The devout and humble desire of a Catholic blogger to wish Pope Benedict “Merry Christmas” has resulted in another significant proof that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope and that the Prefect of the Pontifical Household recognizes him as the pope.
The blogger sent his Christmas Wishes at the beginning of Advent, and received a reply via the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, D.C., USA, yesterday in an envelope mailed on January 2, containing the official stationary of Archbishop Gänswein in the form of a two-sided Christmas Card with the foto of a Christmas Creche on one side and these words in Italian on the other:
Un buon Natale e un buon Anno Nuovo 2020 ricco di benedizioni celesti. Georg Ganswein Segretario Particolare di Sua Santita Benedetto XVI, Papa emerito
Which in English is:
Whising you a good Christmas and a good New Year of 2020, rich in heavenly blessings.
George Gänswein, Special Secretary to His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope emeritus
As anyone knows who writes to the Roman Curia or the Holy Father, a response, if received at all, is sent through official channels, by diplomatic courier to the Apostolic Nuncio in their own country, and then by regular mail to their address. This is the practice outside of Italy, at least, in the USA.
Private individuals do not receive mail through the Apostolic Nuncio. For example, I have on occasion written both Cardinals Sarah and Burke. Their response was NOT mailed to me via the Apostolic Nuncio, since it was private correspondence and not in virtue of their office in the Curia.
To receive a Christmas Greeting in response to one sent to Pope Benedict through the Apostolic Nuncio means that the Vatican has recognized that Benedict is still a member of the Roman Curia in the very least. I have it from the receiver that he did NOT write to Archbishop Gänswein, but to Pope Benedict, as pope.
The words of Archbishop Gänswein are also proof of the failed resignation. Because after a Roman Pontiff resigns, He can no longer be addressed as “Your Holiness”, because that title indicates that the person addressed is still the Pope, the holiness of which is derived from retaining the PETRINE MUNUS, which is first of all a gift of grace and then a vocation and special source of graces.
Why is this important? Because in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which governs the Roman Church, the papal office is termed a munus in Canons 331, 332 §2, 333 and 749. And in Canon 145 §1, the Code calls an ecclesiastical office a munus. Thus if Benedict is still “His Holiness”, and that unique holiness comes from the unique munus, that means the Benedict still holds the unique office of the Pope. And thus, no one else does, according to the divine institution of the papacy, which no one, not even a pope, can alter.
The statement of the Archbishop also shows the invalidity of the resignation on account of the confusion of substantial error, in that, despite addressing Benedict with the salutation “His Holiness”, the Archbishop nevertheless calls him “Pope emeritus”, which no “Holiness” can be.
Finally, one can safely presume that the Christmas Card received by the American correspondent was not printed up solely for him, but was produced in quantity. This means that Gänswein is sending the same message to all who wrote Pope Benedict. It is nothing short of a universal declaration. The fact that the Apostolic Nuncio is mailing such Christmas Cards out, means that the Nuncio also recognizes Benedict has holding the Petrine Munus, the Papal dignity, still.
There is no other Traditional Catholic explanation of these events. You can only explain it away by jettisoning the meaning of words Catholics have used for centuries. But that would be Modernism to even contemplate!
POST SCRIPT: If any other of the readers of the From Rome blog have written to Pope Benedict and received a reply, please let me know, if you would like to share what you received in reply. This will help the entire Catholic world understand better how the Pope is doing.
There is always a background story to every news report, and it has to do with the personal background of the reporter. This post is to encourage you to do a background check on the news sources your read, before believing what they say and following them in what they won’t say. I will not mention names, to protect the reputations of those involved, but I will cite real examples.
I have published this post, using what I have learned as President of Ordo Militaris Inc., a private security and defense corporation, in the fulfillment of which duties I had to work with several private eyes to do background checks on potential recruits. Security of information is also important to the defense of Christendom, and so I think what I say here needs to be said, for the defense of the Church.
There are 4 leading Catholic personalities who are insisting Bergoglio is the pope and refusing to publish any information from Church Documents which might put that in doubt. Why they are doing this seems a mystery, because before Feb. 11, 2013 they were extremely rational Catholics and all known for their fidelity to the Faith.
So maybe their personal story explains their present practice of non-think? Non-think is the practice of not allowing yourself to think about certain questions or problems, so that by avoiding the truth, you can present yourself as a member of the ruling clique to which you want to belong. Non-think only happens when the ruling clique is not interested in truth.
There are 4 such famous personalities in the Church right now, and if I named them you would know who they are or at least recognize their news sites on the web. But I will describe them in another way, and let you ask the question: Does their personal history have anything to do with why they may want to practice non-think and teach others to do the same?
The professional did not begin as someone known for reporting reliably about the Church. The professional began as a private secretary to a leading political figure in the country from which the Professional comes. This leading political figure was a notorious socialist, and was so left wing that he only left the leading left-wing party of his country, when that party endorsed abortion. The Professional continues to praise this mentor and employer and thinks that he is a fine Catholic, even though he has never disavowed radical socialism and social engineering.
With such a highly credentialed background, you might see why the Professional is recognized by everyone as a leading authority on what happens at Rome. But given the background of the Professional, you might understand better why anything reported on by the Professional might have nothing to do with exposing why Bergoglio never was the pope, because that truth would put an end to the Marxist revolution in the Church. I won’t mention that the Professional is not from a family native to the land in which the Professional was born, but is from a town in France famous for its Synagogues and Money Lenders, a thing which the surname of the Professional indicates if you do some research, because I think that such an observation is not germane to the discussion.
The Shining Light
The Shining Light is someone whom is highly trusted to report just what some in the Roman Curia want reported and to not publish writings which show that the Roman Curia can make mistakes. The Shining Light had very good intellectual formation in an institute praised by one of the leading members of Team Bergoglio, the St. Gallen Mafia. The Shining Light is very conscious of this, so that anything the Shining Light reports does not make the institution where the Shining Light studied look bad.
The New Agent on the Block
The New Agent on the Block has made a reputation as a leading authority on all things Catholic, or should I say, on all things which YOU should think about the Church. The New Agent on the block is a masterful fundraiser, and receives substantial financial support for the rather good articles published at the website of the New Agent. Where the money comes from is not known. I also think it is not germane to the discussion that the New Agent on the Block has a surname which is Jewish. I call the New Agent on the Block, “new” because no one heard of the New Agent on the Block during the reign of Pope Benedict. But now everyone thinks that Benedict cannot be the true pope until the New Agent on the Block says so, that is how much power and influence the New Agent on the Block has acquired over the minds of Catholics.
The International is known for being very well informed and does detailed investigations and has contributed much to the knowledge of Catholics regarding the corruption in the Church. But, like the others, will not tolerate in the least any discussion of Pope Benedict’s being the true Pope. What most do not know is that the spouse of the International was a leading intelligence officer of a government which most likely assisted in putting Bergoglio into power by bribing the Cardinals. Maybe that has something to do with the information and narrative control that the International pushes in everything the International writes.
I think you should pay attention to the back-ground of everyone whom you read, because as human beings the back-ground is important. All these 4 individuals whom I have described have a fame and expertise to control the narrative such that 10s of thousands of Catholics have been convinced by them to practice non-think in regard to the canonical facts on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict. None of them are liberals. They are all conservatives and otherwise doctrinally sound persons. But perhaps it is time you start to ask yourself if the non-think they practice and teach has anything to do with their personal histories. They all know of those who doubt the validity of the Resignation, but consider quoting them as more dangerous than quoting Bergoglio. That is the laughable reality which they have adopted as a habit of mind.
+ + +
For transparency, my own back ground is as follows: Though I am a dual citizen of the USA and Italy, I was born in the USA and never belonged to any political party. All my ancestors are Italian Catholics and I have no Jewish blood in my lineage. I receive no financial support from anyone but my relatives. I have raised 15 euros in donations at Rome in last 3 months of working for the cause of Pope Benedict. For more information about me, see the About Page, here at The From Rome Blog.
Nota Bene:Any comment on this post which attempts in any manner to identify or seek the identity of any one of these five or speculate as to whom they are, whether the speculation is germane or not, or accurate or not, will be sent to the trash bin of blog-dom. Think for yourself, investigate on your own. I am not the source of truth or reality.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Colombo is one of the most eloquent Italian You Tube personalities who exposes the heresies, dishonesties and marxism of Bergoglio and his supporters. I highly recommend his channel, having seen only a few of his videos, which feature a single argument but contained a detailed and theologically correct analysis of the Crisis of the Church in the present hour.
Editor’s Note: I urge all Catholic bloggers to embed the daily videos by Frank Walker, Canon212.com, in their posts, to grow viewership. There is no single daily news commentary in the English speaking world which does more to accurately expose the Marxist infiltration of the Hierarchy and explain where Catholics’ true obedience lies, with Jesus Christ and in saving His Church. From Rome Blog will do this regularly during 2020.
The League of Prayer for Pope Benedict was founded on Dec. 19, 2019, at Rome, and already a good number of blogs have joined and hundreds of Catholics are praying daily for Pope Benedict XVI, from Italy, the English speaking world, the French speaking world, and the Spanish speaking world.
As I have remarked before, the true Pope is the quasi mystical neck of the Mystical Body of Christ, because it is through him to those who are in communion with him, that Christ bestows the graces of indefectibility, sanctification and inspiration to His Church on Earth.
It follows then, that those who in these dark times are actively participating in this League by making the offerings listed in the opening Invitation (see link above) are and should be receiving great graces for perseverance in the Lord.
For this reason, it does not surprise, that I have received a report of such graces, and from time to time will publish news about others, to encourage us all to pray more ardently and abundantly for Pope Benedict and for one another, because we could all use more grace in the challenges ahead!
Saint Thomas Aquinas lists the conversion of a soul as a miracle of grace. So I classify this report as an extraordinary grace:
Dear Br. Bugnolo, I want you to know that I received the grace of tears and the grace to make the first honest confession in my life, in the last 25 years. I had been fooling myself into thinking there was nothing wrong with lust, and all my confessions and communions for all these years had been sacrilegious. Now I have resolved to sin no more. I am a member of the League of Prayer for Pope Benedict and I believe that becoming a member was the grace I needed to repent. Please pray for me.
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
President of Ordo Militaris Inc.
In 10 months and 1 year, Christendom will celebrate the 450th Anniversary of the Victory of Catholic Forces over the forces of the Ottoman Turks, at the Battle of Lepanto: one of the most stupendous military victories in all of Christian history, and perhaps the most significant for the preservation of Christianity in Europe.
This Anniversary is very significant for our contemporaries, because Europe once again is existentially threatened by invasion and must confront similar questions about its future, as the Catholic Europe of the 16th century did.
The Ottoman Empire is no more. It was not only defeated at Lepanto by inferior Christian naval forces armed from above by the power of Our Lady’s Rosary, but it collapsed out of its own weight of internal corruption, becoming a thing hateful to the Turkish people itself.
But the idea of demographically exterminating Christians by mass invasion has not died out. It is now the agenda of agencies not only in the Islamic world but in the political sphere of Socialists who run most of Western Europe.
October 7, 2021 will be a historic day
The Catholic Armada of 1571 was composed of 3 main groups: the Fleets of the Kingdom of Espana, under the leadership of Don Juan of Austria, which set sail from Barcelona; the Fleets of Pope St Pius V, under the command Marcantonio Colonna, which set sail from the Papal States, and the Fleet of the Doge of Venice, under the command of Sebastiano Venera, which set sail from Venice.
These Fleets joined together at Messina, in Sicily, and set sail from there to Lepanto and to victory.
It is only fitting, then, that the 450th anniversary be celebrated in a special way both at Messina and at Lepanto.
Messina is leading the way
Messina has never forgotten the battle of Lepanto. Indeed, each summer they celebrate the Disembarking of Don Juan of Austria, during his stay at Messina, prior to heading out to Lepanto. This is not only because Messina is a devout Catholic City, but also because Sicily — the Island upon which one of its three corners, it dominates the straits of Calabria — was long ruled by the Spanish. Indeed, on the streets of Messina you can see many a youth who looks like a spitting image of the man from La Mancha or any red blooded Conquistador. And, near the Cathedral, one can still see the historic statue of Don Juan, facing in the direction of Lepanto (see image above).
But the City of Messina is leading in another way, since the newly elected mayor has appointed Prof. Vinenzo Coruso, artistic director of the Associazione Aurora, which organizes the annual festival, as the City’s new Assesore del Turismo, to organize the festivities for 2021.
I had occasion to make a brief visit to his offices at Messina, on January, 2, 2020, and am very much encouraged by the strong desire Messina has to celebrate the 450th anniversary. I pledged the support of Ordo Militaris Inc, and I invite the support of all the Members of the Ordo Militaris Catholicus to his holy work.
As you may know, the Order raises funds to help persecuted Christians and is organized through Ordo Militaris Inc. to sell stock to organize for their military defense. The corporation sells a historical reproduction of the Ensign of Marcantonio Colonna, the flag which was raised at noon, on October 7, 1521 to signal the opening of hostilities against the Turkish Fleet.
To get an idea of how important Messina holds the remembrance of Lepanto, watch these 2 videos in Italian.
Here is a video of the Celebrations at Messina this past year:
Here is another video produced by the Associazione Aurora, in 2016:
If you would like to work with Ordo Militaris, Inc. to organize a trip to Messina or a Cruise to Lepanto from Messina in October 2021, please leave a message in the comments below and I will contact you.
(I think the best Cruise possible would be to recruit a dozen or so experts on the Battle of Lepanto and make the trip a sort of Academic Convention as well as Religious Commemoration in honor of the fallen and of all the Catholic seamen and soldiers who fought there.)
The above image is the ridiculous and idolatrous Christmas Card art used by Franciscans International* for their Christmas greeting. They put Pachamama in place of Saint Elizabeth and implied that Our Lady was visiting the demon goddess, pregnant with her spawn.
In doing so, Franciscans International I believe was inspired to reveal the true meaning of the text in Saint John’s Apocalypse, Chapter 12, verse 4, which reads in the Douay Rheims translation of the Vulgate:
3 And there was seen another sign in heaven. And behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns and on his heads seven diadems. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered: that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.
Pachamama is an Andean goddess, who is depicted in two forms, as a pregnant woman, and as a Serpent which rules the underworld. The adhesion to her demonic cult by increasing numbers of the clergy appears to be the apocalyptic fulfillment of the Apostasy of the third of the stars of Heaven.
Now either the Franciscans at Franciscan International were thinking of something else, or they were secretly signing to the other Satanists in the clergy, the true significance of Pachamama so that all of these wicked persons might more quickly adopt her cult.
The Darkness will spread in 2020
To do so at Christmas is clearly an act of devotion to the Anti-Christ, because who is the offspring of Pachamama? And why was a little boy statue included in the Vatican idolatrous act? — And is Bergoglio trying to conceive or conjure the Antichrist? — These are questions which the Catholic world can no longer avoid asking.
Together with the warnings given by Our Lady of the Pine, that the imposter pope would change the “dramatic words” of the Mass, and the public denunciation by a leading member of ICEL against Pachamama worship, I fear that what is in the works is a New Ritual to replace the Mass, where Pachamama will be on the Altar during the consecration and the Host once consecrated will be fed to her in a sort of Satanic Black Mass ritual of sacrifice of God to the demon dragon, in fulfillment of Rev. 12:4.
My educated guesses …
This new Satanic Mass I infer is being drawn up as we speak by the Congregation for Divine Worship headed by Cardinal Sarah. — Satanists are very spiritual people, and they know to whom they must be loyal. — Don’t be fooled by the appearances of Catholicism. We must start judging according to truth, if we are to save our souls and the Church.
The substitution of the demonic cup of earth in place of the Statue of Pachamama, in the final “mass” at the Amazon Synod is clearly where the Bergoglian Anti-Church is going, and will become the archetype of all Black Masses in his New Religion. This substitution shows that the Satanists in Bergoglio’s curia have an excellent sense of liturgy. The desecration of the Host at these Masses will not only fulfill all the desire of godless men — pagans, Jews and Muslims: for hatred of Christ is their religion and their devotion — but serve to be the most powerful conjuring of the spirit of the Antichrist, if he is not already on Earth, as Giuseppe was told by Our Lady of the Pine, born as a bastard of a Bishop and a nun, in Egypt in 1970. We know from the Fathers of the Church that the nun will be by race a Jew, and from the Saints of the Franciscan Order, that he will take the habit as a Franciscan before he reveals himself to the world. (Maybe he works for Franciscans International?)
Wishing one and all a Most Blessed Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord! May we all resolve, as did Saint Joseph, to defend the Crib (Church) of the Child Jesus with our lives, for this year of Our Lord 2020 will see even more diabolical things happen. Bergoglio will start excommunicating everyone who disagrees with him. A Diabolic Liturgy will be enacted. Prayers to Demons will be made obligatory.
Y no, no estoy hablando de los eventos previos al 11 de febrero de 2013.
Me refiero al plan que se está llevando a cabo ahora mismo en secciones de la Curia Romana para “resolver” el problema de un “Papa emérito”. Tengo esto en la palabra de un miembro muy respetado de la Curia Romana quien me habló de ello.
Los enemigos de Cristo se dan cuenta de que este título prueba que la renuncia nunca fue completa y por lo tanto que el Papa Benedicto nunca renunció al oficio papal en absoluto, y sigue siendo el Papa. Eso significa que todo el reino de terror de Bergoglio fue no-canónico, un fraude, sin valor, sin obligación legal para la Iglesia en nada.
No pueden tolerar eso. Así que ahora se sienten confiados en eliminar “la evidencia del problema”.
Me pregunto si hay diferentes puntos de vista aquí. ¿Algunos quieren que Benedicto deje de llamarse a sí mismo “Papa”, firmando como el “Pastor de Pastores, el Papa Benedicto XVI” (Benedictus XVI P.P.)*, usando la sotana blanca y el solideo papal? ¿Otros llegan a querer que se vaya del Vaticano y que ya no lo cuide el jefe de la casa pontificia? ¿Otros quieren una solución “canónica” que pretenda o mantenga la pretensión de una renuncia válida?
Creo que la disensión en este asunto es visceral, en este momento, en el Vaticano. El jefe de la policía vaticana parece haber sido un partidario del grupo que sostiene que Bergoglio no tiene ninguna pretensión válida, ya que, cuando presentó su renuncia este otoño, Bergoglio le exigió que mencionara, en su carta de renuncia, que reconocía al “Papa Francisco como el Sucesor de San Pedro”, una afirmación textual que no tiene nada que ver con una carta de renuncia per se, pero que prueba que Bergoglio va por el camino de la guerra para castigar a cualquiera que piense lo contrario. (¿Tuvo el despido de Sodano algo que ver con esto? – No lo sé, pero ciertamente sabe de la controversia, ya que no hay nada en el Vaticano que no conozca a través de sus muchos clientes allí).
Y no lo dude. Toda la Curia Romana sabe que Benedicto sigue siendo el Papa y que en su prisa se equivocaron al presumir que renunció al cargo de San Pedro en febrero de 2013. Hago esta afirmación en base a las reacciones humanas que recibo cuando discuto esto con doctos partidarios del régimen Bergogliano. Es un tema con el que están muy familiarizados y saben exactamente qué decir y no decir para fingir lo contrario. También emplean su ira más enérgica contra los hechos y puntos de aplicación que abordan directamente el problema. Es una papa tan caliente, que pocos están dispuestos a hablar sobre el asunto. Y algunos incluso huyen cuando te ven venir, si has solicitado hablar con ellos sobre este tema.
Su esperanza es que la mayoría de los laicos sean drogadictos y sigan comiéndose la propaganda que sus manejadores en la prensa y en los medios de comunicación social siguen publicando: ¡Cállate! No lo pienses! No importa! Usted está viendo cosas! Eres un hereje y un cismático si dices lo contrario!** La Revolución, en las mentes del partido Bergogliano, debe seguir adelante. Deben tener la aprobación de todo lo que es malo y la destrucción total de la Iglesia que dice ser fundada por el verdadero Mesías Judío. Ese es el fin del juego.
La batalla del 2020
El Papa Benedicto XVI, por su parte, ha dejado muy claro que su “sí” a aceptar el oficio papal es un “sí para siempre”. Por lo tanto, va a haber una batalla, que estallará en el 2020. Los católicos que aman y permanecen en comunión con el Papa Benedicto necesitan ir por el camino de la guerra.
Necesitamos identificar y contactar a los 40 a 70 cardenales, a quienes el Vaticanista, Edward Pentin, dijo en 2017,*** se inclinaban a llamar a un concilio imperfecto para remover a Bergoglio en base a que su reclamo al papado estaba viciado por algún problema canónico, ya sea herejía, cisma o invalidez.
Necesitamos movilizar a los católicos para que apoyen financieramente cualquier esfuerzo que sea necesario para defender la persona del Romano Pontífice, el Papa Benedicto.
Necesitamos mantener el calor sobre los partidarios del error: esos individuos diabólicamente audaces que mienten en público y están dispuestos a decir cualquier cosa para evitar que se den cuenta de
que en el Derecho Canónico la palabra latina munus NUNCA ha significado MINISTERIO,
que el Papa Benedicto NUNCA DIJO QUE RENUNCIABA el munus petrino
que el Papa Benedicto NUNCA AFIRMÓ QUE TENÍA LA INTENCIÓN de renunciar al munus petrino.
que los cardenales y los periodistas no son infalibles, cuando dicen lo contrario de nn. 1, 2, o 3.
que los Cardenales, periodistas y Obispos NO TIENEN AUTORIDAD ALGUNA para interpretar el acto de renuncia del 11 de febrero de 2013 como un acto de renuncia a cualquier otra cosa que no sea el ministerio.
Los que están diciendo estas mentiras están recibiendo grandes salarios de alguien. Los que están llamando a los mentirosos no reciben salarios de nadie. Eso debería decirles cuál es el lado de Dios y cuál el de Mammon. Como mentirosos y estafadores públicos, no tienen derecho a ser vistos por lo que no son: hombres honestos que son intelectualmente respetables o confiables. Durante más de seis años y medio no han reunido ningún argumento contra la invalidez canónica. Y sin embargo insisten en que se les escuche!
Necesitamos organizar a los católicos en Portugal para preparar un lugar o lugares de refugio para el Papa, en caso de que éste decidiera huir de Roma, ya que, como la Virgen insinuó en LETRAS GORDAS durante las apariciones allí, “En Portugal se conservará el dogma de la Fe”. Y todos los que conocen bien su teología católica, saben que eso implica que Portugal permanecerá al menos en comunión con el verdadero Papa, si no es un lugar de refugio para él y sus válidos sucesores, si es necesario.
Que los Santos de los Caballeros Templarios**** en Portugal y sus devotos en nuestro tiempo se movilicen.
Que todos cumplamos con nuestro deber ahora en la batalla más importante, en la Iglesia, en los próximos 2000 años.
* Lo que indica claramente que nunca ha renunciado en su propia mente o ha tenido la intención de renunciar a la dignidad papal, a pesar de lo que algunos cardenales están conjeturando.
** Este complot para destronar a Benedicto es una evidencia de que su propaganda ha sido justamente eso. Ha servido para ocultar la evidencia de la vista pública, nunca fue una negación honesta.
**** Menciono esta Orden porque se refugió de una injusta supresión en Portugal y fue refundada allí en el siglo XIV. Hay muchos fieles católicos dedicados a su memoria, en Portugal, y rezo para que se conviertan en la red de ayuda al Papa Benedicto.
Many Catholics forget what today is all about. We do not celebrate a New Year, on January 1st. Rather, Today, in this year of Our Lord, 2020, we celebrate the 2020th anniversary of the Circumcision of the Lord, the naming of the Child Jesus, the ritual event according to the Mosaic Law which made the Child of Bethlehem a member of God’s Chosen people according to the Torah. For today is the 8th day after the Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and according to the Mosaic Law, the first born male child was to be circumcised and consecrated to the Lord on the 8th day after his birth (Exodus 13:2).
This Feast of today was named properly in the traditional Roman Calendar, as the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord. The revolutionaries after Vatican II, without any authorization of the Council, changed it to the Solemnity of the Mother of God, a thing that served to deny the truths which Catholics celebrated on this day for nearly 2000 years.
But the eternal truth is, that Today in the year 1 B.C.,* the Eternal God of Israel, now incarnate, was circumcised and given the Name revealed by the Archangel Gabriel, to Our Lady (Luke 1:31) and to Saint Joseph (Matthew 1:21): Yeshua, or “Jesus”, in English: a Name which in Hebrew means, “Yahweh saves!”.
This simple act has a profound signification both then and now.
Then, because by it there was fulfilled all the prophecies of the Old Testament, that God Himself would come to save His people (Isaiah 43:11), and that lo, the Angel of the Covenant, the Messiah, would come suddenly into His Temple (Malachi 3:1). This Feast also testifies to the the Virgin Birth of Our Lord from our Lady and thus also to the Virginity of Our Lady, since that Woman so young, so soon after birth, was able to accompany Joseph to the Temple for the ritual (Isaiah 7:14, quoted in Matthew 1:23). And finally, this event foreshadowed in the figure of circumcision, in which blood was shed, that the Messiah would save His people through a blood sacrifice, as foretold by the Prophet Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 42:1–4; Isaiah 49:1–6; Isaiah 50:4–7; and Isaiah 52:13–53:12).
And now, because this Feast shouts out that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah promised Israel and was and is a true Son of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And in this way this Feast contradicts all the lies of the Talmud which say He was not a Jew, but the bastard of a Roman Legionnaire and Mary of Nazareth.
Thus this is a feast for true Evangelization. It goes directly against all the false talk about religious dialogue and ecumenism, terms which now mean something very different from what they meant before the Council.
But the truth I want to emphasize today, is that this wonderful Feast testifies to another amazing historical fact, namely, that God, Who is the Omnipotent Lawgiver of all creation, humbled Himself, not only to become a little babe, but a little babe who observed the Law, and the laws of His age.
In this way, this Feast speaks to our age in a most eloquent way, because the culture being promoted by the enemies of humanity today is the culture of law-breaking. And a lot of Christians are eating it up.
From the very beginning there have been fake Christians. The ones who were converts from Judaism wanted to keep the Mosaic Law and add Jesus’ teachings on as an appendix. And since the time Saint Paul preached the Gospel of Salvation to the people of Corinth, the Church has been plagued by another kind of fake Christian: the anomian.
These Pharasees and Anomians are two kinds of spiritual extremism and idolatry.
The former wants to put the Law which Moses wrote on the Altar and put God Incarnate on the side of the Sanctuary.
The latter wants God Incarnate merely as a license to do whatever they want. (Anomian comes from the Greek word, ἀνομίαν, meaning “lawless” or “without a law”.)
Both do not worship God, both worship their spiritual preferences. Both are thus involved in idolatry.
Anomianism which was first mentioned as an error among the Greek converts at Corinth, by Saint Paul, consists in holding that the salvation offered in Christ frees us from the need to follow the Mosaic Law and all other laws. Anomians, thus, might be called the first libertarians. They want to be free from any constraint and want to be able to do all the evil they want.
Recognizing how evil this error is, is important today. It is an error which the example of the Child Jesus speaks directly against. Because God has the right to do whatever He wants. He is bound by no law. Yet, God when He became a man, did not do whatever He wanted. He did only what God His Father had commanded and that included observing the Mosaic Law.
From the example of the Child Jesus, we can be sure Jesus wants us to observe the laws of His Church. Because, His Church is His immaculate Bride. Thus if He was willing to observe the lesser laws of Moses and the Roman Empire, how much more would He want us, whom He called to imitate Himself, to follow Church law.
All “Benedict is certainly not the pope” Folk are anomians
This is so, so evident. Because Canon Law says to resign the papacy, you need to resign the petrine munus (cf. Canon 332 §2). And Pope Benedict XVI never did any such thing. He never even said he intended to do such a thing. And his personal secretary in 2016 made it clear that he never did or intended to do such a thing. But the BICNOTpope people do not care in the least what the laws of the Church require or say or mean. It is enough for them that journalists and Cardinals and Bishops, whom the Church teaches are NOT infallible in anything, let alone in knowing historical facts or in interpreting the laws of the Church, say something which is contrary to the Laws of the Church. They are true revolutionaries and Modernists. Truth is relative, it depends on opinion, not the law or Divine Revelation.
And yes, I mean all the BICNOTpope folk, whether they also say, “Pope Francis is leading a needed fundamental change” or whether they say, “Recognize him as Pope, but resist him as a revolutionary”.
That they deny Pope Benedict, the Vicar of Christ, does not mean that all of them are liberals, apostates or heretics. No, some want a Latin Liturgy, orthodoxy in faith and morals. They just think that it is childish to insist on keeping Canon Law; they think a mature Catholic should be above such pettiness. They may present themselves as Traditionalists, but no Catholic before Vatican II would have even recognized them as faithful Catholics.
Before the Council, until Pope Pius XII changed the laws, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass could not be offered after noon, local time! Saints with great love for the Eucharist, and who were priests, had to forego offering the sacrifice of the Mass, when traveling at sea, when their ship did not stop at a port before noon of each day (Mass was not said on board ships on account of the rocking of the seas).
This shows us that pre-Vatican II Catholics were lovers of the laws of the Church. And they showed it even to the point of omitting the celebration of the Mass for the day, to keep the laws of the Church!
THEY UNDERSTOOD RIGHTLY THAT our OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS OF THE CHURCH IS MORE IMPORTANT to God THAN our CELEBRATING THE DIVINE SACRIFICE!
In this way they fulfilled what is said in Scripture, that God prefers obedience to ritual sacrifice (Hebrews 10:7 ff.), a scriptural doctrine which Saint Paul recalls to explain the very Incarnation of Our Lord.
The Feast of Circumcision of our Lord
… therefore is a feast which is eminently in need of celebrating. It is a feast for true Catholics and for all the enemies of Bergoglio. It is also a feast for all Catholics in communion with the true Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, because they rightly recognize that we must follow the laws of the Church, even if all others do not, and even if the Pope, as a man, might be confused about them.
May the Holy Name of Jesus be your blessing, your ensign and your glory!
And May the Child of Bethlehem, today, bless us all with the Salvation promised in His Most Holy Name!
And no, I am not talking about the events leading up to February 11, 2013.
I am speak about the plan moving through sections of the Roman Curia right now to “solve” the problem of a “Pope emeritus”. I have this on the word of a very highly respected member of the Roman Curia who told me of it.
The enemies of Christ realize that this title proves that the resignation was never complete and therefore that Pope Benedict never renounced the Papal Office at all, and is still the pope. That means Bergoglio’s entire reign of terror was uncanonical, a fraud, of no value, not legally binding on the Church in anything.
They cannot tolerate that. So now they feel confident in removing “the evidence of the problem”.
I wonder whether there are different points of view here. Do some want Benedict to stop calling himself “pope”, signing as the “Pastor of Pastors, Pope Benedict XVI” (Benedictus XVI P.P.)*, wearing the white cassock and skull cap? Do others go so far as to want him out of the Vatican and no longer cared for by the Head of the Pontifical Household? Do still others want a “canonical” solution which pretends or keeps up the pretense of a valid resignation?
I believe dissent on this matter is visceral, right now, in the Vatican. The Head of the Vatican Police seems to have been a partisan of the group which holds that Bergoglio has no valid claim, since, when he tendered his resignation this fall, Bergoglio demanded of him that he mention, in his letter of resignation, that he recognizes “Pope Francis as the Successor of Saint Peter”, a textual statement which has nothing to do with a letter of resignation per se, but which proves that Bergoglio is on the war path to punish anyone who thinks otherwise. (Did Sodano’s sacking have anything to do with this? — I do not know, but he certainly does know of the controversy since there is nothing going on in the Vatican that he does not know through his many clients there).
And do not doubt it. The whole Roman Curia knows that Benedict is still the pope and that in their haste they were wrong in presuming that he resigned the office of St. Peter in February 2013. I make this claim on the basis of the human reactions I get when discussing this with learned partisans of the Bergoglian regime. It’s a topic with which they are very familiar and know precisely what to say and not to say to pretend otherwise. They also employ their most forceful anger against those facts and points-of-law-in-application which directly address the problem. It’s such a hot potato, that few are even willing to speak about it. And some even run away when they see you coming, if you have requested to speak with them on this topic.
Their hope is that most of the laity are dopes and will keep eating up the propaganda that their handlers in the press and social media keep putting out: Shut up! Do not think about it! It does not matter! You are seeing things! You are a heretic and a schismatic if you say otherwise!** The Revolution, in the minds of the Bergoglian party, must go forward. They have to have approbation of all that is evil and the utter destruction of the Church which claims to be founded by the true Jewish Messiah. That is the end game.
The Battle of 2020
Pope Benedict XVI for his part has made it quite clear that his “yes” to accept the Papal Office is a “forever” yes. There is thus going to be a battle, and it will break out in 2020. Catholics who love and remain in communion with Pope Benedict need to go on the war path.
We need to identify and contact the 40 to 70 Cardinals, whom the Vaticanista, Edward Pentin, said in 2017,*** were inclined to call an imperfect council to remove Bergoglio on the grounds that his claim to the papacy is vitiated by some canonical problem, whether heresy, schism or invalidity.
We need to mobilize Catholics to financially support any effort which is necessary to defend the person of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict.
We need to keep up the heat on the partisans of error: those devilishly bold individuals who lie in public and are willing to say anything to keep you from realizing
that in Canon Law the Latin word munus HAS NEVER meant MINISTERIUM,
that Pope Benedict NEVER SAID HE RESIGNED the petrine munus
that Pope Benedict NEVER AFFIRMED THAT HE INTENDED to resign the petrine munus.
that the Cardinals and journalists are not infallible, when they say the contrary of nn. 1, 2, or 3.
that the Cardinals, journalists, and Bishops have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to interpret the act of renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013 as an act of renunciation of anything other than ministerium.
Those who are telling these lies are all getting hefty salaries from someone. Those who are calling out the liars get salaries from no one. That should tell you which side is from God and which is from Mammon. As public liars and frauds, they have no right to be seen for what they are not: honest men who are intellectually respectable or reliable. For more than 6.5 years they have marshaled no arguments against the canonical invalidity. And yet they insist that they should be listened to!
We need to organize Catholics in Portugal to prepare a place or places of refuge for the Pope, if He should chose to flee Rome, since, as Our Lady hinted in BOLD LETTERS during the apparitions there, “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved.” And all who know their Catholic theology well, know that that implies that Portugal will at the very least remain in communion with the true Pope, if not be a place of refuge for him and His valid successors, if needed.
May the Holy Saints of the Knights Templar**** in Portugal and their devotees in our own time MOBILIZE.
May we all do our duty now in the most important battle, in the Church, to come in 2000 years.
* Which clearly indicates he has in his own mind never resigned or intended to resign the Papal dignity, despite what some Cardinals are conjecturing.
** This plot to dethrone Benedict is thus evidence that their propaganda has been just that. It has served to hide the evidence from public view, it never was an honest denial.
**** I mention this Order because it took refuge from an unjust suppression in Portugal and was refounded there in the 14th century. There are thus many faithful Catholics devoted to their memory, in Portugal, and I pray they become the network for helping Pope Benedict.
Here is the Video by Brian Murphy, which explains why Pope Benedict XVI never ceased being the only true pope. Now with German Subtitles. Please share this with your German friends, and if you can get a copy to Pope Benedict or Archbishop Ganswein or Cardinal Brandmuller, please do so! For the salvation f the Church in Germany and throughout the worldQ
We live in a very bizarre age, when professional gossipers (aka journalists) are the puppet masters of the masses, because 95% of everyone allows them to dictate the boundaries of reality, history, morality and religion. And until some noted journalist uses the word, “Heresy”, “Schismatic” or “Apostate” in reference to someone who merits the term(s), then no rational person would ever accuse a fellow Catholic of such a horrible offense on his own judgement, because as they say, “everyone knows that it is schismatic to refuse communion with a fellow Catholic in good standing. And good standing means, he has not yet been officially condemned by the Church!”
This is gaslighting, of course. Gas-lighting is a term which everyone should familiarize themselves with. It is the tactic of those practiced in psychological manipulation used to get clients, subjects, inferiors to deny the reality they see and know and accept that the reality is what the manipulator claims it to be.
As soon as Bergoglio was “elected” the gaslighting began. You are seeing things, He is the pope, you cannot talk that way about the pope. Dissent is a mortal sin. If you do not accept him you are outside the Church. You are not Catholic!
Lately, as the heresies and malevolence of Bergoglio explode out of all proportions to any previous heretic in the history of the Church, some Catholics who were formerly famous for their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy are going into apoplectic fits in their attempts to stifle recognition of the reality. ‘Recognize and Resist’, is their mantra. They are hell bent, literally, on remaining in communion with Bergoglio and don’t you dare rain on their fantasies by showing them facts of Canon Law (canon 1364, 1329 etc.) which show that by Divine right, heretics are outside of the Church as soon as they profess heresy.
These apologists of the revolution are just as hell bent on denying the reality of the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict (cf. ppbxvi.org for complete information). They become discombobulated and lash out. They show that their attachment to “Pope Francis” is neither rational or reasonable, it is visceral. How visceral depends, I suppose, on whether they observe the 6th or 9th Commandments.
This complete psychological and intellectual and spiritual breakdown is a result of what I call the Iscariot Conundrum. I use “Iscariot” here in the sense of the Aramaic word for a man from the same town as the false Apostle, Judas Iscariot. Since like him, they have sold the true Christ for the 30 pieces of silver of public recognition by the Cardinals as a “faithful Catholic”* and since they did it for purely selfish, sentimental, non-rational and non-legal or non-dogmatic reasons, they explode with emotion the more you point out to them that they have built their house upon a false premise. So they lash out more and more and lose all traces of the fine Character they once exhibited, becoming in the process, ironically, the very likeness of dialogue which Bergoglio is, a nasty, name-calling Troll.
A State of Emergency
No less that Archbishop Gänswein, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and the Head of the Pontifical Household (which has only one guest, HINT HINT) said that what Benedict did in February 2013 was on account of a state of emergency.
His words and opinions are debated as to what they mean, but it would be ludicrous to deny the reality which is visible to all the world, namely, that THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS IMPEDED.
To say the Apostolic See is impeded, means that the Pope cannot act as Pope for some reason, either external coercion, or there is no pope, or the pope refuses to act out of some irrational or rational conviction. This ‘being impeded’ causes a state of necessity, because the visible head of the visible Church is for all practical purposes non-functioning. The state of necessity is necessity of the kind which is required for continued functioning of the Church. Since the normal order of governance is obstructed, the observance of merely positive laws upon which it are based, by necessity, must be omitted.
Our Lord teaches us this general principle on the small scale, when, on one occasion He and His Apostles crossed a wheat-field during a time in which they had had nothing to eat (Mark 2:23), and some of them ate the grains of wheat which were near to being harvested, some Pharasees complained they were violating the Sabbath Laws against doing work on the Sabbath. Our Lord pointed out that the necessity of their hunger allowed them to not observe the law on harvesting. He replied with a forceful Semitic way of speaking, saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!” (Mark 2:27)
The law against harvesting was instituted no less than by Moses (Exodus 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:12,14), who had a lot more authority in the Old Covenant (Moses basically wrote the entire thing, under God’s inspiration and direction) than the Pope has in the New Covenant (the pope cannot change the Bible, not even the Our Father — though a lot of clergy are confused on this point).
Also, it is clear, by the principles of logic (ex minore),** that if Our Lord says it is licit to appeal to a state of necessity, to suspend laws of the Old Covenant given by Moses, because men are hungry on a Saturday afternoon, then obviously it is licit to suspend laws of the Pope, in the New Covenant, WHEN THE SALVATION OF ALL SOULS ON EARTH UNTIL THE END OF TIME is put in grave and imminent danger. To deny this would be sheer insanity. This is poignantly true, when one faction in the Church wants to suspend the New Covenant and found a new religion, and the other faction must chose between observing certain man made laws and allowing the Covenant to be transgressed, or not observing them so as to prevent the transgression of the Covenant.
This principle of the abeyance of positive law in a state of necessity is sanctioned by no less than Pope Pius VI, in his Bull, Cum nos superiori anno, of Nov. 13, 1798, where he grants to the Cardinals the right to derogate from all non essential aspects of the papal laws on Conclaves, on account of the de facto suppression of the Church of Rome by the Roman Republic, led by French Revolutionaries.***
Extending this lesson to the affairs of the Church, it follows then, as good Christians, we ARE OBLIGED by divine faith to return to the general principle which Jesus laid down, namely, THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. For the Salvation of Souls the Eternal Father sacrificed His own Son, and His own Son accepted His ignominious death on a Cross. FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.
If there is anyone, therefore, in the Church, that holds that we must wait for the Pope (Benedict) to do something, or some future pope to do something, THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS and more correctly, THEY ARE PHARASEES who are raising up the positive laws established by the Church (which indicate what cannot be done without permission of superiors) to the level of rules which would require the Church to commit suicide waiting for some sort of divine intervention without human collaboration. A divine intervention without human collaboration, in the present case of the impeded See, HAS NEVER BEEN explicitly PROMISED. (I understand that there are some great promises from Our Lord and our Lady, but none of them refer explicitly to a promise to solve this problem.)
Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum)
The concept of Divine Right (ius divinum) is a concept of classical late scholasticism, very popular in the time of the Council of Trent and thereafter. It refers to things which have been decreed by God. The office of Peter exists by divine right, for example.
Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum) is not as well recognized. It refers to the decisions of the Apostles for the governance of the Church. It is of Apostolic right that the church in one city can be governed by several priests, for example.
Both Divine Right and Apostolic Right are superior to Canon Law. As an aside, what most Catholics do not know, is that for more than 1000 years, except for canons decreed in Councils, the Church had no canon law. Canon Law is not of Divine or Apostolic institution, though the First Council of Jerusalem c. 45 A.D. did hand down decisions and is the exemplar for all Councils and Synods in the Church.
Apostolic right also includes some things which are not observed in the normal course of affairs, because since the time of the Apostles the Sacred Hierarchy, for the good ordering of the Church in normal circumstances has laid down canons or established laws to conduct the affairs of the Church differently.
Take for example the election of Bishops. The Apostles appointed Bishops before they died. But when they had passed to eternal Glory, they left it to each diocese by Apostolic Right to chose their own bishop. And by “to each diocese”, I mean to the Catholics of each diocese, laity, religious and clergy. This is how the Church survived 10 Roman persecutions. No one was writing Rome to ask for an appointment, when their Bishop died.
Also, it is of Apostolic Right that every Bishop serves as ordinary of his diocese until death. There was no retirement. That is a novelty created by Paul VI to eliminate Catholics from the College of Bishops and replace them with sodomite revolutionaries. Canon Law implicitly recognizes that this concept of mandatory retirement is contrary to Apostolic Right, in that it does not require Bishops to resign, it says only that they should submit a letter of resignation upon reaching the age of 75.
It is also of Apostolic Right that the Bishops can convene in Synods and Councils. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that every Synod in Church History, which is regarded as a true hierarchical act, was approved of by the Pope. The current positive laws require that the Pope consent, but Apostolic Right does not require that. Apostolic Right is more rational, because when there is no pope or when the pope is a prisoner, how can the Bishops get permission?
But the general reason for the revival of Apostolic Right has to do with the inherent principle of subsidiarity in a perfect society. This principle was recognized by Pope Leo XIII. It holds that when the higher authority in a perfect society fails, then the lower authority has the right to take up the duty of the higher authority and act inasmuch it is necessary to act to preserve or defend that society. Since the College of Bishops as a whole succeeds the Apostles, when the See of Peter is impeded, each and every Bishop has the moral and Apostolic Right to exercise in a certain sense the authority of the Apostles to put the Church back in proper working order. This is an awesome responsibility reserved to extreme cases of necessity, such as is happening today, with both a public heretic ruling the Vatican and a Pope (Benedict) who thinks it is no longer his duty to govern the Church or vindicate his own rights as Christ’s Vicar.
In a State of Emergency, Apostolic and Divine Right revive on points which are now, in the regular course of Church affairs, regulated by canon law, presupposing an Apostolic See which is not impeded. These positive laws of the Church, which if observed, would lead to the destruction of the Church or the loss of souls are suspended in force. That is, it is no longer a canonical crime or moral fault NOT to observe them with due reason.
If there are any Catholic Bishops or Cardinals on earth, then they need to recognize this before it is too late, or the woeful warning of Our Lady of Akita will come to pass, that the faithful become deprived of the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and Orders, because no Bishop had the sense to see that he had the Apostolic or Divine right to act to preserve the Sacred Hierarchy during an impeded Papacy.
This is because, with the Apostles no longer on Earth, and the See of Peter silent, each and every member of College of Bishops who remains Catholic can licitly assume the duties of the Apostles for the propagation and preservation of the Faith.
Some of the things any Bishop, with or without jurisdiction, can do, by Divine or Apostolic right, during an impeded Papacy are as follows:
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the causes of the impeded See, and or condemn those who are perpetrating it. (Pope Julius II sanctions this in principle)****
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council, to depose claimants to the papacy who do not hold valid canonical titles. (This was done at Sutri in 1046 and sanctioned by St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Gregory VII and Bl. Pope Victor III)
Reprove a pope for resigning partially and neglecting his Apostolic Duties of Ministry. (This arguably is not as extreme as nn. 1 or 2, an thus ex maiore is also approved)
Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the heresies and perversities being spread by the Enemies of the Church, whether inside or outside the Church.
Ordain Catholic Bishops for Dioceses which have been taken over by a heretical bishop or where the Catholic Bishop has declared for heresy or apostasy. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
Ordain Catholic priests and deacons for the faithful of each Diocese who are deprived of the Sacraments due to heretical or schismatic clergy in their area. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
In fact, during the first 1500 years of the Church, we see Bishops regularly doing many if not all of these things. They had the benefit of not being plagued in conscience by positive Church law, but the system worked. Now that the Apostolic See, nay the Vatican, is completely impeded and taken over by heretics, the Bishops must act!
This is not the imaginary case of Sedevacantists who don’t like a pope nor the sounder case of Traditionalists don’t want to abandon liturgical traditions of their Rite: this is the case of a direct frontal attack on the the New Covenant: the Deposit of the Faith, Scripture and Tradition, through open denials of key dogmas and doctrines and disciplines which come from Jesus Christ and His Apostles.
Prayer and Petitions
Please pray for the Bishops of the Church, for if they do not act, the entire wealth, power, prestige of the Church will be robbed by a sect of marxist sodomites and 100s of millions of souls will perish without right doctrine and sacraments.
Please also talk to your Bishop, if he appears to be somewhat Catholic. This is crucial. I know Catholics who have contacts and who are doing this right now. But more needs to be done.
The Catholic laity, on account of the inaction of the Bishops, are being forced to accept Sacraments from heretics and schismatics and perverse sodomites. They have the Divine right to be cared for pastorally by Catholic clergy who are in communion with the true Pope. And this right is being DEMONICALLY AND UNIVERSALLY TRANSGRESSED in all dioceses throughout the Catholic world in the present Crisis.
We have the Divine and Apostolic right to act with insistence and with full approval of Christ’s teaching and example.
* I use quotes here, to point out how nonsensical this approach is, devoid of any reasonable assessment of historical events, because the Cardinals accepted an invalid resignation and then invalidly elected an Arch-Heretic Psychopath, so it is no exaggeration to doubt that the Cardinals are willing or able to recognize what a Faithful Catholic is!
** Ex minore is a technical term of medieval logic which refers to illations (arguments) which are based on appealing to something which is true in a lesser case, and argues from that, that it must be true in a greater case. Our Lord is doing this all the time, as for example in His parables of the King preparing for war, the architect preparing to build a tower etc., as examples of how if prudence is necessary in earthly things, it is all the more necessary in questions of eternal salvation.
*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Rome, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.
**** This Apostolic Right was incorporated into Pope Julius II’s, Si summus rerum Opifex of Feb. 16, 1513, Fifth Lateran Council, which provided that if this law on Papal Conclaves were violated as regards a simoniacal election, the Cardinals not involved in the simony could have recourse to a Synod or Council to dethrone the uncanonically elected antipope. Bagliani & Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. This papal law was published previously as the Bull, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, January 14, 1505 (ibid., p. 39). This principle, acknowledged by Pope Julius II and the Fifth Lateran Council, is that which authorizes the calling of “imperfect” Synods in the time of necessity, such as ours.
This video is in Spanish, but has English subtitles, and the entire transcript in English can be found at the Wild Voice, which has been a prophetic leader on the web, warning the Church about the St Gallen Mafia from the beginning. — Father Martin seems to be a former worker at the Vatican during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Says he knows Joseph Ratzinger personally.
Father Santiago, just as importantly, explains that he knew of the goals of the St. Gallen Mafia to attack Church teaching and overthrow the faith, and he warns against them. A warning, alas, which went unheeded, because the revolutionaries were already in charge at the Vatican.
The blessed and glorious Apostle Saint Paul wrote to the Church of Philippi, these inspired and eternally valid words, nearly two thousand years ago:
Citizenship in Heaven
17 Be ye followers of me, brethren: and observe them who walk so as you have our model. 18For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping) that they are enemies of the cross of Christ:19Whose end is destruction: whose God is their belly: and whose glory is in their shame: who mind earthly things. 20 But our conversation is in heaven: from whence also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory, according to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things unto himself.
(Douay Rheims Translation)
The Apostle, who as such, enjoyed the personal charism of infallibility, was modest in his speech. Many have interpreted this passage as referring to gluttony but it refers principally to lust, and that of men.
Some men, losing all sense of reason or faith (if they ever had it), however, are so stupid and foolish and so ignorant of their own corporal endowments, that they hold that as soon as blood enters some part of their body, that they are inspired. For fools of this kind, the contemporary mass-media lie of gender theory is for them a divine revelation, directly from their god.
To that end they want all things to bend to this new revelation from below: laws, religion, and above all morals.
This is what is behind the outrageous modernism and sacrilege of scripture which was recently published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, entitled, “Che cosa è l’uomo? Un itinerario di antropologia biblica,” (“What is man? A journey into biblical anthropology”), which in its Fourth Chapter concludes thus (source):
L’esame esegetico condotto sui testi dell’Antico e del Nuovo Testamento ha fatto apparire elementi che vanno considerati per una valutazione dell’omosessualità, nei suoi risvolti etici. Certe formulazioni degli autori biblici, come le direttive disciplinari del Levitico, richiedono un’intelligente interpretazione che salvaguardi i valori che il testo sacro intende promuovere evitando, dunque, di ripetere alla lettera ciò che porta con sé anche tratti culturali di quel tempo. Sarà richiesta un’attenzione pastorale, in particolare nei confronti delle singole persone, per attuare quel servizio di bene che la Chiesa ha da assumere nella sua missione per gli uomini
From Rome translation:
The exegetical study conducted on the texts of the Old and New Testament has made evident elements which are to be considered for an evaluation of homosexuality, in its ethical implications. Certain formulations of the biblical authors, like the disciplinary directives of Leviticus, require an intelligent interpretation to safeguard the values which the sacred text intends to promote by avoiding, therefore, to repeat according to the letter, what it also carries along with it as the cultural traits (i.e. baggage)* of that age. Pastoral attention will be required, in particular in respect of individual persons, to activate that service of the good which the Church has to assume in Her mission for men.
Admittedly this is complex double speak. So I will translate it into common English:
In other words, WE ARE INSTRUCTING YOU TO WHITEWASH GOD’S WORD AND HIDE THE SAVING TRUTH OF THE IMMORALITY OF SODOMY FROM those addicted to this sin, lest they repent and no longer serve as agents of the Globalist Marxist revolution for the destruction of all humanity. With Papa Francis’s Blessing. Wink. Wink. Hint. Hint.
That admittedly that is not a literal translation, but rather one in the style of Vatican II, that is of dynamic equivalence! (satirical comment)
Oh, and to those who say, “But this isn’t magisterial!”: “We say: well we agree, since Bergoglio was never the pope (see ppbxvi.org for the Catholic reason), but you really need to get a new line, because people can see through that kind of gaslighting.”
As a matter of fact, Bergoglio has announced that from now on, all Dicasteries of the Roman Curia are equal (see report here). That means, whatever the Pontifical Biblical Commission puts out, is just as authoritative as the Congregation for Divine Worship. — So get set for the next Liturgical Aggiornamento, folks!, on the lines of dumping the “cultural baggage” of the past.
* This parenthesis and its content are a translator’s note, added by the From Rome Blog.
Interview of President Marcello Pera, by Bruno Volpe (Full Text, Italian, here)
President Pera, it seems that the Catholic Church is no longer raising Her voice to protest blasphemies against God…
Catholicism for some time now has degraded, it is losing the cultural and religious war. Catholic leaders are afraid and offer a sad spectacle of behavior. And the most faithful example of this is the one at the top.
You mean pope Bergoglio?
Certainly. He is openly going against Tradition, Doctrine and is introducing innovations, disciplines and inexplicable acts. This pontificate is a scandal in the biblical sense of the word: it leads souls astray and make the faithful stumble, it does not bear good fruits, nay it makes them diminish. Vocations and mass attendance have collapsed, fundraising too, at the Wednesday Angelus attendance has thinned and we can see it in the online photos even if the politically correct MSM wont speak of it. As much as regards the fundaments of the Catholic Faith, this pontificate is an outrage to reason. Nevertheless no one here in Italy, faithful or bishop, says anything, no one has the courage to rebel, even though many are filled with doubts. The problem is that the Church has been reduced to a kind of NGO, which attends mostly to social works, which has made Greta into an idol, which runs after the dreams of socialism, both politically and economically, after the dreams of being-nice-to-everybody, while the shepherds often forget that the salvation of souls is their principal duty.
(President Pera is a devout atheist)
Pera does not exaggerate!
No need to mention that Bergoglio has effectively sanctioned adultery, by allowing adulterers, even public ones, to receive Communion, sacrilegiously, nor that he calls God a liar by claiming capital punishment is always morally inadmissible, nor that his appointees are saying Greta is a Saint nor that you can attend a person committing suicide through euthanasia, But just today, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has published a study insisting that the truth of Scripture according to the literal sense, in passages which condemn sodomy, should not be presented, but that what Scripture intends without its historical conditioning (read prejudices of homophobia) is what should be pastorally employed to evangelize modern man ! (see report here)
At this point, I think it is neither an exaggeration to call into question the sexuality of anyone who still thinks this man is the Pope.
I write this post to publicly thank Mons. Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru, Titular Bishop of Civitate, who was appointed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI as Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.
I met with him this morning at 9:45. The meeting lasted about 75 minutes. I did not record the meeting, but want to share with everyone what I remember of it, because of its great importance to the life of the Catholic Church.
I began by saying that I had come to discuss the interpretation of law (interpretatio iuris) or more specifically the right to interpret canonical acts (ius interpretandi). Bishop Arrieta is an expert on this matter, having served in the capacity of a Professor of Canon Law since 1984 at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce, and from 2003 to 2008 at the Preside of the “St Pius X” Institute of Canon Law at Venice, and as Canonist to the Apostolic Penitentiary. Since February of 2007, he has served in the Pontifical Council as its Secretary. This title does not mean he is a secretary, but rather, the Vice President as it were to the Council.
I want to remark on the gentleness and noble demeanor of the Bishop, who never used any hominems, never lost his patience and showed himself willing to discuss the most impolitic issues, from the point of view of canon law, in the Church.
I began my questions with a preface, and with the Bishop’s permission read to him my entire article, entitled, ¡Viva Guadalajara! which was published, here, at the From Rome Blog, this morning.
During the reading, the Bishop could not hide his amusement at the fictitious story, but as I moved to my comments on how this story applies not only to the first moments of a papacy but also to the last, that is, to a Papal renunciation, the amusement on his face disappeared instantly. — Nevertheless, he continued to be polite.
He confirmed for me the following facts:
To his knowledge, there was no meeting of canonists in February of 2013 which discussed the validity of the Act of Renunciation, nor whether a renunciation of ministerium effected a renunciation of munus.
To his knowledge, Pope Benedict XVI never explained himself to any Cardinal or canonists in private as to whether his act effected a renunciation of the petrine munus or office.
To his knowledge, no act of interpretation of the Renunciation was ever promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI.
Bishop Arrieta did admit that he was asked questions regarding the Renunciation, on Feb. 11, 2013, but no question regarded the use of the term ministerium instead of munus.
He also confirmed for me these points of law:
If anyone heard Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013 explain or officially interpret his Act of Renunciation as an act of renouncing the munus, and left a sworn testimony to the fact, this would have no juridical value whatsoever. That is it would not make or alter the signification other than it is.
An act of papal Renunciation is not subject to the interpretation of anyone in the Church. That is, no one has the right to interpret it.
An act of papal Renunciation, therefore, must be certain in itself. If it is not certain, it is invalid.
There is no Canon in the Code of Canon Law which predicates the term ministerium of an ecclesiastical office.
What Ganswein said at the Gregorian University in 2016 A.D. — he admitted he had not read the text of Ganswein in full or in the original — is impossible, since the Papal Office is theologically incapable of being held by more than one man at a time.
It is canonically impossible that two persons hold he Petrine Munus at the same time.
The Roman Curia shares in the Petrine Ministerium, but not the Petrine Munus.
There can only be one pope.
The Pope is subject to Divine Law and cannot split the office.
Canon 1331 §2, n. 4 does allow an excommunicated person to hold a ministry in the Church, but that there is a reform of the Penal Code in the works and that this is something that will be addressed.
Canon 332 §2 requires a verbal renunciation, not a renunciation which is signified by gestures or after the fact statements.
The supreme theological and legal principle for interpretation of canonical acts is the teaching of Jesus Christ, where He said, “Let your yes be Yes, and your no, No, anything else comes from the Devil” (Mt. 5:37)
Now Bishop Arrieta did not agree with me in everything. He made it clear to me that he holds the following positions:
The Renunciation of Pope Benedict was certain and clear.
The Renunciation clearly signified the renunciation of the office of the papacy.
It is morally impossible in the judgement of Bishop Arrieta, based on his knowledge of the man, Ratzinger, that Pope Benedict intended to deceive anyone by pretending to resign one thing instead of the other.
Canon 332 §2, as regards the requirements of liberty and due manifestation, is not talking about a renunciation of the petrine munus.
The necessity in a papal renunciation is a renunciation of the papal office, not of the petrine munus, which is a canonical term which does not adequately reflect the theological reality.
In the Code of Canon Law there is no clear distinction between munus and ministerium.
Regarding this 4th position of the Bishop, I must say I tried to get a word in edgewise to object to such a patently false statement, as if conditions for validity for an act of renunciation of munus only regard the act of renouncing and not the object which is to be renounced. I think the Bishop just said this out of desperation because it is logically absurd on the face of it, as you cannot read part of a sentence which regards conditions for validity and ignore what was said as the fundamental condition for the occurrence or discernment of the occurrence of the act in question!
Regarding the 5th position, I disagree, because Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ, by promulgating the Code imposed upon the whole Church the canonical obligation of understanding it in accord with Canon 17, not as defective in anything. Therefore, an interpretation of canon 332 §2 which implies a defect, cannot be authentic.
I won’t respond here to n. 6, since I have devastatingly refuted it in the recent Academic Conference at Rome, the excerpt of which I published on this very topic, here.
What left me unsatisfied about our conversation is that I asked a lot of questions, but Mons. Arrieta could not give me answers. Here are some of my question, not verbatim, but according to their sense, that the Bishop did not or could not answer:
If it is clear that Pope Benedict resigned his office, can you explain to me canonically how he did that if he never mentioned the office or the Petrine Munus?
If Canon 41 gives to every priest the discretion and right to evaluate the Papal Act of Renunciation before deciding to stop naming Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, as the Pope, why it is canonically wrong if he exercise this discretion, judge the act nullus and continue to name Benedict?
If no one has the right to interpret the Papal Act, how can you explain why nearly everyone in the Hierarchy holds that it effected a renunciation of the Papal Office, if nowhere in the Act did Pope Benedict say I renounce the office or the munus? Is that not an interpretation?
While I am willing to concede out of respect for Pope Benedict that he did not maliciously intend to deceive, is it not possible he was in substantial error when he resigned one thing and not the other?
Does not our loyalty to Jesus Christ, Who bound Himself to observe Canon Law, require us to consider as possible that the Pope be in error in thinking he can resign part of the papal prerogatives and keep the rest? or was wrong in desiring to bifurcate the papacy?
Does not the historical facts that 1) Pope Benedict XVI before his elevation to the Papacy knew of the desires of many German theologians to split the papal office along the lines of the petrine munus and the petrine ministry, and 2) the strange way of renouncing the ministry, but not the munus, coupled with 3) the testimony of Ganswein his personal secretary, who should know the mind of the Holy Father, produce the most sound forensic testimony that the Pope did intend to bifurcate the Papal Office and should be corrected by the Church, even if we personally hold that he had no such intention by way of supposition and respect for his person?
The Bishop closed by remarking that my approach to the reading of the Act of Renunciation was strange to him, that he has never considered this problem before, that he has never read about this controversy, but that I had given him “much to think about”.
The sum of what Mons. Arrieta told me leads me to conclude the following:
The Act of Renunciation was presumed from the start to be a renunciation of the Papacy, without any consideration of the discrepancy of renouncing the ministerium instead of the munus, as if the Code of 1917 were operative, and not the Code of 1983.
There has never been any canonical reflection on the canonical value of the Act of Renunciation by anyone known to Bishop Arrieta.
There are no canonical arguments for the validity of the renunciation to effect a loss of the Papal Office, because the interpretation is simply a presumption based on an extrinsic method of reading the act (as I point out in my previous article), which is the most unauthentic and error-prone method of interpretation.
The opinion of No Cardinal or Bishop or Priest on this matter constrains anyone in the Church to accept it, because no one has the right to say that the Papal Act means something other than it expressly says.
Thus, the Renunciation of Pope Benedict DID NOT effect the loss of the Papal Office. He remains the Pope, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Pontiff with all rights and privileges, all prerogatives and powers, graces and carisms, BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT RENOUNCE THE PAPACY BY WORDS, YOU HAVE NOT RENOUNCED THE PAPACY!*
Finally, I do want to thank the Bishop for his patience. Several times in the 75 minutes we spent discussing this most important matter, he remarked he had other duties, but stayed anyhow when what I said was substantial and presented a line of argumentation which he felt necessary to respond to.
* For those not familiar with the technical language, in this controversy, “papacy” here refers not to the Vatican, nor to the Papal State(s) or Territory, nor to the government of the Vatican, but to the Office of the Roman Pontiff. And I use this term here in the linguistic sense, not in the sense of the thing, but of the thing as named. For example, a husband refers to his wife by either one of her proper names, first, middle, last, or improper names, such as honey, dear, sweetie, or by a pronoun standing alone or followed by a subordinate phrase, such as, “the one who does the dishes”. If he says, I am going to get rid of the dish-washing, the bathroom-cleaning, the meal-preparation and the warm bed, he has not referred logically nor verbally to his wife, because the actions which his wife does or the effects of which she is the cause are not her, they are effects or actions under her power, and by naming them, one does not name necessarily or determinatively the one who is his wife. — So likewise, when Pope Benedict renounced the ministry but not the Papal Office, he did not renounce the Office, because he did not name it, he only referred to that which might be construed as the ministry which flows from it. The intellectual incapacity or inability to recognize this common law of human language and signification is at the heart of the reason why so many think Benedict resigned the papacy, when in reality he did nothing of the kind. However, why he did what he did, is besides the point (praeter rem), because whatever his motives, the act remains invalid, null.
“Indeed,” he [Fr. Amorth] states, “One day Padre Pio said to me very sorrowfully: ‘You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.’”https://t.co/ABHMS8Gvg0
Now, as God has given us intellects by which we are able to think and understand, let us think about what Padre Pio said to Father Amorth, the chief exorcist at Rome for many years:
Satan. — Q. Which organizations worship Satan and are also known infiltrators of the ecclesiastical hierarchy? Hmm…… A. The Freemasons.
The bosom of the Church — Q. What could this refer to? Hmm.. A. Bosom is the center or heart. Many mistakenly think this refers to the womb, but it actually refers to the chest or thorax. The heart of the Church is without a doubt the Vatican.
Soon come to rule a false Church — Q. What does it mean to rule a Church? … Hmm. A. To control the leadership and especially the top leader.
Church — Q. What is the Church? Hmm. … A: A world wide hierarchical religious organization ruled by the Bishop of Rome and Bishops in communion with him, with clergy who show their communion by naming the Bishop of Rome in the Canon of the Mass, and who promote and spread his teachings.
False Church — Q. What is a false Church? Hmm. A. Not the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon truth, the power of the office of Peter and that of the Bishops, with the preaching of the Gospel and the Sacraments. A false Church, therefore, will have a false Bishop of Rome, a false Gospel and will show itself by naming the false Bishop in the Canon of the mass.
Now, of whom could Padre Pio be speaking, but an uncanonically elected man who is regarded by Bishops and clergy as the pope, but who attacks Jesus Christ, undermines His Gospel, teaches falsehood and worships demons?
The facts point clearly to whom that is. Those who have eyes can see it. Those who say they do not see it already worship the darkness, even if they worship it in Latin.
POSTSCRIPT: Compare what Archbishop Fulton Sheen said about the Anti-Church, as quoted here by the indomitable Ann Barhnardt.
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church