Tag Archives: Pope Benedict XVI’s Renunciation

The ongoing Demise of those in the Church who refused to recognize the Truth

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We are witnessing the downfall of Rome, as we speak. It has been in freefall since Feb. 11, 2013. And those who read FromRome.Info regularly know why.

More than 99% of the clergy have refused, and still refuse, to seriously consider and thus recognize that Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated on that day. They refused because they wanted not to rock the boat. They did not recognize, because it would cost them their pay check.

But at the same time, they lacked the intellectual formation to see what was in front of their face, just as those who use social media or watch TV, etc., habitually, were not able to see and recognize the Pandemic as a total Scam. Many still cannot. Many will never be able to do so.

It may sound anti-populist or anti-democratic to say it, but a great number of individuals are fools because they chose and want not to see the truth. They firmly want to live in a world of lies, deceit and fraud.

The light of truth hurts their feelings, interests and goals just too much.

This week we have 2 articles in the news which illustrate this with elegance. The first is an article by an anonymous author, who signs his name, F. P., about the nonsensical rules and interpretations of rules under the “pontificate” of Pope Francis.

Published by Silere Non Possum in Italian, here, and in English translation by Catholic Conclave, here.

The first irony of which is that Silere Non Possum, whose name means, “I cannot be silent”, refused to speak about the truth that Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated, and instead chose to ridicule those who did.

The second irony of which is that Catholic Conclave, regards the very uncatholic and juridically invalid “Conclave” of 2013 as Catholic and valid.

But it is F. P. who is very slowly recognizing that the institutionalized incompetence under the “pontificate” of Pope Francis is truly unique in Catholic History. He just cannot figure out why before Feb. 11, 2013, juridical texts made sense, but now they don’t. He even cannot bring himself to name that date!

The second article is by Cardinal Brandmueller, the Lutheran who converted to the Catholic Faith as a youth, and then became a priest, bishop and Cardinal. He lives in the Vatican.

He writes here in German, and his article can be read in English here. He denounces how the push under the “pontificate” of Bergoglio and the pontificate of Pope Francis toward including lay men and women in roles of “responsibility” has led to utter chaos in the Church, and that therefore the Synodal Process has turned out to be totally fake, a waste of time, and merely a cover for an ideological takeover of the Church.

Yet, like F. P. he cannot figure out the cause of the problem. He simply hopes that somehow, in some way, the local parish priest can get free of the entanglements of laypeople who want to run the Church and return to preaching the Gospel and saving souls, rather than promoting inclusion and diversity.

A Diagnosis

In the olden days before cellphones, if you became lost on foot in any place, you knew to open a paper road map or ask directions from the next human being you met, who appeared to be trustworthy.

But now that everyone uses cellphones too much, the fools do not know how to find their way back, because for them the only lie, the only dishonestly, is saying that Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated, or worse, that words have objective meaning, and even if 99% of the clergy say otherwise, “munus:” does not mean “ministerium” and vice-versa.

As for the Cardinal, I wrote his secretary in November of 2019, to obtain an audience to explain these things, and received an email months later saying he was too sick and weak to respond. He has evidently been too weak and sick for all these years, and he still cannot figure out the cause of his illness, which is above all spiritual.

A Meditation for the 11th Anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s Renunciation of Ministry

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

It was 11 years ago, on February 11, 2013 A. D., at shortly after 11:30 A. M., that his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI read his now famous declaration, “Non solum propter”. — Above, if you click the image, you can access FromRome.Info’s complete Index to the history, debate and controversy over the events of that day and the meaning or effect of that declaration.

By that act he clearly and manifestly intended to retain the petrine munus and renounce only the petrine ministry, so that by retiring but not abdicating he could retain the Papal Dignity and Mandate, while conceding to his opponents the other powers of governance. While there are many, many opinions about the morality, intention, cause, motives and purpose of such an act, the juridical value of it was NOT and abdication.

But, for today’s anniversary, I want to offer a reflection on the moral errors committed in the Vatican before and during that controversy, which might help explain why even to this day, notable clergy incardinated at the Vatican, such as Cardinals Burke and Mueller, Brandmuller and Sarah, and even Archbishop Viganò seemingly find it impossible to admit their error in thinking he declared that he would abdicate from the Pontificate on that day.

As I have shown in my Index to Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, there are more than 53 errors in the Latin text Pope Benedict XVI read on that day. And why it has been admitted by experts at the Vatican, that Pope Benedict XVI wrote the text without any consultation with Canon Lawyers or Latinists, even Archbishop Gänswein admits there are errors in the text — though he has not yet had the charity to the Catholic world to admit which ones he recognizes.

Thus, the national Catholic newspaper in Italy, Avvenire, which is run by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference there, though they called me an “idiot” for claiming there are errors in the text, now has to eat crow. And yes, I still await an apology for their calumny, for the sake of removing the scandal they have placed before millions of souls.

But that they resorted to the services of a defrocked priest to gaslight the Catholic world about the deficiencies in the text, showed how desperate they were to keep the narrative of an abdication going, and how they knew all in their hearts, at least by 2021 that Benedict XVI never abdicated.

This collective sin and guilt and complicity is the principal embarrassment of the Catholic Hierarchy, not only in Italy but round the world. These men are pragmatic, and they realize that their moral authority over the faithful will be utterly destroyed when it comes to be known that they collectively were incapable of understanding how Canon 332 §2 worked and what was necessary for an abdication — a thing which should be a basic concept taught in a general Canon Law class on juridical acts.

So individuals who have doctorates in Canon Law such as Archbishop Gänswein really have no excuse. And there are 1000s like him, who were all silent. Though the worst sin was of those who should have known and attempted to defend the indefensible, namely, that a renunciation of ministerium in Latin signified a renunciation of munus.

But it was not I, but Cardinal Burke himself who immediately recognized that the declaration did not contain what it should contain to effect a valid abdication. He himself spoke to friends and acquaintances from Rome to Arizona about this. But he otherwise hid this opinion of his from the press. And I surmise that if he attempted to speak with Pope Benedict XVI before February 28, 2013, he failed in his request, because Pope Benedict XVI was not wont to speak with him about “canonical details”. The other Cardinals and clergy at the Vatican also failed, either out of human respect, or complicity in the plot by Hilary Clinton to push Pope Benedict XVI from power and have a new “spring time” in the Catholic Church.

I will guess too, without any evidence, that if there were a group of Cardinals and Bishops who realized the errors in the text in February 2013, they became conflicted in their private counsels, because they considered it somehow wrong to request that Pope Benedict XVI make a proper and correct renunciation on Feb. 28, 2013, to correct the errors of his Feb. 11th text. Indeed, for men like Cardinal Burke, it was his grave duty to make his way to Castle Gandolfo on Feb. 28th, with the proper text written on paper and carried in hand, to obtain an audience and insist Pope Benedict XVI sign the document in the presence of two other Bishops or Archbishops. Perhaps he was too unfit to climb to the balcony by rope ladder or thrown himself on the ground in front of the main door, to make a spectacle, to obtain this juridical rectification. We cannot judge the man on his personal sentiments, but all who knew of the defect should have had such a zeal.

Contrariwise, if anyone knew that the act of Pope Benedict XVI did not validly cause an abdication, or that Pope Benedict XVI knew, understood or did not understand this they had a grave solemn duty to announce this to the world as soon as they knew of it. Cardinal Burke did not do this. Why? Did the Cardinals discuss this in the canonically invalid Conclave of 2013 ? We may never know. But shortly after they came out of that “Conclave” we know that they had formed a silent eternal pact to never speak of this fraud perpetrated upon the Catholic World, because immediately the Vatican began publishing falsified translations in all major languages of the world, to conceal this from 1+ Billion Catholics. And this is the greatest crime against the rights of the Faithful in the entire history of the Church!

However, the official canonical and juridical declaration that ‘Pope Benedict XVI remained pope until his death’ is a question about which the Catholic Bishops of the Roman Province are competent to judge in a Provincial Council. Anyone can request them to do it. And all honesty requires that they,  who know of it, make such a request. Moreover, if they fail to rectify the historical and juridical record, those who know of it, who could be influential to obtain this, will go to their graves to encounter a most Terrible and unforgiving Judge, Whose Immaculate Bride has been raped and sullied by such a great injustice.

And yet, all those who insist that Bergoglio has never been the pope, fail to avail themselves of the most important confirmation of the invalidity of the Conclave of 2013, which they could obtain by the convocation of such a Council. Why is this? Those who insist he has always been the pope, also fail to seek this solution. Why?

So as we commemorate and remember that fateful day 11 years ago, we should make a renewed effort to admit the truth, connect the dots and study the sources, if we have not yet understood what really happened on that day and who is at fault for it.

And I encourage all the Catholics who have had the grace of the Holy Spirit to do this and complete this necessary task, to pray for all those who live within the ideological limits imposed upon by the boy’s clubs and magic circles in which they move, who out of human respect have preferred not to ask the question or worse to denigrate the messengers of truth, whom God has sent to His Church in the last 11 years.

Many have urged me to write a book about Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, but I make all the articles and videos available for free, because as a Franciscan Brother I realize that my vocation is to give freely, when one has received freely, and to work for the repair of Christ’s Church. — Of everything I have written and mentioned, here, you can find reference and articles in the above index. Just click the top image in this post.


FromRome.info is an electronic journal chronicling the events of the Church without keeping silent about the duty of Catholics to respond with faith-filled action, rather than as mere spectators. This article is one of more than 10,000 published since September 2013 A. D.. For more information about our journal, see our About Page.

Archbishop Lenga: Benedict XVI’s renunciation is invalid & strewn with errors (English)

 POLISH TRANSCRIPT BELOW — ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF TRANSCRIPT HERE

Many cite Archbishop Viganò who talks around the issue, but here is a true successor of the Apostles who speaks directly on the most urgent issue of our day. You won’t hear his voice in the controlled Catholic Media, who have a secret alliance with the Globalists, Modernists or Secret Services never to put in doubt Bergoglioàs authority.

Is the Abdication of Pope Benedict XVI questionable?

by Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga, M.I.C., D. D.

Ordinary Emeritus of the Diocese of Karaganda, Khazikstan

I would like to go into the history of a the Catholic Church a little bit from the time Jesus Christ established His Church. He chose his twelve apostles and, looking at His choice from a human point of view, as God he could have made a better selection. Rejected as the Messiah by Judaism he built His Church with his chosen apostles. These included Judas who would betray Him for money, and Peter, whom he entrusted with full authority for His Church, who would also betray Him. He disowned Him three times in a cowardly way when challenged after the arrest of Jesus. While he was sitting at the fire in the hall of the high priest’s house a servant woman said: “This man was also with him” and Peter denied Him, saying “Woman, I know him not”. Peter denied that he knew Jesus three times but Christ still handed the authority over His Church to Peter.

When Jesus nominated Peter as the head of the apostles, He said “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that they faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren”. (Luke: 31-32) Jesus gave this task to Peter whom we can see was not the wisest or strongest of men and who did not demonstrate faithfulness even at that time before His crucifixion and death when simply asked if he knew Jesus.

So over the course of centuries the Church of Christ has chosen many weak shepherds who sometimes through human weakness betrayed the Church, who were cowards and who were prone to be influenced by, and gave in to, various external pressures such as heresies, schisms and contrary opinions.

In the history of the papacy there have been several serious scandals, some “Lothario” popes, some with wives and children. The Church is composed of human beings with human weaknesses and has to trust in Christ who is its head. If that trust is lacking, especially in the pope, then damage and confusion are inevitable. The human element can have a crippling effect. In the past there have been abdications from the papacy but those abdicating retired to private life or assumed non-papal roles. They certainly did not continue to wear white soutanes.

During the Western Schism, there were three claimants to the papal office, each supported by different political allegiances. The matter was resolved by the Council of Constance (1414-1418) when two of the claimants abdicated and the third was excommunicated. A new pope was elected to resolve this imbroglio. This, of course, is a matter for historians and I only mention it here to indicate the confusion that can be caused in the Church by human interests. It must also be said that there have been many saintly popes from the first century of the Church’s existence and onwards. There have been many martyrs for the faith, killed for their faithfulness to Christ. The good are attacked because Satan never wants the Church to be the lodestar of this world, showing people the way to salvation.

To conclude these comments, the Church is structured using weak human nature but God is its foundation. The problems arise through humans acting according to human nature and not focusing on God. We remember when Christ strongly rebukes Peter, who knows that Jesus is to go to Jerusalem and to die there and says “Do not go there Lord”. Jesus replies, “Get behind me Satan, thou art a scandal unto me because thou savourest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men” (Matt: 16, 22-23). This confirms that we need to think in God’s terms and not in human terms. The successors of Peter often act like Peter who told Christ “Do not do this” but when Jesus rebuked him and prayed for him he was strengthened by the Holy Spirit.  After the rebuke Peter goes and preaches and three thousand are converted instantly through his being strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit. Without this strength he is weak, like us. Likewise with Peter’s successors.

I have not denied Christ in front of some mob like Peter. I am not saying this out of pride, boasting that I am stronger than Peter. I have avoided this denial thanks to God’s grace. But Peter has shown me that I could do it. We do not know when we might do it and in what circumstances. As Holy Scripture says: “Wherefore, he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians: 10,12). Thus we cannot put on human airs and graces but we must rely on God’s grace which He wishes to give us in abundance.

We now know that since the first half of the 19th Century Freemasonry has plotted to destroy the Catholic Church by infiltration. In 1820 the Italian masonic lodge “Alta Vendita” produced a plan called The Permanent Instruction. In this document it says: “The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step towards the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them”. It also stated: “The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century. . . .Now then, to assure ourselves a pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping for this Pope a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children. . . .You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots. This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years by the force of things, this young clergy will have over-run all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a pontiff who should reign”.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, following the death of Pope Leo XIII, the Conclave was going in favour of a candidate suspected of masonic contacts. After the third ballot Cardinal Jan Puzyna de Kozielsko of Kraków who had asked Emperor Franz Joseph to use the veto which was the right of The Holy Roman Emperor, used his veto. As a result of this intervention Pope Pius X was elected. This was a good example of a difficult situation being resolved through the influence of a good cardinal.

Then we had the Second Vatican Council which was the Council that damaged everything, actually damaging the concept of the Divinity of Christ, and shattered the foundations of the Catholic Church. And after fifty years we can see what degradation has befallen the Catholic Church through the popes who conducted the Second Vatican Council. Such a situation for damage had begun earlier. In his last three years before his death, Pius XII was not really in charge of the Church. In fact the governance within the Church was administered by Archbishop Montini till 1954. However, the most dangerous modernist was Cardinal Bea from Germany who was Pius XII’s confessor. Even as a hypothesis he knew the pope’s aspirations and using the power of such a close relationship with the pope he applied the most damaging Modernist influences.

Another Modernist was responsible for the Church’s external relations during the later years of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII when he was no longer effectively in control. The liberal Montini was meeting the most influential freemasons in the USA and what he was concocting with them God only knows; Eternity and the Final Judgment will show. We must not place too much emphasis on this but neither can we ignore it.

And then, after the death of Pope Pius XII, when the very conservative and faithful Italian Cardinal Siri of Genoa was the foremost candidate for the papacy, influential organizations like the KGB and the CIA were allegedly influencing the various cardinals engaged in the conclave. They did not just fly from Heaven to have a conclave. Each one of them was in some way under scrutiny and influence during their careers in their various countries, be it the USA, Germany or elsewhere. And they finally decided not for Cardinal Siri but for Cardinal Roncalli, John XXIII.

As we know, in Poland, Communists erected a monument in city of Wrocław in honour of John XXIII. No eggs were ever pelted at that monument. In contrast, eggs are thrown at John Paul II. His teaching is mocked. We can draw our conclusions, using the brains we have been provided with.

Such was the situation in the Catholic Church.

The first leader to greet John XXIII after his elevation to the papal throne was Nikita Khrushchev, the General Secretary of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Was that telling us something? Nothing simple, extraordinary. Communism, an entirely Godless organization, on the surface had nothing to do with the papal election, but everything was . . . as it was.

In his memoirs John XXIII wrote that he did not know why he had called the Council. He was ill and soon to die. His successor, Paul VI could have put the Council on hold but chose to continue it. Malachi Martin claims that in a Satanic ceremony held in the USA and participated in in the Chapel of St Paul  in the Vatican, Satan was enthroned on 29 June, 1963. This was at the beginning of the reign of Paul VI.

And that was the shape of matters during the whole pontificate. The Paul VI carried on for 10 years in a way that destroyed the traditional liturgy and then he said that

 “From some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God”. And who introduced this smoke? If not himself with the actions of his pontificate? Today he is a saint just by the will of Bergoglio as there is no significant miracle that can be attributed to him. In the same way John XXIII was canonized without a significant miracle. Canonization requires certain conditions. I am saying what is known to the whole world. I am not rediscovering America.

Whereas Cardinal Ratzinger was chosen to be Pope as Benedict XVI the freemasons in the Church were already planning for Bergoglio to be Pope but because they considered it too early and that it would raise objections from various bishops and also the faithful they allowed Benedict to rule for a period of time (surely with a heavy heart). But when they saw that he was intending to rule maintaining the policies of John Paul II, at least as far as possible, they began causing various crises, especially with the Vatican Bank but also with some of his statements. They ignored him at all levels. We remember when Benedict XVI visited Germany and they did not welcome him. They refused to shake him by the hand, displaying their ignorance and pride. That indicated the true state of affairs. We may acclaim “the Pope, the Pope” but the Pope needs his army of supporters. A general needs his troops. He cannot just brandish a sabre on his own. He had to carry out his pontificate without loyalty.

When Benedict abdicated he gave tiredness as a reason. But was he so tired that he had to abdicate? He does not appear to have been ill and is still alive today. After eight years of Bergoglio’s pontificate Benedict is still alive and can see all the effects of his abdication. He can see that the Church has been damaged during these eight years even more than it was damaged during the pontificates of the popes that preceded him.

When he abdicated Benedict read the text of his abdication in Latin and in the text Latin scholars have identified about twenty grammatical errors. Admittedly Benedict was not speaking Latin every day. Perhaps if he had written the abdication text in German it would have been faultless. But Benedict is an excellent Latin scholar.

In the abdication speech he says he is withdrawing from the pontificate because he is ill and infirm and therefore cannot fulfill the duties any more so it would be better to hand over to someone else. But he distinguishes between the “administration” of the papacy and the “munus”, the Divine “gift” of the papacy. He does not decline the munus but retains it. I can clarify this with an example. If the bishop of a diocese is ill he can entrust the auxiliary bishop with the administration of the diocese (for example: confirmations, visiting parishes, ordaining priests etc) while he retains his role as the Ordinary, and this is right.

It would appear that Benedict XVI, seeing that he still wears the white soutane, the papal fisherman’s ring, the red shoes, and all the papal outfit, as he is not an ignorant person who does not understand what he is doing but he wears these clothes and symbols without explanation. These are external signs that suggest that, in the Polish saying, “somewhere a dog is buried” meaning there is a hidden reason. When we remember when John Paul II was in the last years of his pontificate quite ill and looking unwell, the freemasons in the Church wanted to change him. And when John Paul II was giving his speeches from the balcony of St Peter, we could see millions of people out there, watching this agonising but still manful statesman who would not surrender to abdication, but was fighting until the end to pass at least something along to people. And people were coming in even greater numbers to see this elderly  man who from the window of his room speaking God’s words to the whole world. It was said that there were more people there than at the dances and concerts of Michael Jackson.

However it was ascertained between John Paul II and, at that time, Cardinal Ratzinger, that a pope who abdicates from the papal ministry, has to say in his statement: “I renounce the munus”. When one renounces the munus, one renounces the ministry too. But if one renounces the ministry but not munus, one remains the pope. That’s how it is. Moreover, when cardinal Sodano heard Benedict XVI reading his “pseudo “ abdication, he straight away replied : “ What a pity, Holy Father, for all the cardinals, that you are abdicating the papacy” and so on. He already had prepared text to read things other than those prepared by Benedict XVI. That is how it all stands.

Then, as we know, Saint Gallen Mafia, who are enemies of the Church, mainly governed by freemasons, those who surrounded the pope and did everything to impede the pope in his decisions and force him to act more liberally instead of conservatively, chose Bergoglio as successor. And we see what have been the consequences of that.

From the beginning Bergoglio has not lived in the apostolic palace, where previous popes before have lived. Bergoglio from the start has not worn red shoes – an apparently unimportant matter – but the red shoes are not simply some insignificant choice between, say, black shoes or red shoes. Red shoes recall the story of Peter’s flight from Rome when he met Jesus and asked “Quo vadis Domine?” (“Where are you going, Lord?”) And Jesus replied: “ I am going back to fight and die for those people, because you are running away. Go back to support those poor martyrs”. Then Peter walked barefoot on the blood of the martyrs, and that is why the Pope wears red shoes. This is not a question of the choice of shoes: this is the symbol of walking on the blood of the martyrs. If the Pope does not wear them, that means he denies this tradition.

And such was the situation.. when most probably the pope could see that he could do nothing in the environment that was so aggressive against him and was doing everything to destroy him, so he gave the power to those who wanted to have it. They have the power, but only the executive power. They have the power of damaging the Church but he, as the real pope, still has the power of the papacy.

And that’s why this prophecy at Fatima that there will be a pope killed and many (many) more will be killed with him, I believe, could apply to Benedict XVI, who is still alive. And as we see, the Devil is getting close enough these days and it may be a year or two away, not more. The whole Church may be destroyed and all the people will be locked up in ghettos for this reason: to prepare them for allegiance to this Antichrist that will come. Therefore abdication of Benedict XVI looks, in my understanding, in this way.

And to add, in 2015, I had already written the letter stating that I reckoned that Benedict’s XVI abdication was doubtful. And that he resigned only because of the external pressures that he may not have revealed, as it happens.. all the more as it was in the past.I already said about when the pope Pius XII didn’t rule the Church in his later years for some time but instead Archbishop Montini did. Then pope Paul VI. Same way Bergoglio can act as a person acting “as a pope”, but the real pope?

Amen

Abdykacja, która budzi wątpliwości?

Arcybiskup Lenga: Chciałbym wejść troszku w historię w ogóle Kościoła katolickiego. I od tego czasu, kiedy Jezus Chrystus, ustanawiając swój Kościół, odchodząc od judaizmu, widząc, że to wszystko nie da się poprawić, Żydzi nie przyjmują go jak Mesjasza, zakłada swój Kościół i wybiera dwunastu apostołów takich, jakich chce. Patrzymy na to, na ten wybór Jezusa Chrystusa apostołów. Wydaje się, że Chrystus jako Bóg mógłby wybrać lepszych, tak po ludzku myśląc. Przecież wybiera takiego, który zdradza Jego – Judasz. Powiedzmy, zdradza za srebrniki, a był w gronie apostołów. Natomiast Piotr, któremu potem powierzył władzę w swoim Kościele, też zdradza Jego. Trzykroć odmawia się od Chrystusa, i to w takich błahych rzeczach, kiedy jakaś tam niewiasta jego pyta: „Czy ty byłeś z nimi, z Chrystusem?” – „Nie, nie, Jego nie znam”. Trzykroć wymawia się, że on zna się z Chrystusem. I jednak Chrystus nie rezygnuje z tego, żeby temu apostołowi w końcu końców przekazać władzę w swoim Kościele. Ale Chrystus, kiedy wybiera jego na Księcia Apostołów, mówi jemu tak: „Piotrze, diabeł chciał was przesiać jak pszenicę. Ja modliłem się za ciebie, żeby nie ustała twoja wiara, a ty, nawracając się, żebyś utwierdzał swoich braci w wierze”. Takie zadanie powierza Jezus Chrystus Apostołowi Piotrowi. Widzimy, że nie był najmądrzejszy. Znaczy, najmądrzejszy i najmocniejszy. I nie wykazał się wiernością, w chwili gdy jeszcze jego nie krzyżowali, nie zabijali, a prosto tylko spytali, czy on zna się z Nim, czy nie. I tak na przestrzeni wieków jeżeli Chrystus wybrał takich słabych, to jednak Kościół znajduje się przy takim słabym, ludzkim elemencie pasterzy, którzy nieraz zdradzali w różnych sytuacjach, które byli i tchórzami, i poddawali się różnym presjom ludzkim. Między herezją, między schizmami, między jakimiś różnymi wypowiedziami. I w historii papiestwa można widzieć masę głupich wyrazów, można widzieć rozpustników papieży. Można widzieć tych, którzy mali (mieli) żony, mali (mieli) dzieci i tak dalej. To pokazuje, że Kościół jest bardzo słaby na elemencie takim, ale ten Kościół musi zaufać Chrystusowi, który jest Głową tego Kościoła. Jeżeli nie zaufa każdy na swoim miejscu, a papież szczególnie, kiedy będzie poddawał się emocjom, kiedy poddawał się tym wszystkim, którzy będą jemu doradzać niewłaściwie. Tak jak będzie doradzać jemu serce napełnione wiarą w Boga. To wtedy nic się nie zmieni w tym wszystkim i zawsze będą błędy i Kościół zawsze będzie okaleczony, ciągle będzie… Nigdy się z tego nie wyleczy. W historii Kościoła byli ci, którzy byli papieżami, potem abdykowali, ale oni, odchodząc do innego stanu, nie papiestwa już, przyjmowali dalej funkcje kardynałów, a nie nosili białej sutanny. To znaczy, nawet w historii papiestwa byli trzej papieże z różnych terytoriów Europy. No, ale był prawdziwie wybrany, a dwa reszty to byli tylko tak pod emocjami, pod ludzkimi krzykami i wrzeszczeniem, byli wybrani na takich, bo każdy myślał sobie, że to ma ludzki wymiar, a nie Boży. Jednak ten, który był po Bożemu wybrany, zawsze miał więcej praw i obowiązków do tego, żeby wykonywać te funkcje. Takie zamieszania był w historii Kościoła. Nie będę teraz mówił lat, to trzeba historyka specjalnego. Ja tylko mówię, naświetlając, jakie rzeczy się dzieją, jakie rzeczy się działy w Kościele. Mamy wielu świętych papieży, szczególnie z pierwszych wieków. Ci, którzy naprawdę byli męczennikami za wiarę, którzy byli zabijani za to, że byli wierni Chrystusowi. A diabeł nigdy nie chciał, by Kościół był przewodnią gwiazdą w tym świecie, wskazywał ludziom drogę do zbawienia. I tak robiąc, powiedzmy, wniosek z tego, co powiedziałem przed chwilą, Kościół jest pobudowany na słabym elemencie, tylko na ludzkim, ale fundament ma Boży. Dlatego te wszystkie upadki pochodzą od tego, że nieraz ci ludzie nie postępują po Bożemu, a postępują po ludzku. Pamiętamy, jak Chrystus, kiedy mocno strofuje Piotra, który Mu mówi, wiedząc, że Chrystus ma pójść do Jerozolimy, tam zginąć, mówi: „Niech chodź tam, Panie”. I Chrystus mu mówi: „Idź precz, diable, ode mnie!” Trzeba myśleć po Bożemu, nie po ludzku. Widzimy jednak pozycję Chrystusa i pozycję Piotra. Dlatego każdy Piotr, następca Apostoła Piotra, raz postępuje tak jak Piotr, kiedy mówi Chrystusowi: „Nie rób tego”. Kiedy Chrystus strofuje i jeszcze się modli za Piotra, wtedy Piotr jest wzmocniony Duchem Świętym. Idzie i głosi. Trzy tysiące od razu się nawracają, kiedy wzmocniony Duchem Świętym. Kiedy niewzmocniony, takie byle co jak my wszyscy, jeszcze gorszy od nas. Ja Chrystusa trzy razy się nie zapierałem przed jakąś babką czy dziadkiem, a Piotr to zrobił. Nie mówię z pychy, że ja jestem mądrzejszy od Piotra, ale tego nie zrobiłem dzięki łasce Bożej. Ale Piotr to zrobił. To znaczy, pokazuje, że jeden może tego nie zrobić, ale nie wiemy, kiedy możemy to zrobić, w jakiej chwili, nawet w lada chwili. Pismo Święte mówi: „Kto myśli, niech pamięta, może upaść”. Dlatego nie możemy się pysznić, tylko polegać na łasce Bożej, którą Pan Bóg obficie chce nam dawać. Widzimy, że szczególnie z czasów tej połowy dziewiętnastego wieku, kiedy masońska loża… Ja pamiętam, że nazywała się Venta. Może inaczej, to nieważne. Z (W) 1820 roku ona postanowiła wszystko zniszczyć w Kościele, zniszczyć Kościół katolicki. Oni mówili tak, że: „My może papieża masonem nie zrobimy, nie łudźmy się na ten czas. Nasze sprawy na sto lat. Ale my tak wejdźmy do seminariów, wyrzućmy starych ludzi, bo ich się nie da nawrócić. Wejdźmy do seminariów z naszymi liberalnymi ideami. Zróbmy wszystko, żeby nasze liberalne idee były w księżach, biskupach, w otoczeniu papieża. I oni będą wpływać na papieża na tyle, że on będzie podpisywał rano czy późno nam wygodne różne postanowienia. No, ale powiedzmy tak, że papież je podpisywał, ale potem z tych wszystkich, którzy w otoczeniu papieża się znajdują, przez te wieki, gdzie masoneria postanowiła zniszczyć Kościół, to rano czy późno stawali się ci kardynałowie, z których potem wybierali papieży. Tak było na początku dwudziestego wieku, kiedy wybrali papieża masona, tylko że na szczęście dekretem i weto (wetem) cesarza austro-węgierskiego nie doszło do jego wstąpienia na tron świętego Piotra i dzięki kardynałowi z Krakowa, który naszeptał na ucho, jeżeli tak można powiedzieć, temu imperatorowi austriackiemu, że nie wolno jego naznaczać na ten tron. I tak się wydarzyło i przyszedł Pius X. Dlatego widzimy, jakie trudne sytuacje nieraz wychodzą w Kościele. Kiedy już masoni triumfują, to nagle jakaś ingerencja jednego z kardynałów może zmienić wszystko na dobrą drogę. Powiedzmy, sobór watykański drugi, który był takim soborem, który wszystko zniszczył, faktycznie boskość Chrystusa. Który zniszczył do szczętu fundamenty Kościoła katolickiego. I za pięćdziesiąt lat widzimy, jaka degradacja Kościoła katolickiego. A to było przeprowadzane przez papieży, którzy właśnie prowadzili sobór watykański drugi. Taka sytuacja, kiedy był Pius XII, trzy lata przed swoją śmiercią on już nie władał, ażeby rządzić Kościołem. Faktycznie wszystko w Kościele, rządy w Kościele wykonywał kto? Wykonywał arcybiskup Montini, następny… Paweł VI, papież Paweł VI. On wykonywał trzy lata władzę w Kościele, wewnętrznym Kościele. Natomiast największym modernistą był kardynał Bea z Niemiec, który spowiadał Piusa XII. I na pewno nie mówię wprost, ale jako hipoteza: mógł wiedzieć jego dążenia i jednak korzystając z tej władzy tak bliskiego stosunku do papieża jednak największe wpływy modernistyczne zrobił. Jeszcze jeden modernista, który był na zewnątrz Kościoła – Kościół jako państwo ma i zewnętrzne stosunki z państwami – który był modernistą i liberałem, Montini spotykał się za trzy lata swojej władzy w Kościele przy byciu już papieża Piusa XII, który już nie wykonywał urzędu, a był taki… Jak to powiedziałeś?

Dziennikarz: P.O.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Pełniący obowiązki. To on spotykał się z najgorszymi tam masonami w Stanach Zjednoczonych. I co on od nich czerpał, to jeden Pan Bóg wie. I wieczność to wszystko okaże, a i Sąd Ostateczny to wszystko okaże. Nie możemy do tego wszystkiego wsiąknąć na tyle, ale jednak nie możemy tego ignorować. I potem, kiedy, powiedzmy, po śmierci Piusa XII miał być wybrany kardynał, nie pamiętam jego nazwiska, włoski kardynał, który był bardzo konserwatywny po linii Kościoła i Chrystusa, natomiast wpływowe organizacje jak na pewno KGB i nie mniej Stany Zjednoczone… Nie wiem, CRU, Centralne Razwiedywatielnoje Uprawlenija (Centralna Agencja Wywiadowcza, CIA), to po polsku nie wiem. Nieważne.

Dziennikarz: Służby wywiadowcze.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Tak, służby wywiadowcze. To tam, kto będzie słuchał, to będzie wiedział, o co chodzi. To znaczy, oni naciskali na tych różnych kardynałów, którzy nie prosto sfrunęli z nieba na ziemię, żeby konklawe zrobić. Oni, każdy był w jakiś sposób inwigilowany w toku swego życia w różnych państwach, czy w Stanach Zjednoczonych, czy w Germanii, czy gdzieś tam w innych miejscach. I oni wtedy zdecydowali nie tego kardynała, a wybrali Jana XXIII. Jak wiemy, Janowi XIII komuniści postawili pomnik we Wrocławiu i nikt tego pomnika jajkami nie zarzuca, nie obrzuca. Natomiast Jana Pawła II obrzucają jajkami, wyśmiewają się z jego nauki i tak dalej. Możemy zrobić wnioski, jeżeli mamy troszku rozumu więcej w głowie czym w innych miejscach naszego ciała. Taka sytuacja w Kościele katolickim istniała. I pierwszy, który pozdrowił Jana XXIII z wyniesieniem na papieski tron, to był Nikita Chruszczow, generalny sekretarz partii komunistów Związku Radzieckiego. To chyba o czymś mówi, że to nie jest tak proste i nic wspólnego komunizm, który był zupełnie bezbożna organizacją, nic wspólnego nie miał z wyborami papieża na pierwszy rzut oka, ale to wszystko było tak, jak było. Następny papież już tylko w swoich memuarach, Jan XXIII wypisał, że on nawet nie wie, dlaczego ten sobór zrobił. Był chory, blisko śmierci i faktycznie rozpoczynając sobór, nie dociągnął do jego zakończenia. Faktycznie robił coś na ślepo i sam nie wiedział, o czym. I w memuarach o tym napisał. Dlatego potem, kiedy przyszedł Paweł VI i dalej kontynuował to wszystko, mógł to wszystko wstrzymać. Jak (niezrozumiałe) mówi Malachi Martin, diabeł postanowił, żeby przy papieżu Pawle VI oddać świat pod panowanie diabła. Wiemy takie z jego wypowiedzi, jak tam były złożone ofiary czy to w bazylice Pawła. I to było 29 czerwca 1963 roku, kiedy Paweł VI wszedł na namiestnika Chrystusa, na tron Piotrowy. I to masoni złożyli, diabłu oddali świat. Przy tym papieżu było im tak powiedziane, że to mają zrobić. A Matka Boża przez siostrę Łucję powiedziała, że papież 60 roku, który będzie, a to był właśnie Jan XXIII, żeby on poświęcił Rosję Niepokalanemu Sercu Maryi. On tego nie zrobił. Natomiast diabli, masoni zrobili poświęcenie świata diabłu przy papieżu Pawle VI. Znaczy, oni widzieli, kiedy to wszystko się zaczyna. Tak jak to było kiedyś w plagach egipskich, kiedy Bóg mówił Aaronowi: „Rzuć swoją laskę”. I stała się wężem. A magowie, czarodzieje egipscy faraonowi też rzucali swoje laski i nie stawały się one wężami. A jak pamiętamy, wąż z woli Bożej pożarł tych innych. Dlatego jeżeliby ci papieże byli poddani doskonale władzy łaski Bożej, nie byłoby tego stanu, do którego my dzisiaj dożyliśmy. I tak sprawy wyglądały przez cały pontyfikat. Potem Paweł VI dziesięć lat to wszystko robił i robił niewłaściwie, zniszczył liturgię. I potem powiedział, że teraz swąd diabła w Kościele. A kto ten swąd wprowadził, jeżeli nie ten sam to zrobił? Znaczy, to papież już, który, powiedzmy, wyrabiał niewłaściwe rzeczy. Dzisiaj jest święty z woli Bergoglio, a nie bez żadnego cudu, który jemu można by przypisać jako cud. To samo Jan XXIII bez żadnego cudu stał się świętym. Nie wiadomo z jakich przyczyn, kiedy do tego, żeby być świętym, trzeba przejść jakieś rzeczy zupełnie inne. Mówię to, co jest wiadomo na całym świecie, Ameryki nie otwieram (odkrywam), to, co jest. Natomiast kiedy był wybrany Benedykt XVI, już chcieli wybrać tego Bergoglio, a nie Benedykta XVI, tylko że ze względu na to, że widzieli, że na pewno jeszcze za wcześnie, że mogą się sprzeciwić różni biskupi na świecie i lud wierny, to jeszcze pozwolili Benedyktowi XVI na pewno z wielkim ciężarem serca ci masoni kościelni i światowi, pozwolili Benedyktowi XVI troszku porządzić w Kościele. Kiedy zobaczyli, że ten jednak nie poddaje się, próbuje się cofnąć i trzymać dalej linię Jana Pawła II, bynajmniej (przynajmniej) na tyle, na ile to się dawało, to oni mu robili wszystkie różne przykrości, szczególnie z Bankiem Watykańskim, z różnymi wypowiedziami, z różnymi… Ignorowali jego na wszystkich szczeblach. Pamiętamy, jak to było, kiedy do Niemiec przyjechał, jak tam ręki nie podawali mu biskupi, pokazywali swoją ignorancję i swoją pychę, w jakiej się znajdują. I w takim stanie, my myślimy sobie: „A, papież, papież”, ale papież potrzebuje też jakiegoś wojska. I generał potrzebuje wojska, nie sam będzie szabelką machał. Dlatego kiedy nie ma tych, którzy byliby wierni jemu, to znaczy, to było, co było. Widzimy, że Benedykt XVI abdykuje, ale kiedy abdykuje, nie był tak zmęczony, żeby tak zmęczony, żeby abdykować. Nie był najgorzej chory, bo dzisiaj, po dzisiejszy dzień jeszcze żyje, nie? Osiem lat pontyfikatu Bergoglio, a on jeszcze żyje i widzi wszystkie skutki swego abdykowania, że ten Kościół jest zniszczony za osiem lat, czym był przy tych papieżach, którzy byli wcześniej przed nim. I kiedy abdykuje, on po łacinie czyta swój tekst abdykacji, jakby abdykacji. I w łacińskim tekście latyniści znaleźli dwadzieścia pomyłek, słownych pomyłek.

Dziennikarz: Gramatycznych.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Gramatycznych, tak. Może, powiedzmy, nie na każdy dzień używał Benedykt XVI łaciny. Może by napisał po niemiecku, na pewno byłoby bezbłędnie. Ale on wypowiedział się przez łacinę. Natomiast kiedy słyszy się jego wypowiedź w łacinie, to tam się mówi, że on odmawia się od wypełniania magisterium (ministerium). Ze względu na co? Na to, że on jest chory, niedołężny, że on już nie może tego wykonywać, a chce, żeby ktoś to lepiej zrobił za niego. Ale on się nie odmawia od munus. Munus to jest obowiązek być papieżem. Powiem tak na przykładzie: jeżeli biskup diecezji jest chory, ale on pozostaje biskupem ordynariuszem, chory na jakiś czas, dopóki się nie ujawni, co z nim będzie dalej, jak choroba będzie się rozwijać, on może powierzyć funkcję wykonania ministerium, nie munus. A ministerium, tego, co on powinien wykonywać, powiedzmy, bierzmowania, nawiedzenia tam parafii i tak dalej, i tak dalej, i tak dalej. Święcenia księży powierzyć swojemu biskupowi pomocniczemu. I to jest właściwe. Wygląda na to, że Benedykt XVI ze względu jeszcze na to, że nosi sutannę białą, pierścień rybaka, na to, że nosi te czerwone buciki, na to, że wszystko papieskie ubrania, nie jest Benedykt XVI ignorantem i nie rozumie, co on robi. Ale jak musi to wszystko, nie mówiąc nikomu po co, na co i za co, zewnętrzne znaki mówią o tym, że coś tutaj jest, gdzieś ten pies zaryty, jak wy mówicie po polsku, tak?

Dziennikarz: Zakopany (pogrzebany).

Arcybiskup Lenga: Zakopany (pogrzebany), pies jest zakopany, który… Na zewnątrz nie da się tego zrozumieć. Natomiast kiedy, pamiętamy, kiedy Jan Paweł II był w ostatnich latach swego pontyfikatu dość chory, to też ci masoni kościelni wiedzieli, że trzeba jego zmienić, bo niedobrze wygląda. Natomiast pamiętamy, jak Jan Paweł II występował na swoich przemówieniach z balkonu świętego Piotra, to, widzieliśmy, miliony tłumów tam było, bo widzieli tego agonizującego, ale mężnego jeszcze męża stanu, który nie poddał się abdykacji, a do końca walczył za to, żeby coś jeszcze przekazać ludziom. I ludzie więcej przychodzili na niego, żeby zobaczyć staruszka, który z okna tej swojej rezydencji mówi do świata słowa Boże. Więcej, czym było młodzieży na potańculkach i śpiewach Michaela Jacksona. Tak niektórzy porównywali te różne proporcje. Natomiast było mówione między Janem Pawłem II i jeszcze kardynałem Ratzingerem, oni prowadzili do tego, że ten, który abdykuje albo chce abdykować od urzędu papieskiego, musi powiedzieć w swojej przedmowie (przemowie): „Zrzekam się munus”. Jak zrzekam się munus, to wtedy zrzekam się i ministerium. A jak zrzekam się ministerium, a nie munus, pozostaję papieżem. Taka, taka jest rzecz, tym bardziej że od razu kardynał Sodano, kiedy słyszał, jak czytał Benedykt XVI swoją jakby abdykację, on od razu zaczął swoje przemówienie: „Jak tam szkoda, Ojcze Święty, wszystkim kardynałom, że ty tutaj zrzekasz się papiestwa” i tak dalej. On już ma zagotowany (przygotowany) teksty czytania innych rzeczy, a nie tamtych, które przeczytane przez Benedykta XVI. Na tym to polega wszystko. Potem, jak wiemy, mafia Sankt Gallen, ci którzy byli przeciwnikami Kościoła, i ci, którzy byli wychowani raczej przez masonów, a nie… Raczej byli ci w otoczeniu papieża, którzy robili wszystko, żeby papież zmieniał decyzje i postępował coraz więcej liberalnie, a nie konserwatywnie, oni wybrali sobie Bergoglio i widzimy, jakie skutki tego wszystkiego. Najpierw Bergoglio nie mieszka w Pałacu Apostolskim, gdzie mieszkali wszyscy papieże wcześniej. Najpierw Bergoglio, który nie nosi czerwonych butów… Niby wzmianka nie tak ważna, ale czerwone buty to nie jest prosto jakiś atrybut, buty czarne, buty czerwone. To jest to, że on pochodzi od Apostoła Piotra, który wraca, uciekał z Rzymu, a Jezus mówi: „Idź z powrotem zbawiać tych biednych męczenników”. A Piotr woła: „Quo vadis, Domino (Domine)?” Mówi: „Idę z powrotem walczyć i umierać za tych ludzi, bo ty uciekasz”. Wtedy Piotr szedł tymi bosymi nogami po krwi męczenników i dlatego jest (są) te czerwone buty. To nie jest prosto symbol jakiegoś tam buta, a to jest prosto symbol tego, że to chodzi się po krwi. Jeżeli tego nie robi, to znaczy, też jest jakaś wymówka, ucieczka z tego wszystkiego. Nie podpisuje się „Pontifex Największy”, „ten, który łączy mosty”, a ten, który prosto Franciszek. To pokazuje też, że wszystkie te jego decyzje, które jest (są) podjęte, które nie pokazują rygoryzmów kościelnych, tylko wciąganie się w ekologię, wciąganie się w Paczamamę i różne „Tutti fratelli”, na płaszczyźnie ziemskiej próbowanie budowania jakiegoś New Age’u, a nie Kościoła katolickiego, niszczenia faktycznie duchowości najwyższej Bożej. To pokazuje, dlaczego dziś, na dzisiejszy dzień jeszcze można uważać, że Benedykt XVI, dopóki żyje, jest tym papieżem. Ja to powiem highly likely, w najwyższym prawdopodobieństwie jest, on jest papieżem. I dlatego kiedy nosi te wszystkie insygnia… I jeszcze jest taka sytuacja: kiedy widzi się, prawdopodobnie widzi się, kiedy papież widział, że nic nie może zrobić z tym otoczeniem, które było tak agresywne przeciwko niemu i tak wszystko robiło, żeby jego zniszczyć, on oddał władzę tym, którzy chcieli ją mać (mieć). Oni mają władzę, ale władzę tylko wykonawczą. Oni mają władzę niszczenia Kościoła, ale władzę ostatniej decyzji ma on jako prawdziwy papież. I dlatego ta fatimska mowa, że będzie papież zabity i wiele (wielu) z nim jeszcze będzie zabitych, jak uważam, może się tyczyć Benedykta XVI, który jeszcze żyje. A jak widzimy, diabeł na tyle zbliża się w dzisiejszych czasach i może to nastąpić rok, dwa, nie więcej. Może być zniszczony cały Kościół i wszystkie (wszyscy) ludzie będą zamknięte (zamknięci) w gettach dlatego, żeby ich przygotować na wierność temu Antychrystu (Antychrystowi), który przyjdzie. Dlatego abdykacja Benedykta XVI wygląda w moim rozumieniu w taki sposób. I jeszcze chcę powiedzieć, że w 2015 roku już napisałem swój list, że mnie się wydaje, że abdykacja Benedykta XVI jest wątpliwa, że on zrezygnował tylko z jakiejś presji zewnętrznych, o których on może i nie mówić, jak to jest nieraz… Tym bardziej jak to było… Już powiedziałem o tym, jak papież Pius XII trzy lata nie rządził Kościołem, a za niego rządził arcybiskup Montini, następny potem papież Pius (Paweł) VI. Tak samo może rządzić Bergoglio. Jak to? P.O.?

Dziennikarz: Pełniący obowiązki.

Arcybiskup Lenga: Pełniący obowiązki papieża, a nie papieżem. Amen.

Father Z’s Dares Righteousness but needs some major guidance

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Father John Zuhlsdorf, who is known on the Net simply as, “Father Z”, from his famous blog by the same name, did something the other day which only a handful of Catholic priests have dared to do in the last 8 years: he spoke publicly about the controversy over the “resignation” of Pope Benedict XVI.

His post is entitled, “The Question of Two Pope Bothers a lot of people. Some Thoughts” and it was published on June 29, 2021.

I know at least 4 priests who would not have the courage, even though they privately recognize Benedict XVI as the true pope.

And so, for that daring, Father Zuhlsdorft deserves praise and applause from all Catholics everywhere.

We live in a time when the clergy, alas, have fallen nearly totally silent about the truths of the Faith and about the errors and falsehoods of our day. And of the greatest of these errors is that which regards understanding what happened — or, as Ann Barnhardt rightly says in a more correct language, what did NOT happen — on Feb. 11, 2013, in the Sala Clementina, from approximately 11:30 AM local time until about 11:40 P.M..

The Vatican announced that Benedict XVI had resigned. Benedict XVI three years later, in his official biography interview by Peter Seewald, however, would explicitly deny that he had abdicated. In other words, he is still the pope, but some sort of revolution or coup d’etat has taken place at the Vatican. A thing which is undeniable by all, since there are two “Popes” at the Vatican.

But since Father Zuhlsdorf has publicly opined upon the matter, and since he has in true humility admitted, as a prologue, that he is not an expert on the controversy, I will make some comments here about what I see are the grave errors which pepper his discussion and keep anyone reading it from arriving at a certain and true conclusion regarding which is the true pope.

Where Father Hunwicke got mislead

Father Zuhlsdorf opens by citing a historical example of a case in which there were two popes, believing by such reference to obtain some light on how to explain the current situation.  So he cites another rather well known Catholic priest blogger, Father Hunwicke, a convert, who lives in the United Kingdom.

Here I follow the citation of Father Zuhlsdorf:

Over at his splendid blog, Fr. John Hunwicke had an engaging piece provoked by the whirling of your planet back to the annual Feast of St. Silverius, Pope and Martyr (+537).

Fr. H used this occasion to look into a question which vexes many a thoughtful Catholic these days: two popes at the same time.  Possible?  Fact: Francis is going around doing pope things while Benedict lives in the Vatican Gardens still looking a lot like The Pope.  It’s a head-scratcher.

NB: Some people wave away questions about “two popes” or an invalid resignation.  To my mind, it is wrong-headed to gloss over hard questions that vex people, to turn a blind eye to them and whistle a happy tune with fingers deep into one’s ears.  There are people who are really upset by this situation.  We have an obligation to tackle these questions head on in order to put people at ease about them.   Let’s do that.

Back to Fr Hunwicke’s piece.

Background first:  In 537, the Byzantine general Flavius Belisarius entered Rome and deposed Pope Silverius who had been elected the previous year.  Belisarius brought in his own guy, Vigilius, and made him Pope while Silverius was still alive (for a few months, at least).  So, who was the real Pope?

Father Zuhlsdorf’s recourse to a historical example seems a reasonable way to proceed. But I submit that it is colored by the fact that he has grown up in the United States and come to believe that the Common Law principle of precedent is a good principle to apply in a dubious legal case of two popes.

Here Father gets it completely wrong in his presumption. Because the Roman Church has always chosen Roman Law not Common Law — which by the way did not even exist for some 800 years after the faith came to Rome — as Her legal system.  In Roman law, precedent has nearly no worth. What matters is what is the statuary law at the time a dispute arises, not what happened in past cases when the laws where different.

And such is the case of the example brought up by Father Hunwicke. Thus, whatever happened in that case, simply has no bearing whatsoever in regard to a solution in the present case.  This is true because in the present case, the laws which bear on determining whether the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI was valid or not, were promulgated in 1983 in the New Code, which expressly abrogated and obrogated all past laws. Whereas, the case cited by Father Hunwicke took place some 1400 years before when there were no canons or laws regarding papal resignations, forced or otherwise.

Dom Guéranger’s quip is worthless and misleading in this debate

Now, in a controversy over law or rights, it is important to cite authorities. No one denies that. But the value of the authority depends on whether he has said anything pertinent to the debate.

Now there is no doubt that Dom Prosper Guéranger is a man worth citing. But since he died before the canons of the Church were codified in 1917 by Pope Benedict XV, he obviously approached the problem of a papal schism differently than we do today.  He had to, because there was no law to appeal to.

So citing this very learned Benedictine, as Father Zuhlsdorf does in citing Father Hunwicke, is again simply useless, even if the argument sounds good:

Hunwicke provides something from dom Gueranger concerning Silverius and Vigilius (my emphases):

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church … acknowledges in the person of a certain pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.”

Do you get that?   No matter how strange a path by which some fellow became the one with his “bum in the chair”, when “the Church” acknowledges him, then he is the legitimate Pope.

It is simply useless, because we cannot pretend today that there is no law determining whether Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is valid or not or makes him no longer the pope or not!  Nearly all who claim Bergoglio is the pope do entertain such a pretense, because if you don’t then you have to recognize that the law gives you no leg to stand on.

But that is not the only error, implicit in the citation of Dom Guéranger. Because, when we cannot know the facts of a case or the moral or legal principles by which it can be solved with certitude, we are forced to resort to reflex principles which indicate a probable or more probable solution.

So Dom Guéranger was right to resort to a reflex principle in a case in which he could not have known the facts well or personally. But we are wrong to do so, since we can easily have the facts of the case with certitude and can easily find the code of canon law in Latin which sets out the principles by which we can arrive with certitude at the correct answer.

A Shameful error in reading Latin

Now if anyone sees the Latin term, which is key in this controversy, and mistranslates it as office — for wont of a better term — I as a Latinist can excuse him, because I have done the same. But since Father Zuhlsdorf is rather famous for his Latinity, I will have to say that when he renders munus as office, it is a shameful error.

Admittedly Father Zuhlsdorf claims no expertise in this debate, and so perhaps does not know that Canon 17 explains how to understand the word munus, but after all that has been written, which is not hard to find on the internet, it is simply irresponsible to cite a translation of munus as office without at least pointing out the translation is wrong or insufficient to understand this controversy.

For if munus meant office, then in canon 145 §1, the Code would not define officium as a munus, under a certain sort of specification. It would simply say they mean the same thing. But it does not, therefore, in the mind of the legislator we must understand, as Canon 17 requires us, that the words do NOT mean the same thing.

And if you want to know what munus means, you can avail yourself of the only academic paper every submitted in a Conference at Rome, which followed the norm of canon 17 to discover what it means. And you can read it here. It was delivered 21 months ago and has never been refuted by anyone, anywhere.

Father Zuhlsdorf then wanders into quacksand

At this point, the learned Father Zuhlsdorf, who evidently does not know the principles of Canon Law, wanders off into speculating that the Office of the Pope can be separated from the Office of the Bishop of Rome.

This speculation has found favor and pleasure among some who are participating in this debate. But out of respect for them, I will not mention them by name.

Suffice it to say, that the office of Peter cannot be separated from the Bishopric of Rome, when both are understood properly, that is, according to the correct understanding of their terms.  We can know this with certainty, because Vatican I infallibly declared that the Pope has no authority over the deposit of the Faith. And the Deposit of the Faith includes Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition means what the Apostles handed down, left to us, for our instruction.  And obviously the office of St. Peter was left to the Church of Rome BY THE APOSTLE PETER. Hence it cannot be alienated from it by anyone.

To say otherwise is simple heresy. For it implies that Apostolic Tradition can be overthrown, corrected or changed. Now that is the doctrine of Bergoglio (e. g., in regard to the Our Father), but it is not Catholic.

And to imply that Pope Benedict XVI intended that, is not only unsubstantiated by any explicit statement, but requires a reading of his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013 which is artificial and strained at the best, and totally imaginary at the worst.

You do not have to play games of theological speculation, to find out whether the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid or not.  Simply read canon 332 and the text of the Declaratio and it is clear enough, if you want to see it, and if you are not a priest who is naming Bergoglio as the pope in the canon of the mass.

In Conclusion

Father Zuhlsdorf’s exposition of the controversy does contain some accurate parts, where he lays out the basic argument for the invalidity of the Declaratio to cause Benedict XVI to no longer be pope.

But for the most part his exposition is rambling and confusing and seems inconclusive.

I object strongly at his blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, in saying that that Divine Person might rig a papal election with the intent of giving us a bad pope.  God cannot will evil. To say so, is to call God the Devil.

And I demure at the entire post by Father Zuhlsdorf, because I think that if a priest open his mouth, he should at least give clear doctrine and not muddle the waters.

But what is lacking is grave also in this, that Father seems to think, by his noticeable omission, that if a priest names someone he doubts is the pope in the Canon of the Mass that he is not gravely sinning, or that if he names someone whom God knows is not the pope, he is not gravely sinning.  This omission in the article is very shocking, because it pretends to a form of Catholicism in which the manner of the offering of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is one which is acceptable to God when it is rubrically correct, regardless of whom it is offered in communion with, a true or false pope. And that makes a mockery of the Divine Majesty.

Andrea Cionci: Let’s pause on blaming the Council and investigate the Renunciation!

REPUBLISHED FROM THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR

at MarcoTosatti.com entitled,
“Il Dibattito sul Concilio è un Vicolo Cieco. Il Nodo sono le Dimissioni…”

by Andrea Cionci

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

It has been several months that, starting from a careful historical analysis of Monsignor Viganò – which I largely share – the criticism of the Second Vatican Council continues to be brought up as if it were the real Magna quaestio and the solution to the current impasse. I think this is a big blunder and as I will show, it leads to absolutely nothing but a claustrophobic dead end.

In the progression of modernism, someone wanted to see in Benedict XVI the step immediately preceding Francis: a bit ‘like comparing a bicycle to a freight train, in my opinion.

Moreover, Ratzinger himself, who, like everyone else, underwent the cultural moment and the influences of the Council period, publicly emended himself from those “sins of youth”. It is often contested that when he was pope he did not excommunicate modernist theologians on the spot, but the management “cum clava” of papal power is quite recent and we tend to forget that the pope, once, was a figure above all of the guarantor of the unity of the Church, even at the cost of tolerating some “red sheep”. No one is perfect and Ratzinger, too, must have had his weaknesses, but, at this point, why stop at the Council and not blame de Lammenais (1782-1854) and liberal Catholicism? Moreover, the erosive tendencies of Tradition began well before the Council, as Sergio Russo has well illustrated in Stilum curiae (Tosatti’s Editorial Series).

Continuously re-proposing the whine about Vatican II provides only two operational solutions.

The first is to get into a time machine, go back to 1962, drug and kidnap Karl Rahner.

The second is to use the criticism of the Council to refound the Catholic Church, leaving the “seat” to the de facto schismatics, at least regaining possession of the “faith”, with a speech such as: “Since, as we have abundantly demonstrated, from Pius XII onwards we have not been able to have a pope worthy of the name, we are tired: the time has come to take back a Roman Catholic Church with a true pope that we will appoint on our own. It is not as if we can remain without a pontiff for the next few centuries.”

I had mentioned that hypothesis here.

Since the solution of the time machine does not seem to be immediately feasible, only from the point of view of ratifying a schism, the paean on the Council would acquire a practical function, but apparently no one has the courage to continue on this path: “it cannot be done”, “it is a sin”, “it does not fit”, “it is uneconomic”, “they must leave”, “it would give scandal”, etc.

And so — excuse me — but to continue with recriminations about the Council is objectively useless and unproductive. It’s like a guy who one day finds himself with a bad office manager and starts complaining about the course of studies he undertook as a boy: either he uses that speech to find the strength to radically change his profession (“ok, I got it all wrong, now I’m going to open a chiringuito in the Bahamas”) or he keeps his office manager and learns to live with him. It’s not that complaining about his old choices solves anything.

What is more harmful, however, is that such speeches distract intellectual and moral energies from the REAL Magna quaestio: the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI. We know that it is a complex matter, that it is necessary to apply oneself, document oneself and find the courage of lions. But steps forward have been made to clarify and disclose how the resignation was announced – both legally and formally – invalid and how it was never ratified. Even if only 10% of those alleged resignations were challenged, those who really wanted to could probably wipe the slate clean of the neo-church. Perhaps only canon 14 of the Code of Canon Law would suffice: “Laws, even irritating or incapacitating ones, in the doubt of law do not urge”. We have asked 20 canonists of the Rota for confirmation and no one has responded: an indicative sign.

It may displease many people, but objectively speaking, the only one who has gone on the counter-attack in full operation is Don Minutella, who, freed from any impediment thanks to two (!) excommunications (not justified by any canonical process) is in fact the only one to have taken the field with an army: he has founded a social channel, speaks on radio and broadcasts, administers sacraments una cum Papa Benedicto around Italy… in short, he really does “the devil tour de force”. You may or may not like him, but please, let’s stop pretending he doesn’t exist, it’s quite ridiculous. If he has been excommunicated, for anyone who doesn’t like Francis, this can only be a huge credit to him., if it is true, as many claim, that there is an “anti-Christic coup” underway? If you do not like what he says, attack him on the merits: from a loyal, fierce dialectical clash with Don Minutella can only remain on the ground something really useful.

The illusion of many traditionalists is that, once Bergoglio is dead or has resigned, the next conclave can put things back in place, perhaps – given the armored majority – through divine intercession. “You’d have to presuppose insanity”, an authoritative colleague told me, but it is a pious illusion: if Francis is not the pope, not even the next conclave will be valid, with the presence of about 80 invalid cardinals. It seems to me that we can agree on this.

Even Bergoglio’s successor, even if he were a hyper-traditionalist holy man, will find himself with a sword of Damocles over his head, the atrocious suspicion, of having been elected by an invalid conclave. That is why the main issue, upon which all Catholic observers should converge, is solely and only the validity of Benedict’s resignation. That is the only really important thing that should be at the heart of even the Bergoglians, since doubt delegitimizes their leader. They should be the first to ask for a “commission of inquiry”, if they have nothing to hide. (Why do they turn a deaf ear?).

Even the tight criticism of Francis and all matters of the neo-church, what is the point? If Bergoglio is not the legitimate pope, and was put there by the modernist Masons, as they say, what do you expect, that he restore the sedes gestatoria and the Noble Guard?

Besides the crux of the resignation issue, the only valid (sideways) topic of debate should be: Why is no one moving? Why aren’t the cardinals speaking out as they should? What are they waiting for? Why aren’t the clergy mutinying en masse? Is it better to ask for enlightenment directly from Benedict XVI, or to organize a synod?

These are the questions that matter: whether Ratzinger is a modernist or not is of no importance, and, in the end, it doesn’t even matter whether he himself has organized a more or less voluntary invalid resignation. That speech may be an encouragement to decide to challenge the resignation, but the point is to establish whether Benedict legally resigned or not, regardless of everything, of his intentions and even of whether Francis is, or is not, a good pope. Before judging him as a pontiff, one must verify that he really is.

Archbishop Viganò: Benedict’s Renunciation might be purposefully invalid

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Good Friday — April, 2, 2021: In a wide ranging interview by Aldo Maria Valli, published yesterday, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has openly conceded that the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI might be invalid, and intentionally crafted for that purpose.

Click HERE above to read the original.

The comments of the Archbishop regard a question posed by Aldo Valli, in response to the crusade by Andrea Cionci of Il Libero here in Italy (see HERE), who has published numerous articles in March, of this year, exposing the invalidity of the Renunciation and the precise meaning of it in the mind and writings of His Holiness, Pope Benedict. In Cionci’s latest piece, he reports that the Secretary of State had approved the text of the Renunciation with all its errors!

Here is an English of the key passage in that interview:

Valli: You may have seen, Your Excellency, that again the question of “who is pope and who is not pope” has been brought up. Some say: since Bergoglio was elected on the basis of the maneuvers of the Mafia of St. Gallen and perhaps with irregularities during the Conclave, he is not pope. But Ratzinger would still be, who would have renounced the throne not freely, but because forced by strong pressure, and would have deliberately written incorrectly the Latin text of the renunciation to make it invalid. Church-Fiction? Or is there some element to be taken into serious consideration?

Viganò: Several causes – strong and undue pressures from outside the Church and from prominent members of the Hierarchy, as well as Joseph Ratzinger’s personal character – might have led Benedict XVI to formulate a declaration of renunciation in a totally unorthodox way, leaving the Church in a state of grave uncertainty and confusion; machinations of a group of progressive conspirators might have indicated in Bergoglio the candidate elected later during a conclave marked by violations of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis that regulates the election of the Roman Pontiff: these elements might be such as to render Ratzinger’s abdication null and void, the Conclave of 2013 null and void, and the election of his successor. However, although widespread and undeniable, these elements require confirmation and above all a declaration by the supreme authority of the Church. Any pronouncement made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless. I also believe that, at present, the dispute over who is the reigning Pope serves only to weaken the already fragmented healthy part of the ecclesial body, sowing division among the good.

Let us confidently pray to the Lord to bring the truth to light and show us the way forward. For now, strengthened by the virtue of Prudence that orders the means to the ultimate end, let us remain faithful and jealously guard what the Church has always believed: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

To the Archbishop’s assertion that, “Any pronouncements made by one who does not have the authority to do so would be reckless”, I can only respond that, not only does every man by natural right have the authority to say munus does not equal ministerium, but every Catholic as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ knows that the only true and authentic unity of the Church is founded upon acknowledging the truth of things and of law, and not upon a political consensus!

But the Archbishop does point out, if in an obscure manner, that all roads now lead to another Synod of Sutri, to which all Catholics, but especially the faithful and clergy of the Diocese of Rome, have a right to ask to be convened and to have an official response.

Finally, however you regard the Archbishop’s position, his statements will leave every honest Catholic the opportunity to at last put to rest and bury the “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” narrative, pushed by the controlled Catholic traddie media, so shamelessly and with so many fraudulent claims, arguments, reasons, during the past 5 years.