Culture

Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert

For some years now, a theory has been circulating, and even attracting more attention and followers, that Pope Emeritus Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Consequently, proponents say, Pope Benedict remains the pope, and Pope Francis is not really the pope.

Various proposals have been put forward to argue for the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation, but one of the more plausible ones, because it appeals to publicly recognized facts and not just speculations, relates to the language that Pope Benedict himself used in his announcement of Feb. 10, 2013.

The argument is this. Pope Benedict expressly resigned from the ministerium of the papacy. Canon 332 Sec. 2, however, concerns the resignation of a pope from the munus of the papacy. Therefore, Pope Benedict did not validly resign the papacy in accordance with the canon, owing to a difference of the terms used.

Indeed, the proponents of this theory say that ministerium means active ministry whereas munus means the office itself. Nullity of the resignation, then, arises because Pope Benedict did not resign, or did not intend to resign, the munus.

This argument is not sound. Recall that an argument is valid if the conclusion actually follows from the premises and sound if the premises are actually true. I contend that there is at least one faulty premise.

In the first place, ministerium and munus are indeed synonymous, and the distinction attempted is not based on a correct interpretation of the words.

A Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short, which is a standard, well-respected dictionary of long standing, states simply that ministerium and munus are synonyms. See the entry for munus.

But to indulge the proposed argument, we can look into this more diligently. Here is a remarkable resource for doing so: A Guide to Dictionaries of Latin Synonyms – How to Tell the Difference.

  1. Robert Douthat, p. 96. “Munus” (qua debt or duty) “as a performance or function.” (emphasis added)
  2. Ferdinand Schultz (art. 280): “Munus (and in the plural, the seldom used munia) denotes the exercise of an obligation that is public and political” (emphasis added). Whereas officium arises more from the internal voice of conscience. Döderlein, the most comprehensive expert in this field, says likewise, v. 5, p. 352, art. 345.

Thus, the purported distinction between munus and ministerium is false, and the argument is not sound. But let us press further and indulge the supposition that Pope Benedict intended a distinction. Let us leave aside how proponents of the theory could claim to know Benedict’s intentions with greater certainty than the rest of us.

We consider, then, a conceptual distinction between an officeholder and an administrator. Often, the officeholder is the administrator: such as a president, general, bishop, or pastor. But sometimes the administrator is not the officeholder: e.g. an acting president, or one pro tempore, or an administrator of a diocese without a bishop at present.

A key point here, and the pun is very much intended: The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, has a right to act pursuant to that office.

Can. 331 (Latin) — Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, Collegii Episcoporum est caput, Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor; qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet (emphasis added).

Can. 331 (English) — The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely (emphasis added).

If a pope renounces the administration of his office, he necessarily renounces the office itself, because the office per se (vi muneris) entails the right to act.

Thus, Pope Benedict’s renunciation of his administration entails renunciation of the papal office. That is why he goes on to express the results, which he is clearly cognizant of: the Chair of St. Peter will be vacant, and a new pope must be elected.

Finally, it is worth looking more closely at the conditions for a pope to relinquish the papal office.

Can. 332 Sec. 2 (Latin) — Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

Can. 332 Sec. 2 (English) — 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.

Interestingly, it does not have to be accepted by even the Roman College of Cardinals.

What is important to note here is that what is necessary is proper manifestation, not necessarily a set form of expression. There is not a set text, for example, which the Pope must recite publicly, with his right hand on the Holy Gospels, in order for the renunciation to be valid. There is no requirement for him to use any specific word, whether munus, ministerium, officium, papatus, or any other.

Thus, this whole discussion ad nauseam about munus and ministerium is actually a red herring.

The resignation has indeed been made manifest. The fact speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitur. With Pope Emeritus Benedict standing by, Pope Francis has named bishops and cardinals, canonized saints, declared Doctors of the Church, modified canon law, and significantly modified at least one decree by Pope Benedict himself (Summorum Pontificum), which can be done only by the Supreme Pontiff.

For our part, then, we must fulfill the munus of filial piety that God has given us.

Please do not feed the trolls.

BRIGGS: Fr Rickert also has two other earlier articles on this subject: Countering The Claim That Francis Is An Antipope, and Antipope Claims: Substantial Error. Recently, Ed Feser answered the hypothetical consequence if the munus, ministerium distinction were real, and finds this only adds additional complications.

BRIGGS: Even if some of us still disagree about this, fighting or falling out among ourselves in this age is insane. We have more than enough enemies; we don’t need to do their work for them.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.

Categories: Culture

142 replies »

  1. More conspiracy?
    For some years now, a theory has been circulating, and even attracting more attention and followers, that Pope Emeritus Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Consequently, proponents say, Pope Benedict remains the pope, and Pope Francis is not really the pope.
    So yet another reason not to believe reality of Popes in general.
     
    See the history of popes through the years. Francis does not stand out in any way peculiar.
     
    Pope Benedict is the pope who oversaw so much of the sexual abuses which came to light.
    Is he not the man who excused his friend from criminal conviction and prescribed a life of penance and prayer for his sins instead?
    Or did I confuse him with a previous one?

  2. Dr. Briggs, if you don’t put that whole debate in the context of the Miller dissertation, which advocates changing the Papacy, and the Ganswein speech where he said Benedict had done something miraculous, you aren’t doing it justice. His intent seemingly was to bifurcate the Papacy, which he can’t do.

    Also, what about Bishop Gracida’s point that the electioneering made the whole conclave invalid anyway?

    Pulling out a dictionary and dropping the mic isn’t enough of an analysis.

  3. I fully agree that we should end the circular firing squad over this question. That said, quoting any source other than the 1983 Code of Canon Law in order to prove that munus and ministerium are synonymous is not helpful. The distinction between the terms exists in the Code, it is possible to have a ministerium without having a munus (instituted lay ministries), and, it has been a subject of great debate in the Church in recent decades, for better or for worse. I agree that there is no “magic formula” for renouncing the papacy, and it’s pretty clear that Pope Benedict intended to stop appointing bishops and other such tasks, but he has not completely abandoned being a Pope. The fact that he freely grants his apostolic blessing, which only the Pope can do, is evidence of this. He has also raised his voice on a few occasions, most notably over the issue of priestly celibacy following the Amazon synod. If he had gone back to Bavaria, never to be heard from or seen again in public, his intentions would have been very clear. The fact that he has stayed in the Vatican has raised the question of whether he is essentially a prisoner, especially after he was abruptly called back from his trip to be with his brother as he was dying. The biggest reason that this speculation exists at all is that Pope Benedict’s successor has been an utter “trainwreck,” who has returned Rome to the “bad old days” of the ‘70s, even as the rest of the Church in the West has transitioned from decline to collapse. This doesn’t even get into the matter of possible violations of the law governing conclaves, promulgated in 1996, that clearly forsees the possibility that there could be efforts to install an illegitimate claimant on Peter’s throne. Catholic believers have faith that the papacy is conferred directly and immediately by Christ on the man who accepts the election of the cardinals, and that his scriptural promise not to let the gates of hell prevail against the Church will always hold. It’s very difficult to see how this holds true these days, if Francis is the true pope.

  4. A Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short, which is a standard, well-respected dictionary of long standing, states simply that ministerium and munus are synonyms.

    But is not the argument that CANON LAW demands the distinction be made and that these distinctions are legally recognized in order of the resignation to be valid? So it hinges legally on that legal distinction and not the common parsing of any Latin Dictionary?

    If a pope renounces the administration of his office, he necessarily renounces the office itself, because the office per se (vi muneris) entails the right to act.

    Except that according to the testimony of Archbishop Ganwein, Benedict XVI didn’t do this. Ganswein could be a great big liar I guess… except he has never retracted this, so I guess we should just oh… I don’t know… just ASK Benedict… but for some reason nobody seems capable of doing this… He is so hard to get ahold of…

    Can. 332 Sec. 2 (English) — 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.

    Interestingly, it does not have to be accepted by even the Roman College of Cardinals.

    But this begs the question.

    What is important to note here is that what is necessary is proper manifestation, not necessarily a set form of expression. There is not a set text, for example, which the Pope must recite publicly, with his right hand on the Holy Gospels, in order for the renunciation to be valid. There is no requirement for him to use any specific word, whether munus, ministerium, officium, papatus, or any other.

    Whoa horse! Not so fast… The requirement is that the Munus, specifically, must be relinquished, by law, and that not only did Benedict make known the distinction in his speech, but specifically went on to drop one but not the other, and this is supported by Ganswein’s testimony, and is also MANIFESTED by Benedict continuing to also outwardly dress as Pope, bless as Pope, sign as Pope, and Francis even drags all his new bishops and cardinals to him.

    With Pope Emeritus Benedict standing by, Pope Francis has named bishops and cardinals, canonized saints, declared Doctors of the Church, modified canon law, and significantly modified at least one decree by Pope Benedict himself (Summorum Pontificum), which can be done only by the Supreme Pontiff.

    Ummmm… an Antipope can also visibly do all of these things. I mean… what is physically stopping him? How do we know that it is all kosher? Did you check heaven to see if those saints are up there? I’m personally confident Blessed Francisco and Jacinta are there, but in terms of official procedural recognition, all this again begs the question.

    For our part, then, we must fulfill the munus of filial piety that God has given us.

    Can a valid Pope ratify Holy Communion for public adulterous marriages as Francis has done? Are the souls of the damned annihilated with no forever in Hell? Does God positively will all other false religions? Do you recognize these as acts of a sovereign pontiff with his signature and proclamations binding upon you to accept piously… or are we going to see you get out of your filial duty with appeals to the same legalisms and distinctions and Latin dictionaries of what Francis actually meant with lazy wording and when infallibility and general Papal authority is ackshully exercised under which you are to piously accept all of a sudden using the same logical reasoning and legal and worded distinctions that you would deny to the Benedict-is-Pope crowd?

  5. Why not debate this with either:

    a) an ecclesiastical Latin expert e.g. Br Alexis Bugnolo and/or
    b) a Canon law expert, familiar with changes made by Pope St John Paul II to Canon Law and Papal Conclave regulations?

    Ecclesiastical Latin is not the same as any of Vulgar, Classical or Late Latin.

    Without considering specific and precise changes made to Canon Law in 1983 and to the rules governing the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff, Universi Dominici Gregis, 1996 promulgated by Pope John Paul II, along with following changes to that by Pope Benedict XVI, your position lacks essential context.

  6. Upon reading Pope Benedict’s Declaration online in Latin, we read that Pope Benedict XVI resigns, and so why did he use both words: munus and ministerium? This question is not specifically addressed in the above writing by Fr. Rickert … or maybe I missed his explanation as to why Pope Benedict XVI used both words instead of one or the other, as according to Fr. Rickert’s article, they are synonyms of each other.

    See: http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

    In the Latin version, which I expect is Pope Benedict’s original writing, there are Three Paragraphs, whereas in the other languages translations, there are only two Paragraphs.

    So, referring to the Latin writing of Pope Benedict’s declaration, the Second paragraph has “munus” in first sentence, and “ministerium” is in Second paragraph second sentence.

    One can change the language from Latin, to any of the other languages listed there at the upper right …

    I do wonder why the changes of the wording … seen easily in the English translation?? Why did the translators not stay with the very specific usage by Pope Benedict XVI of “munus” and “magisterium”??

    God bless, C-Marie

  7. Father neglects the fact that the 1983 CIC specifically separates the canonical terms “minus” and “ministerium” such that they are never in Canon Law used synonymously. The ministry is part of the munus in all cases where the terms are mentioned. Seeing as papal resignations are canonical acts, governed under canon law, Benedict’s uses of the terms must be with canonical definitions in mind, not common definitions. This is where both Dr. Taylor Marshall and Ryan Grant make their errors.

  8. Oops!! Last sentence … meant to write “ministerium” and not “magisterium”.

    God bless, C-Marie

  9. surely at this point most know why Benedict (who must by now be senile in any event) had no choice but to step down when he did… I mean c’mon.

  10. Summa Contra the BiP Theory (Why Benedict XVI is NOT the pope)
    Posted on February 11, 2020 by Steven O’Reilly

    can be found at the blog I linked to and the gentleman answers every claim
    Calmly and rationally

  11. A circle jerk over nothing. For all I care, George Costanza is the one and only pope. Inconceivable, how so many people get so worked up over such nonsense. Even if I one day decided to be a Christian, my spirituality would reside in my head and manifest itself in my behavior. No need for some guy in a goofy hat and pointy slippers, living in a Renaissance palace at the expense of impoverished millions, to intervene with god on my behalf.

  12. Dr. Briggs,

    Let me begin by saying that the heaviest evidence of the failed abdication comes through canon 188, Benedict’s Substantial Error regarding his transformation of the papacy itself, and his continued role in it, as has been pointed out by previous commenters. The error remains stunningly visible down through the years, as we see his residency, his vesture, his coat of arms, his title, his form of address, his Fisherman’s Ring not destroyed, and his bestowing of his Apostolic Blessing. Said error is woven throughout the Miller Dissertation, the Ganswein speech, the Seewald interviews, Benedicts own words over and over again…

    By the time we’ve sifted through all that, canon 332.2 is just icing on the cake: He flat out didn’t resign the munus. “If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns HIS MUNUS…” and I should point out that JPII/Ratzinger specifically added this phrase to the 1983 code… the 1917 code doesn’t have it. The citing of Lewis and Short is astonishingly shallow, as any canonist (I’m not one) can explain that the two words don’t mean the same thing in Canon Law, and not even close. Moreover, this fact is evident in literally hundreds of different canons where officium, munus, and ministerium are used and differentiated. Father Z wrote a masterpiece on this topic last year, link and short quote below:

    “The fact is that munus and ministerium do not mean the same thing, though they are often bound together. For example, one carries out a certain ministry in the Church because he holds an office, a munus. Canon law says that the Pope has to resign the munus… Words have meanings. It is not right simply to conflate munus and ministerium as if they are interchangeable. They are closely tied to each other but they are not synonyms. Not even close.”

    https://wdtprs.com/2021/06/the-question-of-two-popes-bothers-a-lot-of-people-some-thoughts/

  13. Pardon my repetition here, but to be clear: Even if munus and ministerium were not synonymous, although they are, in the case of the pope, the munus entails the ministerium (in the senses that the BiP wish to be the case). Renunciation of the latter entails renunciation of the former. If P implies Q, then not-Q implies not-P. (Contrapositive.)

  14. Fr. Rickert, renouncing ministerium does not mean renouncing the munus. Benedict’s intention seems to have been to announce active ministry, but not to renounce the office by which that ministry may be exercised. – Fr And

  15. Here is my comment with the last word corrected …

    Upon reading Pope Benedict’s Declaration online in Latin, we read that Pope Benedict XVI resigns, and so why did he use both words: munus and ministerium? This question is not specifically addressed in the above writing by Fr. Rickert … or maybe I missed his explanation as to why Pope Benedict XVI used both words instead of one or the other, as according to Fr. Rickert’s article, they are synonyms of each other.
    See: http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

    In the Latin version, which I expect is Pope Benedict’s original writing, there are Three Paragraphs, whereas in the other languages translations, there are only two Paragraphs.

    So, referring to the Latin writing of Pope Benedict’s declaration, the Second paragraph has “munus” in first sentence, and “ministerium” is in Second paragraph second sentence.

    One can change the language from Latin, to any of the other languages listed there at the upper right …

    I do wonder why the changes of the wording … seen easily in the English translation?? Why did the translators not stay with the very specific usage by Pope Benedict XVI of “munus” and “ministerium??

    God bless, C-Marie

  16. Canon 332.2 with regards to PROPERLY MANIFESTING.
    Pope Benedict XVI STILL wears white every single day.
    Pope Benedict XVI STILL wears his Papal Ring.
    Pope Benedict XVI STILL signs his name POPE Benedict XVI.
    Pope Benedict XVI STILL gives his Apostolic Blessing (that only a Pope can give.)
    Pope Benedict XVI is to this day properly manifesting that HE IS STILL THE POPE.

  17. He destroyed his ring

    A Pope can authorise a former Pope to give the Apostolic Blessing

    A not Pope can not assemble a consistory and name Cardinals which the former Pope has not done

    Benedict has repeatedly stated publicly he is not Pope and he describes as absurd claims than he is Pope.

  18. In fact, any priest can give the Apostolic Blessing, which imparts a plenary indulgence, to someone who is dying. The blessing is in the Roman Ritual.

  19. Renunciation of the latter entails renunciation of the former.

    You don’t know this. You assume this. Statements and distinctions drawn by both Benedict and Ganswein imply otherwise.

    In order to know this with certainty, Benedict himself must clarify under an Inquisitory hearing and in doing so MUST denounce the statements made by Ganswein. Ganswein too must come out and admit culpability leading people into error and renounce his own remarks.

    That’s really the minimum that needs to be done. Should be simple enough. So years later and scandal spreading, why hasn’t it?

    There is no Canon requiring a pope to use specific latin words.

    There is a requirement that he renounce the munus clearly in whatever language or verbiage you prefer, but not only does Benedict draw a direct distinction between both Latin words specifically, he goes out of his way to pick one specifically, whilst also making statements that in some new way he remains within the “enclave of St. Peter”, implies that the bestowal of the Papacy on someone is a committment forever, invents an ENTIRELY NEW novelty of a Pope-Emeritus title and maintains all the outward signs of a visible Pope, and even so far as admits that he is doing something very different than Celestine, if Ganswein is to be believed.

    Some may like to blissfully pass-over these distinctions and actions by hand-waving them away, but forget that they are dealing with a religion with a history of daring to tear the world apart over definitions and dogma about distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from Whom, and what precisely occurs at the Consecration of Bread and Wine and the precise terminology that is fitting, and when improper ritual and incorrect words being used can and do entirely nullify and violate the Sacraments.

    So yeah, words matter. And in dispute over the words, intention needs to be revealed, and Benedict ain’t talking. And when he does talk, he is answering the wrong questions. The questions are not whether he considers himself “retired” or “bishop of Rome” or “emeritus”… it is whether or not as Ganswein explained, he believes that he somehow retains any part or portion or “ministerium” that properly belongs specifically to the Pope that allows him to continue to do specific, if heavily curtailed, Papal signs and actions.

    If answering that in the affirmative, then this has implications DESPITE his intentions due to….

    Ding! Ding! Ding! SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.

    A common hypothetical example is what would happen if in the event of two Papal claimants, the true Pope resigns by erroneously believing himself to be the anti-pope?

    Well then, obviously this error would invalidate the resignation. And it wouldn’t make the actual anti-pope the Pope or the actual Pope not-the-Pope.

    So therefore, does Benedict XVI hold an error in mind in his resignation? And does it invalidate it REGARDLESS of the words being used, even if we were to assume their interchangability?

    Even your link to Roma Lacuta Est admits in its Final Thoughts that he has no idea. He simply assumes in some misplaced charity at both links that Benedict couldn’t possibly mean what his own words are being taken to be meant by the BisP side. But how does he know this? And why should he know better than Ganswein? All he does is handwave away evidence to the contrary. He merely assumes from thin air that the BisP are “unfairly reading” him and that he finds it “hard to imagine” that the great theologian Benedict (also long known for his own early affairs with modernist positions and theological circles that Roma Est conveniently pretends don’t exist), would ever do anything like that.

    Well, Ganswein obviously disagrees and I think that Benedict’s own secretary would know Benedict’s intentions better than the Roma Est blog. Unless Roma would like to go on the record and publicly call Ganswein a liar which Roma tries to handwave away as Ganswein being merely “flowery and panegryical.” Yeah… I’m sure Benedict appreciates the equivalency of potentially-explosive heresy as praise.

    Roma then tries to equivocate Ganswein’s earlier equivocations of Benedict transforming the Papal office into expansion, similar in his mind as the Immaculate Conception and contrary to Celestine, as being a similar flowery poetic sense as the author Rigoli also taking part in the “munus Petri.”

    First off, when Ganwein is referring to Benedict’s actions, he is implying them in a manner of what Benedict’s own thinking was when making his resignation. Benedict certainly wasn’t thinking of Rigoli or his book.

    Secondly, all of Benedict’s words and actions before and after the fact have nothing to do with Rigoli, and in fact are consistent with what Ganswein claims that somehow Benedict still believes he somehow shares and retains some mysterious aspect of the Papacy even if the See of Peter – the chair – the authority – the “active ministry” – is vacated for someone else to occupy as part of a shared ministry under one munus tent. None of that has to do with Rigoli. And the actions Roma Est admits are there, are all literally being done by Benedict that Roma calls “regretable”, but then somehow declares doesn’t make Benedict Pope. Well, maybe not, but they do BETRAY Benedict’s thinking which is consistent with Ganswein’s supposed panegyricalism and thus this is what is at the heart of the matter as to whether or not Benedict resigned with substantial error in mind that would invalidate his resignation regardless of feelings and grammatical sentence structure.

    The more charitable reading, therefore, without making Ganswein out to be a complete and utter liar, is that Ganswein ends his interview by jokingly saying that Rigoli too, through contemplation of Benedict via his book “shares” in the “munus Petri.” How does Roma know that what Ganswein said earlier was also all in the same “figurative” sense? It doesn’t folloe, especially given rhat Ganswein seems to be attributing motives to Benedict’s Pope-emeritus title status and especially his “regretable” non-figurative actions, which are all something very real and not at all figurative, and therefore CANNOT be something done for entirely figurative reasons, otherwise Ganswein is NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION, yet he is waxing poetic for no reason without intending to answer anything seriously! A simple “I dunno” or even an “I think…” would’ve sufficed as to why Benedict is doing all those “regretable” things that make him look and sound Papal in his active-ministry retirement.

    Even when splitting hairs we are left with statements by Benedict that CONTRADICT his own words and actions. This makes the entire legal proceeding doubtful and no secular lawyers would ever agree to such inconsistency in any secular legal documents or actions.

    The entirety of the Roma Locuta Est blog’s aplogetic is:

    1. Benedict has made some strange and contradictory statements.

    2. BisPer’s interpretation is wrong because I feel Benedict didn’t mean that because that would be “uncharitable.” So Benedict couldn’t have meant it that way because ot sounds bad.

    3. Proof? None at all, but Benedict is a very smart theologian and surely he would never ever make such an error! Otherwise that would be bad, and Benedict would never do anything bad, just trust me.

    4. Ganswein made some very strange statements. But he wanted to suck up to an author and effeminately kiss his ego, so he was always speaking flowery ridiculous words… why there’s no possible way he could both panegyricalicise AND speak the plain truth at the same time, c’mon man!

    5. Proof? Why… I think that Ganswein thinks of what Benedict thinks the same way I do of Benedict’s thinking; so his words MUST be read within the confines of my FisP theory. But only I may do this because see #3. Just trust me.

    At least Roma Est is open to an investigation and council to examine all of this. That’s all we want too. Let Benedict be called upon to clarify for himself without anyone putting words in his mouth.

  20. In fact, any priest can give the Apostolic Blessing, which imparts a plenary indulgence, to someone who is dying.

    Yes, Father. Under very certain specific conditions a priest can do certain things allowed under the authority of what Papal power has loosed him to charitably do for the good of souls that he otherwise cannot. But that is a distinction with a difference that Benedict is not seen to be exercising. Benedict’s actions are either scandalous in their presumption and laxity and disregard for proper norms and office, or scandalous in that they are in line with what he believes himself to be.

  21. 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 canonical 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 resigned 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. Ann Barnhardt, who decides what actions are in sync/compliance with Canon Law.

    In deciding whether or not he was in synch/compliance with Canon Law when he resigned, who was the Supreme Legislator who had authority to take that decision?

    What it Pope Benedict XVI?

    Was it you, Disciples of Ann (D.O.A.) ?

    Was it you, Lieutenant Weinberg?

    Another thing to consider. Ms. Ann accepted the election of Pope Francis and referred to him as Pope for over a year as I recall- one can search it out on her blog as I did – before she soured on Bergoglio and that is when she instigated this double secret substantial error codicil.

    Sadly, for Ms Ann, where she right about Substantial Error even if Francis had spoken and acted as young Pope Pius X’s Mini-me, her substantial error claim would mean that elderly Pope Benedict XVI would still be Pope and the young Pope Pius X Mimi-me would not be Pope even though he spoke and acted as one of the best Popes ever.

    This is silliness on stilts and even all the Cardinals who submitted The Dubia made it clear they had aught to do with this substantial error claim and one of them, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, was the former Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura – Catholic Supreme Court – which means the former Chief Justice of the Catholic Supreme Court does not believe this substantial error thingy.

    Of course facts will not dissuade the true disciples of Ann because the idea BISP is a delusion and delusions are not correctable by facts.

    C’est la vie

  22. It is true that a a priest can give an apostolic blessing on behalf of the pope. But Benedict gives “la mia benedicazione apostolica.”

  23. The argument is: Oh, dear. Dad is crazy; he actually needs to have the keys to the car taken away from him. The fourth commandment requires we we still have to smile and keep the Ferrari serviced and available at all times for him to drive.

    (Oh, the horror, as the face of my logic teacher, Mr. Gomes from Goa, looms large in my memory.)

    Aside from the munus argument, the St Gallen conspiracy is enough to violate the rules of papal election and invalidate his position. At best, H. E. Jorge is a bishop gone rogue.

  24. Also, the apostolic pardon is sometimes also called the apostolic blessing. This is separate from the papal/apostolic blessing, which Benedict gives in his own name.

  25. In deciding whether or not he was in synch/compliance with Canon Law when he resigned, who was the Supreme Legislator who had authority to take that decision?

    Compliance with canon law demands obvious consistency in following the law. And if the Supreme Legislator doesn’t like it, then changing it legally before hand, and THEN obviously and consistently following it. Otherwise even the Supreme Legislator can be found to be violating the law, but not be juridicially judged as he is the highest authority, but the fact remains he failed to follow through on his actions. Nobody can excuse it away either via recource to occult motives that may absolve him.

    Another thing to consider. Ms. Ann accepted the election of Pope Francis and referred to him as Pope for over a year as I recall- one can search it out on her blog as I did – before she soured on Bergoglio and that is when she instigated this double secret substantial error codicil.

    So? All you ate telling is is that someone changed their mind after taking time to ponder over the evidence. Barnhardt’s beliefs then or now do not change the facts. The arguments by themselves suffice regardless of how much time passes. That St. Thomas rejected the Resurrection before Christ showed up and allowed him to check his wounds later doesn’t invalidate the reality of the Resurrection. And others were blowing the whistle before Barnhardt.

    even if Francis had spoken and acted as young Pope Pius X’s Mini-me, her substantial error claim would mean that elderly Pope Benedict XVI would still be Pope and the young Pope Pius X Mimi-me would not be Pope even though he spoke and acted as one of the best Popes ever.

    Yes it would. Your point being…? The goodness of a man has nothing to do with the fact as to whether he is objectively the Pope. Past anti-Popes were also very good men who would put the entire heirarchy today to shame.

    This is silliness on stilts and even all the Cardinals who submitted The Dubia made it clear they had aught to do with this substantial error claim and one of them, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, was the former Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura – Catholic Supreme Court – which means the former Chief Justice of the Catholic Supreme Court does not believe this substantial error thingy.

    Many saints in the past also sided with anti-Popes without knowing better. What’s your point here? Other than that we ought to follow the lead of certain ‘celebrity’ Church leaders rather than the evidence? Burke can’t follow-up on his own dubia. Rather unlikely he has the stones to take on anything even more gravely scandalous, especially when he can’t enter the Vatican now for lack of a vexxine passport.

  26. Jesus is still the Head of His Church and so why is what is happening happening?

    Was Psalm 88 a foreshadowing of the Papacy of Franciscus?

    40: Thou hast overthrown the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his sanctuary on the earth.

    “Overthrown the covenant”: All this seems to relate to the time of the captivity of Babylon, in which, for the sins of the people and their princes, God seemed to have set aside for a while the covenant he made with David.

    41: Thou hast broken down all his hedges: thou hast made his strength fear. [42]All that pass by the way have robbed him: he is become a reproach to his neighbours. [43] Thou hast set up the right hand of them that oppress him: thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice. [44] Thou hast turned away the help of his sword; and hast not assisted him in battle. [45] Thou hast made his purification to cease: and thou hast cast his throne down to the ground.

    [46] Thou hast shortened the days of his time: thou hast covered him with confusion.

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

    Misericordias Domini. The perpetuity of the church of Christ, in consequence of the promise of God: which, notwithstanding, God permits her to suffer sometimes most grievous afflictions.

    [1] Of understanding, for Ethan the Ezrahite. [2] The mercies of the Lord I will sing for ever. I will shew forth thy truth with my mouth to generation and generation. [3] For thou hast said: Mercy shall be built up for ever in the heavens: thy truth shall be prepared in them. [4] I have made a covenant with my elect: I have sworn to David my servant: [5] Thy seed will I settle for ever. And I will build up thy throne unto generation and generation.

    [6] The heavens shall confess thy wonders, O Lord: and thy truth in the church of the saints. [7] For who in the clouds can be compared to the Lord: or who among the sons of God shall be like to God? [8] God, who is glorified in the assembly of the saints: great and terrible above all them that are about him. [9] O Lord God of hosts, who is like to thee? thou art mighty, O Lord, and thy truth is round about thee. [10] Thou rulest the power of the sea: and appeasest the motion of the waves thereof.

    [11] Thou hast humbled the proud one, as one that is slain: with the arm of thy strength thou hast scattered thy enemies. [12] Thine are the heavens, and thine is the earth: the world and the fulness thereof thou hast founded: [13]The north and the sea thou hast created. Thabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name: [14] Thy arm is with might. Let thy hand be strengthened, and thy right hand exalted: [15] Justice and judgment are the preparation of thy throne. Mercy and truth shall go before thy face:

    [16] Blessed is the people that knoweth jubilation. They shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance: [17] And in thy name they shall rejoice all the day, and in thy justice they shall be exalted. [18] For thou art the glory of their strength: and in thy good pleasure shall our horn be exalted. [19] For our protection is of the Lord, and of our king the holy one of Israel. [20] Then thou spokest in a vision to thy saints, and saidst: I have laid help upon one that is mighty, and have exalted one chosen out of my people.

    [21] I have found David my servant: with my holy oil I have anointed him. [22]For my hand shall help him: and my arm shall strengthen him. [23] The enemy shall have no advantage over him: nor the son of iniquity have power to hurt him. [24] And I will cut down his enemies before his face; and them that hate him I will put to flight. [25] And my truth and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

    [26] And I will set his hand in the sea; and his right hand in the rivers. [27] He shall cry out to me: Thou art my father: my God, and the support of my salvation. [28] And I will make him my firstborn, high above the kings of the earth. [29] I will keep my mercy for him for ever: and my covenant faithful to him. [30] And I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven.

    [31] And if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments: [32] If they profane my justices: and keep not my commandments: [33] I will visit their iniquities with a rod: and their sins with stripes. [34] But my mercy I will not take away from him: nor will I suffer my truth to fail. [35] Neither will I profane my covenant: and the words that proceed from my mouth I will not make void.

    [36] Once have I sworn by my holiness: I will not lie unto David: [37] His seed shall endure for ever. [38] And his throne as the sun before me: and as the moon perfect for ever, and a faithful witness in heaven. [39] But thou hast rejected and despised: thou hast been angry with thy anointed. [40] Thou hast overthrown the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his sanctuary on the earth.

    [40] “Overthrown the covenant”: All this seems to relate to the time of the captivity of Babylon, in which, for the sins of the people and their princes, God seemed to have set aside for a while the covenant he made with David.

    [41] Thou hast broken down all his hedges: thou hast made his strength fear. [42] All that pass by the way have robbed him: he is become a reproach to his neighbours. [43] Thou hast set up the right hand of them that oppress him: thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice. [44] Thou hast turned away the help of his sword; and hast not assisted him in battle. [45] Thou hast made his purification to cease: and thou hast cast his throne down to the ground.

    [46] Thou hast shortened the days of his time: thou hast covered him with confusion. [47] How long, O Lord, turnest thou away unto the end? shall thy anger burn like fire? [48] Remember what my substance is for hast thou made all the children of men in vain? [49] Who is the man that shall live, and not see death: that shall deliver his soul from the hand of hell? [50] Lord, where are thy ancient mercies, according to what thou didst swear to David in thy truth?

    [51] Be mindful, O Lord, of the reproach of thy servants (which I have held in my bosom) of many nations: [52] Wherewith thy enemies have reproached, O Lord; wherewith they have reproached the change of thy anointed. [53]Blessed be the Lord for evermore. So be it. So be it.

    Ver. 39. Rejected. In all kingdoms, there are some interruptions, and God did not fail in his promises. He still maintained the sceptre in Juda, though not with the same splendour at all times. Bert. — Angry. Or Lit. “hast deferred.” Distulisti. H. — The Israelites ardently wished for the coming of the Messias. The psalmist here contrasts the present forlorn condition of the people with the preceding promises; and bewails the fate of Sedecias, who was slain at a distance from home. Distulisti. See Ps. lxxvii. 21. and lxii. C. — Thou hast been angry with thy Christ, (king Sedecias) and even with our Redeemer, in some sense, (C.) as He was treated thus, in consequence of the sins of mankind. Euseb. &c. — The promises were not fulfilled in David, that we may look farther. Solomon seemed to answer all his expectations. But he fell, and God had not him but Christ in view. The kingdom and sacrifices of the Jews are no more. Christ was not taken from them, but deferred. Some Jews and many Gentiles believed in him, v. 47. &c. S. Aug. W. — Anointed. Thou hast despised us, and delayed the coming of the Messias. We cannot accuse the psalmist of impatience, as a late commentator has done, his words being dictated by the Holy Ghost. He expostulates with love and confidence, (Bert.) and comforts himself with the thought, that the coming of the Messias is only delayed. W.

    Ver. 40. Overthrown the covenant, &c. All this seems to relate to the time of the captivity of Babylon, in which, for the sins of the people and their princes, God seemed to have set aside for a while the covenant he made with David. Ch. — Yet he did not in effect, v. 39. H. — Sanctuary. The temple, (Theod.) or according to the Heb. “the diadem,” by which the king was “set apart” from the common people, and rendered sacred. Ps. cxxxi. 18. Bert. — The psalmist speaks in the person of the weak, who complained, (W.) that the kingdom ws a prey to invaders, and the Church oppressed by infidels. W. T.

    Ver. 41. Fear. All this forts can afford no refuge. The country is like an abandoned vineyard. The Assyrians and Chaldees have ruined it, and the neighbouring nations of Samaria and Edom take possession of it. C. — Thou leadest on their armies, and renderest our efforts useless. M. — This conduct of God proceeded from mercy. This severe chastisement awakened his people, who after the captivity were more tractable. Chal. Bert. C.

    Ver. 45. Cease. The priests are absent; and he cannot be purified in the temple. — Purification may here denote the royal ornaments. Pagn. C. M.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
    This has happened before to His chosen people and we are the new chosen people and so it is not a surprise it is happening to us.

    Trust in The Lord. Wait on The Lord. This is His Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church that He promised you never fail.

    Franciscus can not destroy it . Please, he can destroy what Jesus established?

    Saint Vincent of Lerins in Commonitory taught us that God permits prelates to promote novelties as a way to see if we love Him. We prove our love for Him by maintaining the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority and by clinging to Tradition – the faith once delivered.

    Franciscus should not shake your Faith. I think he was elected Pope – and, remember, God does choose our Pope according to the Real Mass – owing to the manifest sins of His Church. Franciscus is our punishment for our sins.

    My God My God, why have you abandoned us?

    I haven’t o ye of little faith.

  27. Initially, he who abdicated wanted to be called Father Benedict which makes his putative retention of part of the Papacy triple double secret squared.

    Is this too churlish?

    https://www.tektonministries.org/simply-call-me-father-benedict/

    How nice! He should therefore explain why he also changed his mind 180 degrees.

    Also…

    “Father Benedict made his comments in a private conversation with journalist Jorg Bremer, who published bits of them in a Dec. 7 article for German newspaper F.A.Z.”

    Ah yes… nothing at all suspicious coming from the same groupies that selectively quote Benedict to suit their narratives.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/pope-benedict-xvi-pope-francis-vatican-alters-photo-of-letter/

    General acess to Fr. Benedict to verify anything by unapproved 3rd parties is heavily restricted, you understand?

  28. Father,

    “Renunciation of the latter entails renunciation of the former.”

    I’m not a canon lawyer, but doesn’t Canon 131.1 contradict this?

    Can. 131 §1. The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.

  29. Dear Johnno. Is he being held captive?

    No a few folks have visited him there. Were he really captive, you don’t think he would have alerted one of his visitors.

    Some have called for an Inquisition but such an Inquisition would not have its findings accept either; So and so was on the Inquisition team? C’mon man, he’s a dirt bag

    Because the BISP ideology is what it is it is useful to label it as a delusion because no calm and rational response to it is ever accepted because genetic fallacy.

    You dismiss the analysis of a well known Canon Lawyer, you dismiss the analysis of the former Chief Justice of the Catholic Supreme Court and so I don’t know whose analysis you will accept.

    I am done in here today Johnno.

    I do have to say I am bit surprised you are a BISPer.

    Pax tecum. You are a good man.

  30. God is keeping His Church. No Pope has taught error concerning doctrines of faith and morals. Trust Christ to see us, His Church, through this Pope. Pray for the continuing formation by the Holy Spirit for the next Pope, with hope it is God’s time to have a holy Pope. Pray for all who are Pope, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, that they and we all, fully submit our whole being to the Lord Jesus Christ. Pray the new Pope will work with God to restore Catholicism to its formation in the beginning.

    There is no possibility that women can become priests, but in the beginning, when the Church was first formed, the first Pope was a married man as well as James and more who were….see 1 Corinthians 9.

    Also, remember that ….. He probably appeared to His mother first after His Resurrection ….. that Jesus appeared first, to a woman, to Mary Magdalen and He told her to tell His Apostles:

    “14When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” 16Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” 18Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.” John 20: 14-18.

    So, God had women involved in the top levels of His Church right from the first. It seems the reason being, that a true balance would be in place, with Husband and wives ministering to the married. This does not mean that all priests are called to be married, but many are called to be married and to have families. As it was in the beginning.

    God bless, C-Marie

  31. C-Marie,
    We know Peter had a mother-in-law, so we know he was married at one time. We don’t know if he was married when Jesus chose him. He may have been a widower.

  32. I don’t know about RCC canon law, but it is clear he resigned under durress (however that’s spelled) and essentially had a gun to his head (maybe even literally). We all know that globohomo in the Vatican forced him to resign. So from that perspective all the crap about munus and ministerium aside, his resignation looks invalid to me.

    And since he was forced to resign, and we know the homos (not of the sapien variety) forced him to resign, and we know Francis “who am I to judge ” is one of them whixh is why he can’t judge, then we know Francis was in on forcing Benedict to resign and that an agreement was made among the cardinals to elect Francis before Benedict was even forced to resign. And this I do know about canon law: the last changes to the canons about papal elections before Francis said if any cardinals make an agreement to vote for a particular person before the conclave then the election is invalid and they are ipso facto excommunicated with sentence already pronounced. Therefore not only is Francis not pope but all the cardinals were ipso facto excommunicated and are no longer even Catholuc much less clergy—they weren’t even busted down to priests, they were ipso facto excommunicated. Which means the next conclave will hold an invalid election too, becauae it will be the same excommunicated cardinals (and new ones appointed by the fake pope) doing the voting.

  33. Msgr. Gaenswein in Codex Ratzinger: there is a legitimate and an illegitimate pope. The true meaning of “pope emeritus”
    https://sfero.me/article/msgr-gaenswein-in-codex-ratzinger-there-is-a-legitimate-and-an-illegitimate-pope-the-true-meaning-of-pope-emeritus

    Ratzinger was inspired by the law of the German Princes for the Munus / Ministerium Anti-usurpation System
    https://sfero.me/article/ratzinger-was-inspired-by-the-law-of-the-german-princes-for-the-munus-ministerium-anti-usurpation-system

  34. Well, actually we do know that Peter’s wife and James’ wife were living as well as those of many of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord.

    “3My defense to those who examine me is this: 4Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? ” 1 Corinthians 9: 3-4.

    God bless, C-Marie

  35. Instances of Canon Law that are subject to the Supreme Legislator necessarily need a Supreme Legislator to judge them. Acts of papal resignation (or attempted resignation) don’t have a Supreme Legislator, because the Supreme Legislator in question is the one who is, in theory, removing the authority from himself, leaving no Supreme Legislator. Thus, when considering acts of papal resignation, we are left with Canon Law, and then the judgement of competent authorities in place when the act or resignation was attempted.

    You can’t rely on anyone who assumed authority after the resignation to judge, because their authority is under the same question as the act of resignation. To assume Benedict has the authority to judge is to recognize that he never resigned.

  36. @Steven Platt, April 20th 09:444:
    Yes, <i< thought I was confused before you said it but turns out I may be right.
    He is the man who excuses one of his friends for crimes the details of which are linked below:
    Since the priests are not allowed to comment on pain of excommunication, they don’t give his full title which Benedict we’re invited to refer on his validity as Pope.
     
    Pope Benedict XVI ; Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger. (1927-04-16) 16 April 1927 (age 95).

    For some years now, a theory has been circulating, and even attracting more attention and followers, that Pope Emeritus Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Consequently, proponents say, Pope Benedict remains the pope, and Pope Francis is not really the pope.

    ___
    It’s dizzying to recall all the double name dealings if you’re not a Catholic. Since we’re discussing the the one prior to the current Pope, about whom we are concerned… that is the real pope?
     
    @58:00 Steven Fry
    @55:25 Ratzinger made Thomas Moore the torturer, patron saint of politicians
     
    @1hr: 05: 30 Steven Fry makes the intuitive point which I believe is true, not that giving the money away is the key, (although that might show willing to The Word). His first contention
    That Jesus would not be welcome. He wouldn’t be welcomed because they wouldn’t know who he was. ..not without his proving with a miracle but that would be too late.
    (Fry starts @ 48:09 )
     
    @15:00 Christopher Hitchens:
    Commented on this elsewhere, years ago to Michael 2, that in this speech his criticism is justified.
    ___
    https://youtu.be/JZRcYaAYWg4

  37. Dear C-Marie. From the get go even married priests were to be continent and celibate and Jesus established a male only Hierarchy.

  38. Mick, thanks for the links, which I was unaware of before.

    Dear Father. You are welcome. I love the FSSP and I first became aware of them a long time ago when a local Jebbie, Father Calvin Goodwin, began celebrating the Real Mass (Indult) in the Chapel of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Portland, Maine.

    The good Father had wandered into a church in France where he became aware of the Real Mass and fell in love with it and we were blessed to have him as our priest and as a source of advice and encouragement for our local trad study group.

    Fr Godwin received permission to quit the Jebbies and throw-in with the FSSP. He is Aces.

    After I moved to Florida, I began to assist at the Real Mass at Christ the King Catholic Church in Sarasota, where an excellent schola provides the beautiful classic Catholic Music, sacred polyphony and chant.

    Long ago, the FSSP should have been given their own Bishop.

  39. Here is a link to a good 2 part explanation of the captious question – Is Francis Pope?

    An internal link is provided for part 1

    https://onepeterfive.com/objection-answer-francis-pope/

    When he was Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger publicly taught that it is an infallible fact that the man elected Pope is Pope.

    I’ll chase down the link

  40. Sorry. I didn’t provide there right link. Here it is and here is the then Prefect of there Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Church, Jospeh Cardinal Ratzinger on a papal election:

    With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.37…

    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

    I’m outta here

  41. In the church “Form” and “Matter” are hugely important. So here we have a pope who is the first in 2,000 years to “resign” AND stay around dressed as a pope, lives as a pope, is called a pope, and stays in Rome as a pope. Yet we are told he is no longer a pope. I am just one of the dumb sheep. I cannot tell who the real shepherd is. If a shepherd quits yet still hangs around the sheep how are the sheep, who really need to be shepherded, as God designed, supposed to know who is the shepherd in charge? Manifestation is clearly and obviously lacking. This is more of that modern theology where you can make it up as you go. New inventions out thin air. One other issue that is troubling. JPII set up the rules of the conclave. Yet who is supposed to make sure they are followed as written? The bishops? The same bishops who were to ensure our young men were safe from homosexual predators. So, there were rules that if they were not followed cardinals would have been automatically excommunicated. Who determines if that occurred?? It’s automatic, so it may have occurred. Which means the man elected may have been excommunicated? so, could he still be pope if he were excommunicated automatically? Who makes these determinations? Why write a document with these conditions and no one really in charge of enforcing them? This makes no sense, and the rules are not worth the paper they are written on. We know for sure they took an extra vote which violated the rules. But in a church since that since the 50’s makes things up as you go, and rules only apply in certain situations, what the heck.

  42. Dear Todd. ve of Bergoglio had been excommunicated he had standing to vote in a conclave:

    Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (December 8, 1945).

    This document includes a special provision—startling at first glance—that in fact has been included substantially in all other papal legislation for conclaves from the fourteenth century on. (The most recent legislative act on this topic is John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Universo Dominici Gregis, issued February 22, 1996.) The relevant law laid down by Pius Xll reads as follows:

    “None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor” (VAS 34). Active in this context means that such a cardinal may vote in the election, while passive means he himself can be elected.

  43. The plain and simple truth is that even if Bergoglio/Franciscus was an arm of the devil he would still have authority over you.

  44. Dear Brother Bugnolo;

    I did a quick check on your blog. You too accepted the election of Francis, just like Bullets Barnhardt.
    One suspects that neither you or Bullets appreciates the irony that both of you helped constitute the near universal acceptance of the election of a Pope – a Pope you now both call an antipope.

    Y’all sound like John Kerry Catholics in that y’all were for Pope Francis’ legitimate election before you were against his election.

    What happened to all your legalistic gnosis back when he was elected?

    Here are your words for all to see….

    FAITH
    I HAVE PRAYED FOR YOU SIMON, THAT YOUR FAITH MAY NOT FAIL…
    OCTOBER 1, 2013

    In the Gospel of St. Luke 22:31-32, it is written: And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

    Xp-PeterOur Lord and Master’s words are transgressed in many ways: often bloggers forget the ones about fraternal correction; there is a way Our Lord wants us to follow, and it is often a mortal sin to act differently because it harms or destroys the chances of our fallen brother’s conversion and repentance. Egging a man on, who is prone to let his mouth run, by correcting and insulting him in public, is not going to achieve his conversion. It is more likely to only make matters worse, to the great displeasure of Our Lord and God, who prefers the salvation of all, especially the more outstanding sinners.

    Even the great saints who had to correct their highest earthly superior, did it with discretion, followed our Lord’s rules (first in private, then in private with another, then with the Church). St. Bernard and a council of Burgundian Bishops went to far as to threaten the Pope of their day with excommunication if he did not change his pastoral policy on the injustice of lay investiture … imagine, and that was not even primarily a question of heresy, just the Church’s liberty…

    I think that many a blogger’s manner of contentiously pushing the issues from the get go of the present Papacy, helped the blossoming of the present crisis. [Proof: The use by main stream news outlets of quotes found on Bloggers pages attacking Pope Francis. — For charity sake, I won’t name the blogs here.] It is easy to say things that ought not be said in public, when one uses a moniker, but that won’t excuse us before the Throne of Judgement.

    A lot of Catholics at Rome are saying, in private and on the phone the same things, but the Italians have a great sensibility to the kind of proper discretion to be used in cases like this…

    Comunque, as we say in Italian, let us pray doubly for the Pope, amend our own failings, and even do some fasting, joining ourselves with Christ in His own prayer, “I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail….”!
    ++++++++++++ end quote++++++++

    Well, so much for all the words of warning you now personally violate 

  45. No questioning the male hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church from here. Specifically wrote that women cannot be ordained, cannot become Christ’s priests, though some might go through the ceremony somewhere.

    Only pointed out that there were many married priests for a long while in the beginnings of thenChurch, and that God our Father could (using our words) have chosen an unmarried man, or a widower, but He did not do so. God our Father chose a man whose marriage and wife were alive and well, which selection points to His will and the value that He places upon the good of marriage for balance and well being.

    As far as continency goes, they were led of by the Holy Spirit for that and all. Anyone know of early, meaning first 100 to 200 years of Church history, where the observance of continency is written about or was ordered? Am aware of the observance regarding Judaism, but is it an assumption or established fact, that the Apostles and more who were married men, observed absolute continency?

    From the USCCB SITE:

    “1
    Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?a
    2
    Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

    3
    My defense against those who would pass judgment on me* is this.
    4
    * Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
    5
    Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”

    In the French language, the word for “woman” is “femme”, and the word for “wife” is also “femme”. And of course the article is put in front of the word, as in “la femme”. So, the meaning of “la femme” is determined by the context of the usage. and or further description as needed for correct understanding.

    The Bishops site translates the Greek word, which also can mean either “woman” or “wife”, as wife. That translation is correct in that Paul is writing of married men.

    God bless, C-Marie

  46. Dear C Marie. “The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy,” Christian Cochini S.J.

    The “Directa” and “Cum In Unum” decretals of Pope Siricus A.D. 385 demanded off all priests a return to the Apostolic Praxis of continence and celibacy. It was not a novel imposition of a discipline but a response to the sordid behavior on the part of priests who were violating it.

    Mary, a model of the Church, had taken a vow of continence; see her response to Gabriel.

    Boniface has a post with excellent internal links referring to this Apostolic Praxis which is loathed by Satan and and his minions. This praxis is HATED by Satan and Modernists because it has to do with the Holy Holocaust/Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

    http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2019/09/but-eastern-churches-have-married.html

  47. Dear Debbie. Yes, I was born into a large Irish-Algonquin Catholic family in the Piemonte Region (OK, almost all of Vermont is Piemonte) of Vermont.

  48. “If Bergoglio is Pope, I am not Catholic. Many, many say the same.”

    Yes they do, and in the process do in fact deny their faith – all because a mortal man turned out to suck as the Pope.

    You poor men of little faith. Why do you hinge all your thoughts and actions on a fellow man? Trust in God.

  49. Mick….the life site “news” story is three years old. Quite a bit has happened since, not the least of which is pachademon worship which most likely brought about the covid scam. Irrelevant.

  50. Dear Debbie. Yes, that is true but the BISP faction still claim that what Gaenswein first claimed is probative in their court of private opinion.

    I was hoping to refresh the memories of the members of the jury that a putative witness had changed his testimony.

    Is that too churlish?

  51. Dearest Mick, the BiP movement is gaining momentum and for the life of me I cannot understand the hard push still for the “shut up stupid, Francis is Pope” crowd. Considering the state of the Church and therefore the state of the world, one would assume looking into the confusion of “two” popes in Rome would be welcomed by faithful Catholics.

    You seem to be hung up on people, such as “Bullets” Barnhardt (why the derogatory name?) “changing their minds. Is it really too hard for you to grasp that as more information comes to light or is discovered by one’s deeper investigation one might change their mind? I was doing the protestant thing until I investigated the Church’s claim of the Real Presence and the need for authority…..should my conversion (changing my mind) be held against me?

  52. Dear Debbie. I first ran into Bullets Barnhardt a long time on Free Republic and that descriptive nickname came almost immediately to mind when I watched her presentations. She is very militant and masculine and I can’t imagine she’d object to the monicker; she even gave a muslim who threatened to kill her intricate directions to her house and she used to post photos of her own self with a pink rifle.

    Well, I understand the desire for the Pope Benedict XVI- lied-his-ass-off-and-heretically-tried-to-fool-us-all-when-he-created-a-Diarchy-by-delivering-a-deceptive-resignation gang to face no opposition but that is not how his these schismatic acts work in the real world because Confirmation…

    I’m not hung-up on Ms Ann but she is the one who created the substantial error gambit so it only makes sense to write about her given her history. O, and Brother B. followed Bullets in line in time and yet both of them are not self-aware enough to understand that when both of them accepted the election of Francis, they both constituted part of the Universal Acceptance of the election of Francs that makes his election a dogmatic fact.

    Similarly, were I to write about Usury I might make mention of the fact that she claimed in one of her vids that any opposition to Usury was anti-semitic.

    Given the dogmatic fact of his election, yes I do think it problematic that former Catholics are severing the bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority and, thus, seducing innocents into a schismatic act.

    2 John 9 is worth re-reading

    Congrats on your conversion. That you went form error to truth is joyful news whereas when Bullets and others go into opposite direction that is distressing news.

  53. I was doing the protestant thing until I investigated the Church’s claim of the Real Presence
    See Michael 2’s take on the substantiation claim. It’s pretty well what we’ve all come up against but it’s a wall. You either believe it or not…that’s fine by most protestants but it’s the Catholics feel otherwise.
     
    See bible overview, it’s brilliant and Jeffrey seems to be a true Christian in my view.
    https://youtu.be/bpUBXIrVh8c
    The Catholic letter/epistles.
     
    https://youtu.be/bpUBXIrVh8c
     
    Re your quote at the top, I recommend discussion on this site: scroll down to Michael 2 and YOS’s debate interchange: from Michael 2
    July 28, 2017 at 10:14 am onwards, very interesting, (ignore hamster & snake emergency)
    https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/22254/
    There’s a lot there to think about but It’s interesting to hear what people think and how they justify their beliefs.

  54. To eat somebody’s flesh and to drink his blood is an old Hebraism meaning to assault and persecute

    Psalm 26:2.

    1 The psalm of David before he was anointed.
    The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear?
    The Lord is the protector of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
    2 Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh.
    My enemies that trouble me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen.

    Isaias 9

    18 For wickedness is kindled as a fire, it shall devour the brier and the thorn: and shall kindle in the thicket of the forest, and it shall be wrapped up in smoke, ascending on high.
    19 By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother.
    20 And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.

    Isaias 49

    26 And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

    Michaes 3

    2 You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them, and their flesh from their bones?
    3 Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin from off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.

    2 Kings 23:16-17 (2 samuel)

    7 Saying: The Lord be merciful to me, that I may not do this: Shall I drink the blood of these men that went, and the peril of their lives? therefore he would not drink. These things did these three mighty men.

    Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I had seen her, I wondered with great admiration.

    Rev 17: 16 16 And the ten horns, which thou sawest on the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire.

    Thus Matthew 26: 26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20 and 1 Cor 23-25 the words are literal and do not even give a hint of beng symbolic

    John 6

    Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: Moses gave you not bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
    33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.
    34 Then they said to him: Lord, give us always this bread.
    35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: *he that cometh to me, shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst.
    36 But I said to you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not.
    37 All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out:
    38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.
    39 Now this is the will of the Father, that sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should not lose thereof, but should raise it up again at the last day.
    40 And this is the will of my Father, who sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
    41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
    42 And they said: *Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?
    43 Jesus, therefore, answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves.
    44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
    45 It is written in the prophets: *And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.
    46 *Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he, who is of God, he hath seen the Father.
    47 Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.
    48 I am the bread of life.
    49 *Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and they died.
    50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any one eat of it, he may not die.
    51 I am the living bread, which came down from heaven.
    52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.

    53 The Jews, therefore, disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
    54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
    55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
    56 *For my flesh, is meat indeed: and my blood, is drink indeed:
    57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
    58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
    59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and died. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
    60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
    61 Many, therefore, of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
    62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
    63 If then you shall see *the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
    64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
    65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him.
    66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
    67 After this many of his disciples went back: and walked no more with him.
    68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
    69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
    70 *And we have believed, and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
    71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve: and one of you is a devil?
    72 Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.

    If we believe the heretical proddies, Jesus was telling the faithful the way to eternal life is to assault and persecute Him.

  55. Dear Debbie. Be careful of Joy. She is a wicked woman who is an heretical busy body who is sowing doubt and division about truth. She is a servant of Satan. As soon as she saw that you converted to Catholicism owing to the Eucharist she showed-up and tried to sow doubt in your Faith.

    Like Satan, she is a destroyer.

    This is who she is.

    She has no life in her (John 6:54) and one can reasonably surmise that she will not take advantage of the opportunity for a metanoia because she appears to hate the Catholic Church more than she loves her immortal soul.

    Is this too churlish?

  56. Dear Briggs. My comment on April 24, 2022 at 10:57 is unnecessarily harsh.

    I could defend it by citing Jesus calling the Pharisees sons of Satans, whited sepulchers etc but I don’ wish to do that.

    Please delete the post and I apologise to Joy for writing it and to others who were put off when reading it.

    Thank You

  57. Mick, not to worry. I’ve not given Joy a second thought. The few protestant friends I have left no longer try to revert me….in fact, I’ve told one that if the Holy Eucharist is not really Jesus she owes it to me to convince me otherwise. I’ve more respect for those who firmly believe what they say than those who aren’t sure or worse are indifferent to orhers’ souls.

  58. All one needs to do to believe that the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, is to believe Jesus’ Words at the Last Supper and always, for He is the Word of God, and God cannot lie. When it is the desire of the heart to believe Jesus, one has only to ask Him to make it real to one, and He will do so, by giving the gift of Faith to believe.

    Judging people …. Jesus told us to not do, else we be judged. We can and are to judge opinions and facts.

    God bless, C-Marie

  59. Debbie, C Marie, Mick, yeah, there’s no moderator on this site, you have to be careful who you condemn to death and eternal punishment, people you’ve never met before…when you defame and libel them and all…
    Unlike C Marie, I pray for justice, not judgement…

    If you tell the truth you won’t have anything to fear from discussion of a truth which you claim to believe is all encompassing, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all powerful and amongst other alls.

    There’s what you say you believe and there’s what you do; for some, they don’t correlate.
     
    Christianity is about making the two, one and the same. Once you’ve realised what you believe, it’s only the start. Some appear to be under the illusion that that’s it. Say it insincerely and that’s it.
     
    Yet I still contend that “saying what you believe’ is just that, “saying it”. Even that doesn’t make it true. So I don’t trust what most people claim to believe because there’s that subtle but very real difference.
     
    It’s a matter of internal consistency and honesty with oneself. If that’s not true for yo then I don’t much care but it’s not going to alter what I or others believe is it? So why the need to judge in the first place, when it comes to faith? What’s really being judged at this end is the correlation between the two. Often that’s inverse!
     
    See the genetic fallacy. If 1+1=2 it is true and it is so whoever says it.
    If 1+1=3 it isn’t true whoever says it…unless you’ve hidden a secret rule and call it tradition, or some other misused privilege.
     
    That’s the beauty of truth. It’s true of God’s truth because there is only one truth, with or without God. For that reason all people eon earth are in the same category.
     
    I find it better to look for why people are not different from others instead of finding reasons why you’e so much holier.

  60. My comments have condemned no person. Here is my comment of April 24, which has been misread:

    “Judging people …. Jesus told us to not do, else we be judged. We can and are to judge opinions and facts.”

    When we judge opinions and facts, the determination is usually being made as to whether the opinions and facts are true, of value.

    As in, Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He is the Word of God and He is true man and true God, and He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Opinions? Facts? True? Of Value?

    True Facts, and of Eternal Life Value.

    God bless, C-Marie

  61. C Marie, (for one assumes you are a real person, not just an opinion)
    No problem with my reading of your comment…but thanks for the offering.
    No issue with the non disputed bible quotes. I was making a deliberately obviously inarguable logical point but you managed to find something to argue about by using a non contested quote from the bible.
    goodness me!

  62. When we judge opinions and facts, the determination is usually being made as to whether the opinions and facts are true, of value.
    who is “we’
    NO:
    Are “we” supposed to get out of jail with the word “usually”?
     
    Even with that word in place it’s not. a true statement.
    The comments could not have been more personal if they tried. Logic rarely shows a face, let alone a two faced side.
     
    Michael 2 said it clearly enough and I agree with him, although he’s a member of a different christian church.
    I voted with my feet. I’m not a catholic. The more I learn the more that turns into a choice rather than an accident of birth and upbringing.

  63. Dar Joy You complain Mick, yeah, there’s no moderator on this site, you have to be careful who you condemn to death and eternal punishment, people you’ve never met before apparently having already forgotten my explanation to you of why I did that.

    Are you Joe Biden?

  64. Mick who is almost certainly a female,
    There is no excuse nor justification for you hostile commentary. Shame on you for claiming otherwise
     
    None of your invectives have been either justified, (based on something truthful, understandable) provoked or warranted.
    Neither have I a problem with recall. Same with the Fake news which turned out to be truthful photography on a propaganda website?
    There’s only one truth
    “Animus” must just be something which happens to all the others. We don’t talk about it when catholics do it, they’re special. Reminds me of the joke where St Peter tells the man who is new to heaven that to keep quiet on this certain area because it’s the catholic quarters and,
    “shshsh! they think they’re the only ones here. “

  65. Here’s the proof:
    Q: What do you call Pope Benedict XVI after his last day?
    A: Ex Benedict

    QED

  66. First it was If-You-Pay-Your-Taxes-You-Are-Not-A-Christian even though she never took the LSAT, took and passed courses in Law School, sat for and passed a Bar Exam or ever acted as a lawyer.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/10310.cfm

    and now it’s Bergoglio is an Anti Pope and Benedict XVI is still Pope because Canon Law – even though she never studied Canon Law, sat for a Canon law exam, took a Canon Law degree or practiced Canon Law

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

    Bullets is an aggressive, militant, masculine female convert who leads putative Traditionalist men around by their noses.

    Doesn’t say much for the soi disant Traditional men does it?

  67. Holy Moley!

    I haven’t been paying attention !

    Debbie Douglas
    April 21, 2022 at 11:08 pm
    Mick……are you Catholic?

    Debbie

    Isn’t the question before us “Is the Pope Catholic?”

    Mick … we all call sons of Satan Psyches!

    As a Once and Future Catholic, I have no dog in this race

    As far as moderator, let’s hope God is your moderator

  68. Aaaah

    I see my confusion … this is the original Post not the Follow-up

  69. L Ron Hubbard @ the last comment, can’t be bothered to strain eyes to check the time… thinking out loud…

    “As a once and Future catholic:”
    If you’e a future Catholic and was a Catholic, then you’re just between masses. Like all the rest and to say you have “no dog in the race” is really strange.
     
    Much contradiction and internal conflict therein, no doubt.
     
    This explains why you think it’s fine and dandy to carry on like the mafia, or like they know something nobody else does, which they do not. One day you might rejoin the team?
    Individuals only know separately what God ha revealed to them. Those are the only things which. Are privileged information. The rest is in the public domain of the Christian church and what is hidden is no doubt elicit on part of the church.

     
    Clearly, and my point IS that God is not a moderator, and if he is, it’s a sad reflection on “the faith” in God even conceptually, let. alone a living God. There is no correction, no checks and balances, only invectives from the baying crowd who are little different from medieval or bronze age crowds baying for crucifixion.
     
    You said I could be “vile about catholics”. Which I think was false, but you do like to stir trouble for the trolls and their followers to pick up on and throw a few more stones.
    So little straight talking around here, it’s sad. People are hiding all sorts of sinnery and mal- practice, all manner of ill grace lurks beneath pretentious understatement and quoting of catechisms. Jesus referred to the pharisees . They will also always be with us.
     
    If you’re really acting on behalf of the catholic church here in hoping to get me to open up my own thoughts so that I might be further persecuted by your future church members, that’s how it looks from here, ask me no more questions and do not respond ever again on the matter of Christianity.
    There’s a technical word for it. “good cop bad cop? Only someone took your badge away for a while. ..you hope to get it back

  70. “Debbie, C Marie, Mick, yeah, there’s no moderator on this site, you have to be careful who you condemn to death and eternal punishment, people you’ve never met before…when you defame and libel them and all…
    Unlike C Marie, I pray for justice, not judgement…”

    Why am I included in the above statement? Thank you.

    God bless, C-Marie

  71. “Typos” corrected, incidentally for the others who are (uninitiated or new) When a full stop is inserted randomly into your text, it’s a bug, a virus. Designed to make your comments illegible and make you look “wrong”.
    &nbsp
    L Ron Hubbard @ the last comment, can’t be bothered to strain eyes to check the time… thinking out loud…
    “As a once and Future catholic:”
    If you’e a future Catholic and was a Catholic, then you’re just between masses. Like all the rest and to say you have “no dog in the race” is really strange.
     
    Much contradiction and internal conflict therein, no doubt.
     
    This explains why you think it’s fine and dandy to carry on like the mafia, or like they know something nobody else does, which they do not. One day you might rejoin the team?
    Individuals only know separately what God has revealed to them. Those are the only things which are privileged information. The rest is in the public domain of the Christian church and that which is hidden is no doubt elicit on part of the church.
     
    Clearly, and my point IS that God is not a moderator, and if he is, it’s a sad reflection on “the faith” in God even conceptually, let. alone a living God. There is no correction, no checks and balances, only invectives from the baying crowd who are little different from medieval or bronze age crowds baying for crucifixion.
     
    You said I could be “vile about catholics”. Which I think was false, but you do like to stir trouble for the trolls and their followers to pick up on and throw a few more stones.
    So little straight talking around here, it’s sad. People are hiding all sorts of sinnery and mal- practice, all manner of ill grace lurks beneath pretentious understatement and quoting of catechisms. Jesus referred to the pharisees . They will also always be with us.

    If you’re really acting on behalf of the catholic church here in hoping to get me to open up my own thoughts so that I might be further persecuted by your future church members, that’s how it looks from here, ask me no more questions and do not respond ever again on the matter of Christianity.
    There’s a technical word for it. “good cop bad cop? Only someone took your badge away for a while. ..you hope to get it back

  72. Joy

    I have apologized in the past for that remark.
    I understand that you have been subjected to vile yourself

    A Bad Stone (ABS) Not Rolling continues his vileness to you. Apologies again on any part I might have had in it

    Once and Future Catholic is a wordplay on T H White’s Once and Future King

    When I finally understood Christ’s message after exiting the Roman Catholic Church, I told my pastor I could have stayed in the church with that understanding (why I came up with that word play); however, we both know that that wouldn’t have worked well at all.

    Again Peace Joy – I truly do apologize for any harm I’ve caused you.

  73. Presented to hopefully clear up many of the misunderstandings of the extent and limits of Papal Authority, which are easily seen in the comments.

    On the authority of the Pope holding the Papal Office at any time, which Office was given and established by God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ ….

    Here is Cardinal Burke’s full presentation at the conference … below is partial report by Mr. Pentin at the NCR.

    Full Presentation by Cardinal Burke is at:
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/full-text-cardinal-burkes-address/

    Below is a Partial report .. by Mr. Edward Pentin at the NCR … there is more at the site … April 7, 2018

    https://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal-burke-papal-authority-derives-from-obedience-to-christ
    “Cardinal Raymond Burke has stressed that popes must safeguard and promote Church unity, and that if a Roman Pontiff fails to act in conformity with Divine Revelation, Sacred Scripture and Tradition, such actions “must be rejected by the faithful.”

    In a talk given today in Rome on the current state of doctrinal confusion in the Church, the patron of the Order of Malta warned that any expression of doctrine or practice by a Roman Pontiff must be an “authentic exercise” of the Petrine ministry.

    He explained in a speech on The limits of papal authority in the doctrine of the Church that plenitudo potestatis — the fullness of power given to a pope — does not mean that a pope’s authority is “magical, but derives from his obedience to the Lord.”

    The canonist and prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura made the comments in light of growing concern that Pope Francis is leading the Church in a totalitarian and even lawless direction, not in continuity with the Church’s teaching and Tradition. The cardinal, however, did not specifically mention the Holy Father during his talk.

    Drawing on the teaching of 13th century canonist Cardinal Enrico da Susa (‘Hostiensis’) and the writings of English Professor John A. Watt, the American cardinal focused primarily on a pope’s absoluta potestas (absolute power) which, he said, is different from that defined by Machiavelli or totalitarian dictators in that it is used to “remedy defects” in existing law arising from “non-compliance” or because existing law was “inadequate to meet particular circumstances.”

    He added the “fullness of power” does not mean authority over the Church’s Magisterium, but rather as a “necessity” of governance “in full fidelity” to the Church’s Magisterium. As such, Cardinal Burke continued, it is only to be used “with great caution” and as a power for “building, not for destruction.”

    The Pope’s absoluta potestas, the cardinal added, is given by “Christ himself” and so can “only be exercised in obedience to Christ.” A pope could dispense with the law or interpret it, he said, but only so that it helps the law to serve its “proper purpose, never to subvert it.”

    He pointed out that any act of a pope considered “heretical or sinful” or that could “favor heresy or sin, undermined the foundations of society and was therefore null and void.”

    It was well understood, the cardinal explained, that the fullness of power given to a pope did not allow him to “act against the Apostolic Faith” but was a power he should use “sparingly and with the greatest prudence.”

    Quoting Watt, the cardinal said the exercise of plenitudo potestatiswas meant to serve souls and the unity of the Church, not the personal interests of individuals. “If the Pope acted in this way sine causa [without cause] or arbitrarily, he would put his salvation at risk.”

    God bless, C-Marie

  74. Why am I included in the above statement? Thank you.
    Who is “i”? Just an opinion…?
    C Marie, you are part of the conversation, a bystander.
    Yet tongue tied as usual, you’ve run out of catechisms for such a specific situation. As long as you’re not going to be judged?
    It’s individuals that count, to God, not opinions, that he judges. For the record, C Marie, I live with God in heart all the time. Sometimes he’s in my mind, too. Sometimes I think he’s go away like a delusion that passes. Listening to conversations like the above is one of the kinds of things which help cure me of any necessarily cluttered beliefs

    The choice of word there was ‘churlish’. I used it ages ago to ABS. It must have been a terrible shock.

    Dear Debbie. Be careful of Joy. She is a wicked woman who isan heretical busy body who is sowing doubt and division about truth. She is a servant of Satan. As soon as she saw that you converted to Catholicism owing to the Eucharist she showed-up and tried to sow doubt in your Faith.
    Like Satan, she is a destroyer.
    This is who she is.
    She has no life in her (John 6:54) and one can reasonably surmise that she will not take advantage of the opportunity for a metanoia because she appears to hate the Catholic Church more than she loves her immortal soul.
    Is this too churlish?.

    Ask yourself how sincere is the ‘sorry’ commenter at all?
    Ask yourselves, those who excuse this kind of behaviour as legitimate, & catholic, whoo is the one who is in the wrong. We’re not dealing with a matter of communion here but ABS wants to make that seem to be so.
     
    To make it worse for him, the apology was simply to garner more attention to himself “in front of the “Fatherr R. and other readers who might be put off””
    With evangelists like Mick and friends, who needs atheists or “gays” to blame for the problems within the church?
    The escapade looks like the proverbial bait and switch con job which Ken spoke of years ago. Good cop bad cop, abusive coercion hoping that yo might break someone’s spirit and frighten them into submission.
     
    God doesn’t need that kind of ‘help’. You need his.
    Truth can’t be instilled by force: It didn’t work for Pilate, for the contemporaneous jews, for the inquisition, or for hostage takers in war zones. It doesn’t work in playgrounds except temporarily.
    Engage your brains and open your heart to the Truth, if you say it matters.
     
    How can anybody have a decent spiritual discussion if people are constantly going to arrogate unto themselves the right to determine who is saved and to make every discussion a binary, eternally binding knife-edge? This is only effective for individuals who already believe, think about it properly. Atheists aren’t resisting, they just don’t believe! So the harm you reek is on those who do. Not even to mention that those who idon’thave faith are found wanting by those who clearly aren’t in any position to call themselves a good judge of character.

  75. Johnby
    Apology accepted but it’s unwise to trust anybody on the internet regarding personal matters of faith.
    I said years ago to let it deeply be, which is a poem from somewhere.
    The envious spirits try to break yours if they discover too much about you
     
    You would be more useful inside the catholic church but you would be thrown out for being too useful,
     
    How can it be that saying I don’t care is translated as I do care, what faith someone has?
    It’s more important that people are internally consistent and believing something on the basis of facts and logic, not falsehood, suspicion and superstition.
     
    Somehow this long drawn out discussion over the years is moving me further towards the notion of a quaker than anything else.
     
    Re wisdom; it’s also not wise to tell my own jokes and think they’re funny…they are, but it’s not wise to admit it
    misconstruction is everywhere on line. Our African grey thinks my jokes are hilarious

  76. Joy, I honestly don’t understand anything you’ve said in these comments. Are you Catholic? If not, why are you here so much?

  77. Concerning Judgment: ” 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17: 30-31.

    No one will escape being judged by God.

    God bless, C-Marie

  78. Debbie, I am a protestant as you obviously worked out but are now trying to pretend you didn’t, which is dishonest, or sarcastic, either way, you’re not being straight forward.
    I’ve been here, since you asked, since 2008 or so.
    Where do you get the idea that catholics, by which I presume you mean Roman Catholics, are the only ones who are allowed to comment? At least that’s a tacit assumption from your question?
    Am I to blame that you can’t suffer to hear opinions different form your own without finding it necessary to appeal to hideously nasty commentary then I would say that is on you
    C marie,
    Absolutely, a point I’ve been making for ages now, but I actually believe it is so
    There’s what you do and what you say. Actions speak louder than words

  79. Clarification, least I be judged by God:
    I don’t agree with your use of the quote from Acts:
    God is not so unreasonable as to expect people today, to believe that Jesus was risen fromt he dead.
    The quote you offered is contemporaneous to the time.
    So I’ll quote it again in context this time, to those who lived at the time and place of Jesus Christ. Thomas is an example that even alive at the time did not believe. Spare a thought for those who weren’t even alive then!
     
    Concerning Judgment: ” 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17: 30-31.


    God is not unreasonable. Your notions of the two words :belief” and “Faith”. as well as “the faith” are not all the same thing. NO need to clarify what you mean as I fully understood and have done since the beginning.
    Yet you either are unwilling to accept or just genuinely don’t understand the difference in what is meant and intended by individuals who speak about faith and belief. furthermore, I’m fairly conficdent hat you wouldn’t ever persue such a conversation as you think the same ultimate way as does Debbie and ABS. That people are trying in some way to “lure” you. That’s creepy and insulting…it’s a two way street but you don’t see it

  80. Some definitions, deliberately not cut and pasted from a. Dictionary but in common parlance.
    “The Faith”
    In this discussion “the faith” can reliably be taken as the dogmatic and fully cataclysmic implications of the latin church of Rome with all its particulars and accoutrements…(add or remove as appropriate)
    —-
    The single word Faith
    Faith comes from the notion of “true to” or “trust in”
    —-
    The single word Belief:
    “belief’ a conviction that a given proposition is true where self evident fact or truth cannot be accurately aligned to describe such a conviction.
    Other offerings for belief are the derivation from the word beloved, which is of German derivation, which seems more akin to the meaning intended by the word Faith.
    —-
    Either way, the intent is various dependant on context AND who’s using the word.
    No need to invoke Humpty dumpy, or the straw man argument as words do have different meaning in different context.
    —-
    So to a catholic, “the faith” means something different to a protestant.
    Protestants think hard and work out what they believe. In large part, or they don’t bother at all to pursue Christianity. It’s been my observation and it’s been recently backed up by other protestants both lay people, Reverends and professors.
    So it’s curious why it impinges only apparently on those who think they’re in the clear? Then, when it appears not to impinge enough on those who disagree with “the faith”, they pile on the agony?
    If, for example Kieth Ward upsets your sensibilities, it’s because he’s not a catholic and is therefore not bound by your definitions of faith.
    If it were that, for arguments sake, he DID believe al that is in the first definition above, then there would be little to no purpose in being anything other than a Roman Catholic. Do you see the point I’m making even if ou don’t agree with the content of the doctrine of faith?
    If someone’s not a bit insane, then why would they believe one thing and join a different church?
     
    It’s not a daft point here, your assumption on correctness of “The Faith”,
    itself begs that question. Jesus did not mean “The Faith” as a modern catholic would mean. I’d like to know what a Hebrew scholar would say.
    Can people trust in the Lord Jesus Christ? Yes. Can they believe he existed as a matter of history? Yes. Can they believe that the rose from the dead? Yes.
    If they cannot believe the latter, God must understands because he understood doubting Thomas. So There’s no room for irrational saying you believe something yo don’t. Everybody can trust in the truth though. That is universal and it’a. Good start.
    Moreover, the reason most people doubt the existence of God is not to do with resurrection. It has to do with evil and suffering elsewhere discussed. Of course if someone could believe in God as a creator of the universe then it’s not such a leap to see that he could also cause resurrections. So you see people come at this already ‘believing’ that the God doesn’t exist.
    My background is/was anglican evangelical, Pentecostal. I was confirmed at Christ Church Chorleywood, on Chorleywood common

  81. Dearest Joy,
    Your posts are very, very difficult for me to follow and therefore I do not read them closely. I know absolutely that I am not a quick learner (the upside to that is when I do learn something new….finally….I know it well). ?

    I don’t like Mick aka ABS aka Skojek(?) so after some consideration of what he said about you, I gave you the benefit of doubt. I was not lying as you suggested, I honestly didn’t know, as you mentioned to another poster that he should remain Catholic. But again, I fully admit I am a slow learner.

    My reason for asking why you’re here commenting is only that this particular thread is about who is the true pope; Bergoglio or Ratzinger and it seems odd to me that you would comment so much on such a thread. It’s a valid question.

    Oh, and I’ll accept your forthcoming apology for judging me a liar.

    Best of luck to you.

  82. Edit of some of last paragraph for clarity
    Can people trust in the Lord Jesus Christ? Yes. Can they believe he existed as a matter of history? Yes. Can they believe that he rose from the dead? Yes.
     
    If they cannot believe the latter, God understands because he understood doubting Thomas. So There’s no room for irrationally saying you believe something yo don’t. Everybody can trust in the truth though. That is universal and it’s a. Good start.
     
    Moreover, the reason most people doubt the existence of God is not to do with resurrection. It has to do with evil and suffering elsewhere discussed. Of course if someone could believe in God as a creator of the universe then it’s not such a leap to see that he could also cause resurrections.

  83. Debbie,
    Don’t believe you, sorry for that, at least. Sarcastic at best, nobody’s
    forced to read anything I write either. Same for all.
    You indeed ask a valid question if you didn’t listen or read, otherwise you would know the reasons.

    My reason for asking why you’re here commenting is only that this particular thread is about who is the true pope; Bergoglio or Ratzinger and it seems odd to me that you would comment so much on such a thread. It’s a valid question.”
     
    &:
    My reason for being here commenting is only that this particular thread is about who is the true pope! Bergoglio or Ratzinger! and it seems odd to me that you would comment so much on such a thread without so much as a word for the reason why the church “finds itself” in this pickle? It’s a valid argument. Although you didn’t read, so you wouldn’t know the point I was making.
    It’s also the reason it was overlooked, not just by you. See the link to the discussion in London 2009. Steven Fry quoted Ratzinger’s words about being forced on pain of excommunication to be silent on child abuse and not speaking to police. He also spoke about sentencing the perpetrator to a lifetime of penance and prayer…
    “Is he the real pope”. Is a valid question.

    See my reply to Simon Platt? from April 21st @ 07:25am, @58:00 minutes on linked video makes my point along with the initial few sentences of Christopher Hitchens…wouldn’t want to subject you to all of it
    @58:00 Steven Fry?
     
    @55:25 Ratzinger made Thomas Moore the torturer, patron saint of politicians? ?
     
    @1hr: 05: 30 Steven Fry makes the intuitive point which I believe is true, not that giving the money away is the key, (although that might show willing to The Word). His first contention?That Jesus would not be welcome. He wouldn’t be welcomed because they wouldn’t know who he was. ..not without his proving with a miracle but that would be too late.?(Fry starts @ 48:09 )? ?
     
    @15:00 Christopher Hitchens:?Commented on this elsewhere, years ago to Michael 2, that in this speech his criticism is justified.
    ___
    ?https://youtu.be/JZRcYaAYWg4?

  84. God does expect people to believe Him. Perhaps take another look at the following scripture which tells that Jesus appears to His disciples, and shows them His hands and side, and then… the disciples rejoiced in seeing the Lord.

    Later, Thomas says that he will not believe without seeing His hands and putting his finger in Christ’s side.
    After Thomas does so, Jesus says, “Because you have seen Me, Thomas, you have believed, blest are they who have not seen, yet have believed.”

    So in a careful reading, although Thomas is nicknamed Doubting Thomas …. is it not that the disciples were also doubting until they saw? Granted they did not ask to touch His side, nor to see His hands, but Jesus did show His side and hands to the disciples before they rejoiced that it was Him.

    And here is the Scripture … and anyone who in their heart truly wants to know that Jesus arose from the dead and He is Lord, Saviour, and God, the Holy Spirit will reveal this to one.

    “19 Nowwhen it was late the same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them: Peace be to you. 20 And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

    Jesus Appears to Thomas
    24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

    26 Andafter eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said: Peace be to you. 27 Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing. 28 Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.”

    God bless, C-Marie

  85. self fact check:
    @55:25 Ratzinger made Thomas Moore the torturer, patron saint of politicians
    It was Ratzinger’s predecessor

  86. C Marie, you’re very welcome to you r faith and your own interpretations of what you find in the bible.
    Thanks to protestants you now have that right.
     

    Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.”
    That is entirely my point. BLESSED are those that believe and have not seen.

    He has a sense of humour and likes to prove he knows what you’re thinking and doubting. I have personal experience of this.
     
    So I refer you back to my explanation of faith and understanding of the same. Jesus is not unreasonable or petty or irrational. He take interest in our own petty problems though, as and when necessary.
    It’s just too easy and too cheap to keep referring to anything someone else claims as being of the devil. Just as the pharisees accused Jesus

  87. again:

    Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.”

    He has a sense of humour and likes to prove he knows what you’re thinking and doubting. I have personal experience of this.
    —-
    [So I refer you back to my explanation of faith and understanding of the same….]

  88. No personal accusations of you have been made by me. Case closed. Maybe slow down and see what is.
    God bless, C-Marie

  89. C Marie,
    Re:
    [So in a careful reading, although Thomas is nicknamed Doubting Thomas …]
    Your defence of Thomas is unnecessary. The point is that He said what He said to Thomas. If others did the same as Thomas? He still asked the disciples to spread His word. He did not condemn them, so why would He then condemn others? It makes no sense.
     
    If ever there MIGHT be a reason it would be to judge someone who knew Him at the time, had seen miracles before their eyes. If He holds those men to a lower standard than He holds the rest of humanity, I’d call that inconsistent and contradictory. That cannot be, I’m afraid.
     
    It’s enough to know that God judges the hearts of everybody. As well as our actions in the light of what only He knows WE know. As to believe? or faithful? Maybe that has to do with love and trust in Jesus

  90. Well, goodbye Joy. I will no longer respond concerning your comments. Your determination against Roman Catholics and Roman Catholicism, is very sad indeed. Maybe to you it is a sport, but I can tell that your actual knowledge of Roman Catholicism is very limited.

    Am praying for you to open your heart to the Truth. It seems that at some time, you may have been personally, deeply, hurt and that is why your determination is to only see negative when He Who is the Truth is presented.

    You can respond or not to this note, as is your choice. Jesus dear precious peace to your heart and His abundant healing as needed.

    God bless, C-Marie

  91. Is anyone keeping a spread sheet of the person who has garnered the most apologies?

    Think skinned proddie trolls specialise in this action.

    These proddies show up on a blog owned by a catholic and they bitch and moan and badger the faithful about their faith because they have no faith and then they feign hurt because victimhood is the highest status in life today.

    https://youtu.be/SZgw5xG8Vew

  92. Why do so many men now use feminine talk – “You are uncharitable, you are mean”- when they address others rather than speaking like the men of the early church did?

    Most well-read Christians know the two most famous stories of the early Church’s approach to dialogue. St. Polycarp tells us that the apostle John once went to the public bath in Ephesus and found inside a Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus. John ran out crying, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

    Polycarp himself once met the heretic Marcion walking down the street. Marcion hated the creator-God of the Hebrews, and to get rid of Him had tossed out the Old Testament and much of the New and rewrote the bits he kept. Marcion asked Polycarp, “Do you know me?” and Polycarp answered, “I do know you. You are the firstborn of Satan.”

    Their Reason

    By and large, modern Christians do not speak like this, though we have teachers as hostile to the Faith as Cerinthus and Marcion. Many of them speak with the authority of chairs in theology and of “reverend” before their name, and publish books the vulnerable, the naive, and the gullible read and believe. These teachers are just as dangerous to peoples’ souls as the great heretics of the first centuries, but we do not speak of our heretics as the great saints spoke of theirs.

    This is almost as true of conservative or traditional Christians as of “centrists” and liberals. (The “centrist,” I have always thought, is usually just a liberal in slow motion.) You will make a conservative group wince by calling someone a heretic, so well have we all been trained by the dominant dislike of such clear but dividing judgments. “Heretic” is a perfectly objective term, describing a particular relation to Christian doctrine, freely chosen, but almost every Christian will hear it as a vulgar term of abuse.

    St. John and St. Polycarp spoke the way they did because every word matters when you are talking about Jesus. One word is true, and another word, which may be a very similar word, is false. The right word leads to Jesus, the wrong word leads away from Him. Jesus is of one being with the Father, not of like being. He is the Son of the Father, not a son of the Father. He is begotten, not made.

    Therefore those who say the wrong words, and keep saying them after the authorities have corrected them, proclaim a Jesus who does not exist, and thereby endanger the souls of men who want to meet Him. The Jesuses they present almost always look a lot like the real Jesus, especially to those who do not know Him very well.

    And they are usually very good spokesmen for the Jesus they’ve invented. Men of this sort are almost always compelling teachers, who offer a Jesus designed to be what many of their hearers expect or want. The successful heretic knows how to design his product to sell in the religious market, and many people will like his Jesus a lot more than the real one.

    https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/205199/Re_Recovering_the_Art_of_Chris

  93. MJGNM alias ABS (I refuse to investigate your other aliases)

    Two problems (ASS-U-MEing that was at all directed at me)

    L Ron is not Roman Catholic
    L Ron did not apologize on matters of Faith
    Jealous?

    Speaking of matters of Faith

    Some else said : Children are innocent, they are pure.
    MJGNM/ABS said : They are neither. They are born in darkness and ignorance and they require the Sacrament of Baptism to become children of God.

    Your Avatar states you’re bornacatholic … hmmm

    Apology accepted …

    https://bloviatingzeppelin.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/LAPD-RUN-AWAY.jpg

  94. Dear Ron. Didn’t know that but I am not surprised given that I have had many different screen names as I already noted

    Did I apologise to you ?

    I musta had my account hacked ?

  95. “The choice of word there was ‘churlish’. I used it ages ago to ABS. It must have been a terrible shock”

    Not quite lunatic lady

    You never used that in any response to me whereas I have long used that as a tag line as can easily e seen by googling

    Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque + churlish

    It is clear why you like the Shabbos Goy Boris Johnson and the sodomite Stephen Fry – your propensity for lying is similar

  96. Shabbos goy

    Originally, a non-Jew who does work on Sabbath that a Jew cannot do. In modern times, it is a non-Jew who toadies to the every wish and whim of the Jews, especially in politics, or a non-Jew who is heavily supportive of Israel.

    Rabbi Weisenberg things that Bush is the ultimate shabbos goy. He’s a goyish Menachem Begin, with God on his lips all the time. He’s “Good for Jews™”
    by 111 July 23, 2006

  97. MJGNM alias ABS

    ABS still hasn’t addressed bornacatholic

    I THINK in the past (could be mistaken), that ABS has expressed gratitude that ABS was born into a Catholic Family

    Reminiscent of the man in the temple thanking God that he’s not like that PUBLICAN
    Glory in the privilege of ABS (bornacatholic)

    Reminds me of the Minnesota joke where Ole wound up in a Catholic town in Minnesota and would Bar-B-Q after work on Fridays (Pre-Vatican II when there was such a thing as meatless Fridays). The residents all banded together and approached the priest about the problem. He came to Ole and crossed and sprinkled Ole, “Born a lut’eran, raised a lut’eran, … now you’re a Cat’olic”.
    The next Friday the town was in an uproar and brought the priest to Ole again at his Bar-B-Q. Ole crossed the food and sprinked … born a cow, raised a cow, … now you’re a fish.

    I told my buddy Manuel that joke; he replied that where he grew up at the Texas/Mexico border, meatless Fridays weren’t a thing

  98. Dear Ron, I have repeatedly said I have used many different S/Ns

    Bornacatholic is another one.

    Of course I am happy I was born into am Irish-Algonquin Catholic Family in Vermont but you false Publican conclusion form that is wrong

    Paul VI did away with mandatory meatless Fridays but it is still a thing. IF one does eat meat of Friday one must substitute another penance

  99. Man, yuck,

    Paul VI did away with mandatory meatless Fridays but it is still a thing.

    IF one does eat meat of Friday one must substitute another penance

    What did man Friday do to upset you and the other cannibals? Does inspector Crusoe know?
    What penance could possibly be enough?

    ABS you’ve been shown up for being spectacularly wrong in four instances that I can think of just recently. If you think I’m lying it’s because you can’t handle the truth. Lying is pointless. I may have faults like a lot of people but lying isn’t one of them…more’s the pity, as it seems it’s a normal practice for the average individuals like ABS. The truth travels slower but always wins

    C Marie, I harbour no ill feelings towards you. We are not dissimilar and yet very different experiences.
    You appear to have switched from agreement to sudden disagreement.

    “Oh Ye of little faith” did it? I was referring to your lack of faith in me, which you go on to describe in full. I don’t doubt your catholic faith for a moment:

    I don’t nor have ever pretended to know much about Roman Catholicism. Yet the evidence I’ve presented isn’t controversial. Your objections are often at a tangent, and terms are rarely ever defined. That makes fo dysfunctional discussion and explanation.
     
    The above dysfunctional debate is proof that Catholics don’t all behave in the same way but you certainly appear to stick together when it comes to correcting fellow catholic members. This plays into the hands of bullies and inquisitors, real modern day ones.

    I did notice that someone overleaf did point out the bad behaviour of some. I’m most grateful and thankful for that intervention. It was preposterous, not surprising any more.
     
    So having ignored ABS now Mick’s diatribes and trolling, you proceeded to pile a little more “controversy” into the mix. Why, because I asked a valid question about the previous pope?
     
    The discussions here are almost always political in nature and sectarian in commentary. Not Christian. In the strict sense.
     
    If you know anything about Ireland you would understand. Healing indeed. People don’t heel they change. Hopefully for the better.
     
    Sectarianism is a very real threat, far greater than that posed by atheists to Christians and feared by the latter.
    Christians have one job. Because that’s hard, they invent other work to do. \
    Like the child who was asked to write an essay about Robin Hood but didn’t know enough, so wrote about owls instead. Jesus gave us two things to remember both relating to the same thing.

  100. Hi Joy, Thank you! I am not necessarily in agreement with what others here in the comments, write. The following below, might be of interest regarding agreement among Catholics … we do not always stick together. We, I, do believe in a Holy Spirit formed conscience, which takes tremendous trust in God. He knows us inside and out, as you have written.

    Thank you!! My intention is not to change any conversation, but to add information that appears to be missing, or to be held back, especially on Catholicism.

    My April 27 comment on the authority and more on the Papal office and whoever is? Pope, was only as I wrote, for clarification concerning the Papacy. The conversation appeared confused as Francis is in the office, but is using it more, it seems, for The Great Reset, than for anything else.

    Because a person is a baptized Catholic, does not mean that that one has a good understanding of Catholicism in any depth, or has ever read the Bible. (Yes, actually, thank You Holy Spirit for awakening Catholics to go ahead and read the Bible … trusting God … rather than in fear of misunderstanding!!). (Am in Isaiah now).

    Many think that because the pope is quoted as saying something, that means all Catholics must believe such and obey, and that is not so, as explained in the information presented by Cardinal Burke, which I sent.

    There are Cardinals and Bishops in Germany advocating for same sex “marriage” and more, to be blessed by the Catholic Church. Vatican II said that muslims worship the same God that Christians do …. some muslims may well do so ….John Paul II did admit and teach that there is no salvation in Islam … and here is the statement from Vatican II:

    Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964

    “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

    Catholics are not obliged to honor this statement from Vatican II, although one may well hear that Catholics must do so. A read of the information sent, will show what is to be followed and what is not. Many Catholics are pro Vatican II and many are not. Mostly, I think that it was unnecessary, and that it put the Church wrongly, on a more worldly path. The Holy Spirit leads and guides us well.

    The profession of Islam having the faith of Abraham, is a false profession as Islam does not hold the faith of Abraham, for Abraham awaited the Messiah through his son Isaac … and Islam absolutely denies Jesus Christ as nothing more than a great Prophet …. which is ironic, for if they read His words, they would see that either, as C.S.Lewis wrote, as I recall, that Jesus was either Who He said that He was, or was insane. So what God is Islam saying that it worships???

    Some and maybe most muslims may well truly mean to believe in the one, true God, but their religion is false. Pray for Jesus to reveal Himself to them, as some I know went nearly berserk with Allah is one!! when I attempted to tell about Jesus is true God and true man.

    P.S. Am still enjoying Churchill very much!! Think the Catholic Church would do much better evangelizing its own with John 16: 26-27. Really teaching how much God our Father loves fathering us!!!

    God bless, C-Marie

  101. Dear Joy. Because your posts are so often inscrutable and illogical there has to be some explanation – many have responded to your posts asking in essence, whatever do you mean?

    I don’t think you are schizophrenic so it is more likely the case that because you are five hours ahead of us you are often stoned or sloshed when you sign in here.

    That’s the only thing I can come up with.

  102. Mick,
    You’re just a liar and a creepy troll who never admits fault and pretends to misunderstanding.
    If people don’t understand, they just ask for clarification. Yet there is one here who never fails comprehend.
    Well, there’s Swordfish, too, he always understands. So I can only say that they thing they have in common is that they are not clouded by religious zealotry which leads to their bias in reading.
    I have never taken drugs in my life and as for alcohol? I don’t find it necessary to drink in order to make jokes or comment on matters of faith or morals. So it seems you not only tell lies but you lack imagination. Jut another phoney on liner. In reality, you would get a punch on tee nose from the nearest gentleman, or a sharp warning, if you carried on the way that you do here, in a public place.
    Your comment above, along with so many of the others, is just to attack the person instead of the argument which means that you either cannot reply or you are showing outright anger and spite.
    I think a course in formal logic might help.
     
    you do yourself injury while carrying on the way that you do. It IS truly unchristian what you are doing, in the absolute sense

  103. C Marie,
    Thanks for the above comment.
    That’s enough but for the record I thought you might want to know what I thought about several of your points, which aren’t controversial by the way.
    Thank you!! My intention is not to change any conversation, but to add information that appears to be missing, or to be held back, especially on Catholicism.

    Not that I was saying that you were wrong to bring in another element in that it’s interesting and I do that all the time! More that you and I have been at this for a while now and I really wanted to pin down some of the definitions of words being used as I do think that’s where much of the conflict can be avoided. *for people like us who actually want to avoid serious conflict 🙂 Johnby understands my humour, as does Swordfish and I think Dav. There are several others but they don’t bother to get in entangled in such pointless argument as online discussions so often are
     

    Catholics are not obliged to honor this statement from Vatican II…

    I do appreciate/ understand that the pope is only in “charge” as you outlined. I know you won’t like this but I learned this from Kieth Ward’s expose not from Steven Fry who mistook it in his debate, or over egged the. Pope’s responsibility regarding “truth”.
    I didn’t find what he said in conflict with what you said, but in conflict to bring that up again here. He was criticising protestantism, as it happens and has many colleagues and friends who are Roman Catholics.
     
    I will respond further to the rest re Islam etc

  104. …Francis is in the office, but is using it more, it seems, for The Great Reset, than for anything else.
    The current pope is as Trump bluntly pointed out years ago, “too political.”
    That is true of a lot of heads of state and ahs been true fo Prince Charles and Prince William.
    It is true of many hundreds of thousands of people who use their role for political purposes…Celebrities, professors, Scientists, teachers, models, salesmen, company CEO’s. All are entitled to an opinion but abuse of power is what is really happening when people misspeak outside of their role. I think this is true of the Pope. It is a privileged seat that he occupies and the least he says the better. He should take note of the Queen’s example. A lot of people should, but even she is used and lied about as. a platform for some fad or favour.
     
    The one true God?
    That is an interesting topic and I fear some definitions might be misinterpreted again!
    I see why “Vatican II” personified took the initiative to say this…being charitable and wanting peace and understanding that in reality there can only be one God, therefore we are talking about the same one. Yet we are saying different things about Him. Only one explanation ultimately can be correct if they agree as we do that there is only one.
     
    Going back to the vicar of Bagdad Andrew (White, who I am not asking you to approve of but merely speaking about him); says that many muslims are turning to Jesus “the man in white’ they are calling him. They are seeing him. He speaks about that in the interview I linked from Christchurch. he also explained and I think he might be right, that the Christians are the hardest group to handle with regards peace and reconciliation. (he is not aiming at catholics and I don’t even think they are mentioned separately). In listening to his interview it is clear that protestants do not consider catholics in any everyday sense. Similarly, one would hope catholics, normal ones are the same, but it often looks very different when engaging in on line christian conversation.
     
    *am I making sense?
    There is no way I would bow to moves to alter this country to a secular state. I only have so much power of my own though. It’s very easy for unthinking and unkind individuals, (not you) to blame those within a nation for things which happen TO a nation. The fate of nations is always in flux, in a free world, that is.
    Some are just too impatient at the timeframes is takes to keep things on track. So frustration and anger is hurled at those of us who are more patient and see corrections as necessarily taking much longer to change. It is misunderstood as compliance or enabling or whatever. That’s before you get to the fact that some of us do think society will change in some ways for all time, and not in ways that some would prefer.
     
    You mentioned gay marriage? I have given my own views on this before years back and they haven’t changed except I would state those views rather differently now, having seen and learned a bit more.
    1 The Pope has no business bing involved except that he is cajoled, pressured and badgered to do so and buckles.
    2 There is no reason why civil partnership was not sufficient but then..
    3 Many argue correctly, it seems, that marriage itself is a state which existed prior to the church or the Abrahamic religions all over the world. That it simply was a. way of preventing conflict ets. So the word itself has only later acquired it’s “holy” status.
    4 I would accept 3 if these marriages were not being forced on or in, Christian churches.
    5 I don’t believe that the Christian faith if truly maintained leads to hatred. I believe hatred is an entirely human affair and doesn’t require God to justify. That would be an example of evil, in my view.
     
    Churchill? He shared our brittish sense of humour and it landed him in a lot of trouble too.
    I love Churchill although he was dead long before I was born. I believe I told you, I lived in his Conservative Club flat in the late nineties, very happy memories…like a real life “friends” TV show, a laugh a minute :). Now it’s a snooty restaurant! Epping was his constituency and my Dad who is ancient, was a boy in the wartime London. remembers the blitz and evacuation. I think you would like my Dad. He’s an atheist but a gentleman. He has terminal cancer and I’m supposed to be looking after him.

  105. Dear Mick, Please, please, please stop calling commenters here on Briggs’ blog, names, and as above, please stop suggesting and or saying, that one or more are drunk or stoned. If you do not like the comments and you have valid information to share, then share that valid information. Thank you.

    God bless, C-Marie

  106. Thank you, Joy, for addressing all of this.

    For me, Marriage was created by God, with specific parameters as stated in the following:
    “24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. ” And confirmed by Jesus in Matthew.

    Re: your Dad, I might well like him. He is ancient, you say?? Well, having been born before ’44, I must be ancient, too, but one gets used to it!! 🙂 The recent cataract surgery opened my sight to truly see all of my facial wrinkles!! Talk about surprises!! But I say to our Father, if it pleases You, it pleases me (with a wry smile on my part!) Do look well after your Dad, Jesus is working with him.

    God bless, C-Marie

  107. Dear Marie. Pot or gin? What accounts for the writing of that wicked woman Joy and her inscrutable blabbering?

    Just on this thread You can read not only your own self but Debbie –

    Debbie Douglas
    April 27, 2022 at 8:08 pm
    Dearest Joy,
    Your posts are very, very difficult for me to follow and therefore I do not read them closely.saying

    you both do not what she is writing about and so I was making a guess at the source of her inability to effectively communicate.

    I think I will leave the com boxes to the girls, and by girls I mean women and sedevacantists

  108. Maybe just pray, “Dear God, You know each of us, inside and out, and why we are as we are, from conception until now, from now to when You call us, and for Eternity. Please continue Your helps that we each become and be, Yours, forever.

    And if you like, pray before you post. God may well give you to know to delete some or all of what you have written … or … to send it all. You will know, if you truly desire to know, if you ask with your heart.

    God bless, C-Marie

  109. Dear Joy and Marie and Debbie and others. I really thought I could refute what the wicked woman Joy was doing in here by treating her posts like she treats Divine Revelation and that would open her eyes (and the eyes of others) but I can see that was a bad tactical error because the wicked woman is as thin-skinned as she is thick-headed and because sisterhood solidarity.

    So, I’m outta here

    Adios

  110. C Marie, there are plenty of people with wrinkles who are still beautiful, Audrey’s known for having quoted a proverb/poem about beauty;
    I didn’t mean to include you in an ancient category, just don’t like to admit the E word about him. Have worried about his age since I was a child. So “ancient” is easier
     
    The UCH Dr, genuinely could’t believe his age, they all wanted to know what his secret was, what he did in life, to look so young! He would have been the oldest person in the world to have undergone the surgery which he eventually declined. One of his sayings used to be ,
    “only the good die young, and that’s why I’m so old”. He was born in ’33 but has been well looked after by my mother.
    We discovered the news in January. but I’ve been aware, not just suspected, forSeveral years.
     
    Something really unusual does seem to have been happening regarding my Dad, but it’s not for here, so you were right

  111. Jesus loves you, loves your Mom, loves your Dad, all your family, all of us. He never gives up!! Prayer accomplishes amazing things. Love you sister in Christ!!
    God bless, C-Marie

  112. Dear Debbie, Marie, Johnno, Joy and others towards whom I have been uncharitable, vitriolic, rebarbative and nasty.

    I apologise for what I have written and I am not going to return to these com boxes in here but it would have been wrong to leave without leaving an apology to you all for all to read,

    I apologise. I am sorry.

    Adios.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.