So Now That We're All Saying What We're Thinking...


Over the years on this blog I have offered some commentary on Pope Francis and his bizarre, scandalous and increasingly diabolical pontificate. Of late, I have tried to keep it light, trying to offer some comic relief on the papacy arranged meticulously in a conference room in Hell. Later still, I stopped blogging, mostly due to time constraints, domestic and work commitments. Before I stopped blogging, I was confident enough in my own limited knowledge of the Church to offer some insights into what I thought had gone wrong in the time since 13 March 2013.

Reasons for the catastrophe I offered over the time were varied, from the election of a 'mad Pope' to the election of an apostate Bishop to the Papacy, to someone who was elected Pope but who resisted the Truth and simply taught his own beliefs instead. Who hasn't thought, 'Oh, he's a Jesuit, what could anyone expect?' Did I say these things explicitly? Some yes, others I expect not, because with this situation I, like many others, have always felt like I was treading on eggshells. Oh, and I still am, I assure you, and I'm just a layman with little to fear, unlike the suffering clergy.

I could always hint, too, that Francis is owned by players far more powerful than he, that he was a placeman for the Soros New World Order empire. I would give a nudge and a wink about the glaring possibility that Francis was a validly-elected high-ranking Freemason, who by his membership of the infernal Lodge employed his own unique method of madness to subvert and destroy as much of the Church as possible in the limited time he has and that his possible membership might have a detrimental impact on his ability to be a true Pope.

Image result for pope francis
'Nearly all my friends enjoy sodomy as well. I always tell them, 'It doesn't matter how you live your life.'
 
Oh, and who didn't note Francis's obviously close association to the St Gallen Mafia of Cardinals who orchestrated the voting blocs for him to emerge on the loggia? Among a throng of others, I probably hinted that it is most plausible that these orchestral manouvres in the dark were in complete defiance of the now, thanks to Pope Francis, Saint Pope John Paul II's decrees on the legal election of a Supreme Pontiff. I certainly indicated I thought Francis was a heretic, probably opined that he might be perfectly possessed. I don't think I ever went so far as to say he wasn't, or could perhaps not be, the Pope, though I may have expressed some modicum of doubt for any or all of the reasons listed above.

However, one of the reasons I lost a lot of confidence in my own ability to say much about the subject of Pope Francis is that I watched Ann Barnhardt's epic YouTube video, outlining the reasons why she considers Francis to be not the Pope and Benedict XVI to be the one and only true Pope. It really floored me. Yes, it did. For me, Ann, with breathtaking confidence, threw a real spanner in the works, not an unhelpful spanner necessarily, but one that jammed the whole system of thought-cogs that would wind around my head when thinking about Francis and the Papacy and the madness of it all.

The Barnhardt Intervention


Until Ann's presentation, I was content with my own view (since everyone has an opinion) that Francis was a valid Pope who was and is daily nullifying his own papal authority and credibility by wilfully refusing to fulfil the mandate Christ gave to St Peter and his Successors.

Image result for ann barnhardtThis habit, a habit he has demonstrated since day one, was, I held, a matter of his own free will which God gives to each and every human being and to each and every Pope. I held (and still hold) that God forces no Pope into complete obedience to Him, therefore the Pope who fulfils his mandate freely consents and cooperates with the grace of Office to pass on that which he has received, some better than others, but all to the degree which is the bare minimum. That is, in reality, his main role. If all his other duties were removed from him, but he passed on the Faith of Jesus Christ and confirmed the brethren in it, refusing to be a vehicle for heresy, he could say he had successfully 'Poped', whatever personal defects he may have had.

Evidence for Francis's complete and utter dereliction of teaching duty was in this regard supplied by his obstinate, inexplicable, absolutely determined refusal to answer the Dubia of the once four, but now two Cardinals. These were questions which were of no threat to any reigning Pope with half an ounce of Catholic belief. Certainly, one could imagine Benedict XVI answering them with ease. These questions, of course, arose from one of Francis's own documents, Amoris Laetitia, but encapsulated a great deal of the banquet of ambiguity and confusion that Francis has lavished on the Church.

I was confident that Francis simply refused to teach, that is, to teach Catholic faith and morals (since a Pope can teach nothing else of value to the Church or souls), that he was Pope in a titular manner, must be respected as such, prayed for as such, but that because he willingly refused the divine mandate - considering the Office of the Papacy to be a purely political, rather than a spiritual Office with some political responsibilities, he was making himself and continues to make himself a kind of quasi-Antipope

Insodoing, Francis was and is cutting from beneath himself the very branch of authority given to him by Christ. To this end, Francis was and remains his own worst enemy and yours. The unfaithful wouldn't be able to detect this, I thought, but the Faithful would. I gleaned this from observation of his ways which seem to be ways of pure and unadulterated mischief. Most bishops and cardinals, obviously, wouldn't care either way, because so many are as seemingly faithless as Francis. This, a theory, remains, in my opinon, a possibility. I can't say that I relinquish it entirely. Like I say, however, Ann's video opened up a new dimension in the Francis Papacy. Is it possible that this man is simply not, as Ann maintains, the reigining Pope?


Division sets in among the ranks



While Catholic bloggers cheerfully chewed each other's heads off after Ann Barnhardt's presentation, I was happy to 'sit this one out' and not get involved terribly in the dispute on Twitter or here. Of course, this is primarily because I am a coward, but also I could observe the fractious fighting, name-calling and often complete breakdown of fraternal charity that ensued. Friendships literally seemed to dissolve into rancourous and bitter emnities over this.

After this blogpost, I personally expect some blowback. I've never enjoyed such fights and I don't want to fight with Catholics I admire and respect online or elsewhere about the true identity of the Pope or the reason why the Francis nightmare continues. Why should we let the Devil, through Pope Francis, his indomitable vicar, this anti-Pastor, this destroyer, destroy the bonds of charity between us? And who, absolutely, knows the absolute truth of all of this when Benedict XVI himself maintains that he has relinquished the Crown, or at least the Chair, of Blessed Peter, and in his resignation told us that the Seat would become vacant?

The truth is that most, if not all of us, have and continue to have a vested and common interest in assuming that the Church is correct to tell us that Pope Francis is a validly elected Supreme Pastor, Successor of St Peter and Vicar of Christ, and treating him as such, even when more or less each and every single thing he says and does contradicts this role, this sublime calling, this most revered, holy, august and vital Office. Well, as the picture below indicates, our image of that Office has been, er,  somewhat dimmed...

Image result for pope kisses sultan
"I thought Francis was the Pope until he showed me and everyone else his behind..."


And the dimming of that Office, the diminution of the Papacy, or the destruction of the Petrine Office is a huge problem. However, whether you are a priest or a bishop who has to name his name in the Canon of the Mass, who simply has to put up with Francis and his knuckle-bitingly awful ways, or whether you're just a Catholic who goes online and maybe someone says, 'Did you see what Pope Francis said about X, Y, or Z? Isn't it crazy?' you want to be able to be confident, 100% confident, that when you say 'Yes, what a terrible Pope!' that you absolutely know you are talking about the Pope, rather than someone who dresses as the Pope but who is not the Pope, because if we're going to constantly run down the Pope as a heretic or worse it would be shameful for us to realise that every time we castigated 'the Pope' we were helping an evil Antipope to heap yet more derision on the Papacy that he despises and seeks to destroy. Well, wouldn't it?

What if Francis isn't the Pope?


A loss of confidence that Francis is the Pope or an interior acknowledgement that Francis is not the Pope has real psychological and spiritual effects. Yes, that would be 'annulment time'. 'This papacy is null and void' are the words so many of us would like to hear, but it would be quite a shock, equally, to know that the last six years had been from beginning to end a masterfully-orchestrated Satanic deceit that had convinced large swathes of the Church that Almighty God, knowing all things before Time ever existed, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, would ever, for a single moment outside of Time (if that makes sense), no matter how angry He may be with His People, permit that the hallowed Chair of the Blessed Peter could be legitimately, lawfully, validly occupied by someone as pertinaciously heretical and implacably opposed to the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ - and proclaim such derision for God and His Law publicly - as Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Image result for austen ivereighAt the announcement of this shock news, real and palpable grief would be manifested in the tweets of Massimo Faggioli and Austen Ivereigh decrying the injustice done to their beloved champion of all things antithetical to True Religion, but grief might also be manifested by those who had fought Francis solely on the basis that he was the true reigning Pope and there was no other and that they had not been fighting an enemy on the Chair of Peter, but a foe of Christ installed during an invalid conclave. In an invalid conclave, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity could not possibly have assisted the Cardinals, since the Holy Ghost would not assist in an illicit and invalid conclave that could only produce an antipope, no matter who was elected, be he good or evil. May we assume that if a conclave is invalid, then the Holy Ghost may very well not bring it divine protection?

From a spiritual point of view, the interior acceptance that Francis is not the Pope also brings changes, the first of which is the reconsolidation of the theological virtues of Faith and Hope which, as we can all agree, the Devil is gleefully destroying. The one thing that Pope Francis has brought upon the Church and especially clergy is the destruction of the theological virtue of Faith, not necessarily Faith in the One who made the promises to Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles, but faith and unyielding belief in the promise itself. Many of us have had to adjust our interpretation of that promise just for Pope Francis. Yes, what an accolade for Francis! Job well done, Jorge!

But are we denying our Faith?


For example, observe with what great Faith and love for God those who have signed the letter accusing Pope Francis of heresy possess by God's grace, because they believe in what has been divinely revealed to the Church in Her faith and morals, things taught and held by the Church as being from Her Lord. Because they believe this with all their heart, they recognise the wolf who is devouring the sheep and the wolf is called "Pope Francis". Bravo to each and every one of them for doing so.



When it comes, however, to the actual promise of Christ that the gates of Hell cannot prevail against His Church and the belief from what I assume was the beginning that the Church is indefectible, there exists within that heresy charge an implicit rejection of a many centuries-held belief that many can lead the Faithful to perdition by their errors, but that the Pope cannot or by God's Providence would not defect, run headlong into heresy and lead the vast majority of the Church into error upon error and thereby tempt the Church to Her own destruction.

Yet, in Pope Francis, this is precisely what we observe increasingly and many Bishops will follow him into the bottomless pit he is digging for himself and for them and all those who will not abide in the Truth of Jesus Christ our Lord. The Pope, we are led to believe, is leading the battle cry of all of Hell. What is this battle cry? 'Non serviam!' 'I will not serve!' Can you believe that? The Pope acting as a leading agent for the entire confraternity of demons?

But ah, it is worse even than this, since the supreme authority of the one who implicitly cries it each and every day also shouts aloud, 'You will not serve either!' and this he cries to all those placed under him. This is why the good are removed quickly and the bad are promoted even more quickly. This is why the illicit Chinese Patriotic Bishops are enlisted among the ranks of those in Communion with the Holy See. The just are punished, the wicked are set free to work their work of deceit and malice, not just in episcopal Sees but in whatever areas of the Church heretics can be emboldened. That is to say, everywhere.

This entire situation is contrary to our Faith

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Rubens_B116.jpg
Thou art Peter and I haven't foreseen Jorge Bergoglio, honest...

How can such a thing as this happen in a Church divinely protected? How can this happen from the very Office instituted as the divinely-appointed Protector and Defender of the entire Church, most especially in Her Infallible Teachings? How? Only six years ago, we did not think this time of doctrinal chaos from the centre could happen, even though faithful Catholics know that the Pope who Francis canonised, Paul VI, oversaw a time of liturgical chaos. We thought that doctrine was safe. What changed?

Previous generations have thought such a thing impossible and in our times, instead of ramming their heads against the Rock of the Papacy while their belief in Christ's actual promise to Blessed Peter ebbs away into the tributary of a river called "Eastern Orthodoxy", whether right or wrong, a good number have done themselves and their immutable Catholic Faith a favour and said, 'This man cannot be / is not the Pope.' Can they be blamed? Would it be too controversial to suggest that they cannot be blamed?

For how long can we avoid the confrontation with this controversy?


The reality is that among Catholics there really is disagreement and confusion over the identity of the true Pope. This is observable on various online forums. I must concede that once you remove the possibility that Francis is, was or ever will be the Successor of St Peter and the Vicar of Christ, the problems and scandals that he promotes remain and continue to jeopardise the sublime Mission of the Church for the Salvation of Souls. Because of Francis, Pope Francis, the Church and even the World are scandalised, heretics believe the eternal Truth can be changed because 'our man' is 'at the top', the wicked are confirmed in their wickedness, the errors of Russia spread throughout the Hierarchy like flames engulfing Cathedral rafters, but, if he isn't the Pope, the actual promise of Christ to Peter - the Church's actual belief in the indefectibility of the Church - remains wholly intact.

Why? Because, in this outcome, were it to be true, despite the chaos we observe, in reality nothing would have changed since 13 March 2013. In this scenario, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not Peter, he is an antipope, and not just any old antipope but the Antipope of History himself. If he is, then nothing he does or says is binding, everything he has done, encyclicals, exhortations, Synods and appointments, including the cardinalatial appointments he has made are invalid, null and utterly void. If he is just an apostate Bishop and Antipope he can be the most evil man on the planet, rivalled in his emnity towards God only by the Antichrist himself, a valid Bishop, yes, an apostate and a heretic, yes, but never, ever, not for a single moment, the Holy Roman Pontiff, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of St Peter, the Prince of Princes, the Servant of the Servants of the Church.

In this scenario, the Faithful who have accepted interiorly or interiorly considered the possibility that Francis is not the Pope, look on as the Faithful looked upon Notre Dame de Paris blazing in the night, praying fervently, offering up entreaty to the ever-Virgin Mother of God, praying for relief and deliverance from the inferno raging through the building, that this imposter may be once and for all exposed for who he really is.

Who is he, in this scenario? He can most likely be nothing other than the False Prophet of the Apocalypse and I have on various sites and on social media seen him described as just this apocalyptic figure because he fits the bill perfectly, not simply because of his sinister methods of ruling the Church, but his central role in the apostasy we are daily witnessing. He is, in his unique role, promoting and facilitating the apostasy his vocation would be to do valiant battle against as Pope. For this explicit reason and for no other, some Catholics have quite naturally reasoned that he cannot, therefore, be the true Pope. This may be the faith of the simpleton, but if the Catholic Faith isn't for simpletons, who is it for? Experts? Let's be honest, people are sick to death of experts. People have eyes and ears. They know the voice of the Good Shepherd. They know that Voice is not heard from the mouth of Francis.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4OgzxDXsAAd61x.jpg


The Catholic Church is on fire


As Bishop Schneider surmised on the destruction of Notre Dame, in the Cathedral, the upper regions, that is to say, the Hierachy, are engulfed in the infernal flames, they are destroyed by their own folly and lack of Faith in the Risen One, by their lukewarmness and their pursuit of status, by their naked, faithless, godless ambition.

We see this in Bishops everywhere. They accept each and every new innovation and mockery of God and His Bride, doctrinal questions are 'above my paygrade' but they do not perceive the signs of the times, they follow every wind of new doctrine and implicitly reject Sacred Tradition and Scripture. They will happily reject as heretics and schismatics those who hold firm to the Truth of Jesus Christ, but the truly Faithful remain standing like a High Altar or a Rose Window, intact, their faith in Christ and the indefectibility of the Church untouched by the raging destruction surrounding them.

Image result for pope francisI may sympathise with those who believe Francis is truly the Pope, since I have long believed it myself. I may symapthise with those who believe Francis cannot be the Pope since his actions, omissions and words do not recommend themselves to this Office at all. Yet it is, no matter what I believe concerning the matter, a testable fact that those who hold that Benedict XVI did not validly abdicate or adequately vacate the Throne of glorious St Peter and who therefore hold that Jorge Bergoglio does not validly enjoy the authority of the Vicar of Christ, have preserved, in contrast to many, many others, their impenetrable belief that the Pope himself cannot lead the Faithful into error or be a pertinacious, material or formal heretic, that this possibility is as impossible today as it has hitherto, I think, always been held to be.

This is believed by many because they believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ protects with His Mighty Hand the Office of Peter and preserves the Officeholder, in myriad ways, from His Throne in Heaven, from leading the Church astray, or, at the very least, so profoundly awry that She threatens to divorce Herself from Him with the sanction and blessing of the Supreme Authority of Christ Himself in His Vicar. You may say that Pope Francis hasn't yet done that. You might think he's gone close. Perhaps he has not, but he is trying very hard to do just that and that's where the Church is headed under his stewardship, if, indeed, one may call his behaviour 'stewardship'.

I would have as much authority as the remarkable Ann Barnhardt to declare that Pope Francis is a counterfeit, imposter Pope and that Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope on Earth, the Vicar of Christ. How much authority is this? None. Not a bit. Equally, however, it can be conceded to those who say it, like the theologiacal giant and pianist Stephen Walford and Fr Thomas Petri OP (two names which I never suspected would be lumped together in a blog post) that no authority may pass judgement on a sitting Pope.

A problem: No authority may pass judgement on a sitting Pope


If we accept that no authority may sit in judgement on a sitting Pope (and I do) and we accept that Pope Francis is a heretic (and I certainly do, because he patently is) then Pope Francis cannot reasonably be accepted to be the Pope, even if the whole Church proclaims him to be the Pope and accepts his election universally. If the Pope is a heretic and you cannot place the Pope on trial, because nobody can judge him, then God has placed no safeguards, divine or even natural, around the Papacy at all and our Catholic Faith is discovered to be deficient, the entire Church entirely defenceless against an evil Pope with the Church at his mercy, the faithful among Her to be shown none. The Church, in this scenario, is so far from indefectible as to warrant the contempt and derision of the entire World. Sorry, but that's how it must seem to so many people.

Is the Pope Catholic? Answer: Yes, but only if the Pope is Benedict XVI


Image result for benedict xviIf we accept that it is now possible for Catholics to call Pope Francis out on his heresies to the extent that we call him, even in an unofficial but decisive manner, a heretic, thereby worthy of losing or having plausibly lost the Office he was once in possession of, it is no worse or better for us to say that Pope Francis is not the Pope because the conclave that elected him was an invalid conclave.

Furthermore, it is no worse to suggest that for this reason and this reason alone was he, an apostate Bishop of evil intent, permitted by Almighty God to take over the organs of power and authority in the Church for the destruction of those who would willingly join him in his unholy endeavour in his bizarre and adulterous embrace of a syncretistic secular religion of man to be erected in place of the Catholic Church, yes on the very foundation Christ founded for the World's Salvation. I guess that Church, that monstrosity, that Temple of Man will look something like the designs you will see from modern architects for the new Notre Dame but probably much worse.

Let us not mince our words. God's ways are indeed inscrutable, but, (forgive me, Lord, if I speak in presumption) He seems, from what I can see, to be using the evil man we know as Pope Francis to gather all those who will be condemned, together, along with him, into one Hellish tent.

We must ask: Would Almighty God use a genuine Successor of Saint Peter to do that, when He has promised the precise opposite, or would that not indeed renege entirely our faithful Lord Jesus Christ's own promises to Peter, to his Successors and to His Holy Catholic Church? Would that not make Almighty God a liar?

You see, that doesn't really sound like God. May I suggest it is more likely that were the Lord to permit His Church to appear to men to be a total and utter laughing stock of insane heresies and diabolical confusion, He would permit Satan to use an apostate Bishop who had convinced himself and the world he was the Pope to do that, when, all along, he was not. Then, in the ultimate test of Faith, the Lord would observe who was taken in by Satan's deceit and who was not, noting down the names of those who were not taken in for survival, that is to say, for eternal life, in the Book of Life.

If Pope Francis is a validly elected Pope, truly a Successor of St Peter and yet works every day, like no other man in the history of Christianity, save for the most notorious heretics of old, to destroy the Church in order to erect the Anti-Church, emptied of the Teachings of Our Lord, it is, since the Salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church, absolutely right that he be confronted for his heresies and the errors he is promoting. I thoroughly applaud and admire all who have signed the letter which I recommend you sign in form of a petition of support. Likewise, now that we are saying that Pope Francis is a heretic, it is worthwhile revisting at the very least the possibility that:

a) God cannot, since He has sworn by His very self to protect His Bride and the Teaching Office of the Papacy, permit a man such as Francis to be a validly elected Pope whom all must obey and that therefore...

b) Francis is not the Pope and that therefore...

c) Pope Benedict XVI did not abdicate the Throne of the glorious Peter in a satisfactory manner, nor was his resignation accepted in Heaven and that therefore...

d) Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic but...

e) the Pope is not because...

f) he isn't the Pope because...

g) Pope Benedict XVI is the true and only Pope.


And if we think about it, nuts as that sounds and much as we may resist the idea, let us be honest to ourselves and each other and confess that for the integrity of our Faith to remain intact, the only possible way a 'Pope' could do what Pope Francis has done, is doing, and will without a shred of remorse do, because conscience he has none, is if God would permit the Church to be tempted not only to follow his errant teachings but to believe that a sitting Pope could do these things, without His Intervention, such as sudden death or sudden repentance, and be a valid, lawfully elected Successor of St Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Chief Shepherd of all the Faithful.

Image result for pope francis
"In conclusion, just do whatever George Soros tells you. "


For my part, I do not say these things to be divisive, just as Catholic heroes of faith Nick Donnelly, Fr Aidan Nichols OP and all those brave men and women, with much to lose, aim to be divisive. I have studied and observed this nightmare for six years. Nothing about Pope Francis seems real. It all seems so fabricated. Nothing about it is authentic. It operates on a scale of public deceit and double-dealing nobody has seen in the history of the Papacy. Like those who have accused the Pope of heresy, I am interested in the the proclamation of the Truth and in encouraging our Shepherds to work tirelessly for the resolution of this great, lamentable and unprecedented crisis in the Church, exploring all possible avenues of enquiry over precisely what has taken place in these our times.

Related image
'They are your words.'
The concerns the letter writers express about Pope Francis build a compelling case that Pope Francis is a heretic and wilfully so. I would add nothing nor take away from anything they have said about the man who daily, with more and more urgency, makes a mockery of all that Holy Mother Church holds as sacred, venerable and holy.

What I would say is that if it is the case that Pope Francis is a heretic, or can be spoken of as such, Holy Church somehow, sooner rather than later, needs to revisit the subject of why generations upon generations upon generations of Catholics have held this supreme moment of crisis to be an impossibility, because the Office is preserved by Christ Himself for the Salvation of souls and the preservation of the Most Holy Faith in the Church which He loves and for Whom He Himself gave Himself up to Death. This Church, the Catholic Church, the One True Church, His Bride it is which is imperilled by the man the Church and the World knows as Pope Francis. We must however know for certain whether 'Pope Francis' exists or whether we are confronting with his heresies 'Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio'. Yes, that is important.

God can allow a great delusion to be sent among the people of God from within the bosom of the Church. God permitted Martin Luther to do precisely this. Yes, in His "permissive will", God can allow a great delusion which will lead souls to believe their own grievous errors. Catholics have not previously accepted that God would permit that this scandal would originate from His own Vicar. Saints and scholars have raised the possibility as one to be studied, but the belief that it could happen has never been either partially or universally accepted. Yes, there is your paradigm shift. That is the real reason you and I suffer so much. Every aspect of our Faith is under attack, including our belief that the Pope will not, by God's Providence, lead the People of God along the broad road to perdition.

Therefore, if we are going to accuse the man who leads, not merely promotes, the destruction of Christian faith and morals, by subterfuge mainly, but sometimes in a brazen and naked manner, a man who does this in any possible way he can without giving away his evil plan entirely or unmasking himself completely, a man who instills within the Church, at all levels, unprecedented fear and who micromanages a tyranny of relativism from what we are led to believe is the very summit of the Church, if we are going to accuse that man of heresy, that man divinely appointed with supreme authority in the Holy Church of God, whom no man, no authority on Earth can judge, well, we had better be 100% certain, without a shadow of a doubt, that that man is the Pope.

Why? Because if he is the Pope, we all have to, at the very best, adjust what has hitherto been our firm belief in Christ's promise to Peter and at the very worst, abandon that belief almost entirely and say,

'Christ meant some of the People of God and some Cardinals, some Bishops and some Priests wouldn't be overcome, but that the Pope would possibly, maybe...probably...well, that's how it seems.'


The problem is that Catholics have never believed that. And yet we are supposedly 'traditionalists'. We also have to adapt our interpretation of Canon Law which says nobody may sit in judgement of him, yes, even when 'the Salvation of souls is the highest law', because nobody trumps the Pope. Would God allow that situation to arise? Is God not God anymore? Is God not faithful to His Bride anymore?

If he is not the Pope, we don't have to do either. We do not have to modify our view of Christ's promise. Nor do we have to reinterpret Canon Law. In that scenario, we cannot rest on our laurels, but we may ascertain that the man we accuse as a heretic is an imposter and a usurper of the papacy, but not the Chief Shepherd of all Christians and should be treated, charged and condemned not as a heretic Pope but as an Antipope.

It is completely understandable that few, if any, in authority want to go there. Would even Benedict XVI admit if there was something deficient in his resignation that short-circuited the Petrine Office and the next conclave? Who can blame them? What a can of worms that would be and what would the results of that investigation be? Nobody enters into marriage looking for an annulment. Nobody accepts a Pope looking for an Antipope, but now that we are asking whether the Pope is a heretic, we may just as well ask whether the heretic in question is the Pope. If faithful Catholics maintain that he is the Pope, all his supporters, with all of Canon Law to back them up may respond:


'No authority may sit in judgement upon a sitting Pope'.


And you know what? They're right! A lawful authority may, however, sit in judgement upon an Antipope. Who decides whether he is an Antipope? Some Cardinals? The true Pope? Whoever it is, it isn't the Antipope himself, who is deposed, not merely for heresy, but for usurping an Office which was never his, while never attaining the Office he sought, because Christ defends it from those who would imperil His Infallible Teachings which are the Church's own because He loves us!

We are truly in unchartered territory and the hour is getting late. 

Does anyone know why the Supreme Teacher of all the Faithful will not answer our questions on Faith and Morals?




You know why?

Perhaps you do know why.

Where is the red line to be drawn at which it may be ascertained by the Faithful that a man presented to the World as a true and valid Pope is not a true Pope but an illegitimate and fraudulent Antipope? 

And is the Church really powerless against such a man as that?

May Our Lady of Fatima, 
in this hour of the Church's greatest trial, come to the aid of the Pope and the Cardinals and Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church and lead the Church on Earth, by her powerful prayers to her Son, to safe harbour.

Now, for something light...

Comments

Anonymous said…
Mundabor.
Glad to see you have cleaned up the language.
kathleen said…
I would avoid citing Barnhardt here. Barnhard insists upon a novel legal fiction designed to prove that Francis is not Pope because Benedict's resignation was faulty, which she insists makes everything in the church magically rewind to 2013 because of some legal principle she read about somewhere one time. Whereas you simply seem to suspect (as I do) that Francis is an imposter and not even Catholic. That position t is completely different from Barnhardt's "hey presto! It's Benedict" escape hatch.
Kathleen1031 said…
Thank you for this wonderful analysis and commentary.
If he is pope, we may conclude God's promises were not true. We must reject that, God's promises are true. All the indications are there that Francis is not pope, and we have even had many signs, signs many of us do not forget, the peace doves of Bergolio being attacked, the lightning strike, the eclipse, so many, and of course, how many prophesies are being fulfilled right now.
And as you said, the faithful do not need more expert voices. Expert voices are contradicted. This one does not agree with that one, and this debate seems more like the one on man-made climate change, there is no definitive answer, and after a while, no answer seems possible. To add to the confusion, in the void of episcopal silence, we now have self-appointed "experts" and those doing battle with each other. We need episcopal leadership and have none. The sheep scatter and run in confusion.

But God gave us our own personal remedy for confusion. In His Infinite Wisdom, He knew this hour would arrive, and he gave us the words to calm us, and let us know in advance all would be well. "If someone comes to you preaching a different gospel, even an angel of light, let him be anathema", and, as you say, the faithful know the voice of their shepherd, the stranger's voice, they do not recognize. Let all ask themselves if Francis is preaching a different gospel? Definitely yes. One must acknowledge it is a definite break with the past teaching of the Catholic Church.
Does Francis have the voice of the shepherd, the voice Catholics recognize? For some Catholics, this answer is apparently yes, for many Catholics, definitely not. We cannot know what that means.
If Francis is pope, and we know that he has changed so much about Catholicism, so much about her teaching, then it had certainly been got wrong for much more than a thousand years, God allowed the church to languish in error all that time, and finally got around to correcting the errors with Bergolio. What Catholics believed and martyrs died for, all wrong, and all in vain.
That cannot be.
Go Laurence Go!

As usual, I agree with you. It's just a bit unusual to hear your theological positions without any music! :-)
kiwiinamerica said…
"This-Masonic infiltration, in the interior of the Church, was already foretold to you by me at Fatima, when I announced to you that Satan would enter in even to the summit of the Church."

Our Lady to Fr. Stefano Gobbi, of the Marian Movement of Priests, June 13, 1989

Bergoglio is the fulfillment of this prophesy and this is the Third Secret of Fatima whose publication the Church has consistently stifled; a pope in the service of Satan.
Liam Ronan said…
Masterful, Bones. Thank you. If this Francis is the False Prophet. Then Anti-christ will be hard on his heels.

"That is why God is letting loose among them a deceiving influence, so that they give credit to falsehood; he will single out for judgement all those who refused credence to the truth, and took their pleasure in wrong-doing." 2 Thessalonians 2:11
Laura Y said…
Excellent post.
IF what Ms Barnhart says is true, then Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger is as unworthy of the papacy as if his successor because his novel and heretical attempt to spilt the Papacy is not Catholic.

St Vincent of Lerins. in his "Commonitory" teaches us that a trial such as this is one way God tests our Faith and so one clings to Tradition and flees novelties but judging whether or not an elected man is Pope is beyond Ms B's competency.

She is not a canon lawyer and those who are - such as Dr Peters - says her claims are absurd.

Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has, several times, publicly stated he abdicated/resigned.

Why pine away for one who abdicated?

This is like the Catholic version of the Mueller Report.

Razinger's papacy is over.
Barbara Jensen said…
I have been a Catholic my whole life. I was the last generation which was taught the fullness of the Catholic Faith, which is peerless. The situation at hand in our Church has been predicted by many credible mystics. Our Lady of Fatima explained what we are living through as an apostasy which 'would begin at the top'. This means with the Supreme Pontiff. For those of us who understand that the Church is an 'instrument of salvation' and not an end in Herself, these confusing times are not as disturbing as they may be for those who stay in the spiritual shallows and comfort themselves that Bergoglio can do no wrong. As Catholics our obedience must be to the FULLNESS OF THE FAITH. If one has not been informed of what THE FULLNESS OF THE FAITH is, it is indeed problematic. I knew in July of 2013 that Bergoglio was trashing the Faith and the the garbage he was spewing was in no way obligatory to believe or follow. I knew this because in Fifth Grade I was taught in Catholic School that I must obey my parents (and all legitimate authority) UNLESS THEY INSTRUCT ME TO DO SOMETHING SINFUL. My obedience is to the fullness of the Faith. God is trustworthy. He can be believed. I personally do not believe that Bergoglio is 'Pope'. How can he be? He is trashing the Catholic faith with purpose and vengeance. The Cardinals and bishops fall silent because of their own cowardice and self serving caution. Christ is not first with most of them. Shame on them. They will answer to God.
What is clear to me is that soon the situation will become so dire that those who live the fullness of the Faith will have to cling to their Faith and serve God hiddenly in homes, garages and other impoverished settings. Satan has control of Rome and plans to co-opt the externals of Catholicism and the 'faithful' are clueless because they have not been taught the fullness of the Faith.
One must draw very close to our Eucharistic Lord Who sees all that is happening and intends to use these painful times to deepen His TRUE AND REAL followers in union with Him. Draw close to Him and trust Him in the darkness. He will bring His Church through this trial. Poppe Benedict is correct: the Church will emerge purified, must smaller, and much simpler. The origin of Catholicism is divine. The evil men do cannot destroy Her.
The Council of Florence condemned this thesis of Wycliffe.


If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor.

Our Pope and Our Cross is Francis.
Anonymous said…
This is excellent Mr. Bones. So well-written and thought-provoking- Thank you!
One paragraph that reflects my own thoughts over the last six years (in fact from the moment he appeared on the balcony at St. Peter's - which creeped me out I can tell you - I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach when I first saw him!) is this one:

"I have studied and observed this nightmare for six years. Nothing about Pope Francis seems real. It all seems so fabricated. Nothing about it is authentic. It operates on a scale of public deceit and double-dealing nobody has seen in the history of the Papacy. Like those who have accused the Pope of heresy, I am interested in the the proclamation of the Truth and in encouraging our Shepherds to work tirelessly for the resolution of this great, lamentable and unprecedented crisis in the Church, exploring all possible avenues of enquiry over precisely what has taken place in these our times."


That's exactly what I see in this man - a fake! yes - he 's fake. I don't know whether he is the Pope or not - but he's a fake! And we have plenty of concrete evidence to back this up. Besides - his voice betrays him too - it's so fake - it's words, words empty words in that drone - right from the first fake and shocking - Buonasera! Red Flag!!!

Again, bravo Mr. Bones! Glad to see you back writing!

God bless you and may Our Lady and St. Joseph protect you!

Barbara





CorneliusG said…
Best, clearest explanation of the disaster we're in currently. I would have thought, though, that there would be more pushback from the few good Bishops, but it's been pathetic. Even the "orthodox" Bishops/Cardinals are just cowards.
philipjohnson said…
Laurence.As fine a piece of writing from you,indeed one of your best!I too have followed the insane Heretical meanderings of this evil man for six years and,without doubt,he is a manifest Heretic.Why ,one may ask would God allow such a thing?Well my conjecture is this-all the filth in the Conciliar Church is springing to the top aided and abetted by The Bergoglio.I ask myself where will it end!The Bergoglio ,and his minions know full well that they are evil Heretics but they dont care-neither does Bergoglio.God will deal with them-indeed He already is as they know full well that they have had their day in the filth-but ,this,time,they will stay in the filth of their own making.Tradition is the answer to this,stick to the immutable Truths of Holy Mother Church and may God Bless us for doing so.God Bless you Laurence.
Neofito said…
so? the bottom line is:
"Jorge Bergoglio is not and never has been 'The Pope'"?

after all those arguments, this IS the conclusion? veredict?

THEN

"Petrus Romanus" is still ahead in time?
Neofito said…
(follow up)
Anonymous said…
Why does everyone blame soros and not Rothschild...
Us said…
Thanks ever so much for this post. For me and my house, we are confident that God will indeed preserve His Church. His promise to Peter was that the gates of Hell would “not prevail.” It was not that He’ll would not try or even succeed for a time, only that in the end the Church would overcome.

As you say, the rather questionable behavior of the St Galen Group, bragged of by Daniels (sp?) along with various points raised by Ms Barnhardt, does conveniently dovetail with an invalid election and such invalidity eliminates the very worrisome idea of a heretical Pope.

This string of statements and actions contrary to the deposit of faith has done the faithful an invaluable service. Under the prior two Popes, the sheep’s (or shepherd’s) clothing hid many wolves from the view of the sheep. Francis has encouraged the wolves so much that they have let the cover slip. Many in the Church see already what has been there for some time and mourn. Soon, not quite yet, even the most idealistic defender of the hierarchy will be able to separate the metaphor mixing wheat from the chaff.

Keep up the good work.
thetimman said…
Brave of you to post this. I agree that it is the most satisfying way to explain the Bergoglio mess, and I think it highly possible Benedict XVI is still pope. But as you said, I have no authority to say so. Hence my position is to be Catholic, and urge this question be investigated publicly and be resolved by Benedict and the college. Until then, pray for the disaster to end. Whenever the choice must be made as a matter of faith, I pray to make the correct one. I beleive that day is not far off.
Cam said…
Very insightful, Laurence, and many thanks for your courage here. I'm sure I'm not the only Catholic who's read your post today with gratitude.

kathleen: "I would avoid citing Barnhardt here. Barnhard insists upon a novel legal fiction designed to prove that Francis is not Pope because Benedict's resignation was faulty, which she insists makes everything in the church magically rewind to 2013 because of some legal principle she read about somewhere one time."

What is the "novel legal fiction"?

kathleen: "Whereas you [Laurence] simply seem to suspect (as I do) that Francis is an imposter and not even Catholic. That position t is completely different from Barnhardt's 'hey presto! It's Benedict' escape hatch."

You seem to have misread Laurence (Barnhardt too). He might not be agreeing with Barnhardt's analysis absolutey at this point, but he does hold that her position might be correct. He says, for instance, "Likewise, now that we are saying that Pope Francis is a heretic, it is worthwhile revisting at the very least the possibility that . . . Pope Benedict XVI did not abdicate the Throne of the glorious Peter in a satisfactory manner, nor was his resignation accepted in Heaven."
MyronM said…
The confusion that can be seen in the Roman Catholic church is not a crisis but an epochal breakthrough.
The last papal decision of Joseph Raztinger's led to the transformation of the Saint Peter's Office into a synodal two-headed hybrid. Actually he dissolved - by virtue of power given to him [Mat 16, 19] by Jesus Christ - the same office on Feb. 28, 2013 at 8 p.m. (CET), so no he may already be a Roman Pontiff neither himself nor anyone else. This decision is irrevocable.
The dissolution of the papacy does not mean that the gates of hell have overcome the Church [Mat 16, 18]. The Church will be reborn with the power of God as it was when the Mosaic religion degenerated into the form of the synagogue of Satan and Jesus Christ appeared to breathe new life into the Church of God and raise it to a higher level thrugh the Holy Sacraments.
By the act of Feb. 11, 2013, Benedict16 released the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. These Keys are the Apocalyptic Woman and the Paraclete; only now the Church will shine on the whole earth with full splendor.

The end of the papacy in Rome is precisely described in the Prophecy of Saint Malachi (+ 1148), archbishop of Armagh:

'Gloria Olivae' - Benedict XVI; the glory/finial of the Roman Catholic church are two olive trees [Rev. 11, 4], which will blossom only now at the end of times - the Paraclete and the Woman of the Revelation.

'In persecutione extrema S.R.E. Sedebit' - 'S.R.E [Sancta Romana Ecclesia] is in a period of extreme persecution' - this is the phenomenon of Jorge Bergoglio, the destroyer of the Roman Catholic church (especially of the College of Cardinals, the very top of the Church hierarchy). Bergoglio, aside from the BXVI's dissolution of the papacy, as an apostate, could not be the vicar of Jesus Christ, and therefore Saint Malachi does not name his name among the Pontifex but only characterizes the effects of his actions.

'Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur & Iudex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis'. (“Peter the Roman will feed his flock in the midst of many persecutions, and when it ceases, the city of seven hills will be torn down and a terrible judge will judge his people”.)
Saint Peter the Apostle was not a Roman (citizen of Rome). Peter the Roman is a Son of the Roman Catholic church (means a Roman) and is identical to the terrible Judge, the same as the Paraclete.
The papacy in Rome was abolished definitively and irrevocably. What now? The fulfillment of this request addressed to God the Father for nearly 2,000 years: 'Come Thy Kingdom, thy will be done, as in heaven so also on earth.' The Kingdom of God on earth, finally!
MyronM said…
The end of the papacy in Rome

Benedict XVI ceased to be Pope on February 28, 2013. By his actions - preservation of the title of pope and monarch name, a white cassock, residing in the Vatican and simultaneous displaying a special reverence to the Argentinian, whom he let in the boots to the Petrine Throne - he shows that the head of the church can be split – oh, horrendum - for two parts, the contemplative one and the active one; he [B16] became a heretic, and as such he set himself apart from the comunion with the Church, accelerating only the destruction of the Roman Catholic church. What a horrifying conciliarism! Is it still wondering why Saint Pope Pio X called modernism the effluent of all heresies?! Father Joseph Ratzinger, as an adviser at the Second Vatican Council, strongly imbibed with novelties. Later, as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he contributed to the mockery with the publication of the so-called Fatima's 3rd Secret. When, as Pope Benedict XVI, he finally perceived the damage modernism and the hiding of the message of Fatima made to the Roman church, he wanted to fix it somehow. With the letter Summorum Pontificum, he allowed priests to freely perform mass in the old rite. In a sermon during the mass in Fatima on May 13, 2010, he signaled the falsehood of the official interpretation of part of the Fatima secret, but it was too late to reverse the course of events. At last he got scared of the wolves pretending to be the shepherds of souls and hid in an abandoned monastery in the Vatican, claiming that he was still a pope - modernism got to the very head of the Roman Catholic church and split it in two parts. The first "pope" actively demolishes the church, the second "pope" contemplates the actions of the first, the activist. However, none of them is the pope - God's providence also watches over the transfer of the Church! The exact words of the Embodied Wisdom-Divine Mother in Proverbs [of Solomon] fit exactly here [Prov 1, 29-32]:
“They have hated knowledge, they have not chosen the fear of Yahweh, they have taken no notice of my advice, they have spurned all my warnings: so they will have to eat the fruits of their own ways of life, and choke themselves with their own scheming. For the errors of the simple lead to their death, the complacency of fools works their own ruin...”
Benedict XVI, by virtue of the power given by the Lord Jesus to Saint Peter, binding and loosing, made his last papal act: he dissolved the papacy itself in the Roman Catholic Church on Feb. 28, 2013 AD (8:00 p.m. CET). Once again the words of the Savior were to be fulfilled [John 21:18]:
'In all truth I tell you, when you were young you put on your own belt and walked where you liked; but when you grow old you will stretch out your hands, and somebody else will put a belt round you and take you where you would rather not go.' In fact, Peter became old in the person of Pope Benedict, he succumbed to violence and abandoned his flock like a hireling, at the same time abolishing the office of the Prince of the Apostles. ...
(to be continued)
MyronM said…
The Roman papacy ceased on Feb. 28, 2013 AD. In the Marian calendar on that day reigns Hodegetria of Wilna, an icon which from the imperial Constantinople - through Sofia Paleolog married to Ivan III, the Grand Duke of Moscow, and through their daughter Helena, married to Alexander Jagiello, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, later king of Poland - found its way to Wilna. The Holy Icon, venerated next to the Gate of Dawn in the church of the Holy Spirit - first Orthodox, then Uniate, then again Orthodox - was lost in the era of the Bolshevik Revolution. Currently, there is a copy of it in the Holy Spirit church. This Little Boy in Madonna's arms is the Paraclete, Her Spouse and the visible Head of the Church after the abolition of the papacy in Rome. Since the execution of the sentence on the Roman papacy took place at 8 p.m., it was already the eve of March 1 (2013) and the first Friday of the month. On this day in Vernole, Apulia, Italy, there is a fiesta, despite the Lent, in remembrance of miraculously rescued survivors from a ship that sank centuries ago on the Adriatic on the first Friday of March. The Madonna Addolorata rescues today the castaways from the Roman nave of the Catholic church that sunk in the depths of modernism. In Rome, well-informed believers are reminded of Madonna delle Bombe, who saved Herself with the Boy in her arms (next to the Saint Peter's Oratory) during the Italian Airman's bombardment of the Holy Office Square in Rome on March 1, 1944. The square took its name from the Palace of the Holy Office, that is, the contemporary Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Joseph Raztinger was her prefect for many years. Rome lost faith, the congregation did not protect it enough. As a result of the air raid, the window panes fell out, allowing fresh air to enter the palace, but also that the Holy Spirit could breathe again into the whole Church. He will do it now by the Paraclete.
The conclave on March 13, 2013 chose as the visible head of the Church a certain Francis (or 'Little Frenchman'), and the inauguration of his pontificate took place on March 19, 2013, that is, on feast of Saint Joseph, because He is the spouse of the Blessed Virgin! The Church therefore has a visible head, though unrecognized. (Also, it was not immediately noticed that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, because the cult in the temple of Jerusalem was still active.)
This Little Frenchman was elected in the Sistine chapel, built by Sixtus IV. This also agrees, because 'Sixtus IV' means '6' '1' '5', or Saturn, Mercury, Jupiter. This is this Fire that the Lord Jesus wanted to throw on earth! As the Heavenly Father removed the old worship and the temple of Jerusalem making space for the Church of Christ, so too does the Lord Jesus make room for the Paraclete and the Kingdom of God on earth. Because Rome did not disclose the 3rd secret of Fatima and did not convert, so will be exterminated, just as sister Lucy wrote in her testimony on April 1, 1944 at the request of her bishop, but none of the popes took it seriously. The countdown of the critical 69 weeks, during which Rome had a chance to convert, began on the day the 3rd secret was written down and handed over to the bishop - the time elapsed on 1 April 2013! The dogma of faith will no longer be preserved by Rome (= the Roman Catholic church), but in Fatima, that is, in the person of the Mother of the Church - She, the Blessed Virgin is the depository of the Catholic faith.
The papacy in Rome has been dissolved irrevocably - no man on earth has the power to re-establish it. This does not mean, however, that the papacy ceased to exist at all. The papacy means the father's authority: in the Old Testament it was God the Father, in the Holy Church - Jesus Christ [J 14, 9b], in the Kingdom of God - the Paraclete, Father of the Poor.
M. Prodigal said…
Bergoglio is acting as pope because the Cardinals plotted to have him declared so. But I see no evidence of the charism of the papacy in this man. Even so, he wears the white and has power...power to destroy, confuse, and pervert. I must pray for an end to this. Dear Lord, please do grant your sinful people shepherds to help them find their way to holiness and to You.
Unknown said…
ABS must have a copy of Denzinger.

And he reads it.

Good job ABS. Not what we WANT to hear, maybe, but it's the truth.

He's Francis and he's the Pope, and yes, we are stuck with him till his earthly journey is over or he quits.
Anonymous said…
He can't be the Pope because he's a public, notorious, pertinacious and manifest heretic, and so is Benedict, I'm sorry to say, and anyone who is honest with themselves and studies the facts must agree (Assisi for one...) No valid Pope has ever been an actual heretic and this is impossible, despite the "Protestant" lies of the devil. Christ assured us of this. What are the gates of hell according to the actual Church? The mouths of heretics. Heresy places one outside of the Church. A man cannot lead the Church if he is outside of it. Period.

The situation is far more grave than the majority are willing to admit. The entity in Rome posing as the Church is NOT the Catholic Church. It is the Whore of Babylon - the prophesied END TIMES COUNTER-CHURCH. That is why it does not carry Tradition but has broken with it. It is an entirely different religion - THE GREAT DECEPTION. The OPERATION OF ERROR (2 Thess Ch 2). "Let the reader understand..." There is also not one man publicly posing as a Cardinal or Bishop today that is not an heretic. Anyone who through pride stubbornly believes that either of these men is the Pope and adheres to him and the Counter-church of Satan, will NOT save their soul. Attending the "Latin Mass" will not save your soul either, because everything hinges upon there being a valid Pope and bishops and priests possessing valid jurisdiction.

"When I return, will I find Faith on the earth?" The question was asked because the answer would be, hardly... As I read somewhere, "It's the end times, stupid".
Anonymous said…
Neofito:

St Malachi did not indicate whether or not all were TRUE Popes, but only that they would appear to be popes. The Papacy ended upon the death of Pius XII, and John XXIII was elected 10 months to the very day of Sr Lucia's final interview, with Fr. Fuentes on 12/26/57.

Aaron said…
The Pope can decide on the Pope. See Abbe de Nantes "Accusations of Heresy"
Cam said…
Amateur Brain Surgeon: "IF what Ms Barnhart says is true, then Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger is as unworthy of the papacy as if his successor because his novel and heretical attempt to spilt the Papacy is not Catholic."

"Heretical" attempt? Probably. But formally, not just materially, heretical? How could you know?

Amateur Brain Surgeon: "judging whether or not an elected man is Pope is beyond Ms B's competency."

But everybody has to exercise judgment. It's the only way to assert or deny, and therefore to believe, anything. So what are you saying?

And regarding competency: Who, then, is the competent one to judge here?

Amateur Brain Surgeon: "She is not a canon lawyer and those who are - such as Dr Peters - says her claims are absurd."

And I assume you're not a mathematician either, but does that imply you can't do math?

Amateur Brain Surgeon: "Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has, several times, publicly stated he abdicated/resigned. Why pine away for one who abdicated?"

But what did he abdicate? His words say ministry (ministerium), not office (munus), and if not the office, then how could the Chair of St. Peter have ever been vacant for another conclave to be called validly? After all, chairs are not loveseats: they invite one person, not two.

Amateur Brain Surgeon: "Razinger's papacy is over."

Then why does he still want you to call him Holy Father, wear papal white, do papal things like give Apostolic Blessings? If that's how over he thought it would be by resigning, then how is it he ever actually resigned?
Physiocrat said…
The issues raised fall into place once the view is taken that the heresy is Papacy itself. All then becomes clear and comprehensible.
Nandarani said…
I like your way of writing! Your painstaking detail on processes to get to the point you have reached; that kind of thing is very special, for me. I'm not even 1/5 of the way through the article; canon212 highlighting it today introduced me. I guess that is a picture of you, with a slight smile and greenery in the background. Back to the article. [From a convert who loves the original 1958 and before Catholic Church and spends most of the time when not getting exercise either praying or reading old books online that are in the public domain, that carry true Catholicism. In Hawai'i we have no alternative to the Novus Ordo. I am beginning, slightly, to press for it. I left that scene shortly after converting since it is distressing to attend a situation much more protestant and certainly more childish than the Episcopal Church was at the time was raised in it. I will be back to your site.] Good Job!
Anonymous said…
Thanks for the thoughtful post - I always think it's interesting how professional Catholics always want to wait for the experts to weigh it - was it not just Good Shepard Sunday - what did our Lord say "He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out...his sheep follow him because they KNOW his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” I don't see any discussion in this verse about waiting around for experts as if the Catholic Faith is unknowable - it is knowable - not trivial - but knowable by men - I think a whole lot of sheep don't recognize Bergoglio's voice - I don't - God Bless you and all here on this site - thanks again for being brave enough to make this post -
The Bones said…
Physiocrat

The Papacy is not a heresy.

Denying the existence of the Petrine ministry is a heresy.

Fr. VF said…
The usual people pop up to make gratuitous assertions that Barnhardt's arguments are "loony," "loopy," "screwy," or "legal fiction."

What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.

Such comments never deal with any part of Barnhardt's argument.
MaryP said…
No need to be so complicated as this post. If you read UDG, you see that the conclave was invalid.
susan said…
welcome on board the sane train Bones.....we've been saving a seat for you :)

excellent, EXCELLENT essay.
The first quote listed at the top of this section for quotes, posted by "Anonymous." stated: "Mundabor. Glad to see you have cleaned up the language." It would be interesting to know if the "Mundabor" referred to in the quote is the same Mundabor at Mundabor's Blog. The reason for asking is that I had posted, in a very brief way, an argument very similar to what is given in this Blog (not that that matters to me), but it is the fact that my argument was refused posting, i.e. blocked--it never showed up on the Blog. I have a right to the truth here so please be honest, and humble. My post was as follows"

"Now, when Christ established His Church He assured Peter that It would be indefectible and infallible, a Divine Promise. It is also of Divine Law that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone save God. However, what we have is a situation where a so-called Pope is destroying the very purpose of the Church (which concerns Indefectibility, and also "officially" promulgating laws which are contrary to the immutable Faith. This gives rise to a unsolvable contradiction: either the Pope must be judged [which, obviously, logically means he really isn't Pope]; or the Church can be destroyed and effect the damnation of souls. The all-knowing God could NOT ALLOW such a contradiction to exist."

It should also be noted that Miss Barnhardt's argument, if one hasn't realized it, is a bit weak because since she holds that Benedict was forced or did so through fear, or for others that he made a mistake (it doesn't matter which), then he actually knew he was lying (when he repeated several times, including in his Resignation itself, that he was FREE) or that he knew he made a mistake. Why? Because from the very beginning of his retirement--8:00 p.m. of 28 February 2013 Rome time--he wore the Papal attire, demanded that he be called His Holiness Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, lived in Rome as the Pope does, and had the Prefect of the Papal household as his Secretary! The burden is on Miss Barnhardt to prove that Benedict is "cheating."

However, as I have shown in my analysis of the official Latin text of Benedict's Renunciation Announcement he intended and actually resigned from the "exercise" of the Powers of Governing and Teaching, while continuing the "exercise" of the Power of Sanctifying. Since the "exercise" of a Power is distinct from the Power which belongs to an Office, otherwise the holder of that office would have to be constantly "exercising" that
Power, Benedict actually intended and freely preserved the Petrine Office from the hands of one under the control of Satan.

Fr. David R. Belland

P.S. It's curious that that "anonymous" post to which I refer above was not blocked as my first "anonymous" post here was. Something's pretty fishy here.
Praypraypray said…
Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, former rector of the Gregorian University, studied the past millennia of canonical tradition concerning the loss of papal office. Such an extensive study by a canonist of his caliber is quite rare, and hence his findings should carry great weight. This is what he wrote about the topic in an article published in 2013 by Civiltà Cattolica:

Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda: “The vacancy of the Roman See occurs in case of the cessation of the office on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which happens for four reasons: 1) Death, 2) Sure and perpetual insanity or complete mental infirmity; 3) Notorious apostasy, heresy, schism; 4) Resignation. In the first case, the Apostolic See is vacant from the moment of death of the Roman Pontiff; IN THE SECOND AND IN THE THIRD FROM THE MOMENT OF THE DECLARATION ON THE PART OF THE CARDINALS; in the fourth from the moment of the renunciation.”

He went on to explain that the Cardinals do not depose the pope, but only declared the fact of his heresy. It is “from the moment of the declaration on the part of the Cardinals” that the see becomes vacant, NOT BEFORE.

In the case of Francis, there have been no solemn warnings and no declaration from the Cardinals. Hence, he remains pope...
BrotherBeowulf said…
Feast of Fatima (N. Y. Time)

Thank my dear Mr. England. You’re saying what we’re thinking. There is no way Francis the Mercenary can be considered the Good Shepherd by any man of reasonable intelligence and good will who has considered the question.

You lay it out beautifully. Thanks to the nod to the Barnhardt Intervention as well.

She and Bishop Gracida have kicked this off and deserve our thanks and praise.

Finally, your insight about Francis leading people into Hell is chillingly accurate.

So say a prayer for Francis. He may convert to the Good. Even if he converts however Francis still wouldn’t be pope. No doubt he needs prayers as he’s acting as Satan’s minion.

More importantly, say a prayer for Pope Benedict, too.

“Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, alone thou hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world.”

In corde Christi,
BrotherBeowulf
Fr. VF said…
Good essay. For greater impact, condense it to 50% of its current length, then 50% again. Then again.

After two years, Barnhardt convinced me. What did it was the evidence that the Germans had been discussing a multi-occupant papacy for fifty years.
Brazil said…
Public heresy severs one from the Church by default, without declaration. (See St. Robert Bellarmine, Pius XII in "Mystici Corporis", and so on)

The premise of a non-Catholic Pope is oxymoronic, for you cannot be the head of a visible body if you are not also a member.

Sedevacantism might be a diagnosis of the current state of affairs that you might want to look into.
guy said…
I'm more apt to follow Bishop Rene Gracida's theory, as it can be objectively proved, then ms. Barnhardt's, which involves reading Benedict's mind.
kylet said…
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope

More food for thought?
Fr. VF said…
A favorite squelcher of normies, desperate to shut up anyone who has a problem with Bergoglio, has been: "But the Holy Spirit chooses the pope."

That is a superstition. The Catholic Church has NO such teaching--not least because the College of Cardinals was invented a millennium after the closing of the Deposit of Faith.

The Holy Spirit is always asked to guide Catholics making momentous decisions, but there is absolutely NO special promise of guidance of the Conclave--let alone that the Holy Spirit simply seizes control.
Kathleen1031 said…
Fr. VF I would usually perhaps agree but not about this essay.

When a writer is beautifully encapsulating the thoughts and the concerns of so many, the analysis so very like their own but better developed and expressed, there is no need for brevity, each paragraph is like a fresh breeze that enters the room and you want more, not less.
This blog is worthy of your attention. There exist more than a few entries here that refute the wild claims of women like Ms. Barnhardt.


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

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com
Anonymous said…
If the pope is a Protestant, and we follow him, we are all Protestant now. We can know through both our Faith and reason that the election of a Protestant pope cannot possibly be valid. Prior to his election as pope, Jorge Bergoglio stated publically in his book “On Heaven And Earth”, in regards to same-sex sexual unions:

“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”

With this public statement, Jorge Bergoglio denied The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, while denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and the fact that we are Called to be “Temples for The Holy Ghost”, simultaneously, ipso facto separating himself from Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.

“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, for it Is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost”, that Holy Mother Church exists.

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. "

“8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

Code of Canon Law (Latin Church)
Canon 750
1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.[new]
The Bones said…
Father VF

Agreed, but I was taken over by the Spirit of Laudato Si, so it is three times longer than it should be.
Anonymous said…
Thank God you're back, Laurence, beautiful article, I have some relatives living in Rosario, Argentina, who knew very well JMB, as Bishop and after as Cardinal, they used to call him El horror, what he was as simple priest is what he is as pope(?)a heathen, sincretist, peronist southamerican dictator, nothing more nothing less. For me the true and last Pope of RCC is and ever will be Benedict XVI,De gloria olivae, full stop and 'In the end the Lord wins'. Thanks very much, Laurence may God bless you and your family.
Anonymous said…
“And regarding competency: Who, then, is the competent one to judge here?”

Certainly all the previously elected validly elected Popes-
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/05/11/the-dubia-were-answered/ Nancy D.
consolata said…
Hi: I am the first to admit that i am not the brightest bulb: but I have a thought about all of this: one excommunicates oneself by certain acts, like having an abortion, until one goes to confession etc; did not francis excommunicate himself over and over again,by word and by deed, and thus is outside the Church and thus is not even a priest, let alone pope ? And did not this occur even while he was in his native country....? and is this not also true about certain bishopes and cardinals, who so clearly adhere to non-Catholic beliefs...and the pro-homosexual priest, James Martin,has he not also publicly excommunicated himself ? I remain confused....Hope I have not stepped on anyones' toes here. I think that when clergy who do thus by public actions, they must aso publicly clear up the confusion they cause to the Body of Christ, in addition to confession. *sigh*.
The Bones said…
As far as I know, the ontological change brought about by the Sacrament of Ordination cannot be lost. You are a priest forever. I think the same is true of Episcopal Ordination. Papacy is an Office, not a Sacrament, therefore, presumably that can be lost.
The Bones said…
*Episcopal Consecration, sorry.
Islam_Is_Islam said…
BiP, BiP, BiP, BiP......... BiP! Welcome aboard, Bones! Freed from cognitive dissonance and the schizophrenic torture of explaining the unexplainable: Benedict said ministerium NOT munus. Whatever he intended, his words were not in accord with the law. Period the end.

Thank you for There She Goes--absolutely marvelous triumphal expression of Our Lady, Virgin Most Powerful. He truly makes all things new.
Islam_Is_Islam said…
Bones, are you aware of Br Bugnolo's manuscript which can be found here:https://www.ppbxvi.org/quaestio-English.pdf ?
Islam_Is_Islam said…
@ABS: Even Our Lord and Savior submitted himself to the Law: He was circumcised AND allowed Himself to be presented in the Temple, again according to the law. To posit the impossible--a Pope is above the law when the Divine Law Maker Himself submitted to the Law--incomprehensible. Just plain silly.
peter maurin said…
Wow just wow. I am thinking this has to be satire along the lines of the borowitz report because nobody could be coming up with such strange and far-fetched ideas of this essay encompasses. Wow
Physiocrat said…
The heresy is to equate the Papacy with the the words of Our Lord spoken in Matthew 16:18. Once this is seen, the current problems can be seen as a product of the heresy.
F M Shyanguya said…
Cf. 1) Catholic Encyclopedia > C > The Church > Indefectibility of the Church - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

and

BALTIMORE CATECHISM #3 > LESSON 12 - ON THE ATTRIBUTES AND MARKS OF THE CHURCH > Q. 543. What do you mean by the indefectibility of the Church? - http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm
The Bones said…
Physiocrat

The perennial understanding of the promise is that the Peter and his Successors will not be seduced by the wiles of Satan and lead the Church to separate from Her Lord.

The Bones said…
"...If the primacy of St. Peter is so unimportant a fact -- if it gave him no prerogatives, no duties, no successors -- why on earth is it so extraordinarily prominent in Holy Writ?"

"I know no more emphatic testimony to the supreme jurisdiction of St. Peter in any writer, ancient or modern, than the view taken in this homily [of St. John Chrysostom] of the election of St. Matthias, for I know of no act of jurisdiction in the Church more tremendous than the appointment of an apostle."

St John Chrysostom
Michael Dowd said…
I think Ann Barnhardt is correct or very close to being so. Pope Francis is clearly a heretic and may be the anti-Pope. Benedict XVI may still be the rightful Pope as evidence suggests that, besides being a heretict, Pope Francis is a usurper. But one thing should be clear to everyone. And this is, the status of Pope (?) Francis is UNCERTAIN.
"The perennial understanding of the promise is that the Peter and his Successors will not be seduced by the wiles of Satan and lead the Church to separate from Her Lord."

Actually, that is not correct. In the early church, most interpretations of Mt 16:18 referred the promise of Peter's being the Rock not to the person or office of Peter, but to either Peter's profession of faith in the Lord, or to the content of that profession i.e., the Lord Himself. This can be easily verified with a bit of research.

The easiest way to interpret Pope Francis's papacy is as Physiocrat suggests: It invalidates traditional Catholic dogmas concerning the papacy.

Eastern Orthodoxy provides a much better way out of this particular impasse concerning the papacy than any of the solutions improvised by Catholics that try to retain Catholic dogma. It is thus a better option - i.e., truer - than anything that may be found within the ambit of Catholicism.

But Eastern Orthodoxy has some problems of its own bound up with Christology, so ultimately the Assyrian Church of the East (aka the "Nestorian" Church) turns out to be the True Church of Christ.
Physiocrat said…
The Papacy has changed a great deal since the time of St John Chrysostom. It evolved into a monarch between the time of Charlemagne. That is far removed from the early concept of Primus inter pares. To that can be traced the present problems. Both Orthodox and Catholic Churches suffer from the situation in different ways. We need a Papacy that reverts to the third century model.
The Bones said…
I don't actually have a problem with a monarchical papacy. This reflects the Kingship of Christ. Bishops are also Princes of the Church. What I have a problem with is men who, having attained either the papacy or a bishopric, preach themselves instead of Jesus Christ.

F M Shyanguya said…
Cf. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma p. 317-318 Ch 4. The Properties or Essential Attributes of the Church §12. The Indefectibility of the Church

"The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains, and will remain the Institution of salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. [Sent. certa.]

***

Until the coming of Our LORD, the Church will never be destroyed, whether or not some popes are heretical, apostates [Pope John XII], or whether or not the papacy has been usurped, as it appears in our time.
Neofito said…
@Michael Dowd:

"state of the pope UNCERTAIN" ????

REALLY ???

The Lord gives us the RULE TO KNOW WITH CERTITUDE:

BY THE FRUITS, YOU WILL K-N-O-W

So... you HAVE the fruits.... and you STILL does NOT KNOW ??'

really ???
Physiocrat said…
The church has the problem with the monarchical papacy. It has been the main thrust of this blog for the past six years, but it it not the first time it has had the problem. It does not reflect the Kingship of Christ, but usurps it. The monarchical papacy brought us the disaster of the Reformation.

The monarch needs to abdicate, repent and take his place as Primus inter pares among his brother bishops. That is the true Petrine ministry.
Most of the objections to the mephitic truth that Bergoglio is Pope are responded to here

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com

Now, of course, the Bishopric could find hmi guilty of the crime of heresy and declare him removed form office but stop for just a moment;

Take a look at your Bishop...

Take another look and consider what he has done in your Diocese since he ascended to the office...

Now, what makes you think he will endanger his position by actualising hs duties to Teach, Rule, and Sanctify?

ABS knew he was abandoned by his Bishop back in the 1970s but ABS wil not desert the Cathcioli Church established by Jesus nor wil ABS declare that Francis is not the Pope anymore than ABS will claim that Stacy Abramas really is the elected governor of Georgia or that Hilary Clinton is really POTUS.

Once men start to follow the personal opinion of a female convert (Ms. Barnhardt is a convert, right?) that is a certain sign that the Catholic Church is even worse off than it seems to be.

The worst is yet to come..where ill you run oft to then?

St Vincent of Lerins, "Commonitory" has the answers to the current crisis and it has aught to do with lay women making dogmatic pronouncements.

St Vincent explains why it is that God permits these situations to exist - He is testing us to see if we love Him - and St Vincent teaches us how to survive the test - cling to Tradition.

Now, when in the entire history of Catholic Tradition has it ever been proper, sensible. reasonable etc for a lay woman to declare a Pope an Anti-Pope?

Never. Following the personal opinion of a female convert is as novel as anything that Bergoglio is promoting.

Man-up, men. Bergoglio can not force you to deny the Faith once delivered and Go will deal with Bergoglio in His own time and in His own way.

Wait on The Lord, be patient, and, most of all, have fun.

Seriously, the best response to this socialist scold is laughter.

Michael Dowd said…
Thanks for your support Neofito---

Yes, UNCERTAIN. The status of Pope (?) Francis is uncertain because he is a heretic and a usurper. And you are correct. It is by their fruits you shall know them. Pope (?) Francis produces rotten fruit as you have noted.

We all must pray for Francis official removal, the eradication of homosexuality and the second coming of Christ.

Have a good day and blessings to you.
Physiocrat does not understand the Old and New Testament vis a vis the Keys and the Papacy

https://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/keys.html

https://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/keys2.html

and he is completely out of touch with true Orthodoxy which witnessed to the precise opposite of Primus inter pares.

https://ebougis.wordpress.com/my-eastern-papist-florilegium/
Ms. Barnhardt is not well and yet one reads more and more men choosing to flee sanity and run oft with her.

Maybe some minds will be changed when they read what Gary North had to say about some of her financial advice several years ago.

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






kathleen said…
Reply to "Cam":

Barnhard's legal fiction is something she lifted from real estate law, which theorizes that the sale of a property can be undone if the deed was not transferred properly from seller to buyer (for example, if the seller never owned the property but fooled the buyer and bank into thinking he owned it), and that therefore the sale, and every change resulting from said sale, can be undone. She further maintains that this means any changes to the property would be undone and everything would magically rewind to the date where the true property owner lost his control of the property. But obviously no one is going to bulldoze the addition to a house that a buyer put on the house in good faith, even though technically he had no rights to the house. That's why the legal concept is theoretical but not based in fact. She then extrapolates this theoretical concept from *real estate law* to canon law by saying the same sort of rewind should apply to the papacy. Which is ... ridiculous.

Let's face it, using local real estate law to decide who is Pope is pretty dumb. That's why it's a good idea to cite legal professionals, and not internet hobbyists, for legal principles.
kathleen said…
further reply to "cam":

you say that I "misread Laurence (Barnhardt too). He might not be agreeing with Barnhardt's analysis absolutey at this point, but he does hold that her position might be correct."

I'm afraid you, Cam, are the one misreading. I merely said Laurence shouldn't "cite" Barnhardt to back up his argument. That falls well short of stating that Laurence is "agreeing with Barnhardt's analysis absolutely". I have no idea why you are correcting me for saying something I clearly did not say.
Cam said…
Amateur Brain Surgeon: "Ms. Barnhardt is not well and yet one reads more and more men choosing to flee sanity and run oft with her."

Why not just engage the veracity of her premises and the coherence of her reasoning? Pychological analyses are not refutations.

Amateur Brain Surgeon: "Maybe some minds will be changed when they read what Gary North had to say about some of her financial advice several years ago."

Why is that even relevant? Does it show that Barnhardt's analysis of Benedict's abdication is in error? Do her true premises suddenly become false now, and her logical conclusions illogical? Of course not. So what are you trying to do? (It doesn't look very honest.)
Michael Dowd said…
ABS: We should all thank Ann Barnhardt for her revelations. She was one of the few that "got" Bergoglio early on. She and Mundabor. We owe them our gratitude for the insight and fortitude. The are modern day saints. Bergoglio is now seen as a heretic and usurper by most Traditional Catholics.
Dear Cam. An entire blog has repeatedly addressed her arguments (and those of others) and it makes no difference to her cadre of cultists who think she is a Neo-Catherine (Does she also think she is akin to Saint Catherine of Sienna?)

What she was advising her followers in her putative area of expertise was illegal and insane and so why do you think she is correct in her new amateur hobby in which she has no expertise or training?

ABD is just surprised that a female protestant convert has such sway over Catholic men when what she is doing has never been held as acceptable in Catholic Tradition- protestant tradition is another thing.

It seems she has not purified intellect of her protestant propensities - private judgment - and so she quite content acting contrary to Tradition and trying to tell everyone else who is and isn't Pope.

The idea she has the competence - to say nothing about the authority - to male these rash clams is an example of what her followers would label diabolical delusion in her/their opponents.

It is quite clear that her cult has not read the orthodox information from Tradition posted at

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com
As for the frequent observation that Pope Francis is not Pope because of the "By their fruits.." teaching one has to be a bit cautious in applying that to any given situation because

When the far worse situation of public pederasty by priests prevailed in the late 10th and early 11th centuries - so bad it required public admonishing by Saint Damien in his book Gomorrah - was that attributable to The Fourth Council of Constantinople?
KathleenTheThird said…
Lawrence, thanks for sticking your neck out on this one.

For what my opinion is worth (not much!) I firmly believe that we, the laity, must incessantly exert all possible pressure upon the bishops and cardinals to man up and investigate the countless charges at this point that could well invalidate the Francis papacy.

Every single time the demonic revolutionaries got started it was the laity pushing that caused some men among the priests and bishops to stand up.

They won't stand up if we don't push.

So this sort of thing is critical.

Then as an aside from a Catholic woman's perspective.

Catholic Men using Ms. in referencing a Catholic woman says WAY more about the speaker than the woman on the receiving end.

Either the person is so thoroughly boiled by feminist poison themselves that they blithely use the wretched feminist term or they are using it to be snide about a Catholic woman who has made clear her lack of sympathy for feminism.

Ann Barnhardt is properly referred to as Miss -- as any Catholic gentleman should know -- perhaps even MOST especially if he disagrees with her.

And that an article where North is DEFENDING OBAMA from Miss Barnhardt is being used to smear Miss Barnhardt -- conveniently without any actual quotes -- also says a lot.

(I'm a third Kathleen that has been using my name in comments for about 15 years -- I'm not either of the other two Kathleens -- all blame for the above is mine!)
kathleen said…
When someone formulates elaborate argument based on wish-fulfillment like Barnhard does, and then proceeds to lay the argument down as a line in the sand between those who get it and those who don't -- like some sort of God Emperor -- and persists in doing so for months/years on end, simultaneously completely ignoring a millennia-old tradition called "canon law" ... well, I'm afraid it's reasonable to conclude not all is well in the mental realm.
John F. Kennedy said…
ABS; "Once men start to follow the personal opinion of a female convert (Ms. Barnhardt is a convert, right?)..."

So was St. Paul and countless other saints. Do you also discount THEM for being converts? I'm surprised by you.
Cam said…
kathleen: "I have no idea why you [Cam] are correcting me for saying something I clearly did not say."

The words I quoted were, "Whereas you [Laurence] simply seem to suspect (as I do) that Francis is an imposter and not even Catholic. That position t is completely different from Barnhardt's 'hey presto! It's Benedict' escape hatch."

So you think Laurence is suspecting, like you, a position that's "completely different" from Barnhardt's? That's what I'm challenging, because in the quote I give of Laurence, it's clear he's actually proposing that Barnhardt's possibly right: "it is worthwhile revisting at the very least the possibility that . . . Pope Benedict XVI did not abdicate the Throne of the glorious Peter in a satisfactory manner, nor was his resignation accepted in Heaven."
Cam said…
kathleen: "Let's face it, using local real estate law to decide who is Pope is pretty dumb."

She uses real estate law analogically to clarify the point she's making about canon law and its application to Benedict's putative abdication. Yet analogies, by way of parallel cases, are used all the time in law. They're not dumb. In fact, they're sometimes the only smart option, as when clarity in one case is lacking yet not in another, and when attempting to illustrating the precedence for, and logical consistency of, one's arguments.
And that an article where North is DEFENDING OBAMA from Miss Barnhardt is being used to smear Miss Barnhardt -- conveniently without any actual quotes -- also says a lot.

Ms. Barnhardt is quoted in the piece by Mr. North and Mr. North provides a link to Ms Barnhardt's advice
Yes, the fact that Ms. Barnhardt is both a convert from protestantism and uses private judgement is consequential .

Other saints who were converts did not practice private judgement and we know that because, well, they were Canonised.

ABS knows quite well that Ms. Barnhardt is considered saintly by many who accept her as some sort of authority but when a female convert leads Catholic men by the nose into serious error that is not a sign of mental or spiritual health on the part of those men but a faithless generation hungers to have their impatient and ignorant itches scratched

True or false Pope has MANY sources from Catholic Doctors and Catholic Tradition which completely eviscerate the insane claims of this Cassandra but few of her defenders and promoters seem anxious or uneasy about remaining in ignorance.

Barnhardt Podcast Ann Barnhardt - Apple
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/barnhardt-podcast/id1230686527
Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta. ... comments, and suggestions to podcast@barnhardt.biz The Barnhardt Podcast is produced by SuperNerd Media; .... Ms Barnhardt is helpful in sorting truth from deception.


Women who worry about the use of "Ms" but are not at all concerned about her calling a Pope an AntiPope are the perfect foil for her pronouncements

OK, This has been fun. Thank you Bones for there space and time and as far as Ms Bullets Barnhardt is concerned, ABS has pointed to the Blog that her followers must ignore if they are to be her fangirls and fanboys
kathleen said…
Barnhardt is not using the legal theory as an analogy. She is resting the validity of her entire argument upon the absolute universal application of a illustrative principle in real estate law, a move even small-time real estate lawyers wouldn't try in a simple fraud case. You don't understand what the word "analogy" means. (And by the way there are no conceivable "parallel cases" between the sale of a house and deciding who is a real Pope.)
kathleen said…
And OBVIOUSLY my position is completely different than Barnhardt's. I believe that Francis is probably an imposter and not Catholic. My position has nothing at all to do with Benedict's resignation/its putative invalidity. Elementary my dear Watson. Although Barnhardt trying to take credit for the fact I (or anyone) suspect Francis isn't Catholic would certainly be true to form on her part, since she is a glory hound.
Cam said…
ABS: “An entire blog has repeatedly addressed her arguments”

The site has many problems. For example:

A. Folbrecht argues that Benedict’s ‘emeritus’ distinction is merely honorary.

But then why is Benedict still giving Apostolic blessings? That implies that, even in Benedict’s mind, he’s retained the dignity of the papal office, no?

B. Siscoe and Salza (S&S) use the case of a defective intention in confecting a sacrament to resolve the problem of a possibly defective intention in Benedict’s abdication.

I thought their idea was interesting, but they never seem to address why we should dismiss the significant differences between the sacraments and ecclesiastical offices that, arguably, invalidate their analogy.

In fact, mention of the sacraments strikes me as actually undercutting S&S’s case, as even the sacraments require for validity both form and matter. If absolution is given by words other than those prescribed, for example, then the absolution isn’t valid. Catholics like Barnhardt reason similarly: if a papal resignation is made with words that don’t signify the office, then no real resignation was made. This interpretation is supported by the fact that even canon law holds that these resignations must be “properly manifested,” for that makes the manner, and therefore the words, of resignation relevant to whether it’s valid (intention isn't enough).

C. S&S: “it would seem that Benedict’s general intention to resign would suffice … even if the intention was partially deficient due to a doctrinal error concerning the effect.”

But canon 188 holds that a “resignation made out of … substantial error … is invalid by the law itself."

D. S&S: “we should also note that Benedict himself has never claim that he only intended to renounce a portion of the office. The speculation is based on the testimony of others and the wording used in his resignation.”

But his wording makes it not merely ‘speculative’ that he “intended to renounce a portion of the office”; it makes it very probable (we are dealing with a skilled theologian after all). Consequently, we should all be seriously doubtful that Benedict ever intended, fully and entirely, to abdicate the papacy.

E. S&S: “Benedict himself has stated that there isn’t the slightest doubt about the validity of his resignation.”

But can’t popes be in error, even about the validity of their resignations? Why else would there be canon 188, which notes the possibility of “substantial error” in the resignation of ecclesiastical offices?

F. S&S: “even if such a defect [in Benedict’s intention to resign] were certain, it would in no way prove that God did not sever the bond uniting him to the papal office.”

It might not “prove that God did not sever the bond uniting him to the papal office.” But if the defect is serious, then at least it makes it morally certain that God did not do this. In practice, then, we’d still have to go about treating Benedict as though he were the only pope anyway.

G. S&S: “we do not have positive, probable doubt to reject the validity of the resignation based on a defect of intention. All such doubts ... do not justify one rejecting the public judgment of the Church.”

By "Church," do they mean the cardinals? Canon law establishes that the validity of a papal resignation isn’t determined by the cardinals. And no "probable doubt"? Benedict's words alone are alarming; then there is his strange behavior of still presenting himself as our Holy Father—e.g., in his choice of title, in his choice of dress, in how he acts with papal authority (still giving Apostolic Blessings), and even in his choice of residence (Vatican). If there’s any truth to S&S’s claim that there's no "probable doubt to reject the validity of the resignation based on a defect of intention," it's because the doubt isn't just probable; it's very probable.
Cam said…
ABS: “Does she also think she is akin to Saint Catherine of Sienna?”

Why does it matter?

ABS: “What she was advising her followers in her putative area of expertise was illegal and insane and so why do you think she is correct in her new amateur hobby in which she has no expertise or training?”

I think she’s correct because her argument’s premises seem true and her conclusion seems to follow. Why should anything beyond her premises and conclusion matter?

ABS: “ABD is just surprised that a female protestant convert has such sway over Catholic men when what she is doing has never been held as acceptable in Catholic Tradition- protestant tradition is another thing.”

Even if true, it’s irrelevant.

ABS: “It seems she has not purified intellect of her protestant propensities - private judgment - and so she quite content acting contrary to Tradition and trying to tell everyone else who is and isn't Pope.”

Again, even if true, it’s irrelevant.

ABS: “The idea she has the competence - to say nothing about the authority - to male these rash clams is an example of what her followers would label diabolical delusion in her/their opponents. It is quite clear that her cult has not read the orthodox information from Tradition posted at http://www.trueorfalsepope.com.”

So you think Barnhardt doesn't have the authority to make her claims, but Salza does? Why? How could he have the right to pronounce on Benedict's abdication but not Barnhardt? Their authority in the Church looks the same to me. And what claims? That Benedict resigned ministerio, not munus? That Benedict believes he's retained the papal office? Aren't these just facts? Do facts require special authority to be recognized?
ABS has memories of Ms. Barhnardt when he used to comment on Free Republic when she was the new special being served at the provocative polemical diner and ABS did watch part of one of the many vids posted there.

Now some may call the person a lady but to ABS she became, Bullets, as she is the antithesis of a lady - she is bombastic, strident, and very masculine in her thought, orientation, and presentation.

There is no doubt that she is intelligent but intelligence is no barrier to error. She does not know the difference between licit and licit.

The following quote is taken from her own blog and it was written by her own self about her own self:

After years of reading and research, trying earnestly to disprove or discredit it, and despite the fact that the Kennedy family is Roman Catholic, I was received into the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on April 7, ARSH 2007. As this was before Summorum Pontificum, I was unaware of the Latin Mass parish in Denver, and thus entered the Church in a Novus Ordo parish, through the “RCIA” program. Novus Ordo Masses, while illicit, are indeed (mostly) valid and Our Lord is physically present therein. I know this for a metaphysical certitude. I am NOT a sedevacantist. It is precisely because the Novus Ordo Masses are valid that the sacrilege built into the Rite by Bugnini and the other infiltrators matters, and why the Novus Ordo Rite MUST be exterminated as quickly as possible. There will be no civilizational recovery so long as the Novus Ordo remains.

And this is the person some Catholic men trust, swoon over, and defend her in her personal judgment that Francis is an AntiPope.

Mick Jagger was wrong, you can get what you want....
A sedevacantist on the errors of Ms. Barnhardt in her claim of substantial error.

https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/benedict16-mysterious-resignation-reply-barnhardt/

A Catholic on the errors of Ms Barnhardt in her claim of substantial error

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

Ms. Barnhardt is wrong on the Novus Ordo being illicit and she is wrong on substantial error and that will make no difference to her fervent fans because they think she is a saint and saints make mistakes, right?
Ms. Barnhardt incorrectly, unfairly, unjustly, and insanely attributed to Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger ideas that are NOT his but are the ideas of others

https://romalocutaest.com/2019/01/15/benedict-is-still-not-pope-and-other-errors/

but Ms Barhardt is the Alpha Catholic dog for far too many Catholic men who rely on her for the truth.

Men, it takes about five minutes to find this stuff out on your own. Wake-up and stop act like silly fanboys.

Don't just accept these crazy claims without doing some work on your own.

Her errors and novelties are noxious and destructive and it is clear that she is a servant of Satan
Here is a link to a Trad Catholic Priest, FSSP, who refutes Ms. Barnhardt and identifies her logical and factual errors

https://wmbriggs.com/post/21193/

This is yet again more proof she is wrong that will not even be a speed bump for their racing to the wrong conclusion so as to be admitted to her camp of the saints
John Haggerty said…
Perhaps a thoughtful nun will read Francis the fables of Aesop as his Book at Bedtime.
Francis may even find himself reflecting on Aesop's story of the old man and the donkey.
The old fellow tries to please everyone.
And ends up pleasing no one.
Not even the donkey if memory serves.

In the meantime here's a warning from Michael Matt.

'With a few outstanding exceptions, it is undeniable that the Vatican today is crawling with politicians, rank modernists and even significant representatives of the so-called lavender Mafia - powerful forces that have infiltrated our church, and that are using the bride of Christ like a cheap whore to satisfy their own perverse agenda.'





John Haggerty said…
My thanks to Amateur Brain Surgeon for recommending the link to a Trad Catholic Priest, FSSP.

See, Countering the Claim That Francis is An Antipope - Guest Post by Fr. John Rickert, FSSP March 6 2017.

Fr. Rickert's argument in favour of Francis as legitimate pontiff rests on Canon Law.

However there is at least one informed comment which challenges Father Rickert's understanding of Canon Law.
Read the comment of Aurelius Moner as well as those of Michael Dowd, Antigon, Ana Milan and Colin.

These comments raise the question as to whether (and exactly how) Pope Benedict shares the Petrine office with Francis.

Surely Pope Benedict needs to produce another written statement?
Only Benedict is qualified to address this unprecedented issue.
Every day the crisis under Francis gets worse.
The sheep are without a shepherd.
The enemies of Catholicism and of the Christian world view are exulting in the confusion.

A future post, Laurence?
Michael Dowd said…
'With a few outstanding exceptions, it is undeniable that the Vatican today is crawling with politicians, rank modernists and even significant representatives of the so-called lavender Mafia - powerful forces that have infiltrated our church, and that are using the bride of Christ like a cheap whore to satisfy their own perverse agenda.'

And even worse. There are 5000 or so Bishops in the world nearly all of which are going along to get along and keep their jobs, if not the faith. Who could have imagined such a thing? How about anyone familiar with the Catholic Church of English following Henry VIII's separation from Rome.
Ihttps://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/01/13/thermonuclear-substantial-error-in-1978-joseph-ratzinger-posited-that-a-monarchical-papacy-was-intrinsically-arian-in-nature-and-the-papacy-should-reflect-the-trinity-a-p/

This absurd accusation was posted on January 13 of this year and Ms Barbhardt ended the accusation by writing that more was to be said about the matter.

Well, we are now well into May - more than four months since her explosive (false) charges - and what? Crickets...

Has she since chosen to just clam-up about this or does she have the humility to publicly apologise for what appears to be bearing false witness?

Have any of her faithful followers asked her about this matter or asked her to provide the follow-up she told her readers to expect?

It doesn't appear so. Her followers just flood the comboxes everywhere telling all and sundry that she is a saint and that has proved that Francis isn't Pope.

Her followers do not appear to be interested in her insane advice - stiff the IRS, don't pay taxes - or her false accusations about Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger and his putative beliefs that are really the ideas of others.

Ms. Barnhardt is a servant of Satan , sowing division and hatred.
After years of reading and research, trying earnestly to disprove or discredit it, and despite the fact that the Kennedy family is Roman Catholic, I was received into the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on April 7, ARSH 2007. As this was before Summorum Pontificum, I was unaware of the Latin Mass parish in Denver, and thus entered the Church in a Novus Ordo parish, through the “RCIA” program. Novus Ordo Masses, while illicit, are indeed (mostly) valid and Our Lord is physically present therein. I know this for a metaphysical certitude. I am NOT a sedevacantist. It is precisely because the Novus Ordo Masses are valid that the sacrilege built into the Rite by Bugnini and the other infiltrators matters, and why the Novus Ordo Rite MUST be exterminated as quickly as possible. There will be no civilizational recovery so long as the Novus Ordo remains.

The Pauline Rite/New Mass/ Normative Mass/Novus Ordo is NOT Illicit.

That claim is right out of sedevacantism...

Yet her faithful followers are cool with that claim.

One wonders if they have the humility to admit they have chosen the path to perdition by choosing to follow this person
These comments raise the question as to whether (and exactly how) Pope Benedict shares the Petrine office with Francis

He doesn't share the office and he never claimed he did and it is his words and actions that are of consequence, not heresy.

The good Father's post anticipated your response:


...Still, my experience is that people who would demand responses to each point will not be very receptive to what I have to say anyway.

... The only thing certain is that he will not be satisfied unless you agree with him completely.

There exists a ton of material showing how it is Ms. Barnhardt was wildly wrong in her private judgement and unjust in accusing Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger as having the same ideas of those he was writing about when even what Ms.
Barnhardt quotes as condemnation of his actions includes not even one word of Ratzinger agreeing with the speculations of the men he was writing about.

ABS expects the fair-minded Bones is reviewing all of this material and will extricate his own self from the mephitic quicksand that is sedevacanstist Barnhartism.
Cam said…
ABS: “Yes, the fact that Ms. Barnhardt is both a convert from protestantism and uses private judgement is consequential . Other saints who were converts did not practice private judgement and we know that because, well, they were Canonised.”

What about St. Vincent Ferrer, who denied the validity of Urban VI’s papacy? Was he exercising a private judgment?

ABS: “ABS knows quite well that Ms. Barnhardt is considered saintly by many who accept her as some sort of authority but when a female convert leads Catholic men by the nose into serious error that is not a sign of mental or spiritual health on the part of those men but a faithless generation hungers to have their impatient and ignorant itches scratched.”

At least in my case, it’s her argument that’s won me over, not the woman herself (and I think she encourages the same). Whether she’s a great person or an awful one, I don’t understand how Pope Benedict could think he’s retained the papacy in some real sense yet validly abdicated—how do you validly abdicate an office when you think you’re still hanging on to it?
Physiocrat said…
The anger and division expressed in the comments is a microcosm of the Catholic Church today. This division did not start with Francis, or even with the Second Vatican Council; it was around even before the First Vatican Council and was one of the reasons why Papal Infallibility was declared a dogma. Newman, before conversion, was warned that the Catholic Church was no safe haven.

With the election of Francis, the focus of the anger and division has shifted to the person of the Pope himself, but the Sedevacantists were doing that several Popes back, and it was one of the causes of the Reformation. It is evident that the Petrine ministry, as presently conceived, far from being a cause of unity, is precisely the opposite. Anger and division are an indication that the Devil is at work.
Cam said…
Kathleen: “Barnhardt is not using the legal theory as an analogy. She is resting the validity of her entire argument upon the absolute universal application of a illustrative principle in real estate law . . . “

My contention is that it’s her use of real estate cases, not the legal principle at issue, that is used analogically. Before mentioning real estate transactions, for example, she says, “Think about it this way.” That’s the sort of language that prefaces an analogy.

Kathleen: “And by the way there are no conceivable ‘parallel cases’ between the sale of a house and deciding who is a real Pope.”

To say the issue of papal identity is just like selling a house would, of course, be nonsense. (So I hope no one thinks Barnhardt is saying that.) But if the issue of papal identity concerns the law, as it does, then it only makes sense to call to mind the relevant principles of jurisprudence. And that’s what Barnhardt does: she applies the most relevant principle of jurisprudence to Benedict’s resignation because the resignation is a legal matter. (Her mention of real estate transactions only serves to exemplify the principle.)

Kathleen: “And OBVIOUSLY my position is completely different than Barnhardt's. I believe that Francis is probably an imposter and not Catholic. My position has nothing at all to do with Benedict's resignation/its putative invalidity. Elementary my dear Watson. Although Barnhardt trying to take credit for the fact I (or anyone) suspect Francis isn't Catholic would certainly be true to form on her part, since she is a glory hound.”

If you’re referring to my reply, then I think I’m being misread again. I was challenging your idea that Laurence was distancing himself from Barnhardt. (I wasn’t disputing your own distance from her.)
Cam said…
ABS: “ABS has memories of Ms. Barhnardt when he used to comment on Free Republic when she was the new special being served at the provocative polemical diner and ABS did watch part of one of the many vids posted there. Now some may call the person a lady but to ABS she became, Bullets, as she is the antithesis of a lady - she is bombastic, strident, and very masculine in her thought, orientation, and presentation.”

Just more ad hominem. (Laurence’s whole post above is about getting to the truth of a matter, not the soul or a mind of a person.)

ABS: “She does not know the difference between licit and licit [illicit?]. The following quote is taken from her own blog and it was written by her own self about her own self . . . . ‘Novus Ordo Masses, while illicit, are indeed (mostly) valid . . .”

You might disagree with her over calling NO Masses illicit, but how does that prove she doesn’t understand the word (‘illicit’)? It seems to me she just disagrees with you over the general legal status of the NO Mass.

ABS: “And this is the person some Catholic men trust, swoon over, and defend her in her personal judgment that Francis is an AntiPope.”

It’s her “personal judgment” that Francis is an antipope, but it’s not your “personal judgment” that he’s not? Why? And why is it wrong to have a personal judgment about who the pope is? Hypothetically, if one day the cardinals elected Ganswein’s poodle to be pope, would you call our pope the poodle (just because the cardinals told you so)?

ABS: “Ms. Barnhardt is wrong on the Novus Ordo being illicit and she is wrong on substantial error and that will make no difference to her fervent fans because they think she is a saint and saints make mistakes, right?”

You see no evidence at all of substantial error in Benedict’s words or deeds? None?
Cam said…
ABS: “Here is a link to a Trad Catholic Priest, FSSP, who refutes Ms. Barnhardt and identifies her logical and factual errors https://wmbriggs.com/post/21193/ This is yet again more proof she is wrong that will not even be a speed bump for their racing to the wrong conclusion so as to be admitted to her camp of the saints.”

“More proof she is wrong”? To some extent, I think that’s true, but it’s unimportant, and on other points, Rickert’s arguments are quite weak.

For example, Rickert criticizes Barnhardt for saying “the logical conclusions drawn from the false base premise will be themselves false.” On this account, he charges her with the fallacy of denying the antecedent. I think that’s one possible (formal) way of stating the problem. Another, simpler criticism would be to just say it’s false (a material criticism). For one can in fact derive a true conclusion from a false premise. For example:

P1. Fruit is sweet.
P2. Ice cream is fruit. [False]
C1. Ice cream is sweet. [True]

This is a valid argument with a true conclusion despite a false premise. But so what? How does this do any serious harm to Barnhardt’s main argument? Besides, it’s not as though she’s horribly off the mark: although false premises don’t guarantee that all conclusions will be false, they do guarantee at least some false conclusions. For example:

P2. Ice cream is fruit. [False]
P3. Fruit is a whole food.
C2: Ice cream is a whole food. [False]

This shows that, by virtue of using a false premise like P2, you are guaranteed a false conclusion—i.e., sooner or later. (Perhaps Barnhardt should just revise her words?)

Also, even if Rickert is right about the above quote, what seems to be Barnhardt’s broader point still holds: if we screw up the issue of Benedict’s abdication, then bigger problems are bound to follow. How can anyone disagree with this? It’s based on wisdom that’s been recognized for centuries, at least as far back as Aristotle on up to Aquinas and after: “the least initial deviation from the truth is muliplied later a thousandfold.” Ideas have consequences, no?

Rickert further contends that, if Barnhardt holds Benedict’s abdication to be invalid, then she’s committed to calling him a liar. That’s false. If it’s invalid owing to intellectual error, then because this doesn’t imply that his words opposed his mind, the invalidity wouldn’t imply he’s lying. It’s the same conclusion if the invalidity was due to duress, as victims of duress are able to rationalize that they aren’t under duress (think of abused women). Assuming Benedict did precisely that, then he could very well have stated he was freely resigning when, in fact, he was not, and all without any subjectively perceived discrepancy between his own statement and mind, thereby ruling out lying.
Cam said…
ABS: "sedevacanstist Barnhartism"

How do you figure sedevacantist? She holds that the Chair of Peter still belongs to Pope Benedict XVI.

ABS: "He doesn't share the office"

Then by what authority is he still giving Apostolic Blessings? By what authority does he still merit the title 'Holy Father'? There has to be something that justifies these things. What is it if not office?

The anger and division expressed in the comments is a microcosm of the Catholic Church today. This division did not start with Francis, or even with the Second Vatican Council; it was around even before the First Vatican Council..

It goes all the way back to the similar reactions to Jesus Christ.

Let us all know when you have concluded how Christ ought to have acted to prevent anger and division.
Dear Cam. Consider quitting the sedevacantist blogs because you are being swayed by their false propaganda


http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/st-vincent-ferrer-sedevacantist.html
Dear Cam. Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has repeatedly said he freely resigned and the claims he intended to create a diarchy do not come from his mouth, is mere heresay, and such claims has since been walked back by those who made them.

Her position is clearly sedevacantist despite her claims to the contrary. The Pope abdicated and he is no longer Pope and she calls Francis an AntiPope - two wrongs make an extreme right-winger?

Ms. Barnhardt, a very masculine acting and hatefully angry (and let's not forget insane) person holds ideas contrary to the Catholic Faith - Mass Bombing attacks against her enemies - including women and children - and denunciations of those who oppose Usury - she calls them antisemites -

http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2016/07/have-ann-barnhardt-and-eric-gajewski.html

Well, so much for Vix Pervenit

https://www.thinkinghousewife.com/2016/06/yuck-sedevacantism/

ABS can not understand why any man, say nothin about a woman, would chose to accept the declarations of this highly unstable and hateful person.

We have to pray for her not obey her.



kathleen said…
Cam is trying so very hard.
Dear Cam.

Is the Pope bound by Canon Law ?

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/02/18/to-argue-that-the-pope-is-not-bound-by-canon-law-in-any-way-reminds-me-of-something-oh-yeah-islam-it-reminds-me-of-islam/

Ms Barnhardt says, yes. She is wrong.

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/01/13/thermonuclear-substantial-error-in-1978-joseph-ratzinger-posited-that-a-monarchical-papacy-was-intrinsically-arian-in-nature-and-the-papacy-should-reflect-the-trinity-a-p/

It has been more than four months since their insane accusation - insane because there is not one word in her post- NOT ONE WORD - that indicates that Ratzinger was in favor of these speculations rather than what he was doing- describing them.

Here are the words of Ratzinger that appears in a foot note she posted:

Although Mühlen’s own expositions are impressive and advanced, they do not seem to me to be free from the danger of a new analogical thought which overstretches the ecclesiological applicability of the trinitarian statement.)

The only words of Ratzinger she quotes is his passive voice when describing the theories of SOMEONE ELSE.

Y'all can try and promote her private opinions but many of them are not only wrong but dangerously and sinfully so (Mortal sin when it comes to her "ideas" about Massive Bombng if Muslims. - which she dehumanises as MusloidsBy defending her you are defending her ideas - all of them.

Put that in your private judgement pipe and smoke it
As a practitioner of the faith, on muslim observed, Muslims are staunchly anti-usury, promote traditional marriage, oppose homo-trans sexuality and promiscuity, and in practice have refused o capitulate to the demands of liberals the way that mainstream Catholics have.

He did not note how Catholicism and Islam have jointly opposed the Proaborts of the United Nations.

And E. Michael Jones has written that , Shi’a Islam is resurfacing as a legitimate protest opponent of the Arabian conquest of Persia but Bullets Barnhardt calls for all of Islam to be exterminated.

EXTERMINATED. You now, like rats and vermin are exterminated.

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/01/08/cut-the-crap-the-problem-is-islam-and-it-has-to-be-exterminated-period/

So, by all means, follow this hateful lunatic in her personal opinions about how it is Francis is not Pope.
Cam said…
ABS: “Dear Cam. Consider quitting the sedevacantist blogs because you are being swayed by their false propaganda http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/st-vincent-ferrer-sedevacantist.html”

I don’t understand why you think I’m going in the direction of sedevacantism, and I don’t understand why you think the reply to sedevacantists who draw on Ferrer gets to my above questions. Your use of the site makes me wonder if you think Ferrer exercised no sense of a personal judgment at all regarding papal identity. Is that true?

Also, given your site’s take on Ferrer, it’s hard to see how those like myself who think Francis is an antipope are even making private judgments: the Church crowned Ratzinger the pope, so we call him the pope; the same pope says, and physically indicates, he’s still our Holy Father, so we continue treating him like our Holy Father; and the Church has always taught there’s only one Supreme Pontiff, so we continue treating Benedict like he’s still the one and only Supreme Pontiff. Where in all of this is the illicit use of ‘private judgment’? (Are you saying we must accept the cardinals’ judgment about Benedict’s abdication? The law of the Church establishes, however, that they don’t determine the validity of papal resignations.)

ABS: “Dear Cam. Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has repeatedly said he freely resigned and the claims he intended to create a diarchy do not come from his mouth, is mere heresay, and such claims has since been walked back by those who made them.”

Why “Bishop Emeritus”? He sees himself as ‘Pope Emeritus’, ‘Your Holiness’, etc. That’s important, no? And does saying you’re freely resigning prove you are? Of course not. So if others want to challenge the idea that Benedict may have tried to resign under duress, then they need to argue differently. His words corroborate their view, but they don’t, in themselves, establish that duress concerns are unfounded. As for Benedict’s attempt to change the papacy, isn’t that obvious from his deeds? If he didn’t try to do what Ganswein purports, then why the ongoing papal behavior by Benedict?

ABS: “Her position is clearly sedevacantist despite her claims to the contrary. The Pope abdicated and he is no longer Pope and she calls Francis an AntiPope - two wrongs make an extreme right-winger?”

As you know, sedevacantists believe the Chair is vacant. Barnhardt doesn’t believe that. Yet you still think she’s a sedevacantist? Would even sedevacantists agree with that? Also, if Benedict “is no longer Pope,” as you say, then why do you think he still acts as he does? Why do you think he used the wording of ministerio in his resignation instead of munus or the equivalent?

ABS: “Ms. Barnhardt, a very masculine acting and hatefully angry (and let's not forget insane) person holds ideas contrary to the Catholic Faith - Mass Bombing attacks against her enemies - including women and children - and denunciations of those who oppose Usury - she calls them antisemites”

What does any of this have to do with her analysis of Benedict’s abdication, which is a problem independent of Barnhardt? Do you reject a person’s math just because you don’t like them?

ABS: “ABS can not understand why any man, say nothin about a woman, would chose to accept the declarations of this highly unstable and hateful person.”

I can’t speak for all her views, but her views about Benedict’s attempted abdication hold water because of facts independent of Barnhardt, e.g., Benedict’s choice of words, his behavior, Canon Law, etc.

ABS: "Is the Pope bound by Canon Law ? . . . . Ms Barnhardt says, yes. She is wrong.”

What about where Canon Law rests on the natural law? The conditions governing the validity of papal resignations (can. 332), and all ecclesiastical offices (can. 188), strike me precisely that way. And who would doubt that the natural law binds even the pope?
Cam said…
ABS: “there is not one word in her post- NOT ONE WORD - that indicates that Ratzinger was in favor of these speculations rather than what he was doing- describing them. Here are the words of Ratzinger that appears in a foot note she posted.”

So you don’t think there’s evidence at all that Pope Benedict intended to turn the papacy into an office that can be shared? That’s your view?

ABS: “Y'all can try and promote her private opinions but many of them are not only wrong but dangerously and sinfully so (Mortal sin when it comes to her "ideas" about Massive Bombng if Muslims. - which she dehumanises as MusloidsBy defending her you are defending her ideas - all of them.”

I’m defending all her ideas because I’m defending one of them (even though they're not all logically, or even topically, related)? When Aquinas adopted the teachings of Aristotle, he was thereby committed to agreeing always with Aristotle (he doesn't)? What about Aquinas's appropriation of Islamic thought? That made him a defender of Islam?

ABS: “Put that in your private judgement pipe and smoke it”

Why so nasty?
Dear Cam. Post just one word- one word- from Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger - his own words, not the words of others or his implied beliefs attributed to him by others- and then you and Ms Barnhardt would have the BEGINNING of an argument.

What is good for the abdicated Gander is good for her gaggle of geese only more so for we have her own words about her ideas whereas her accusation against Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger are the words of others, not his.

Color him strange but ABS believes the repeated words of Ratzinger about him resigning freely and his own words that accusations he didn't are absurd.

Trial by hearsay or rumor is Queen of Hearts justice.

Do you reject a person’s math just because you don’t like them?

If the person is wildly wrong about geography, religion, economics, philosophy, and other matters, that person is likely to be wrong in considering hearsay irrefutable evidence of anything. What she is doing is anything but math. She is saying that So and So said that Ratzinger thinks that 1 - 1 = 2 but Ratzinger never said that.

Ms Barnhardt is an insane and unstable person who is riven with hatred and suffused with ideas of bloody vengeance but you, and many other geese, follow her because you have ideologically imprinted on her.

Look she is your hero and saint and the source of all truth about Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger (What she says about him is worthy of your trust but what he says about himself is not worthy of trust) but, Lord have Mercy, she is a blood thirsty lunatic who has a pink rifle and is itching to use it.

https://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/07/ann-barnhardt-interview-part-2.html

ABS first heard of her a long time ago when he was a member of Free Republic and when she first burst on the scene ABS watched about one-half of one of her videos before he turned it off because he wanted zip to do with anyone like her.

The last day or so ABS has been googling for info about her and, wow, is she barking moonbat insane, bloody violent, and hateful but, she's your ideal of a catholic lady, so...

She's all yours
The vast majority of Catholics accepted Francis as Pope. Is that dispositive or even infallible?

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/robert-siscoes-reply-tosmiths-friendly.html

One doubts that Ms. Barnhardt has ever heard of this truth, but, she has her own truths :)
John Haggerty said…
All these comments give me much to think about. Thanks to all of you.

Please watch YouTube - BIDEN TIME: CATHOLICS FEAR PRO-DEMOCRAT POPE FRANCIS from Michael J Matt of Remnant Video May 17 2019,
Physiocrat said…
The true followers of Jesus Himself were the ones who loved one another, not the ones who were quarelling.
Cam said…
ABS: “Post just one word- one word- from Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger . . .”

Again, why do you call him “Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger”? He still wears the papal ring and wants to be called pope, at least 'Pope Emeritus'. This seems to contradict your name for him, and also your idea that we should take him at his own words.

ABS: “Post just one word- one word- from Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger - his own words, not the words of others or his implied beliefs attributed to him by others- and then you and Ms Barnhardt would have the BEGINNING of an argument.”

To give an example using his own words, we can turn to Pope Benedict XVI’s final General Audience address (27 Feb. 2013). Those words are important because they show that, for Pope Benedict, the papacy isn’t something from which you can fully resign. He says, for instance, that from the moment he was made pope, he was then “engaged always and forever by the Lord,” and that “anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry . . . belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church.” He says further that “the ‘always’ is also a ‘for ever’there can no longer be a return to the private sphere.”

If he doesn’t think he can wholly cease being pope, then why should we think his putative abdication was intended to remove him, wholly and completely, from the Chair of Peter?

Later in his address, Pope Benedict even says explicitly, “My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.”

Catholics like myself are trying to interpret him as honestly as we can, but these are his own words.

ABS: “If the person is wildly wrong about geography, religion, economics, philosophy, and other matters, that person is likely to be wrong in considering hearsay irrefutable evidence of anything.”

Aquinas was quite wrong about ensoulment; he’s quite right about a whole lot more. He was also wrong about our Mother’s Immaculate Conception; but, again, he’s quite right about a whole lot more. Persons are one thing; their arguments another.

ABS: “Ms Barnhardt is an insane and unstable person who is riven with hatred and suffused with ideas of bloody vengeance but you, and many other geese, follow her because you have ideologically imprinted on her.”

Some charity here would be appreciated, ABS. I follow her, as I think all should, because her arguments pan out (I wouldn’t say it’s a fact that Benedict resigned under duress, and I don’t recall Barnhardt saying as much, but I would say it’s beyond reasonable doubt that Benedict resigned on the basis of a substantial error).

ABS: “she is a blood thirsty lunatic who has a pink rifle and is itching to use it.”

Seems pretty harmless to me (unless you attack her or something, I suppose).

ABS: ”The vast majority of Catholics accepted Francis as Pope.”

But if even a consensus among the cardinals doesn’t determine the validity of a papal resignation (can. 332 §2), then why does it matter that the majority of Catholics accept Francis as pope?
Dear Cam. ABS thinks Ms. Barnhardt is insane and that is a charitable thought as insanity will minimise the culpability she bears for her false witness, advocating mass murder - along with her many other errors too numerous to limn here.
Dear Bones. Thank you for all of your patience regarding this captious controversy but, owing to Peaceful Universal Acceptance, it is clearly a settled matter for all faithful Catholics.

https://vermontcrank1.blogspot.com/2019/05/barnhardt-thesis-blowed-up.html
kathleen said…
Barnhard is now citing a doctoral dissertation written by a PhD candidate in what she seems to believe is a sort of slam dunk maneuver to prove Benedict is still the pope. I guess her foray into local real estate law was not sufficient, she is now given to treating the fulminations of a grad student as if they were the distillations of canon law itself. She doesn't seem to grasp that "examinations" and "investigations" -- as the author himself describes his own dissertation -- are not meant to be dispositive. Barnhardt's intellectual inquiries are certainly wide-ranging, I'll give her that. What can we expect next, textual support from a Sears Catalog?
The true followers of Jesus Himself were the ones who loved one another, not the ones who were quarelling.

Yes, quite. There were never any arguments about Christology at the Ecumenical Councils or over the nature of Grace etc

When Christian Catholics had arguments over this, that, and the other thing they were told to bring their disputes to the Church and let the Church settle the matter and they were also told to mark out the heretics (and other authocephalic dilettantes) and to avoid them.

You do not follow Jesus because you reject the Church He established which included the Hierarchy - with Pope at the top of the Church on earth.

You could have had the decency to note the earlier post by ABS which eviscerated your false claim about the Pope as first amongst equals but you didn't and so ....whatever, as the kids say

Adios
Anonymous said…
Prior to his election as pope, Jorge Bergoglio condoned certain same-sex sexual relationships and thus same-sex sexual acts, ipso facto separating himself from Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. A heretic cannot become a validly elected Pope.
Michael Dowd said…
Based on all of the conversation above it appears that not everyone agrees with Ann Barnhardt. Nevertheless, most would agree she has constructed fairly bullet proof cas that Bergoglio is an anti-Pope and Benedict continues as the true Pope.

But there is one thing everyone here should agree on. It is that the actual status of Pope (?) Francis is uncertain and that all of his actions are null, void and not binding including all who he has asserted as saints. This status will remain in effect until proven otherwise.
Cam said…
ABS: “ABS thinks Ms. Barnhardt is insane and that is a charitable thought as insanity will minimise the culpability she bears for her false witness, advocating mass murder - along with her many other errors too numerous to limn here.”

Mischaracterizing people only makes them more sympathetic.

ABS: “Dear Bones. Thank you for all of your patience regarding this captious controversy but, owing to Peaceful Universal Acceptance, it is clearly a settled matter for all faithful Catholics.”

I’m surprised people find this theory so convincing. It’s really a bad idea, particularly as a counter to BiP Catholics. People can search online for the reasons, but to summarize just a couple here, it’s a bad idea because, even if there has been “peaceful and universal acceptance” (PUA):

(A) PUA wouldn’t make valid Benedict’s invalid abdication. Canon 332 §2 says explicitly that for the Roman Pontiff’s resignation to be valid, it matters “not that it is accepted by anyone.”

Of course, some will claim that, by virtue of Benedict accepting Francis as pope, he thereby validly resigns even if his previous resignation was invalid. But that could be true only if Benedict accepted Francis as our pope in the relevant sense, i.e., as being our one and only Holy Father. But is that how he sees Francis? Not at all. He sees Francis as representing but one of two parts of a synodal ministry, viz., the ‘active branch’. Consequently, objections from those like Rickert won’t work.

(B) PUA is completely irrelevant due to JPII’s apostolic constitution governing conclaves—Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG). Now, certainly, the authority of UDG is more certain than the putative authority of the PUA theory. And what does UDG establish? It establishes that conclaves that oppose the decree are null and void, which is impossible to accept, as we should, if PUA is applicable to the current crisis.
BrotherBeowulf said…
Peaceful Universal Acceptance!? Meh.

ABS perhaps you had better go back to med school. Are you a barber?

So you are going to follow a 'pope' who wields a Stang at Mass? (Youth Synod October 2018).

Who denies the existence of Hell? (Holy Week, 2018). And the immortality of the Soul? (If you're bad: "expungement." Ditto).

Who denies the need for Sanctifying Grace in Amoralis Laetitia? (And made it official in the AAS in his spectacularly wrong, bone-headed, heterodox and heretical opinion-letter to the Argentine bishops).

Who says "God made you that way" to Sodomites?

Who is the head of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church? (I invite your attention to the myriad, plethora and in fact superabundance of SodomFag-Clerics that Bergoglio has protected, defended, established and enthroned. Starting with McCarrick, ending with Grassi in Argentina with Don Mercedes Inzoli in between. The fate of the raped boys, half of whom slit their wrists, doesn't seem to concern you o'er much, Brain Surgeon, does it?).

But to the point:

Of late, more and more priests among others are privately (because they're scared, whatever the merits of that) saying to me two things, that belie your faux claim to UPA:

(1) There is no doubt that Francis is a public, formal and intransigent heretic in his teaching.

(2) Maybe, therefore, Benedict never abdicated the actual papacy at all.

And I'll add one more, (3), Christ's protections to Peter clearly do not apply to Bergoglio--So either Christ lied, or Bergoglio's not Pope.

Ofttimes the most ardent defenders of Antipope Bergoglio--who refuse to engage the dataset (see for example the resignation annocnement of the ministry and not the office, including the fifty-year history of Benedict's involvement with grappling with distinguishing ministry from office and the very issue of expanding the papal ministry if not office as well--are themselves partial to the Homosexual Agenda in the Church. (Are you perhaps one of them ABS, because you seem to be in their Camp.)

Many thanks to Bones for this fabulous piece, and your witness, Mr. England. You are having an effect on souls, unlike the Antipope, for the Good.

In Corde Christi,

BrotherBeowulf

P. S. "Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for alone thou hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world!"
Cam said…
kathleen: “Barnhard is now citing a doctoral dissertation written by a PhD candidate in what she seems to believe is a sort of slam dunk maneuver to prove Benedict is still the pope. . . . What can we expect next, textual support from a Sears Catalog?”

A “slam dunk maneuver”? "Textual support" akin to a "Sears Catalog"? You really believe that’s an honest representation of her argument? Giving inaccurate and uncharitable depictions of others’ arguments are always self-defeating in the end. So why do it?
kathleen said…
Cam: "You really believe that’s an honest representation of her argument?"

I don't know what Barnhardt's argument IS, so there is no possible "honest representation" of it. She has about five random points she hammers away at (although she seems to have abandoned parsing Benedict's Latin) and the dissertation is one of them. Citing a random doctoral dissertation that surveys wacko 1970s German theology regarding the papacy in no way suggests that Benedict resigned improperly, let alone proves it. But judging from your continual misreading of my comments, you are not the best judge for determining how and why arguments succeed.
kathleen said…
For those who believe Barnhardt's argument is "bulletproof", ask yourself: would Barnhardt make the same case for Benedict's faulty resignation if Francis were a good Pope? Answer: of course she wouldn't. It wouldn't even occur to her. She would rail against anyone who made such a case as a schismatic. Thus your so-called "bulletproof" argument puts the "desired outcome" cart before the "legal reasoning" horse. It fails from the outset. Game over.
Cetera said…
You really believe that’s an honest representation of her argument? Giving inaccurate and uncharitable depictions of others’ arguments are always self-defeating in the end. So why do it?

I presume you're looking for an answer more involved than "because he's a shallow-minded thinker making emotional arguments and doesn't truly understand how ad hominem and strawman attacks don't score the points he thinks they do."

You've been more than patient with him. You've laid it out very clearly. There are a lot of reasons why an individual may not be able to follow the very plain logic you have laid out, but none of them are able to be overcome by more logic. It is clear for those who have eyes to see. Those who cannot see shall not see it.
Michael Dowd said…
Kathleen---

Your comment: "would Barnhardt make the same case for Benedict's faulty resignation if Francis were a good Pope? Answer: of course she wouldn't."

You are correct. We would never had heard from Ann if Francis was a good Pope. But your point proves nothing as far as I can see. The fact that Francis is a bad Pope elected by a bad conclave is the basis of Ann's argument among other points.

My take away from all of this is that Francis current status is UNCERTAIN making whatever he does or says inoperative.
Cetera said…
kathleen: Would Barnhardt make the same case for Benedict's faulty resignation if Francis were a good Pope? Answer: of course she wouldn't. It wouldn't even occur to her.

Would you look for a nail in your tire if there's no indication of a flat tire, no air leakage? Of course not, 'cause there's no problem.

The only reason we're looking into all of this so very carefully is because there IS an issue. The thing that has been promised to us by Christ, and the thing that the entirety of the faithful has held to for nearly 2k years is suddenly not the way it is anymore. That's cause for careful, and thorough, examination.

We've not only had a flat tire, the tire failure caused an accident on the highway, we're in the ditch, and the engine is now on fire. But somehow a bunch of folks are saying the car is perfectly fine, the ditch is very scenic and pleasant, there's water in it so the fire isn't really a problem, and the car still drives so what's the big deal? And don't even worry about the tire. The nail fills the hole perfectly, so barely any air is leaking out. We just fill it back up again, and it'll be a sunshiny day.

As for the rest, your supposed appeal to a hypothetical alternate-history scenario where you also establish motive for an independent entity whom you do not know and can't control, can't forsee, and can't establish a framework for any of your suppositions, and that you use to try to illustrate as proof of a logical failure... Well, I have nothing to say other than, "That's not an argument." It certainly bears no indication of logic or reasoning of any kind. It literally fails from the outset. Game over.


Cam said…
kathleen: “I don't know what Barnhardt's argument IS.”

She has a video online if you’re interested (transcript too).

kathleen: “Citing a random doctoral dissertation that surveys wacko 1970s German theology regarding the papacy in no way suggests that Benedict resigned improperly, let alone proves it.”

The dissertation shows Ratzinger to be involved with earlier discussions about whether the papacy could be changed (even abolished). This is very significant, not because it directly proves Barnhardt’s case (she never claimed that it does), but because it substantially supports her case: Barnhardt claims that, in his resignation, Benedict had in mind the erroneous idea of changing the papacy, and the dissertation shows that, in fact, changing the papacy was already in the mind of Benedict for decades leading up to his resignation. So the dissertation actually contributes quite a compelling piece of evidence for Barnhardt’s interpretation.

kathleen: “For those who believe Barnhardt's argument is "bulletproof", ask yourself: would Barnhardt make the same case for Benedict's faulty resignation if Francis were a good Pope? Answer: of course she wouldn't.”

But if I think her argument is bullet proof, then why should I care about her motivations?
kathleen said…
Ohhhhh, so if Francis were a good Pope then Benedict's resignation would be magically A-OK as a matter of canon law, but he's not a good Pope therefore Benedict's resignation is absolutely not A-OK as a matter of canon law. Wow, guys! It's like Dr. Who up in here! Barnhardt has some deeply mysterious influence with the time/space continuum that i just can't comprehennnnnndddd
John Haggerty said…
While following this debate with much interest, may I introduce a diversion?

Some critics of Francis attack him because he speaks up for the poor.
Others are enraged because he brings up the subject of climate change.
To some Francis is a Marxist, to others he worships Gaia.

Third World poverty is a fitting subject for the pope to address, and so is the destruction of eco systems.
Watch YouTube: Climate Change - Malcolm Roberts vs Brian Cox.

As a Christian I am extremely troubled by war, poverty, racism, the ugly mood against asylum seekers, the worst aspects of globalization, and and the scientific reality of climate change.


Cam said…
And now Dr. Kwasnieski comes out too: it's been "proved in detail that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity."

Barnhardt covers it here:

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/05/29/bombshell-dr-peter-kwasniewski-most-respected-english-speaking-trad-theologian-and-liturgist-vigorously-acknowledges-pope-benedicts-resignation-is-highly-suspect-in-terms-of-validity/
John Haggerty said…
Please watch Michael Matt on YouTube.

More Catholic Than Francis: Pope Loses Big in EU Referendum.
(Remnant Video. 29 May 2019.)
Cam said…
About Dr. K's revised position: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/05/30/called-it-wrongthink-will-not-be-tolerated/

Just more evidence that crying foul on Benedict's 'renunciation' is not for the faint of heart. Courage is necessary. Thank you, Mr. England, for being courageous yourself.

John Haggerty said…
Please watch YouTube:

The Vortex - Abortion and Sodomy (Church Militant) 3 June 2019 from Michael Voris.

Fatima - An Urgent Warning (Renewed Ministries) 3 June 2019.

Popular posts from this blog