thinking When He Destroyed the Catholic Mass
    >>>The term “Machiavellian” might have to be excluded only because there is no smoking-gun evidence of malice. Rather, Bugnini is that oddest of odd figures: the seemingly well intentioned Machiavellian who stifles his opponents because they are obviously wrong and he is obviously right.

    In other words, Bugnini was woke before woke became fashionable.

    >>> In a way, it all “makes sense,” just as Cartesianism “makes sense” to one who rejects the possibility of knowing any reality other than the mind, or as Freudianism “makes sense” to one who is already disposed to evaluating situations for their sexual exploitability, or as deconstructionism “makes sense” to one who rejects the possibility of meaning.

    It only “makes sense” if you are on the path to wokeness, it make ZERO sense to anyone who seeks the Truth, to anyone who wants to be a “follower of the Way”.

    In the end the entire process seems to be an enormous violation of Chesterton’s fence dictum. The review of the book never mentions that anyone involved in creating Novus Ordo even bothered to research why the fence (i.e. Liturgy) was built in the first place.

    And it proves Conquest’s Third Law
    “The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.”

  63. Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, with all due respect (or the lack thereof) I think you are clutching at an ephemeral straw simply to avoid a bothersome problem.

    Fr. José Fortea’s “solution” is a nonsense. According to my limited knowledge of Church history every antipope recorded was endorsed by a “Roman College of Cardinals” or some equivalent and was “peacefully accepted” by the “who’s who” of the time.

    As I see it, a pope is a temporal authority and the only way a temporal authority can “bind on Earth” is by duly promulgated laws and precepts. Canon Law regarding the election of candidates to the papacy cannot be retroactively altered to suit the ambitions of some clique even if the clique happens to be a “College of Cardinals” of very dubious ideological allegiances.

    I think we should also note here that the definition of Papal Infallibility of V I says much more about when a pope is NOT infallible than when he is.

  64. ABS –

    You are still dancing around the argument.

    BENEDICT HAS SPOKEN OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH. THIS IS BLATANTLY CLEAR AS YOU AND I HAVE BOTH QUOTED.

    He needs to clarify which of these two irreconcilable things he believes.

    His “asking for a new successor” doesn’t clarify his statements that have impressed upon those around him that he also occupies a portion of the office and DIDN’T abdicate in the way Celestine did and maintains a ministry that is strictly Papal.

    Or are you going to claim that Ganswein and many other clergy are just flat out lying? Well, why? They obviously want everyone to accept that Francis is Pope. Why muddy the waters? Why artificially create such a story? The only reason would be if Benedict actually stated such intentions to them. Which is also why all of this which could be EASILY cleared up just by having an open public interview with the guy and allowing him to be scrutinized has not been done and is unlikely to if what we’re hearibg is true.

    You keep going on about the Latin, but fail to make any point, and you are ignoring the deliberate use of ministerium instead of munus and the fact that Benedict has emphasized why he chose that specific word, backed up by the testimony of Ganswein about a widespread belief amongst the clergy in Rome about a Schrodinger two-Pope situation which to them doesn’t mean just one predecessor retiree hanging around, and even comparing what Benedict did as akin to defining a new dogma of Mary and impressing upon us that Benedict did something extraordinary! And also that we cannot yet judge Benedict’s Papacy because IT ISN’T OVER!

    Again from Ganswein:

    During one of the last conversations that the pope’s biographer, Peter Seewald of Munich, was able to have with Benedict XVI, as he was bidding him goodbye, he asked him: “Are you the end of the old or the beginning of the new?” The pope’s answer was brief and sure: “The one and the other,” he replied.

     the privilege of experiencing this Pope up close as a “homo historicus,” the Western man par excellence who has embodied the wealth of Catholic tradition as no other; and — at the same time — has been daring enough to open the door to a new phase, to that historical turning point which no one five years ago could have ever imagined. Since then, we live in an historic era which in the 2,000-year history of the Church is without precedent.

    As in the time of Peter, also today the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues to have one legitimate Pope. But today we live with two living successors of Peter among us — who are not in a competitive relationship between themselves

     new situation as a kind of exceptional (not regular) state of the divinely instituted office of Peter (eine Art göttlichen Ausnahmezustandes).

    But is it already time to assess the pontificate of Benedict XVI? Generally, in the history of the Church, popes can correctly be judged and classified only ex post.

     Since February 2013 the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before.

     as Conrad Ferdinand Meyer would say, he was not a “clever book,” he was “a man with his contradictions.” That is how I myself have daily been able to come to know and appreciate him. And so he has remained until today.

     And I, too, a firsthand witness of the spectacular and unexpected step of Benedict XVI, I must admit that what always comes to mind is the well-known and brilliant axiom with which, in the Middle Ages, John Duns Scotus justified the divine decree for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God:

    “Decuit, potuit, fecit.”

    That is to say: it was fitting, because it was reasonable. God could do it, therefore he did it. I apply the axiom to the decision to resign in the following way: it was fitting, because Benedict XVI was aware that he lacked the necessary strength for the extremely onerous office. He could do it, because he had already thoroughly thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of popes emeritus for the future. So he did it.

    The momentous resignation of the theologian pope represented a step forward primarily by the fact that, on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, he introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of “pope emeritus,” stating that his strength was no longer sufficient “to properly exercise the Petrine ministry.” The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst); as though, by this, he wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then Joseph Ratzinger took as archbishop of Munich and Freising and which he then naturally maintained as bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis,” which means “fellow workers in the truth.” In fact, it is not in the singular but the plural; it is taken from the Third Letter of John, in which in verse 8 it is written: “We ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers in the truth.”

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

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

    Complete English Text: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s ‘Expanded Petrine Office’ Speech

     https://aleteia.org/2016/05/30/complete-english-text-archbishop-georg-gansweins-expanded-petrine-office-speech/

    So which is it ABS? How about you not only consider the Latin, but the Italian, German and English as well?

    What we have here is a controversy. This allows several possibilities:

    a) Benedict’s resignation was invalidated due to grave error if its dependecy hinged on this being true. He remained Pope and Francis is an Anti-Pope.

    b) Benedict’s resignation being grave error, exposed that he is a modernist heretic, and therefore presuming he would obstinately hold such views he may be declared to have lost the office at that moment alongside membership in the Church, and the conclave that elected Francis was valid.

    c) Ganswein and a huge swat of clerical Benedict fans have gravely misunderstood Benedict, and both they and Benedict himself in their own recorded words and prepared speeches and statements are all liars and diabolically confused about what each other is saying and this is all one big PR cockup, and his resignation remained valid and the conclave was valid.

    You know how we can solve this? By making a BIG STINK and calling for a formal investigation of all parties involved.

    You know how we won’t solve this? By sticking our heads in the sand and just going off the empty speculations of distant 3rd party canonists and latinists who merely handwave the whole issue away and refuse to engage with the facts and just somehow hope things turn out fine.

    Also you don’t even know what ad hominem means. Barnhardt is not insulting Benedict by quoting his own words back at him.

    Also I don’t know where else you have been reading Barnhardt, but when she has brought up the German circles discussing expanding the Papal office on her site and in her podcasts with Mazza, they have both mentioned the fact that Benedict was not one of those who agreed and “was on the conservative side” of the issue. Hence why some speculate that Benedict deliberately sabotaged his resignation with error and has done all that he did, because they believe he was being forced and threatened and that this was his way of screwing over the apostate wolves in Rome. So unless you are selectively quoting Barnhardt from some other source or from some conversation somewhere where she neglected to mention it, I am starting to suspect deceit on your part.

    And while “The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting” this DOES NOT MEAN the legislator can just make up any nonsense, interpret the law contradictorily, fudamentally change an office instituted by Jesus Christ Himself and bend canon law to support the impossible and get away with it. Once again you make the fallacy of argument from authority. Authority cannot do what the authority cannot do. Lower authority cannot change what that HIGHER AUTHORITY has fixed in place firmly like a peg and then attempt to circumvent this by appealing to those things that the lower authority can change.

  65. Dennis –

    According to Ganswein, they did encourage him to be precise and not to do or behave as he did.

    Benedict refused.

    Quoting Ganswein – ” By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this.”

    So this is further damning evidence that Benedict either was consumed by error or was deliberately trying to sabotage his own resignation.

    Attempts to expand and alter the Papal office to be more ‘synodal’ or ‘collegial’, an error of the schismatic orthodox model, are not new. And Ganswein himself alluded to this, and it was popular in German circles Benedict knew but apparently is said to have opposed. Walter Kasper and Francis are themselves ‘fans’ of the Eastern model. Where Peter is just ‘the first’ amongst equals. And want to give greater leeway to local bishops conferences and less centralization in Rome.

    Of course this is only applicable for them in one direction – towards heresy and modernism. But when it comes to defending traditional morality, doctrine and the authentic Catholic Mass, then the heavy foot of Jorge comes down hard.

  66. Dear John. Wow, you truly are an DOA ideologue and it is clear you will never accept evidence contrary to her personal opinions.

    Well, no skin off the nose of ABS.

    ABS could post the words of Ganswein saying that what he said initially said was not what he meant and then he went on to explain that Benedict did not try to expand the Papacy, that there is only one Pope and that would make no difference to you. That is, he corrected the “record” but to the DOA church that would mean he was paid off or something so that Ganswein also must be investigated…

    By making a BIG STINK and calling for a formal investigation of all parties involved.

    Are you serious? Who do you think would conduct a trail that has less than zero % of ever occurring because ecclesiastical courts do not put on trial Popes accused by others (hearsay) of nefarious acts. Said otherwise, Who is it who is in control of the Ecclesiastical Court system that you fantasize would put a Pope on trial for an act he did not commit but is presumptively guilty unto proven innocent because so-and-so said No, really; the Pope said this to me one time so we really must have a trial

    Will ya’ll hire Robert Mueller?

    Think, man. Is there any limit to the possible number of ecclesiastical trials for who-knows-what-silly reason that could be called for by those willing to make a stink? NO. The Catholic Church is not run by The Red Queen who announces the guilty verdict then starts the trial.

    John, Its over, long over.

    As Vermont hunters would say when an event was clearly and ineluctably over It’s over. Time to call it a night. Time to piss on the fire and call in the dogs.

  67. Here is one last attempt to cast a light on the diabolical darkness of the novelty that Catholic laity should engage in AgitProp to judge a Pope guilty over some putative canonical irregularity and then demand he be tried.

    Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

    God perchance has willed to terminate the causes of other men by means of men; but the prelate of that [Roman] See He has reserved, without question, to His own judgment. It is His will that the successors of the blessed Apostle Peter should owe their innocence to Heaven alone, and should manifest a pure conscience to the inquisition of the most severe Judge [God]. Do you answer; such will be the condition of all souls in that scrutiny? I retort, that to one was said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church’, and again, that by the voice of holy pontiffs, the dignity of his See has been made venerable in the whole world, since all the faithful everywhere are submitted to it, and it is marked out as the head of the whole body”

    Ppg 92-96

    https://archive.org/details/TheSeeOfStPeter/page/n117/mode/2up

    Oncet, Catholics were aware of and adhered to this Catholic Tradition but, more and more, the spread of diabolical delusion has reached into some parts of the soi disant traditionalist movement to the point where some members of that cohort are advancing bizarre claims and making irrational demands and which situation is encapsulated by a line from the popular movie, Animal House:

    I think that this situation absolutely requires A really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part and we are the ones to do it

  68. ABS: “Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.”

    Quite the tautologous muddle! Well done to the canon lawyer who devised this! LOL

    Johnno: “Quoting Ganswein – ‘By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this.’”

    First time I recall seeing that particular quote from Gänswein. The way he speaks of Benedict having “instead renewed” and “strengthened” the office (“against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers,” no less!) reminds me of our recently “fortified” election, as Time admiringly put it. Just busy renewing and fortifying the Papacy a bit…move along people, nothing to see here!

  69. ABS could post the words of Ganswein saying that what he said initially said was not what he meant and then he went on to explain that Benedict did not try to expand the Papacy, that there is only one Pope and that would make no difference to you.

    Ah yes… just like the Gay Men’s Choir. Indeed Ganswein has tried to backtrack after receiving heat. But are you seriously going to fall for that? Dr. Fauci has also said that what he initially said about masks was not what he meant and we need the masks. But if you’re vaccinated then you don’t, until today where he changed his mind again and says the vaxxed still need their face coverings. Clear as mud! Problem solved everybody! Let’s go home…

    Are you serious? Who do you think would conduct a trail that has less than zero % of ever occurring because ecclesiastical courts do not put on trial Popes accused by others (hearsay) of nefarious acts.

     The First See is judged by no one. Etc.

    So what you’re saying here is… that we can’t put Benedict on trial… because he is still a Pope??? Woooowwww!!!!!

    Somebody should travel back in time and tell them to take St. Celestine out of the lockup then… But I thought that according to ABS’s logic that Benedict is no longer a Pope, and therefore it should be perfectly fine to judge a retired Cardinal… What’s going on here???

    Also, YES, Benedict can be brought to testify about this issue because numerable reputable people have stated that this is what he told them and his own words in public and documents allude to such. This is exactly how trials and investigations work. If someone claims you did something nefarious, then the authorities are going to come knocking on your door to ask you about it, even if you are innocent, because they don’t know that, and if necessary, call you in to testify and be cross examined… this is normal routine procedure.

    If Ganswein is lying then the public needs to know and some discipline is necessary. So let’s see if Benedict will either confirm or denounce his personal secretary of all these years for disinformation that is causing doubts as to the legitimacy of his resignation and the conclave that elected Francis. A very serious matter.

    And well, someone clearly isn’t thinking here, but it’s not me. I also do think there’s a slim chance of any trial occurring, but for the same reasons that secular courts don’t want to bother with covid-hoax and US election fraud. It’s too hot to handle and will shatter the world’s image of itself.

    As for not judging the See, as I like to point out, the First See is judged routinely! It’s called the Sacrament of Confession. Where the Pope submits himself humbly to a Confessor, acting in place of Christ, to be judged and assigned penance. So OBVIOUSLY there are conditional grounds upon which a Pope IS JUDGED! And has been confronted in the past by his confreres, notably St. Paul who went right up to his face.

    This can open up a whole topic, but there are plenty of situations wherein a Pope can be said to have judged himself or by manifested heresy seen to have been judged by Christ and therefore of his own obvious action, lost the Papacy, in the same manner Saul lost his crown.

    Also if a Pope were humble enough, he could submit himself of his own free will to be judged just as in the confessional, and just as Pope Innocent II, and universally-assumed-to-be-pope Anacletus II, both came together to be investigated by St. Bernard of Clairvaux who made a judgment and issued arguments that finally convinced everyone. But according to ABS, this CLEAR EXAMPLE FROM HISTORY is apparently impossible and must never have happened.

    Whatever hairs you want to split about “judging”, something needs to be done in which all parties get together and set the record straight, and that starts directly with Benedict.

    Or we can sit on our asses and wait for the future where a legitimate Pope shows up to fix it, or Christ decides it Judgment Day. We’re quite good at passing the buck like that. It’s always tomorrow’s problem forever.

  70. Dear Dennis . Canon Law is not about putting men on trial based on hearsay which is not dispositive. Canon Law is based on actions.

    The point that the D.O.A. Gang refuses to accept is that Benedict XVI was the Supreme Legislator when he resigned which means it was him, not Ann Barnhardt, or any of her disciples, who had the authority to decide that his resignation was legitimate and, thus, in sync with any and all canons pertaining to his resignation.

    There is simply no way around that simple Catholic Truth unless you desire to add to the error of Conciliarism the error of subjecting a Pope to potentially endless litigation.

    You know, like Johnno of the DOA desires to do.

    He wants to put the Pope on trial for resigning in the way the Pope knew was legitimate because Supreme Legislator but in a way the D.O.A. Gang thinks was not legitimate, but in a way they have (cute lil’ supreme lay legislators that they are) judged as a major no no; in fact a major NO NO to such an extent that Benedict XVI is still Pope.

    One can’t argue with crazy…. One can only hope to appeal to lurkers

    ** CONCILIARISM

    Definition

    The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council’s superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation. In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had “full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.” He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but “all the fullness of this supreme power.” Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope’s authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).

    In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a “magisterium of theologians” or “consensus of the people of God” against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)

    ++++++++++++++++

    Just when he says he is out, ABS is pulled back in.

  71. Doing some checking on how various historical antipopes were determined to be such, and well…its extremely confusing and convoluted in most cases, though it’s quite clear few of the cases and how they were handled would pass muster under present Canon Law, and some of the means used to resolve them would probably be rejected by ABS as “conciliarism.”

    But, if all acts of the Pope, including his method of resignation are beyond question, who then has the authority to declare an anti-Pope to be in fact anti-Pope, or an election to have been invalid? The Cardinals perhaps? Does the fact that they accepted the resignation and elected a new Pope suffice to resolve all questions? Perhaps. But many antipopes had of a majority of the college and also widespread acceptance of many rulers and people throughout Europe. There has to be a lawful means to review and resolve the questions raised, whether one thinks Bergoglio is legit or or not (and I’m not as 100% as certain as Johnno or Miss Barnhardt seem to be that Bergoglio is an antipope rather than simply a very bad Pope, like John XXIII or Paul VI, though I think it clear there are serious questions that need to be addressed and resolved regarding the present situation and Benedict’s resignation, which neither Bergoglio nor Ratzinger have done much to resolve, while doing much to sow confusion instead).

  72. The point that the D.O.A. Gang refuses to accept is that Benedict XVI was the Supreme Legislator when he resigned which means it was him, not Ann Barnhardt, or any of her disciples, who had the authority to decide that his resignation was legitimate and, thus, in sync with any and all canons pertaining to his resignation.

    Here we have once again the substantial error that the Pope, like Allah, can just make contradictry and heretical things legitimate by force of will and legalism of authority.

    ABS is still deliberately ignoring mentioning that the legislator involved here has attempted to supercede his authority by altering that which he has no jurisdiction to change – the fundamental nature if the Papal Office.

    This is like changing traffic rules and the definition of what constitutes a road so as to drive on the sidewalk whereby one may run over a pedestrian and claim the pedestrian is at fault for jaywalking and therefore this circumvents the laws regarding vehicular manslaughter.

    It is this same rationale that courts use today to justify government violation of rights, and letting politicians off the hook for crimes that they had the ‘authority’ to commit. That’s not how this works.

    ABS hasn’t addressed any argument except to blindly repeat himself and appeal erroneously to fallacies of legalisms and argument from authority. As Dennis pointed out, ABS’ blind subjugation of intellect would have made resolving every confrontational case of anti-popes utterly impossible, but we know from history that this was done. That alone sufficiently refutes ABS position. And ABS can only engage in ad hominem slander, including the fact that he has very probably made false testimony here about Barnhardt covering up Benedict’s reputed opposition to German attempts to expand the Papal office.

    ABS also hilariously contradicts himself, for if he believes as he says that Benedict is no longer the Pope, then it is not conciliarism to judge him now any more than that Celestine was unjustifiably locked up after he legitimately renounced his Papacy, even if done by a successor Pope, which arguably Grancis could do and allegedly has done by keeping Benedict around, who never retired to Bavaria or wherever as he planned to do and instead remains in the Vatican and is virtually inaccessible.

    ABS is in over his head, throwing out big sounding definitions and terminology he doesn’t quite understand or has trouble seeing why they are irrelevant to the situation. As Barnhardt said, these refuse to engage with the dataset.

    For all of ABS’s braying about “lay legislators”, ABS is simply recyclying and repeating the attempted detraction of other lay legislators! And when Barnhardt et al are asking to acquire clarification from THE LEGISLATOR – Benedict himself – ABS REFUSES to let the Legislator speak! And this is supported by all of ABS’ preferred lay legislators that he listens to where it is their lay legislating that must be allowed to supercede and interpret the words of THE Legislator – and telling Benedict that Benedict didn’t understand what Benedict meant.

    Has ABS and his preferred lay legislators talked to Benedict?

    No.

    Has Ganswein talked to Benedict?

    Yes.

    Yet ABS and his lay legislators are claiming they know better than Ganswein.

    And when Barnhardt wants clarification from Benedict himself on the record, ABS refuses to allow that to happen because… it is now somehow conciliarism to judge someone who, according to ABS is not the Pope? Or does ABS also agree that Benedict is still a Pope? Or… what?

    So as we can see… diabolical confusion is at play, and I judge that it is the position of ABS, another lay legislator in his own right, that is crazy. And this confusion and disorientation that has ABS and his lay legislators contradicting themselves, Church history and all tied up in knots is why Barnhardt is right to pursue and demand an investigation of this matter as is her right under canon law as a laywoman. No matter how many cattle ABS thinks she sold at over asking price.

  73. Here we have once again the substantial error that the Pope, like Allah, can just make contradictry and heretical things legitimate by force of will and legalism of authority.

    The D.O.A. Gang is always assuming facts not in evidence and now they say that Benedict, whom they strive to prove is still Pope, was like Allah of The Mahometans.

    Yes, The D.O.A Gang is the Gang that can’t think straight.

    The D.O.A is insane to the point of prolly not being culpable for their calumnies and detractions and other mortal sins, who knows?

    The D.O. A. appears to think that the words of Ms Ann are like the words of God described in Isaias 55; So shall my words be, which shall go forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void…

    Let’s just for the moment pretend the D.O.A. Gang is not insane and that Rome consents to a trial.

    Who is the Prefect of The Apostolic Signatura and who put him in place?

    Does the D.O.A. Gang think the Pope Francis is both going to put Benedict XVI on Trial AND conclude that BISP?

    Yes, they are that insane .

    ABS keeps returning here because it has become fun to see just how delusional the D.O.A. Gang is.

    It really thinks there is a legitimate cause for Canonical Proceedings even though Canon Law recognises that ever since Jesus made Peter Pope

    Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

    But the Neo-proddies are defending the claims of the Autocephalic Church of Ann as though she is a supreme legislator.

    In fact, about the only source the D.O.A. does not recognise as The Supreme Legislator is Benedict XVI when he was the Supreme Legislator.

    And they insist others are suffering from diabolical delusions.

  74. And when Barnhardt wants clarification from Benedict himself on the record…

    The obligations and rights of all Christ’s faithful can be found in Canons 208 – 231

    Which Canon is it that identifies Ms. B. as having the right to put a Pope under oath and require him to explain himself and his actions to Ms. B?

    Owing to the fact that, excluding her and her followers, there are roughly over one billion (prolly 1.2) catholics alive, does that mean that each of them gets to put a Pope under oath and make him justify his actions to each of them or is it only Ms. B who has this singular right?

    OK, ABS has exhausted the fun to be derived here.

    Adios

  75. ABS –

    Stop talking around me and address what I’ve actually said instead of projecting what you accuse Barnhardt of doing. Let’s make this very simple for you in a yes/no format shall we?

    The D.O.A. Gang is always assuming facts not in evidence.

    Such as… what? Are you saying that Benedict did not make statements alluding to maintaining a ministry that is Papal and Ganswein did not make statements confirming that that was precisely Benedict’s intention?

    Yes or No?

    Does the D.O.A. Gang think the Pope Francis is both going to put Benedict XVI on Trial AND conclude that BISP?

    Yes, they are that insane .

    First, it should be pointed out that even assuming that Francis did call a council to trial and it recognized Benedict’s resignation as invalid and invalidates his papacy, there is nothing stopping Benedict from resigning correctly again, much like the real Pope did during the three-Pope era of universal acceptance, and then the conclave of homo-lobbyists immediately turning around and re-electing Francis right after. So even with egg on their faces they can still salvage the lot presuming they can get the overall cardinals to fall in line, and we know that the majority of them will. Then business carries on as usual.

    But to address ABS’ statement directly, actually, no silly-billy, the gang obviously does not think Francis or the homo lobby bishops are going to do anything that will undermine them any more than that they will address the Dubia or GRINDR app use, unless of course great pressure forces them to, like forexample Francis’ favorite friend Mr. Theodore McCarrick. The act of requesting it by Barnhardt and others is merely a prudential formality to demonstrate recognition of the authority of the offices many of them hold, illicit or not, and recognition of due process. Much in the same way reporters ask the White House Press Secretary questions they know will be avoided, and for perhaps which, they’d be banned for ever asking.

    It also helps to demonstrate whether they are honest or not by the mere asking of them to do such an obvious thing and then noting their refusal to do so, which can be further evidence that they are not willing to incriminate themselves by seeking out the facts that they themselves complain that people are being “fooled” into, yet never addressing the sources of what is leading people to be “fooled.”

    This is exactly why Francis refuses to answer the Dubia. Was Cardinal Burke therefore, insane, for submitting the Dubia to Francis, knowing full well that it was unlikely to be answered?

    Yes or No?

    In fact, about the only source the D.O.A. does not recognise as The Supreme Legislator is Benedict XVI when he was the Supreme Legislator.

    You are now engaging in direct FALSEHOODS. You know very well that the gang is asking for clarification of the same Supreme Legislator, Benedict, to clarify his own statements. Much in the same way that Cardinal Burke is asking the alleged new Supreme Legislator to clarify his own statements in Amoris Letitia.

    Is Cardinal Burke therefore engaging in conciliarism, and judging the See of Peter, by issuing the dubia?

    Yes or no?

    Which Canon is it that identifies Ms. B. as having the right to put a Pope under oath and require him to explain himself and his actions to Ms. B?

    This is a framed strawman that ABS is repeating. Barnhardt is requesting that the Church authorities be the ones to conduct an investigation into this affair, just as Cardinal Burke has issued a dubia to the Pope. It doesn’t require a trail anymore than a dubia.

    Was St. Bernard guilty of conciliarism and judging the Pope when he passed judgment on the legitimacies of Innocent II and Anacletus II?

    Yes, or no?

    Laypeople have the right under canon law to express this to their pastors and the pastors have an obligation to respond.

    Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

    §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

    §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

    Can. 218 Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church.

    Can. 1417 §1. By reason of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful is free to bring or introduce his or her own contentious or penal case to the Holy See for adjudication in any grade of a trial and at any stage of the litigation.

    Canon 1404 has long been a source of contention amongst the theologians, which is why it remains controversial and some have even argued is a sign that it is impossible for any obstinate manifest heretic (not to be confused with one who is mistaken or driven to do something bad out of cowardice) to ever hold the rank of Pope due to the supernatural protection of the Holy Spirit, and this is what drives the conclusion of sedevacantism.

    But again ABS is getting ahead of himself and ABS REFUSES to answer the question –

    Is Benedict XVI still a Pope?

    Yes or no?

    If the answer is no, then there is no issue putting another bishop/cardinal on trial, because Benedict would have obviously lost all the privileges of the office he cast away.

    Why doesn’t ABS answer this question?

    Because ABS is caught in a catch-22.

    If ABS says Benedict isn’t a Pope, then Benedict can be tried with no issues, and therefore ABS has no reason to oppose Barnhardt and others from seeking answers from Benedict any more than Ganswein.

    If ABS says that Benedict is still a Pope and can’t be judged, then ABS has to tell us how it is possible for both Benedict and Francis to share an office that Christ only established as belonging to one man in its entirety. Therefore calling into direct question the legitimacy of Benedict’s resignation if it hinged upon serious error, and by circumstance the legitimacy of the conclave that elected Francis.

    Now will ABS simply answer any of the above, or will he run away again while calling people names and repeating “conciliarism” and “Canon 1404” over and over again, like “Trust the Science”?

    Yes, or No?

  76. Just saw a recent interview with E Michael Jones on Traditionis Custodes. https://www.bitchute.com/video/uHt3qgcUaVTj/

    Really don’t get why EMJ, who was in his early 20s when the Novus Ordo came along, and who would seem in many respects to be the natural ideological enemy of the people responsible for it (protestantizing modernist Freemasons like Bugnini especially), harbors so much dislike for the TLM, and thinks even Summorum Pontificum went too far in relaxing restraints on TLM (he still sees SSPX and FSSP as schismatics). He also largely defends Vatican II (one reason he dislikes Viganò; while also claiming VatII was, in part, hijacked by the influence of the you know whos, and decrying other fruits of the VatII “spirit,” such as the famous Land O’Lakes Statement of 1967, which had such devastating effect on Catholic universities in this country). Bizarre.

  77. Some like Randy Engel have speculated that many people who have ties to Opus Dei tend to have some kind of cultic restriction of never outright criticizing the Pope or the Council.

    Jones denies he is a member of Opus Dei, but Randy never said he was, but suspects he’s got some other relationship with them that limits what he can believe or say.

    This came about on a related matter of the Catholic news outlet Church Militant TV, run by Michael Voris, whose prior outfit RealCatholicTV was apparently Opus Dei funded, and who also tended to refrain from any criticism of Popes (although Francis seems to have broken that trend), and also Voris and co. have it out for the SSPX just as well.

    But it seems that when Voris started to further expose many of the bad things and homosexual network that was operating amongst the bishops, Jones wrote a critical piece about CMTV and Voris and particularly concerning Voris’ own admitted past in relation to sodomy.

    The pattern certainly fits…

    https://akacatholic.com/on-the-first-anniversary-of-the-vorisjones-affair/

  78. Hmmm….interesting. I don’t know a whole lot about Voris and CMTV (just a bit of the salacious personal background), but the guy who runs The Eponymous Flower blog posts under the screen name “Stop Voris” (LOL!) and I get the sense a lot of trads seem to think Voris something of a fraud or fifth columnist type.

    EMJ I think excellent on most things, and I knew from prior interviews that he’s basically normie Novus Ordo guy liturgically (and he does bang on a bit much about Jews at times), this interview just surprised me by how vehement he seemed against TLM (lots of banging on table for emphasis as he rails against SSPX and FSSP “schismatics”).

  79. Yeah, it’s sad but Jones has in common what a lot suspect of those related to opus Dei – an absolute non-critical stance against the Pope (Francis has been an exception even for these guys, but they maintain he is the Pope), along with a hatred for the SSPX that borders on the malicious if not the comical, and also total avoidance of the truth behind the Papal failures to heed the warnings of Fatima and the Consecration of Russia. Of which Jones in particular has a particular animus against the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner who ran the Fatima center and was the central pillar who held together a lot of the big names in the Trad Cath movement, who sadly seem more divided now long after his passing.

    As for Voris, I disagree with some of his stances, but he’s undeniably done some good work exposing the sodomite infiltration in the Church, and I can believe that he’s personally reformed himself and trying to be a faithful Catholic. There is also word from some behind the scenes that CMTV all know what’s up with Francis personally and might even suspect the same as Barnhardt and co. but there is an editorial and likely some kind of financial considerations behind the scenes that make stating so forboden. So instead of confronting Francis on doctrine, they will only do so behind the cover of other prelates like Burke and Athanasius Schneider and Vigano, and when they do go after Francis directly it’s only with regards to scandals that have nothing to do with doctrine, such as the McCarrick affair and the homo lobby.

    Here is another insight into Jones’ irrational stance against the SSPX.
    https://akacatholic.com/postscripts-to-the-jonesvoris-affair/

    Funnily enough, you’ll notice our familiar friend ABS down in the combox at the link.

    ABS hilariously tries to make it seem like Randy is lying about E Michael Jones’ misquotation of Bishop Fellay, when in fact Randy provides the full context from the letter at the head of the article showing that Jones selectively edited out everything before and after the portion of Fellay he slanderously frames. Thus demonstrating that ABS clearly didn’t read anything before he hopped on board to try and discredit Engel. And I can say for a fact that he has also attempted to mischaracterize Barnhardt here, and was hoping we don’t notice.

    If you’re curious about the other stuff that ABS is talking about, while ABS may have a point to make about Randy referencing claims from a dubious figure about sodomitical claims against one Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val, he assumes the worst about Randy’s Engel’s motivations for merely providing a journalistic unfiltered look at certain claims surrounding the man from other sourced material, raising both doubts about the claims against him and also her own speculation if assuming them to be true, but in the end is rather inconclusive. But let’s allow ABS that point, as del Val does appear to be a saintly man, and the source against him is an abhorrent fellow from whose claims ABS rightly defends del Val.

    But then ABS goes on to claim that there was some contradiction by Randy over Del Val’s preference for one Rampolla becoming Pope, and his being chosen to being put in charge of preparing the next conclave seen as a defeat for the same Rampolla. Then after the winner, Pius X, favoured him by making him Secretary of State, replacing Rampolla, even after Val allegedly favoured the opposition.

    But this is not some irreconcilable problem, as for one Del Val who wasn’t a Cardinal didn’t have a vote anyway. And it makes some sense that Del Val would favor Rampolla as Rampolla was the one who consecrated him a bishop.

    And even long before that, Del Val did not see eye to eye on the same things as Rampolla, such as apparently with regards to the validity of Anglican orders, where it seems Del Val was more doctrinally austere than Rampolla on that matter.

    Randy likely got the impression from the fact that Del Val opposed a veto of Rampolla by the emperor of Austria-Hungary.

    As Wikipedia notes: “Rampolla, according to Merry del Val, actually gained votes after the veto. Later, he opined to Ludwig von Pastor that Cardinal Rampolla never had a chance, because the cardinals wanted a new direction after the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII.”

    Also: “After a two-month trial period, Pius X named him pro-Secretary of State. That November he became the first cardinal elevated by the Pope (a traditional reward to the secretary of a conclave), becoming Cardinal-Priest of Santa Prassede and full Secretary of State, replacing Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, who was moved to the post of Secretary of the Holy Office.”

    But also: “Merry del Val remained Secretary of State throughout the pontificate of Pius X, but when Pope Benedict XV, an old associate of Rampolla, was elected in the conclave of 1914, Merry del Val was not reappointed.”

    Note that from ABS’ quote in the comments that same Giacomo Della Chiesa, now Pope Benedict XV, was the one of two passed over in favor of del Val. So it seems that there was at the time the view that Della Chiesa was likely a larger influencer and backer of Rampolla, than Merry del Val, and hence why del Val’s choosing was seen as a strike against Rampolla, even if del Val also favored Rampolla, precisely because he was younger and less experienced and didn’t have the pull of someone like Della Chiesa.

    Pius X was likely impressed by Del Val specifically for opposing the veto against Rampolla by the Emperor on principle, as that was obviously external pressure being brought to bare on the electors of the conclave by a secular power and Pius X made it an excommunicable offence after becoming Pope.

    So in that vein, Randy Engel is still correct, and ABS jumped the gun by assuming that there was a contradiction.

    Heh! Makes me curious if ABS is Opus Dei…

  80. Some time ago I approached Emick Jones (in private) about some of his questionable notions of “Logos” (or as he calls it “Lowgarse”) and (after he did not respond) I later challenged his notion of Logos as “the order of the Universe” in a public forum but he chose not to respond there either.

    The guts of my disagreement with Emick is that if Logos is the order of the Universe it can’t exist without a Universe to order. Emick’s theological fantasies boil down to a kind of pantheism in the long run… pretty much coincident with Modernism and the whole new church that does not admit a constancy of purpose or doctrine.

  81. Johnno: TBH, that link was so extremely long and included so many tangents to the discussion here, I just don’t have time to read it all in detail. I’ve never heard of Merry del Vel (or Randy Engel for that matter). The Rampolla veto thing is interesting though. I had never heard there was significant opposition to the veto, as it seemed everyone accepted it, moved on to Sarto, and Rampolla himself continued serving the Church in various posts until his death in 1913, and never, as far as I’m aware, challenged the legitimacy of Pius X. The HRE’s (which Franz Joseph was de facto if not de jure since 1806) right of jus exclusivae is quite ancient and “trad” (ancien régime France and Spain asserted the same right, as did Roman Emperor before that, and Byzantine Emperors before the Great Schism).

    It always baffles me, though, when I see various hypothetical political reasons given for why Franz Joseph opposed Rampolla (variously – too pro-French, or issues involving the risorgimento and Italian Habsburg domains, etc.). Even the wiki page covering it simply states: “The specific reasons for Austria’s opposition to Rampolla are unclear.” It’s always seemed quite clear to me: It was simply personal. Franz Joseph wanted revenge on Rampolla for having vehemently opposed a Catholic funeral for Crown Prince Rudolf after the Meyerling affair in 1889 (and for having persuaded all his brother Cardinals, even after Leo XII had given the go-ahead for a Catholic funeral, to boycott the event, a big public snub to the Emperor and his family).

    Oldavid: “The guts of my disagreement with Emick is that if Logos is the order [I think he would say “ordering principle” actually] of the Universe it can’t exist without a Universe to order…” I’m not clear what all this is trying to say. Where does EMJ deny there is a “universe to order”? He also clearly states, consistent with Christian teaching and the Gospel of John, that he believes Christ is the Logos incarnate. How does this “boil down to a kind of pantheism”? EMJ may perhaps be accused of many things, but “pantheism” is not one of them.

  82. Orrite, Dennis. As fairly usual for me I didn’t explain my point very well.

    Ever since Emick has been selling his book “Logos Rising” he has been describing or defining Logos as “the order of the Universe. He keeps saying that it was the idea of John that sold the notion of God to the Greeks. He seemed to go quiet with the proclamation for a while after I challenged him, making me think that he had noticed my objection even if he chose not to debate or defend his idea. He’s taken it up again recently; perhaps it’s too simple and catchy a slogan to let go.

    Anyhow, let’s get to the problem. First up, try inserting “the order of the Universe” everywhere John says “the Word” (or Logos, depending on the translation). It doesn’t work; it should make your head spin.

    I concede that if we call the Logos the Intellect that conceived and imposed the order on the Universe it does make sense; but it could imply some questions about the Unity and Trinity of God… not germane to this particular matter.

    However, back to Jonesie’s assertion. If, as I claim, you can’t have order (a metaphysical “thing” or “stuff”) without something to be ordered. To claim that there is some “order stuff” floating around independently of things ordered is rather like claiming that time is some “stuff” floating around without a succession of events; that space is some “stuff” floating around without points separated; that gravity is some “stuff” floating around without masses to be acted on. Essentially, then, if Logos is “the order of the Universe” Logos is in and of the Universe, dependent on the Universe and not an entirely transcendent, at least antecedent, Being. Smells a bit like a Modernist (Teilhardian) version of Pantheism to me. Might go some way to explaining his defense of the “Novus Ecclesiam”, perhaps?

  83. “DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)???

    It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting … a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

    ABS has this and other arguments in opposition to the insane claims made by Ms. Ann and the D.O.A. Occult Cult posted at his crummy blog.

    https://thenesciencentnepenthene.blogspot.com/2021/07/barnhardt-before-brother-bugnolo.html

  84. “DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)???It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting … a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

    ABS has this and other arguments in opposition to the insane claims made by Ms. Ann and the D.O.A. Occult Cult posted at his crummy blog.

    https://thenesciencentnepenthene.blogspot.com/2021/07/barnhardt-before-brother-bugnolo.html

  85. Sorry for double post.

    ABS intended to post a link to proof that The Autocpehalic Church of Ms. Ann and The D.O.A. Occult Cult is led by a liar.

    http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html

    A liar and a fool presumably knows who is Pope rather than the entire Catholic Episcopacy and even the Cardinals who elected Francis.

    http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html

    Cue Tommy Flanagan; Benedict is still Pope, Yeah, that’s the ticket….

  86. “Smells a bit like a Modernist (Teilhardian) version of Pantheism to me.”

    Well, considering every reference to Teilhard or pantheism in “Logos Rising” is critical/negative, this seems an odd conclusion to draw. He must be playing some 4d-chess to criticize both yet turn out to be a “modernist Teilhardian pantheist” himself.

  87. TBH, that link was so extremely long and included so many tangents to the discussion here

    Oh, it is only the portion at the top of the 2nd link that deals with Jones and the SSPX, not the whole thing.

    Oldavid –

    I believe that all Jones was getting at is that the concept of Logos existed and was developed by the pagans, particularly the Greeks before Christianity. And such principles of rationalitu can exist that are understandable by all up to a certain point, and this sets good commin ground upon which to then convert the pagan by identifying the ultimate or culmination of Logos in Christ, through Whom all things were made.

    So in a sense, Jones is reifying the pagan notion of logos to illustrate the point at times, especially to reach a non/post Christian audience to demonstrate that it exists, then much like St. John did, to eventually identify it as the 2nd Person if the Trinity.

    And now in conclusion we finally have our answers –

    Now will ABS simply answer any of the above,

    No.

    will he run away again while calling people names and repeating “conciliarism” and “Canon 1404” over and over again, like “Trust the Science”?

    Yes.

    It is clear now that ABS doesn’t even understand the arguments the FisPope crowd are making because he only quotes but can’t rationally argue their positions, much less understand the BisPope crowd. All ABS can do is chant and repeat the slogans and dodge direct questions and call people names. He’s the mirroe image of the Amtifa lefty. BIDEN WON THE ELECTION! THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ON EARTH, THE INSTITUTIONS AND EVERY WORLD LEADER UNIVERSALLY ACCEPT IT!

    I like John Salza’s body of work, but others have already pointed out several flaws in his thesis, one being selective quotations that tuen out to say the opposite of what he thought, and many of his arguments have been addressed, and even Salza himself publicly knows that something is extremely off about Francis, so Salza is basically arguing about procedure – that we need to accept Francis as Pope for the time being… until he isn’t, because only the Church and Pope in the future can decide that. *Clap*Clap*Clap*

    Now here is what ABS can’t read or understand in his own quoting:

    It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.

    Oh????!  The Church first needs to JUDGE something when there is a controversy?! Bu… but… the first see is judged by no one!!! How could that be…???? How could Barnhardt, and the BisPopers, and those doctors and saints and all who argue that the Church can call an imperfect council to investigate a Pope, and ABS’s own quotation say that the Church CAN JUDGE any of this??? How???

    And what does it mean that IT FOLLOWS, that universal acceptance is only step 2, a secondary category of concern, that follows the first and therefore in and of itself doesn’t automatically justify anything without first a jugment by the Church to settle a matter?

    Is there some statute of limitations that is in place thay limits precisely when someone may file a suspicion about an anti-pope or invalid conclave? Not in canon law! There is something to be said for taking too long before an objection is made, such as several generations later when some skeptic claims something, but after hundreds of years long after the people involved are dead and there was no peep about it during the era. But we are living in that era now, and the skeptics have been ringing the bell the moment Benedict annouced his resignation of the active part of the Petrine ministry, and the documenation of mumerous threats against his life, and his action being against the advise of canon law experts and others as per Ganswein.

    Don’t expect ABS to clarify any of this any more than Francis will answer his dubia. Because ABS hasn’t intellectually grasped the debate. He is repeating talking points. Trust the science! The mask protects you! There is no evidence of widespread election fraud! Protests were mostly peaceful!

    It’s amusing that ABS will rely on the silence of the Cardinals as some kind of proof, since there are plenty of stirrings that many of them also believe something is wrong, and discuss it amongst themselves but won’t openly declare it, because they are scared of the scandal, much like Voris and the CMTV crowd know and apparently do so doubt Francis’ legitimacy behind the scenes, and even Chris Ferrera who admitted that practically all of them believe that Barnhardt is right, it’s just that the situation is unprecedented and nobody wants to stick their necks out, and like Sakza, would all prefer to wait until a future Pope judges it so before they finally admit what they believed all along!

    This is the universal peaceful acceptance crowd that ABS is relying on! It is so funny as it is sad!

  88. Oh????! The Church first needs to JUDGE something when there is a controversy?! Bu… but… the first see is judged by no one!!! How could that be…????

    There was no controversy until after the infallible fact established UA but you can not see that because Barnhardt…

    It is two different things. It is not judging the actions or putative heresies of a Pope but you are blind to that fact because Ms Ann tells you otherwise.

    You know, it is ok for you to think on your own…

    ABS knows you merely ape Ann because she rejects Universal Acceptance even though she has no authority to appeal her rejection of this traditional doctrine.

    The fact she does not even understand it and your acceptance of her personal opinions as definitive leads you also to fall into similar error/heresies.

    “DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

    Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions”

    Man o man are you dense; Try reading it just one time.

    http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html

    O, and you are wise to not even address her lies about Salsa and Ferrara.

    You are a D.O.A. and she is a proven public liar.

    Way to go….

  89. O, just remembered to post this link to an explanation of The Catholic Faith re Papal elections that even many non-catholics (Which all members of The D.O.A are) can understand.

    Universal acceptance precludes any latter day lunatics from proclaiming Francis ain’t Pope -especially Ms. Ann -because she WAS part of the Universal Acceptance as can be proved by reading her posts after Francis was elected.

    What’s that – Ms. Ann helped to establish infallibly that Francis is Pope ?

    Yep, Ha ha ha ha ha

    https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/

  90. Nice try ABS, thinking you can pull a fast one on us.

    The first quote and the second quote and from TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND SEPERATE SOURCES!

    The first quote is from ‘Fr. Sylvester Berry’s Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise.’

    The second bolded quote is one Cardinal Billot’s opinion.

    You can’t just take two separate quotes, put one after the other and make it seem that both directly follow each other, especially when you never put the second bolded portion in in the first place and then accuse others of not reading what you never quoted.

    Here is the FULL Billot quote that ABS deliberately ommitted, from Salza’s article, and I will bold particular portions of it that one should heed:

    “Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith,[2] seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

    “Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.

    First let’s get the context straight which ABS does not.

    – There are a mix of varying and opposed opinions amongst theologians about these topics.
    – You cannot just quote the ones on your side of the argument and call it a day.
    – This is Cardinal Billot’s opinion, one of many. It is not inerrant, nor is Billot claiming he is, he is merely arguing his position.
    – Billot is dealing with the topic of a legitimate Pope falling into heresy.
    – Billot is NOT dealing with the topic of more than one Papal claimant (true Pope versus AntiPope)
    – Therefore Billot’s context of acceptance of a Pope is dealing with a valid conclave where the questionably heretical Pope is having his legitimacy questioned following a predecessor who died, necessitating a new election, which is why he also brings up the issue of a prolonged state of sedevacantism until a successor is chosen.
    – Everyone therefore agrees that a state of sedevancantism existed until a new man was elected Pope. This was universally accepted.
    – Even if that Pope should fall into heresy, the acceptance of his election is not in question.
    – Billot states that God does not permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff, someone who is not.
    – But Billot NEVER STATES whether this be a majority or a minority.
    – If Billot is assumed to mean a majority then Billot would be historically and factually wrong as the majority accepted two antipopes in succession until the minority led by St. Bernard demonstrated that Innocent II was the true Pope.
    – There are still CONDITIONS that are necessary for an election to be valid before acceptance of it.
    – As everyone knows, some conditions cannot be dispensed with (the see must be vacant either due to the death of a Pope, or a valid abdication, the candidate must be a Catholic, must be biologically male, etc.)
    – Some conditions can be dispensed with (possible tampering with the vote, evidence of forbidden campaigning, outside influence or interference from this or that secular monarch etc.)
    – It is OBVIOUSLY the latter that adhesion of the Church heals and to which Billot refers to.
    – Adhesion of the Church OBVIOUSLY CANNOT heal the former where violations of logic and the nature of the office itself have happened – voting a Muslim or a woman as Pope, or if the See was not vacant, or if confusion leads to multiple men claiming to hold the office.

    ABS once again doesn’t understand the sources he is quoting. He tried now to make it seem as if two separate and distinct quotes were directly following one another without clearly labelling them. ABS hasn’t bothered reading responses to Salza.

  91. Yes ABS, I’ve read all the Salzas and the Skojec 1P5s. Those links are as old news as time.

    Are you gonna engage in anything better other than to just having a link-pissing contest? Because I can also copy and paste and present no substantive arguments like you are doing.

    All I know is that Ann Barnhardt still believes in the Catholic Church and the Papacy, and 1P5’s Skojec has sold 1P5, I’ve heard that he doubts the validity Dogmatic Councils about the Pope, and has been looking into hopping onto the Eastern Orthodox train, because there’s where universally accepting Francis as the Pope led him.

  92. Good Lord. You cite what ABS posted and bolded the part which PROVES THAT FRANCIS IS POPE.

    You didn’t even notice, did you?

    First let’s get the context straight which ABS does not.

    – There are a mix of varying and opposed opinions amongst theologians about these topics.

    NOPE. That is part of tradition and True or False Pope cites 40 other trad theologians whereas you have the sedevacantist Ms Ann as your sole authority

    – You cannot just quote the ones on your side of the argument and call it a day.

    ABS could have quoted the other 39 but he thought the link to them would suffice

    – This is Cardinal Billot’s opinion, one of many. It is not inerrant, nor is Billot claiming he is, he is merely arguing his position.

    Nope. DO YOU EVER READ WHAT IS LINKED TO ? EVER?

    – Billot is dealing with the topic of a legitimate Pope falling into heresy.

    NOPE. Read his words. He is wring about UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE

    – Billot is NOT dealing with the topic of more than one Papal claimant (true Pope versus AntiPope)

    – Therefore Billot’s context of acceptance of a Pope is dealing with a valid conclave where the questionably heretical Pope is having his legitimacy questioned following a predecessor who died, necessitating a new election, which is why he also brings up the issue of a prolonged state of sedevacantism until a successor is chosen.

    NOPE. Man on man are you DENSE. That is NOT what UA means

    – Everyone therefore agrees that a state of sedevancantism existed until a new man was elected Pope. This was universally accepted.

    – Even if that Pope should fall into heresy, the acceptance of his election is not in question.

    – Billot states that God does not permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff, someone who is not.

    – But Billot NEVER STATES whether this be a majority or a minority.

    READ WHAT IS WRITEN ABOUT THIS DUMB ASS. UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE DOES NOT MEAN EVERY LIVING CATHOLIC. UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE SPECIFICALLY CITES MORAL UNANIMITY NOT NUMERICAL UNANIMITY

    – There are still CONDITIONS that are necessary for an election to be valid before acceptance of it.

    WRONG AGAIN AS UA ACCOUNTS FOR ANY PUTATIVE UNCERTAINITY OR ERRORS. READ THE DAMN THING BEFoRE MAKNG AN ASS OF YOUR OWN SELF

    – As everyone knows, some conditions cannot be dispensed with (the see must be vacant either due to the death of a Pope, or a valid abdication, the candidate must be a Catholic, must be biologically male, etc.)
    – Some conditions can be dispensed with (possible tampering with the vote, evidence of forbidden campaigning, outside influence or interference from this or that secular monarch etc.)
    – It is OBVIOUSLY the latter that adhesion of the Church heals and to which Billot refers to.
    – Adhesion of the Church OBVIOUSLY CANNOT heal the former where violations of logic and the nature of the office itself have happened – voting a Muslim or a woman as Pope, or if the See was not vacant, or if confusion leads to multiple men claiming to hold the office.

    ABS once again doesn’t understand the sources he is quoting. He tried now to make it seem as if two separate and distinct quotes were directly following one another without clearly labelling them. ABS hasn’t bothered reading responses to Salza.

    YOU ARE INSANE. ABS POSTED THE TWO PART SERIES SALSA POSTED AT 1ST PETER THAT DOES INCLUDE HIM RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS.

    YOU ARE A RAGING SEDEVACANTIST WHOSE SLAVISH DEVOTION TO THE PROVEN LIAR ANN BARNHARDT HAS MADE YOU CRAY CRAY.

    ABS made a good faith effort and your reflexive gainsaying – obviously without completely reading the links -along with your extraneous non-generic blabbering reveals you are a sectarian hack not worth trying to reason with.

    adios.

  93. For lurkers. Peaceful Universal Acceptance means that Francis is Pope. Not he who abdicated.

    http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-quotes.html

    This who oppose this dogmatic fact are, insofar as can be known, The Sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn and Ms Ann Barnhardt, the schismatic convert to Catholicism who used to trade cattle futures and who said you are antisemitic if you oppose usury and who said you are not a real christian if you pax income taxes and who has been caught out twice publicly lying about Christopher Ferrara and also caught out publicly lying about Mr, Salsa

  94. From Mr, Salsa:

    Ann Barnhardt is liar.

    Further, in light of her theological commentary on the doctrine of Universal and Peaceful Acceptance, she is also a fool.

    Barnhardt claims that Salza and his co-author Robert Siscoe (authors of True or False Pope?) hold that a Pope can only be deposed after he dies. No we don’t. We hold the opposite. Read our book.

    Barnhardt claims that “something like 40 antipopes” were deposed during their lives and compares this history to Pope Francis, as a pretext for justifying her declaration that he is an antipope. First, Barnhardt’s claim is factually untrue. The antipopes who were deposed were the “doubtful Popes” during the Great Western Schism. The others (or at least most of the others) continued to proclaim they were Popes until their deaths (similar to the numerous competing antipopes who have been elected by the Sedevacantist sects during the past 40 years). Second, this is a completely invalid and illogical comparison. In no case were any of these antipopes universally accepted by the entire episcopacy following their election, as in the case with Pope Francis.

    Barnhardt also claims that “The notion that a man MUST be left in such an enormous state of sin as being a usurper of the Petrine See without correction or remedy before he dies is abject madness. It is irrational, effeminate, and totally unchristian.” This is a straw man. First, it presumes Francis is a usurper, when he is not. He was elected by the college of Cardinals, and, ironically enough, is publicly acknowledged as Pope by the very man that Barnhardt insists is the Pope. Second, we are not claiming there is “no correction or remedy” to remove a Pope from office “before he dies.” To the contrary, we devote a large part of our 750-page book to explaining how a heretical Pope would be removed from office (when he is alive). And in our Second Edition, coming out later this year, we will quote the Sedevacantists’ favorite theologian, St. Robert Bellarmine, who teaches that a Pope can be “judged and convicted” of heresy by the Church while he is reigning as Pope, and thereafter be removed from office, without violating the principle that “the First See is judged by no one.” We can’t wait to see the Sedevacantists react to this one.

    The problem, again, is with Ms. Barnhardt’s fantasy world, for in her fantasy world she believes the Church allows her to separate from the man the entire episcopacy adheres to as Pope and declare him an antipope. And evidently Wikipedia (her confessed theological resource) didn’t teach her that the Church condemns such behavior, for she asks: “Which pope or council has taught this proposition? (I.e., that the legitimacy of every putative pope is an untouchable topic until he dies.) [Answer: None. This proposition is a pure fabrication.]”

    Not quite Ann. Which council taught that Catholics cannot separate from their Patriarch (the Pope is the Patriarch of the West) on their own authority before the judgment of a synod? The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870). Which Pope individually taught the same? Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo (1756), who was basing his teaching on St. Augustine and the entire Catholic tradition. The Church teaches that whoever separates from the Pope (from the man the entire episcopacy adheres to as Pope) before a judgment of the Church is a schismatic and outside the Church.

    And if Barnhardt couldn’t embarrass herself anymore, guess again. She actually makes the following statements. First, she calls Universal and Peaceful Acceptance (which is the common doctrine of the Church) a “mendacious and perverted argument.” Of course, Barnhardt is forced to call a doctrine that has been held since time immemorial (on our website we quote 40 theologians who taught the doctrine, and there is not a single theologian who denied the doctrine) “mendacious and perverted” because it contradicts what is truly perverted – her “doctrine” that the man the entire episcopacy and a moral unanimity of the faithful adhere to as Pope is actually an antipope.

    And then Barnhardt says that “UPA only applies to LEGAL, LEGITIMATE, DULY ELECTED Popes. It doesn’t usurp sitting Popes or sanate non-canonical conclaves.” Sorry, Ann, but using CAPITAL LETTERS does not convert a cause into an effect, or make “backward” actually mean “forward.” UPA does not “apply” to “legal, legitimate, duly elected Popes.” Rather, UPA proves that the Pope is the legitimate Pope “legal, legitimate, and duly elected.” That is because the universal acceptance is “a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election,” (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can., II. p. 520, n. 171), which is what causes the acceptance (as is the case with Pope Francis). Moreover, the infallible effect of his acceptance happens at once. The moment the entire Church accepts the man as Pope, the validity of his election is infallibly certain. This effect is never negated months or years later, either by the Pope’s conduct or speculation about defects in his election.

    To further prove Barnhardt is clueless about the actual meaning and operation of the doctrine, UPA does in fact do precisely what Barnhardt claims it doesn’t do, that is, “sanate non-canonical conclaves.” While many quotes could be provided, we will provide just one from Cardinal Billot:

    “From the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

    In truth, Barnhardt rejects the doctrine of Universal and Peaceful Acceptance because it strikes a fatal blow to her amateur and “effeminate” (using her words) theology.

    +++++++++++++++++++++

    This convert is a public liar who knows little about what she professes to know but that does not stop her fan bois from treating her insane claims as definitive.

    Put that in your schismatic pipes and smoke it fan bois

  95. Dear me! We have an Amateur Brain Surgeon trying to perform lobotomy on us all!

    Church is not, and never has been, a “democracy” of a consortium of “experts”, prelates, or clerics; Arius would have to agree if he could respond. “Democracy”, even if it’s called “universal peaceful acceptance” is no more a guarantee that T’Googlio Monster is an appointment of the Holy Ghost than is Joe Biden.

    Cardinals do not elect a pope; they elect a candidate for the office. We might say that the candidate is appointed to the office by Christ when, and if, the candidate formally accepts the office of Vicar of Christ. As far as I know the Monster repudiated that title… big problem! without even taking into account the apparent illegitimacy of the conclave that proposed him.

    The Keys, the authority to “bind and loose”, is not an arbitrary thing that can be exercised at the political or ideological whim of a popey fellow delivering virtual “Tweets” on aeroplane interviews or random proclamations under the papal letterhead. It is necessarily constrained to the nature of the Faith and the purpose of the Church.

    A pope is a temporal authority, as such he can only “bind” with duly, properly, promulgated laws and precepts in conformity with the nature and purpose of his office. Can anyone say that Canon Law is not duly promulgated? Can anyone say that duly promulgated law can be abrogated retrospectively to suit some novel ideological convenience? If not then we are confronted with the fact that, according to law, Ratzinger’s “resignation” is invalid and the “election” of “Bergooglio” is also illegal and invalid.

    Without going into detail, there are instances of antipopes being “peacefully accepted” but wrongly, and, strangely enough, never even accused of being heretics or apostates. Phew! it will take some serious brain surgery to put T’Googlio Monster legitimately on the seat of Peter.

  96. What has happened amongst the D.O.A. Cult was explained by researchers back in the 1950s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

    Ms. Ann has failed to convince anyone but her D.O.A. Cult that Francis ain’t Pope and so they respond to the failure by increasing their devotion to her false claims and they support each other in the shared delusion that of 1.2 billion Catholics living it is only she who is right.

    Thus the entire episcopacy, the entirety of the Cardinals who elected Francis as Pope, along with every singe Priest and Religious are wrong in thinking Francis is Pope.

    It is how they roll…

  97. Our brain surgeon apparently developed his skills in lobotomy by practicing on himself.

    Sure, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome; but is that the same as saying the Bishop of Rome is the Pope? Did the Apostle Peter only become Pope when he established the diocese (or Church) in Rome or did the Pope establish the Church in Rome? I tend to think that the Papacy was brought to Rome by the Pope sometime after the establishment (the “birth”) of the visible Church at Pentecost.

    Now then, Mr Surgeon, is the Faith and the duly promulgated laws relating to its administration at the capricious “mercy” of political convenience and ideological novelties… or the “democratic” opinions of a noisy and influential mob of “enlightened ones”? Ole Aristotle described democracy as the tyranny of the ignorant, but I would suggest that, these days, it’s the tyranny of the perverse and influential manipulators and the decadence of the mobs.

    Whether or not T’Googlio Monster accepted the Papacy or not is unproven, and almost irrelevant since the Papacy was not even validly offered to him. That Ratzinger repudiated the “ministry” (which is usually delegated to “officials” in just about every form of government anyway) is not the same as abdicating the office.

    I am in no way a “Ratzingerophile”. When he became Pope one of my friends asked me “what do you think of Benedict XVI”? I said “I think he’s an enemy”. He’s an out and out Modernist from way back… a proper dud, or bad pope, if you like. It’s happened many times before.

    I’m not even Woytilaophile. Back in the ’80’s I coined a phrase “the papal quickstep” as in the political maneuver of recognising that “the peasants are revolting” so you issue a statement that seems roughly Catholic, the peasants heave a sigh of relief and stop grumbling, Pope goes back to his jet setting and crowd pleasing, and “progress” continues unimpeded.

    I think that we’ve got to accept that there’s a great difference between a “dud” pope (a bad pope) of which there have been many, and a not pope at all. It’s gotta be about “binding and loosing” and a “rule of law” that both Sedevacantists and “Newchurchists” ignore.

    Furthermore, I think that anyone who thinks that a pope is a capricious despot roughly equivalent to some notorious cult leaders should take the koolade and await the spaceship lurking behind the Moon to take them to Utopia.

  98. Our brain surgeon apparently developed his skills in lobotomy by practicing on himself.

    It would have been unethical if he hadn’t.

    Whether or not T’Googlio Monster accepted the Papacy or not is unproven, and almost irrelevant since the Papacy was not even validly offered to him. That Ratzinger repudiated the “ministry” (which is usually delegated to “officials” in just about every form of government anyway) is not the same as abdicating the office.

    Dead OlDavid. You could scroll back to read – and hopefully understand and accept – the truth of PUA.

    Or you could pretend you are a canonical experts like Ms. Ann does. In any event, Francis is her Pope.

    The fact is that Pope Francis is your Pope whether you personally accept him or not.

    As can be seen by her blog posts Ms. Ann accepted Francis as her Pope and she repeatedly called him Pope from March 1013, until November 2013 before he irked her to the point that she began to search for a canonical reason to ditch him. That is, her objection to him and rejection of him was based on her emotions.

    O, and Ms. An never studied Canon Law, never took a degree in Canon Law and never applied Canoan Law to a real life situation but for some reason roughly – let’s be generous – 1,000 Catholics out of 1.2 Billion agree with her that BISP even though every single living Cardinal who participated in the Conclave know he is Pope; very single Bishop knows he is Pope, every single Priest knows he is Pope and every singe Religious knows he is Pope.

    Pope Francis is her Pope and also your Pope and she has no idea what substantial error is;

    Catholic Dictionary
    Term
    SUBSTANTIAL ERROR

    Definition
    In contractual matters, ignorance or misjudgment about the essential nature, main terms, or principal motive of the object of a contract.

    When the conclave elected Bergoglio and he accepted the Papacy he did not sign a contract that could later be pretend litigated by a schismatic spinster who think he sucks at being Pope.

    But, such is the diabolical delusion that possesses the Schismatic Orcs that one understands it is virtually impossible to penetrate that fog of personal opinion wars.

  99. Substantial error explained by a woman,

    a woman who is a Canon Lawyer

    These definitions are easy to find for the type of man who does not let the schismatic spinster lead them around by the nose.

    Note what she says about Supreme Legislator and Substantial Error. Don’t so easily played as suckers men.

    It is ok to be intellectually curious and to do your own thinking…

    https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/03/can-a-pope-everresign/

  100. The Surgeon has apparently not noticed that I, and everyone else in this discussion that I can recall, have not been relying on the feisty, diminutive, spinster or to appeals to popular opinion as a name drop authority to validate or invalidate any reasonable questioning of the contentious issues at stake.

    I find it more than just curious that our valiant defender of “FIP” thinks that he can overturn or dismiss all the matters of law and pious outrage by putting the verbal boots into some fairly obscure sheila. There are many other people with formal and academic credentials (suppressed and ignored by the proponents of the new order of everything) who also agree that the mainstream popular assumptions do not hold water. Try Br Alexis Bugnolo just for a start:
    https://www.fromrome.info/

    Just for the record, I have tried several times to disagree with Miss Barnhardt on some matters (most notably her one time propensity to blame all the World’s ills on “Musloids”, her apparent endorsement of usury and its main protagonists, among other things) but she seems to avoid engaging on such matters… perhaps she just doesn’t like antipodean curmudgeons.

    Perhaps it is even more astonishing that Our Surgeon cites Miss Barnhardt’s awakening from the assumed opinion that Benedict resigned and “Francis” reigned is reason to dismiss the whole question about valid resignations and valid conclaves. Would Our Surgeon’s razor also dismiss ++Vigano for awakening to the whole Vatican II fiasco?

  101. Dear David. How do you solve a problem like Francis?

    Brother Bugnolo publicly avers he was taught the answer by Ms. Ann so she is also his authority.

    Hahaha ABS does like your use of Sheila as he had family that lived in OZ for a score of years – of course they sometimes think ABS is daggy

    What is foreplay in OZ? Bruce comes home drunk and yells “Brace yourself, Sheila”

    ABS has repeatedly cited the truth that when he resigned Benedict XVI was Supreme Legislator which means it was he – not thee, or the schismatic spinster – who had the authority to decide that his resignation was proper.

    Even Novus Ordo Watch publicly observed that Ms. Ann is factually wrong on Substantial Error. That is, she does not know what it means.

    As to the Second Vatican Council, ABS refers to it as The 60s Synod.

    O, and the woman ABS linked to may be obscure but she is a trained, professional expert in Canon Law whereas Ms. Ann is a cattle futures trader expert.

  102. Dear Oldavid

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/tom-doyle-vatican-is-the-worlds-last-absolute-monarchy/

    In the Roman Catholic Church, the office of pope includes the three main offices of government. He is the supreme judge, the supreme legislator and the supreme executive, so there’s no separation of powers. There is no possibility of checks and balances.

    As to Ms. B, a cattle futures traders and the fake ?“Brother’ Bugnolo, maybe you should not be so susceptible to crazy canonical claims made by Cattle Futures Traders and fake Brothers

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/03/issues-with-br-alexis-bugnolo-ordo-militaris-fromrome/

    It is generally thought that those who read and respond here are intellectually curious and not likely to take at face value claims made by Joanne and Joe Joker – perhaps that general thought requires revision.

  103. Ah, now ABS utilized the classic Leftist tactic of not answering anything, but stubbornly going “NUH-UH! NUH-UH!”

    Good Lord. You cite what ABS posted and bolded the part which PROVES THAT FRANCIS IS POPE.

    You didn’t even notice, did you?

    No, please explain.

    Actually… you’ve been given several chances and you’ve botched them all, as demonstrated below…

    NOPE. That is part of tradition and True or False Pope cites 40 other trad theologians whereas you have the sedevacantist Ms Ann as your sole authority,/blockquote>

    Nope, you’d know if you read the responses to True and False Pope by Fr. Kramer and others showing that there is selective quotation. Not to mention THE FACT that all these theologians have been quoted and talking about it hundreds of years DEMONSTRATES that they are obviously debating with some other people whichi they address amongst their own confreres… hmmmm…. who could those be…???

    Also you’re an idiot, because Salza and Sisco are dealing with a whole range of topics which mainly deal with the topic OF A VALID POPE FALLING INTO HERESY. Very little of it has to do with AntiPopes, most of whom were orthodox and not heretics.

    Someone isn’t reading and it is clearly you.

    ABS could have quoted the other 39 but he thought the link to them would suffice

    And I could also quote another 39, and still show you why you don’t understand the 39 ones you’ve quoted, and how they don’t apply to the argument because none of them deal with it nor had experience or precedence of the current situation.

    What now?

    Nope. DO YOU EVER READ WHAT IS LINKED TO ? EVER?

    NOPE. Read his words. He is wring about UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE

    NOPE. Man on man are you DENSE. That is NOT what UA means

    READ WHAT IS WRITEN ABOUT THIS DUMB ASS. UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE DOES NOT MEAN EVERY LIVING CATHOLIC. UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE SPECIFICALLY CITES MORAL UNANIMITY NOT NUMERICAL UNANIMITY

    WRONG AGAIN AS UA ACCOUNTS FOR ANY PUTATIVE UNCERTAINITY OR ERRORS. READ THE DAMN THING BEFoRE MAKNG AN ASS OF YOUR OWN SELF

    YOU ARE INSANE. ABS POSTED THE TWO PART SERIES SALSA POSTED AT 1ST PETER THAT DOES INCLUDE HIM RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS.

    YOU ARE A RAGING SEDEVACANTIST WHOSE SLAVISH DEVOTION TO THE PROVEN LIAR ANN BARNHARDT HAS MADE YOU CRAY CRAY.

    Waaaaaahhhhh!!! Waaaaahhh!!!! Baby go dooo doooo! Waaaaaah!!!!

    Nobody gives a shit about the Universal Acceptance argument here stupid, because Cardinal Billot’s point is that if a valid Pope falls into heresy, you can’t retroactively go back and deal with the idea that his election was invalid when it was accepted by all. READ THE OPENING PARAGRAPH that Sisco and Salza provided for you instead of only cutting out the bottom portion and selectively quoting it. The context is there. I put it there for you. READ. IT. Billot is NOT DEALING WITH A QUESTION OF MULTIPLE PAPAL CLAIMANTS OR RESIGNATION DOUBTS. Billot is discussing a valid Pope becoming heretical. The BisP boys don’t care if Frankie is orthodox or not with regards to the argument. That would be irrelevant to the question of whether Benedict’s resignation of the “active ministry” and not the munus, after being advised by others that this was not a good idea, is valid or not.

    So once again, ABS cannot engage with the arguments and can only PRETEND that his opponents are not dealing with it. And being unable to refute them can only wave his hands around, tear out his hair and stomp on the ground and call you names like a toddler.

    The fact remains that ABS just screams “BARNHARDT! BARNHARDT!” as if this is supposed to impress us.

    Then ABS screams “UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE! UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE!” as if this isn’t factually invalidated by historical facts where two successive AntiPopes were universally accepted! So if ABS is right, then St. Bernard was wrong and Innocent II wasn’t the Pope. We can either logically see this from Church history, or we are to assume that ABS, a nobody on the internet, whose intelligence level is certainly demonstrably lower than a licensed professional cattle trader, is right and ALL of Church history is wrong. This is exactly the argument ABS is making. Universal Acceptance is only one argument at the bottom of a list of ordered criteria.

    ABS continues to scream “READ! READ! LOOK AT MY LINKS THAT I CAN’T BE BOTHERED TO SORT THROUGH BUT JUST THROW AT YOU!” as if we haven’t read them before or been following the topic from both sides of the aisle and know that all Salza’s argument boils down to is that “Yes, maybe Francis isn’t the Pope. But we can’t prove that. Only a future council and Pope can. So we have to just legally accept Francis as the Pope, until he is declared not the be the Pope.” Yeah… great.

    Even Sisco and Salza’s point of Universal Acceptance is demonstrably proven wrong given the amount of people who are suspicious now and who were calling it out even then back before Francis ever showed up on the balcony when Benedict suddenly resigned and we were scrutinizing his statements and actions. So we can easily demonstrate that there hasn’t been universal acceptance, which is why the dunderheads like ABS then must talk out of both sides of their mouth, and start limiting their argument about Francis’ ‘universal acceptance’ not being based on the Catholic world and the whole Church at large, but only that ‘universal acceptance’ by the minority of Cardinals voting in the conclave. But again if the majority can be discarded by the universal church just like that, then it only takes one Cardinal to doubt it. And there is talk there these Cardinals do in fact exist but won’t or won’t yet go on the record.

    To solve this, the BisP folks want an investigation to get at the truth. A fat chance, they know, but the chances of being heard are not relevant from doing what is right.

    ABS can only scream and shout and stomp and spew and threaten and throw links, then repeat himself.

    Looks like that’s the best we can expect from ABS here – so there you have it folks – ABS representing the ‘Francis is Pope’ side – are you impressed? This is the best they can do? Just yell at you to submit to THEIR non-magisterial demands and interpretations? And when you want to get clarification from the Office holders themselves, they don’t want you to listen to the Office, but to themselves???

    So in trying to argue, ABS and the FisP crowd must place themselves above the Office they are demanding everyone should submit to! Ridiculous!

    Gentlemen, we’ve exhausted this argument, or clearly ABS is unqualified to discuss it in any logical form. There is no reason to engage in repetitive stupidity, so for my part, I’m done here.

  104. Ah, now ABS utilized the classic Leftist tactic of not answering anything, but stubbornly going “NUH-UH! NUH-UH!”

    Good Lord. You cite what ABS posted and bolded the part which PROVES THAT FRANCIS IS POPE.

    You didn’t even notice, did you?

    No, please explain.

    Actually… you’ve been given several chances and you’ve botched them all, as demonstrated below…

    NOPE. That is part of tradition and True or False Pope cites 40 other trad theologians whereas you have the sedevacantist Ms Ann as your sole authority

    Nope, you’d know if you read the responses to True and False Pope by Fr. Kramer and others showing that there is selective quotation. Not to mention THE FACT that all these theologians have been quoted and talking about it hundreds of years DEMONSTRATES that they are obviously debating with some other people which they address amongst their own confreres… hmmmm…. who could those be…???

    Also you’re an idiot, because Salza and Sisco are dealing with a whole range of topics which mainly deal with the topic OF A VALID POPE FALLING INTO HERESY. Very little of it has to do with AntiPopes, most of whom were orthodox and not heretics.

    Someone isn’t reading and it is clearly you.

    ABS could have quoted the other 39 but he thought the link to them would suffice

    And I could also quote another 39, and still show you why you don’t understand the 39 ones you’ve quoted, and how they don’t apply to the argument because none of them deal with it nor had experience or precedence of the current situation.

    What now?

    Nope. DO YOU EVER READ WHAT IS LINKED TO ? EVER?

    NOPE. Read his words. He is wring about UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE

    NOPE. Man on man are you DENSE. That is NOT what UA means

    READ WHAT IS WRITEN ABOUT THIS DUMB ASS. UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE DOES NOT MEAN EVERY LIVING CATHOLIC. UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE SPECIFICALLY CITES MORAL UNANIMITY NOT NUMERICAL UNANIMITY

    WRONG AGAIN AS UA ACCOUNTS FOR ANY PUTATIVE UNCERTAINITY OR ERRORS. READ THE DAMN THING BEFoRE MAKNG AN ASS OF YOUR OWN SELF

    YOU ARE INSANE. ABS POSTED THE TWO PART SERIES SALSA POSTED AT 1ST PETER THAT DOES INCLUDE HIM RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS.

    YOU ARE A RAGING SEDEVACANTIST WHOSE SLAVISH DEVOTION TO THE PROVEN LIAR ANN BARNHARDT HAS MADE YOU CRAY CRAY.

    Waaaaaahhhhh!!! Waaaaahhh!!!! Baby go dooo doooo! Waaaaaah!!!!

    Nobody gives a shit about the Universal Acceptance argument here stupid, because Cardinal Billot’s point is that if a valid Pope falls into heresy, you can’t retroactively go back and deal with the idea that his election was invalid when it was accepted by all. READ THE OPENING PARAGRAPH that Sisco and Salza provided for you instead of only cutting out the bottom portion and selectively quoting it. The context is there. I put it there for you. READ. IT. Billot is NOT DEALING WITH A QUESTION OF MULTIPLE PAPAL CLAIMANTS OR RESIGNATION DOUBTS. Billot is discussing a valid Pope becoming heretical. The BisP boys don’t care if Frankie is orthodox or not with regards to the argument. That would be irrelevant to the question of whether Benedict’s resignation of the “active ministry” and not the munus, after being advised by others that this was not a good idea, is valid or not.

    So once again, ABS cannot engage with the arguments and can only PRETEND that his opponents are not dealing with it. And being unable to refute them can only wave his hands around, tear out his hair and stomp on the ground and call you names like a toddler.

    The fact remains that ABS just screams “BARNHARDT! BARNHARDT!” as if this is supposed to impress us.

    Then ABS screams “UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE! UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE!” as if this isn’t factually invalidated by historical facts where two successive AntiPopes were universally accepted! So if ABS is right, then St. Bernard was wrong and Innocent II wasn’t the Pope. We can either logically see this from Church history, or we are to assume that ABS, a nobody on the internet, whose intelligence level is certainly demonstrably lower than a licensed professional cattle trader, is right and ALL of Church history is wrong. This is exactly the argument ABS is making. Universal Acceptance is only one argument at the bottom of a list of ordered criteria.

    ABS continues to scream “READ! READ! LOOK AT MY LINKS THAT I CAN’T BE BOTHERED TO SORT THROUGH BUT JUST THROW AT YOU!” as if we haven’t read them before or been following the topic from both sides of the aisle and know that all Salza’s argument boils down to is that “Yes, maybe Francis isn’t the Pope. But we can’t prove that. Only a future council and Pope can. So we have to just legally accept Francis as the Pope, until he is declared not the be the Pope.” Yeah… great.

    Even Sisco and Salza’s point of Universal Acceptance is demonstrably proven wrong given the amount of people who are suspicious now and who were calling it out even then back before Francis ever showed up on the balcony when Benedict suddenly resigned and we were scrutinizing his statements and actions. So we can easily demonstrate that there hasn’t been universal acceptance, which is why the dunderheads like ABS then must talk out of both sides of their mouth, and start limiting their argument about Francis’ ‘universal acceptance’ not being based on the Catholic world and the whole Church at large, but only that ‘universal acceptance’ by the minority of Cardinals voting in the conclave. But again if the majority can be discarded by the universal church just like that, then it only takes one Cardinal to doubt it. And there is talk there these Cardinals do in fact exist but won’t or won’t yet go on the record.

    To solve this, the BisP folks want an investigation to get at the truth. A fat chance, they know, but the chances of being heard are not relevant from doing what is right.

    ABS can only scream and shout and stomp and spew and threaten and throw links, then repeat himself.

    Looks like that’s the best we can expect from ABS here – so there you have it folks – ABS representing the ‘Francis is Pope’ side – are you impressed? This is the best they can do? Just yell at you to submit to THEIR non-magisterial demands and interpretations? And when you want to get clarification from the Office holders themselves, they don’t want you to listen to the Office, but to themselves???

    So in trying to argue, ABS and the FisP crowd must place themselves above the Office they are demanding everyone should submit to! Ridiculous!

    Gentlemen, we’ve exhausted this argument, or clearly ABS is unqualified to discuss it in any logical form. There is no reason to engage in repetitive stupidity, so for my part, I’m done here.

  105. Here is the total sum of the argument against Barnhardt in the link ABS provides:

    Ann asserts that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation from the papacy was, in fact, canonically invalid, and thus null. She relies entirely on Canon 188 of the 1983 Code for her argument. It states, “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself” (emphasis hers).[9]

    Archbishop Ganswein stated that Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ election had created an “expanded [Petrine] ministry” with “an active member and a contemplative member.”[10] It goes without saying that no person, pope or not, has any power over the form of the papacy, which is a divine institution created by Christ Himself.

    However: 1) These are not the statements of Benedict himself, and no individual can determine his position without his public testimony (much less in contrary to it); 2) Only the Church could decide if such a belief constituted legal “substantial error”; 3) Canonical issues become moot by the acceptance of Francis as Pope by a moral unanimity of the Church, which did occur.

    1) How does Paul F. know that Ganswein is wrong or contrary to Benedict? Again, read all of Ganswein’s statements I’ve put above. Ganswein’s statements, including the idea that Benedict considers himself “retired” and that Francis is the “active Pope” are all perfectly in line with what Benedict has stated.

    2) Great! Let’s get the Church to decide! Sounds like some investigating needs to take place! Brilliant conclusion there Holmes!

    3) Ohhhhh… so it’s not “universal peaceful acceptance”… the goalposts have suddenly shifted! It’s now “moral unanimity of the Church”!!!! But… how does one measure this “moral unanimity”? How is it defined? Where is it defined? Which cardinals are members of it? Is Kasper included? Is Burke included? Is ABS included? Is Barnhardt excluded? Who was the moral unanimity back in the days of Innocent II?

    Paul goes on to say, “Fr. Berry also clarifies what is meant by “adherence of the universal Church” and similar phrases: What is necessary is moral unanimity (essentially, a large majority; the Mind of the Church).” Ohhhh! so moral unanimity means the large majority??? Why didn’t he just say so! Sorry Innocent II! St. Bernard was wrong! AntiPope Anacletus was actually the Pope! The majority (who are also the moral unanimity) believed so!

    Oh wait hang on a second, Paul then a few paragraphs later says, “Do not confuse moral unanimity in acceptance of a pontiff with popularity, as some indeed seem to. Such a dogmatic fact is not subject to the whims of popular opinion” Oh! Will wonders never cease?! This is like the ineffable nature of the Holy Trinity all over again! No wonder Ganswein was so impressed that Benedict did something so novel and new! But by this Paul means we don’t have to like the guy in office… he’s unpopular… but he’s still the valid Pope, because clearly the Cardinals all voted for him anyway despite such unpopularity. This unpopular fellow was the best they had out of all of them. Thanks Paul. This certainly explains how Joe Biden got “elected” so we must certainly have dodged a real number of bullets in the conclave thanks to the Holy Spirit!

    There you go ladies and gents – straight from the link ABS wanted you to read – Barnhardt so so wrong, that we need to engage in Schrodinger Special/General Relativistic physics conundrums to explain her away! Of course it’s all “Barnhardt’s judgment”, she’s claiming it all on her own, it’s not as if she has been asking the Cardinals and the Church to investigate and “decide if such a belief constituted legal “substantial error”” Oh no! She’s just making herself her own Pope, yes, that’s how we should treat this. Remember to repeat this false witness in every combox whenever you encounter others taking her position!

    If you can’t make sense out of it, then it’s obviously because you’re not only stupid and can’t read, but you are a sedevacantist! It’s all your fault!

  106. Come now, Mr Amateur Brained Sturgeon, you claim that: “It is generally thought that those who read and respond here are intellectually curious and not likely to take at face value claims made by Joanne and Joe Joker – perhaps that general thought requires revision.” as though that automatically refutes anything or anyone that dares challenge the official narrative.

    I very much doubt that the Barnhardt bird invented the whole scenario herself, but she certainly put together a blardy good case to publicise the matters. Even if the Bugnolo Bro was first acquainted with the discrepancies between the official narrative and the relevant precepts and laws by the Barnhardt blurb he apparently did not “take at face value claims made by” the popular media and he put to use his “intellectual curiosity” and academic skills in language and law to verify the non abdication of Benedict XVI.

    It’s common enough for many people to be intimidated by a relentless publicity campaign and to abdicate their faculties for a “peaceful go with the flow”; but that’s not the essence of integrity. It seems to me that the “College of Prelates” is not exempt from human frailty and are milling around in bewilderment and fear afraid to “grasp the nettle” and restore ecclesiastical order with integrity of Faith. Look at this recent article:
    https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/08/vigano-we-have-come-to-point-that-even.html

    I suspect that they (we) all know that to officially declare Francis an heretic or apostate, or a non pope, will set off a bomb in the guts of the Church that will send a great many prelates (jealous of their protected and comfortable positions) into a new “Episcopalian” confession or “orthodoxy” taking with them most of what is considered to be Church property into a “brave new World Order’s religion”. Couldn’t happen, you say? Check the “Reformation”.

    Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of an Antichrist, the Church will be scattered to the wilderness. I am inclined to think that when Russia (perhaps all Asiaman, including Chinaman) is dedicated to their proper home in the Immaculate Heart their emissaries will re evangelise what’s left of apostate European Christendom.

    Anyhow, I don’t consider that rubbishing the sociological credentials of a speaker automatically discredits the message. A few fishermen, artisans, and a tax collector were chosen to “teach all that I have commanded you”. The only one with “social credibility” identified Him to His antagonists for a chunk of money and notoriety. A repentant prostitute, a mother, and The Mother, and the boy Apostle watched by His tortuous expiation while the rest hid or denied Him. Tell us again, Mr Surgeon, how the “democratic” or “peaceful acceptance” represents the Holy Ghost in action.

  107. Dear Oldavid The Vatican is a place. That’s the geographic location of what’s commonly known as the Holy See. That’s the political term, the legal term for the government of the Roman Catholic Church.

    The Holy See is the last absolute monarchy in the world today. The pope, when he is elected, is answerable to no human power. He has absolute authority over the entire Roman Catholic Church, direct authority that reaches down to individual members.

    All of the governing officers in the Vatican itself, what we call the Vatican Curia, operate on delegated authority from the pope. They speak in the name of the pope. In the Roman Catholic Church, there are no separation of powers as we know of in most democratic societies. For example, in the United States there is the executive, the president; the legislative, which is the Senate and the House of Representatives; and the judiciary, the Supreme Court. No one of those completely controls the country.

    In the Roman Catholic Church, the office of pope includes the three main offices of government. He is the supreme judge, the supreme legislator and the supreme executive, so there’s no separation of powers. There is no possibility of checks and balances.

    Canon Law recognizes that truth which was infallibly taught at Vatican 1 but, owing to the democratic delusions of those born in America, many think any individual can constrain the Pope by citing this or that Canon even though a real Catholic knows that not a single Canon constrains the Pope for if it did then he would not be who he is.

    On the merely Canonical level, Canon Law itself recognises that truth the Pope is The Supreme Legislator and is judged by no person.

    It is no surprise that a handful of Catholics, the vast majority of whom are located in America, think that they are right and 1.2 billion other Catholics are wrong about who is Pope.

    Those folks are led by a former cattle futures trader and a fake brother, neither of whom studied Canon Law, took a degree in Canon Law or practiced Canon Law so a handful of Americans are convinced they are right in their personal opinions.

    C’est la vie.

    The ranting of those two, Barnhardt and Bugnolo, is a mad FAD* that will eventually pass but as far as The Body of Christ is concerned it is not even noticeable as it is passing through its kidneys.

    * Folie a deux

  108. I very much doubt that the Barnhardt bird invented the whole scenario herself,

    She did as the fake brother Bugnolo publicly attests (already been like to in here).

    verify the non abdication of Benedict XVI.

    OK, you agree with their personal opinion BISP whereas the entire Cardinalate, Episcopacy, Priesthood and Religious know Francs was Pope.

    Good call.

    Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of an Antichrist,

    That is the fake prophecy of Melanie which was condemned, long ago, by Rome itself. That Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist was a claim Martin Luther made not the Theotokos.

    You think Jesus sent His Holy Mother to tell the Seers Jesus lied when He said Hell would not prevail over the Church He established. No wonder then that you believe the FAD.

    O, and do you know that if a Pope flees Rome and sets up in some other city in some other country that he is still considered Bishop of Rome?

    Anyhow, I don’t consider that rubbishing the sociological credentials of a speaker automatically discredits the message. A few fishermen, artisans, and a tax collector were chosen to “teach all that I have commanded you”. The only one with “social credibility” identified Him to His antagonists for a chunk of money and notoriety. A repentant prostitute, a mother, and The Mother, and the boy Apostle watched by His tortuous expiation while the rest hid or denied Him.

    OK for you the crazy claims of The FAD are equivalent to Jesus establishing His Catholic Church. Yippee!!!

    Tell us again, Mr Surgeon, how the “democratic” or “peaceful acceptance” represents the Holy Ghost in action.

    When the Church accepts a Pope that becomes a Dogmatic Fact and that was noted in “The Church of Christ” by Fr Berry and, most recently, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Prefect of The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

    But a former cattle futures trader and a fake brother know better.

    Got it 🙂

  109. Will Rome lose the faith; and was that a real prophecy the Theotokos told Melanie?

    Nope.

    Even a modicum amount of sensus catholicus would make one realise that is as insane as relying upon the false claims made by a former cattle futures trader and a fake brother.

    http://www.unitypublishing.com/prophecy/fake-salette.htm

    OK….exiting the Rabbit Hole

    Have fun Y’all

  110. Yair, Mr Average Brain Sturgeon, I am roughly familiar (long ago) with some of the controversy of La Salette, but which predictions are eerily consonant (except the dates) with some of the secrets of Fatima alluded to by Sr Lucia before she mysteriously changed her style and appearance… and that whole business that was “universally and peacefully dismissed” just when it should have been revealed to the World. No doubt the Holy Ghost in action again!

    If you like to think that the Vatican II and Novus Ordo fiascos are “democratically” revealed by the Holy Ghost by their “Universal Peaceful Acceptance” then who am I to argue? I’m only an aging farmer’s boy… not even a futures trader let alone a scholar of languages or law.

    Anyhow, even though it seems that our resident surgeon thinks the whole matter is democratically and peacefully finally resolved I propose this that suggests that the Holy Ghost is not a democrat but is monarchist with a respect for established laws and precepts:

    What really happened on Feb. 11, 2013?
    https://youtu.be/i8VEYhXeCN0

    Crisis Series #35 w/ Fr. Loop: Must All Catholics Accept Vatican II? Is it Infallible?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXAKbl_1pVs&list=PLonegYXBrLbStENq_HPyOb4Qy9_qE3_2w&index=1

    I know, some of you will say that the Holy Ghost is a fickle Gift that is in the process of “becoming” and that can be packaged according to any whim of an occult craft with the capacity to delude, disorientate, and influence “important people”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.