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

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

Yes, Joy, you are confused. Very confused.

Great Post, Father. TY

Here is an interesting blog that has dealt extensively with the claims of the Benedict-is-still-Pope faction.

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/21/the-case-against-those-who-claim-benedict-is-still-pope/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can. 332 Sec. 2 (English) — If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

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

But this begs the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not debate this with either:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless, C-Marie

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

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

God bless, C-Marie

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

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

Canon Law does not deal with hearsay

Canon Law does not deal with putative hidden intent

The gentleman I linked to has rational responses to all of the captious claims

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

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

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

Dr. Briggs,

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/

All the BIP claims answered

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

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

Here is my comment with the last word corrected …

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

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

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

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

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

God bless, C-Marie

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

He destroyed his ring

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

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

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

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

Renunciation of the latter entails renunciation of the former.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ding! Ding! Ding! SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Benedict has made some strange and contradictory statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What it Pope Benedict XVI?

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

Was it you, Lieutenant Weinberg?

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

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

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

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

C’est la vie

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

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

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

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

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

Re Gangswein

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/george-is-right-georg-is-wrong/

Apostolic Blessing

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02602a.htm

As we all know from what he does on Maundy Thursday that the Pope is not constrained by Canon Law but C’est la vie…

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

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

Is this too churlish?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Psalm 88 a foreshadowing of the Papacy of Franciscus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My God My God, why have you abandoned us?

I haven’t o ye of little faith.

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

Is this too churlish?

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

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

Also…

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

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

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

Father,

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

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

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

Dear Johnno. Is he being held captive?

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

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

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

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

I am done in here today Johnno.

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

Pax tecum. You are a good man.

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

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

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

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

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

God bless, C-Marie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless, C-Marie

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

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

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

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

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

I wish I had time to carefully read all the comments and summarize them, as well as re-read Feser’s article on this topic, etc. This problem is serious. I’ve given it a stab, but then I have the I.Q. of a tea bag and the memory of a Goldfish: http://www.jesus-eucharistie.org/en/serm/hasta.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An internal link is provided for part 1

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

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

I’ll chase down the link

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

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

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

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

I’m outta here

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

Dear Tad. He who abdicated changed the conclave rules before he exited

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

Tad, may I share your comment on social media? Great points!

Dear Tad. He who abdicated changed the conclave rules before he exited

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Brother Bugnolo;

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

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

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

Here are your words for all to see….

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

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

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

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

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

From the USCCB SITE:

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

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

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

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

God bless, C-Marie

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your research.
God bless, C-Marie

Mick……are you Catholic?

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

For those who believe Ms. Ann is unassailable

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/aresponse-to-ann-barnhardt-by-paul.html

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

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

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

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

Benedict is not Pope. Francis is Pope – even Gaenswein says so publicly.

Isn’t it abut time to stop this stuff? These claims have become an ideological belief among more than a few and they have become annealed and that belief will lead to a schism.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in/

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

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

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

Is that too churlish?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 John 9 is worth re-reading

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

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

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

Psalm 26:2.

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

Isaias 9

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

Isaias 49

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

Michaes 3

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

2 Kings 23:16-17 (2 samuel)

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

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

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

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

John 6

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: Moses gave you not bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.
34 Then they said to him: Lord, give us always this bread.
35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: *he that cometh to me, shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst.
36 But I said to you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out:
38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 Now this is the will of the Father, that sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should not lose thereof, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of my Father, who sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said: *Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus, therefore, answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets: *And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.
46 *Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he, who is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 *Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and they died.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any one eat of it, he may not die.
51 I am the living bread, which came down from heaven.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.
53 The Jews, therefore, disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
56 *For my flesh, is meat indeed: and my blood, is drink indeed:
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and died. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
61 Many, therefore, of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
63 If then you shall see *the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him.
66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
67 After this many of his disciples went back: and walked no more with him.
68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
70 *And we have believed, and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve: and one of you is a devil?
72 Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.

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

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

Like Satan, she is a destroyer.

This is who she is.

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

Is this too churlish?

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

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

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

Thank You

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

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

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

God bless, C-Marie

http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=judge&b=drb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True Facts, and of Eternal Life Value.

God bless, C-Marie

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

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

I suggest all of you to read teh book: “Code Ratzinger” ” Codice Ratzinger” in italian, by the journalist Andrea Cionci. You will discover why Benedict XVI was pope till the end of his life without any possible doubt. All the speculation about the same meaning of the words “munum” and “ministerium” are totally and grossly false. No doubt about it. Search: “Intteligenti Pauca” and “Dies Irae” on Andra Cionci Codice Ratzinger Youtube channel for a short intro.