Category Archives: Pope Benedict XVI
So, my rejection of Traditionis custodes has stunned some nice people (far away from my parish, mind you). The way I see it, Traditionis custodes is an evil law, and therefore, as Saint Thomas Aquinas says, is no law at all, and is not to be obeyed or disobeyed, just ignored, for it is nothing.
- “But Father George! Father George! I’m stunned! How can you say anything from the Great Pope Francis is evil?! He’s the Pope, and you’re not! Pope Francis is infallible in everything he says and does and thinks and emotes about! How dare you!? How dare you!?” How dare you!? I’m stunned!”
Well, there are any number of reasons why Traditionis custodes is evil. I will give just two examples here, as they suffice to demonstrate the evil nature of that “document,” papal as it may be, even if that is stunning for the less clever amongst us.
1. THE “THROW-JESUS-OUT” EVIL
“Art. 3. § 2. […] the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes).”
While Jesus is happy to be with His Little Flock for the Sacrifice of the Mass in times of persecution at a “Mass Rock” or at a “Priest Hole” (a secret chapel a Catholic family might construct in their home), or in a bunk in Dachau or Auschwitz, it is inappropriate for any bishop even of Rome to throw Jesus off His own altar and out of His own church just to be politically correct.
In the case of my parish, we would have to move to the filthy slimy community center of the town. Vomit, vomit. I can’t do it. I can’t throw Jesus out just because I’m offering the Ancient Rite of Mass. It’s not right. It’s evil. Ain’t gonna happen, except in the case of a persecution under Cromwell, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao.
There are some in the world at large who have gone against Pope Francis in both the letter and spirit of the motu proprio, and have declared such law to be null and void in their (arch)dioceses or their territorial entities. Interesting. Stunning even. They have a “reason.” I wonder if anyone else can have a reason to cast aside Traditionis custodes entirely. Let’s move on:
2. THE “ANCIENT-RITE-IS-NOT-MASS-AT-ALL” EVIL
LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS TO THE BISHOPS OF THE WHOLE WORLD, THAT ACCOMPANIES THE APOSTOLIC LETTER MOTU PROPRIO DATA “TRADITIONIS CUSTODES” Official translation Rome, 16 July 2021
[[[ At the end of paragraph six and the beginning of seven, we see that the lex orandi, the law of prayer, is common to whatever rites of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, such as the “ordinary” and “extraordinary” forms of the Roman Rite (as Benedict XVI called them), for, he insisted the Sacrifice of the Sacrifice of the Mass is the lex orandi.]]]
“Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”. 
“In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”.  The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”. ”
-  Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.
-  Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.
-  Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.
APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO” BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS «TRADITIONIS CUSTODES»
[[[But then, in Art. 1 of Traditionis custodes itself, we read that the Ancient Rite is not part of the lex orandi, has no claim to validly present the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore is no Mass at all.]]]
Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
[[[My comment: If the consecrations are not now valid for the Ancient Rite, bringing about the Holy Sacrifice, then they never were valid, nor are any consecrations valid for any rite of Holy Mass, whether Novus Ordo or any other Latin or Eastern Rite liturgies. None. This is evil. Therefore it is not a law. Stunning, isn’t it? It’s not rocket science. But still, some nice people insist that they are stunned:]]]
It’s like the papabile guy, the The String Puller For All®, telling me that Jesus being crucified was a kind of failure on His part. That’s what Judas thought, right?
I’m guessing that this guy is a good 4 centimeters, just over 1.5 inches long. He didn’t let me get too close, but I swear I saw the bits pictured at the center bottom of the chart below, the pigeon tremex character. The markings, however, are not similar. But I’m in Western North Carolina, in the Smoky Mountains, not in Washington State. The center white dot is a reflection of the sun on the hard shell.
I’m always, always fascinated by the good creation of our Good Creator. And that doesn’t make me an ecoterrorist, or a green-party wild man, but rather one who sees the Creator also through His Creation.
Saint Paul in his epistle to the Romans, the famous chapter one, and then chapter two, speaks of this for us. Read it!
Meanwhile, here in Western North Carolina, in the back ridges of Appalachia, it’s a paradise: praise God!
- Some don’t seem to see it at all, trashing up everything everywhere, shooting up heroin, taking meth and Fentanyl, beating on each other – even decapitations – loving the power of cynicism.
- But many do see, as it were, God through His Creation, bringing to the fore the living memory of the first creation only through the living memory of the second creation: “Do this in memory of me…”
- Once we have the second, we can get to the first, but then realize that it’s all even better:
O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem.
O happy fault which merited such a great Redeemer.
Want a good read of just a few pages? Try Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s address to the USCCB in 1991:
Retrieving the Tradition: CONSCIENCE AND TRUTH
DON’T BE AFRAID! Download it to read later! It’ll do good for your soul. That’s necessary these days.
Recall is diminishing for me regarding my browsing through the stacks of the Canon Law collections of the various campuses of the North American College in Rome. I’m not a Canon Lawyer. But I was interested at the time in figuring out Ratzinger’s controversial opinions and apparent flip-flopping after ferocious corrections by others on the topic of, say, a layman becoming Pope, and whether or not he would have, after a verified election, the capacity to posit valid legislative acts that of themselves involve any differences in munus and ministry, that is, without that new Supreme Pontiff becoming a bishop. Yes, then, No, or, kind of? I found such articles / commentary in various volumes of a still-being-published series of commentaries (blue hard cover edition). I may not remember that correctly, so don’t beat me up too badly. In light of the weird circumstances that surrounded the resignation / abdication (whatever) of Benedict XVI, in light of the strange statements of his secretary about a kind of bifurcated papacy, in light of there being such insistence on there being but one pope (Francis) but another kind of spiritual pope (Benedict), etc., I’m just wondering if there is some sort of vague precedent in the academic ruminations of Ratzinger for what happened in 2013 and is still haunting us today.
Just my own scenario: what if you divide the mandates of governing, sanctifying and teaching, so that the “active” pope takes the governing and sanctifying (regardless of whether he actually does that), while the other retains the teaching capacity, that is, the burden of being infallible. Francis didn’t get the memo on that, at all. In his speech on the 50th anniversary of the Synods of Bishops he said he fully intends to pronounce an ex-cathedra infallible statement, which I think he will attempt to do at the end of the Synod on Synods. He lead up to that by his own specious re-write of Vatican Council II’s Lumen gentium, having it that everyone is infallible (definitely more than was stated by that Constitution).
Regardless of my failing memory of briefly glancing over articles that were out of my wheelhouse so many decades ago, and regardless of whatever Ratzinger intended then or in 2013, I’m not saying this has anything to do with the confusing situation in which we find ourselves. But maybe there is some connection, some line of thought, that can be followed through the academic opinions of Ratzinger, then Benedict, then someone “emeritus.” I don’t know. If I had the chance to browse through the stacks of Canon Law rooms of dedicated libraries I would do it again. But none of those exist in the back ridges of Appalachia.
Perhaps someone has the wherewithal to find those articles one way or another…
[[[ This following is a transcript of a talk by Alexis. I don’t know him. Some attack him. Whatever. I’m just interested in the argument he has here about the technical terms “ministry” and “munus.” Does it make a difference? Leave your comments. I’m no Canon Lawyer, but I’m willing to be schooled either way. Before you kill this guy, read the comments exchange at the end. ]]]
Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo (31 October 2019)
[…] Though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.Continue reading
Recall that Saint Corbinian’s bear on the coat of arms of Benedict XVI was actually a donkey, that is, fulfilling the role of the donkey after he killed the donkey. Benedict called himself that “donkey”. No, really. A Pope who is a jackass. Luther, with great malice, called the Pope of the time a jackass. Benedict is from Germany. Anyway, see the outrageously wonderful 2005 article of Archbishop Raymond Burke about the newly elected Pope Donkey, Benedict XVI. And then, to those of you who are fuming mad and flinging the rest of us into hell in all the mortal sin you suppose I and Ratzinger and Burke are in for speaking of the papacy being filled with the likes of a jackass, to you I say, lighten up. Have some Christian mirth. Some irony. Rejoice! The Lord is good and kind. Again, I will say it: Rejoice! My coat of arms, breaking all the rules of heraldry, as any donkey might do, so far:
This recalls the Discalced Carmelite coat of arms:
I think Tom Clancy wrote on the etiquette of sword ceremonial. What is the military symbolism of the sword held high as with Elijah or with Saint Michael atop Castel Sant’Angelo who is sheathing his sword? What of ceremonial stuff, like the the sword being held straight up or pointed upward or straight down or pointed downward? Anyone?
Benedict XVI was Pope. Cardinal Burke could well be Pope soon. I’ll never be, but I’m happy to have a donkey on my coat of arms anyway! Just in case that article by Cardinal Burke disappears, I include the bit towards the end commenting on Pope Benedict XVI as being a Jackass:
[…] In his memoirs published in 1997, then-Cardinal Ratzinger commented on his life as a bishop, reflecting upon the image of the bear of St. Corbinian, founding bishop of Freising, the ancient see which is now the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, to which Cardinal Ratzinger was called to serve as archbishop. He relates the story to a meditation of St. Augustine on the text of verses 22 and 23 of Psalm 73 (72). St. Corbinian’s bear:
As the story goes, St. Corbinian was on his way to Rome when a bear attacked and killed his pack animal, his donkey. St. Corbinian rebuked the bear and placed the load of the donkey upon his back to carry to Rome. The story of the bear of St. Corbinian reminded the cardinal of St. Augustine’s meditation on the verses of Psalm 73 which he translates thusly: “A draft animal am I before you, for you, and this is precisely how I abide with you” (Psalm 73:22-23; Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, page 155). The cardinal, like St. Augustine, had chosen the life of a scholar, but God called him to take up the burdens of the episcopal office, eventually serving the Holy Father as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He comments on the frustrations which St. Augustine experienced in dealing with the many practical concerns of a pastor of souls, when he had in mind to carry out great intellectual and spiritual works. The text of the psalm reminded the saint and reminded Cardinal Ratzinger that God chose to keep them close to Him by having them serve as His “draft animals,” carrying out the humble tasks of the pastoral office, rather than the exalted service which they had in mind for themselves. Relating the meditation of St. Augustine to the story of St. Corbinian’s bear, Cardinal Ratzinger comments: “Just as the draft animal is closest to the farmer, doing his work for him, so is Augustine closest to God precisely through such humble service, completely within God’s hand, completely His instrument.He could not be closer to his Lord or be more important to Him. The laden bear that took the place of St. Corbinian’s horse, or rather donkey — the bear that became his donkey against its will: Is this not an image of what I should do and of what I am?”A beast of burden have I become for you, and this is just the way for me to remain wholly yours and always abide with you” (Milestones, pages 156-157). Tonight, we thank God for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who has found his happiness in serving as Christ’s “donkey,” His “draft animal,” who has given his entire self to working humbly and steadfastly with Christ in the vineyard of the Father. When we see the image of the bear of St. Corbinian on his coat-of-arms, may we be reminded of how he has given and gives his life in service to Christ and His Church. Assisting our Holy Father with his burdens Conscious of the many and heavy burdens which our Holy Father carries, with Christ, for us, let us assist him, offering him the joy of our faithful prayers, loyal affection and unfailing obedience. Our Holy Father, in continuity with the teaching and direction of his much beloved predecessor Pope John Paul II, has already given us an indication of his desires for our growth in holiness of life.In his first address to the College of Cardinals on the day after his election, Pope Benedict XVI stated that the Holy Eucharist “cannot but be the permanent center and the source of the petrine service entrusted to [him]” (Benedict XVI, a pope of Christ, communion, collegiality, Vatican Information Service, April 20, 2005, page 2). Reflecting upon Divine Providence, which called him to the office of St. Peter during the Year of the Eucharist, he has asked that the Solemnity of Corpus Christi “be celebrated in a particularly special way.”He reminded us that the celebration of World Youth Day in Cologne in August will center on the Holy Eucharist, and that the Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, to be held this coming October, will devote itself to the theme: “The Eucharist, Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church.”He concluded with a solemn request addressed to us all: “I ask everyone to intensify in coming months love and devotion to the Eucharistic Jesus and to express in a courageous and clear way the real presence of the Lord, above all through the solemnity and the correctness of the celebrations” (Benedict XVI, a pope of Christ, communion, collegiality, Vatican Information Service, April 20, 2005, page 3). As we thank God tonight for the gift of Pope Benedict XVI, let us help him shoulder his heavy burdens by deepening and strengthening our knowledge and love of the Holy Eucharist, above all by the piety with which we participate in Holy Mass, and adore and worship the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass. As we are now united sacramentally to the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, let us lift up to His glorious and open Heart the intentions of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. Placing our Holy Father and his intentions into the all-merciful and all-loving Heart of Jesus, we trust that no grace will be lacking to our Holy Father as he pours out his life, with Christ, as Christ’s “donkey”for our salvation and the salvation of our world. We ask the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul to pray with us for our Holy Father: “The Lord preserve him and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies” (Enchiridion of Indulgences, June 29, 1968, no. 39). Conclusion I hope that the text of my homily has helped you in some way to understand the office of St. Peter and the deep trust in Divine Providence with which Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the office from our Lord.He is the humble worker in the vineyard, Christ’s “draft animal” who seeks only to do God’s will. Let us continue to assist our Holy Father by our daily prayers.I ask especially that you remember the intentions of our Holy Father when you pray the rosary. […]
People put forward all sorts of “nice” arguments in favor of priestly celibacy, economic, logistical, practical, in favor of availability for anything and everything from missionary work to being moved from parish to parish and so on. I don’t buy any of those arguments. All of those could be overcome in one way or another. Putting priestly celibacy on the level of expedience is the fastest way to get rid of celibacy altogether, as these are all disciplinary. The debate – dialogue if you want – would be unending.
Forget all that rubbish! Let’s talk about doctrine. Let’s talk JESUS. He’s never mentioned in this except for things like – and this is truly stupid – “Jesus was celibate.” Yeah, well, He’s a special case isn’t He? So, drop that dumb argument as well. Along the same lines, forget the bit about the Apostles not being married. They were in special circumstances as well.
On the other side, with Peter being married (remember the mother-in-law having the fever account?), that doesn’t hold either, as it seems from what we can surmise from Matthew 19:12 (I’ll get to that) and Paul’s letter to Titus, Peter surely became celibate. Not only would Peter be following up on Matthew 19:12, but he would be in line with this continuing tradition as spoken of later by Saint Paul, the the clergy are to be married but once, that is, to the Church. It would be insanity to say that “married only once” only refers to not being divorced and remarried, or to polygamy that they did not practice at that time. So, again:
Let’s speak of Jesus:
- Jesus stood in our place, Innocent for the guilty, having the right in His own justice to have mercy on us, redeeming us from original sin and personal sin.
- If we want, He forgives us, sanctifies us, makes us one with Himself, with the Body of Christ, Jesus the Head of the Body, we the members of the Body, as St Paul says.
- We were created as the image of God, male and female, marriage and the family, as is eloquently pointed out in Genesis.
- Jesus redeems that image and saves us by it by way of His own marriage with His bride the Church, as spoken about countless times explicitly throughout Old and New Testaments.
- The marriage vows of Jesus, rendered in mercy founded on justice, are recited by the priest in the first person singular at the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Last Supper united with Calvary, at the Consecrations, those wedding vows:
- This is my Body being given for you… in sacrifice
- This is my Blood being poured out for you… in sacrifice
- The priest is married to the Church by the Sacrifice he daily offers at the altar. How dare anyone say that a priest is NOT married. What an insult to both Jesus and the priest. How dark and hateful is that insult. How damnable.
Having said all that, let’s mention a few hateful assertions:
- The stupid man says: “Priests should get married because that will cut down on abuse.” No, that superstitiously throws one sacrament at another sacrament as if that’s going to solve grave psychological issues and sin. All you are going to get is more incest.
- The stupid man says: “Let’s ordain priests to say Mass but nothing else.” No, that just sets up people going to Holy Communion without any opportunity to confess their sins and be forgiven, which is the point of the Sacrifice of Jesus in the first place.
- The stupid man says: “Let’s have women priests.” No, that just sets up an anti-image of God anti-redemption. Jesus redeems with a marriage, Himself with His BRIDE the Church (as we see throughout all the Scriptures). This is to redeem the image of God in us as at creation: male and female as the image of God in marriage and the family. The image of God is NOT lesbian, nor homosexual.
- The stupid man says: “Let’s have temporary priests.” No, that’s like a self-serving divorce, the ol’ “Here for the good times, gone for the bad times.” This is about not sticking around as a father of the family. No father = extreme high risk of bad kids. The stats are insane on that. Check them out. I’ve always seen the same in revolving door parishes where the priests are changed out even multiple times a year, where priests are not pastors, just administrators, just there for the quicky, so to speak, and then gone, leaving their parishes entrenched in clericalized power groups wanting to kill each other. Really, that’s NOT what Jesus wants.
Having said all that, what does Jesus want?
- Jesus wants a priest after His own Heart, who is humble of heart, who has integrity and honesty, who loves the truth and virtue and goodness and kindness, shunning evil and corruption and wickedness and lies and all manner of darkness.
- Jesus wants a man who is a tabernacle of the Holy Spirit.
- Jesus wants a man who will sacrifice himself for his family of faith, not counting the cost, even life.
- Jesus wants a man who will rejoice to see Him, Jesus, exercising His own ministry of High Priest in the parish, letting Jesus take the lead, no matter what.
- Jesus wants a man who knows full well and rejoices in the fact that he recites his own wedding vows daily to his Bride the Church as he recites in the first person singular the wedding vows of Jesus to His Bride the Church at the Consecrations at Holy Mass: my body being given for you… in sacrifice, my blood being poured out for you… in sacrifice.
By the way, just to say, if priests would only be who they are supposed to be in being fathers of their parish families, knowing they are married to the Church, encouraging people to go to Confession and doing the same himself, providing for them what Christ Jesus and the Church have always wanted to be provided with Truth and Morality (the splendor of the Truth), there would never have been such an abuse crisis, or financial corruption, or seeking after “power”, or whatever other self-centered rubbish fallen human beings can come up with.
But I’ll tell you this, no liberal jerky-boy Bishop wants to speak of Jesus when it comes to priestly celibacy as that would destroy every bit of liberal agenda they have on any given topic. Destroy priestly celibacy, destroy the Church (as everything about the Sacrifice of Jesus will be ignored. We will have no understanding of marriage, or the redemption of the image of God. Nothing.
And don’t think that procrastination in dealing with already married Anglican clergy or the practice of some in the “Orthodox” churches is that which bears doctrine. It doesn’t.
- That’s a lot of fallenness to deal with, you say? Sure. What did you expect. This goes to the absolutely heart of our faith, to the Sacred Heart of our Lord Himself.
- This is about Jesus, so let priests know that they are married to the Church.
- And, please, don’t be so afraid to share this and similar posts.
You have heard that it was said by the ultra-tradition-al-ism-its that the John Paul Institute for Marriage and the Family has always been entirely dishonorable and deserves to have been smashed down into nothingness because of their not having spent their time pounding sand, because of their having simply been busy about what they were supposed to be doing in the academic world, promoting Humanae vitae, Familiaris consortio, Evangelium vitae, Veritatis splendor, etc., along with analysis of passages in the Scriptures and Fathers of the Church, the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, etc.
What they should have been doing, instead of actually teaching and learning, it is said, is to shriek in mere reaction to the heretics, so that the heretics set the agenda, so that no one can ever get a systematic and academic overview of moral doctrine.
“React to THIS! No, no! React to THIS! ♬ SHRIEK IT OUT! ♬ There is no place, ever, for actual teaching and actual learning.”
No. Merely being ad hoc apologists to scattered and scatterbrained topics is to cave to the social engineering of the extreme left. Apologetics are great, but merely to react to heretics with no place for true academics is merely to pound sand, merely to play a part in the dialectic game. Why would anyone want to play that game?
This is simply emotionalism. It is said that we have come to a time when all must shriek, that there is no more time for teaching and learning doctrine and morality. All we can do now, it is said, is shriek. Otherwise, it is said, we fail ourselves, we fail others, we fail the world, we fail the Chruch, we fail Christ. No, that is not what teaching and learning the doctrine and morality of the Church means.
Pounding sand with the scoffers? Instead, I suggest reading, this very day, say, Humanae vitae and then, in the New Testament, the Second Letter of Saint Peter. It’ll do the heart and soul good. If you need to laugh out loud in the joy of the Holy Spirit, try this video as an occasion of that:
Richard Bonomo sent in a question:
Reading one of your recent blog posts on the the Pope (Kryptic call for assassinating the Pope?) this reminds me of the times I’ve said similar things: if a sitting Pope was on the verge of formally declaring something that is not true, to BE true, God would intervene — one way or the other — to prevent this from happening, including, possibly, killing the man (heart attack, collapsing ceilings, meteor, etc.).
However, the case of a potential anti-pope is different. I am no expert on Church history, but I do seem to recall that there have been times when there were multiple claimants to the See of Peter, and that men of good will were to be found lined up behind all of them, believing the one they supported was in fact the Pope, and the other(s) was(were) not
There is no shortage of people who claim that “Pope Francis” is an anti-Pope, and that either Pope Emeritus Benedict continues to reign as Pope, or the See is vacant. I am fairly sure you have read all of the variations of this, so I will not waste your time summarizing them.
Most of this smells like wishful thinking to me. I assume that “Pope Francis” really is Pope Francis, and that Pope Benedict meant what he wrote in his letter of resignation, and that he is treating his retirement in a manner appropriate to an academic such as himself, retaining some of the trappings of being a professor (Pope) without actually BEING a professor (Pope).
However, I DO find myself wondering if a man accepts an office validly who accepts that office with the intention of sabotage.
If your theory that Pope Francis has been (if I understand correctly) putting on an act with the intention of baiting people with the plan of doing a long-overdue house cleaning once malefactors and the confused are out in the open, then this is, of course, not a concern.
However, what if your theory is wrong?
Well, if Pope Francis is a dupe of a cabal of immoral men who wear the robes of cardinals who seek to take over the Church for their own purposes, or to impose a moral regimen that is not of God, then, assuming the election was otherwise conducted properly, I imagine he would still be Pope, that is assuming that his intentions were, in fact, to fulfill the office as it is supposed to be fulfilled.
On the other hand, if Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was a willing member of that cabal, and he accepted his election to the papacy for the occult purpose of enacting an agenda which is perverse, then did he accept office validly? Is he Pope Francis, or “Pope Francis” in such a case?
I, for one, do not know how to work this out, nor do I know whom to ask who could give a definitive opinion. Of course, if this last possibility turns out to be true, I really have no idea what I could do, except to pray and be aware.
In any case, our personal holiness, and the sacrificial and sacramental life of the Church must be maintained and not neglected while these matters are sorted out.
Answer: Benedict XVI is surely after all this time to be held to be willingly NOT the bishop of Rome, therefore not Pope. That’s why Francis rightly called himself Bishop of Rome. Everyone thought he was demeaning the papacy, but only because they are heretics about the papacy.
Even if one is malicious in accepting the election, it is valid. It’s not ordination. Infallibility is not something positive. It will get you dead right quick if you intend to do something supremely wrong.
In this video, Dr Marshall provides a very helpful timeline of events.
What is said in this video is entirely consistent with what was known of the situation. Things have developed of course in the years of Pope Francis’ pontificate. People have taken it upon themselves to manipulate things. This aspect of the crisis is an important key to understanding unintelligible actions from on high.
Extortion is not impossible. Consider that the Holy See and Vatican City State are two entities. If descriptions of the same and laws regarding the same, both internally and internationally, were to be conflated one with the other, what kind of extortion might that permit?
Again, this is a homosexualist crisis. Considering the players behind the scenes, some of whom who have not yet been named, I’m guessing that the idea is to use this as a method of extortion to change the teaching of the Church regarding homosexuality. We have already seen proposed changes. Settlements for “pedophilia” cases, and eventual litigation with much longer tentacles, are merely leverage to push for a change in the teaching of the Church.
Just my opinion. But when you see who is as thick as thieves with who, and with what connections, and the power they have even over the Holy Father, I would say that my opinion is well founded, enough to try to break things open. Oh, I forgot! I’m on my way to Rome today to try to do just that.
The day this priest was accused of pedophilia: Introibo ad altare Dei. Accused priests, pay attention!
Yours truly offering a Solemn High Mass with well over 7000 present in the Underground Basilica of Saint Pius X on 15 August 2008. The deacon and subdeacon are of course, now ordained for the FSSP. The vestments may well have been from Pius IX. The Missal is from yet another FSSP friend. I’m not FSSP, but I was the official[!] “Latin Mass” permanent chaplain in Lourdes since immediately after the famous 7-7-2007 motu proprio of Benedict XVI.
Sometimes we would have Mass in Saint Joseph’s underground church, sometimes on the top floor of the confessional building, sometimes in the top floor of the medical building, sometimes in an under-the-church-chapel of the Basilica of Saint Bernadette, sometimes in either of the two chapels at the front of the upper Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, sometimes in the crypt Chapel, sometimes in the side chapels of the crypt chapel, sometimes in the side chapels of the Rosary Basilica, sometimes in the basement chapel of the Chaplains House, sometimes, finally, in the upper Basilica of the Immaculate Conception over the Grotto.
The accusation came after a most glorious Mass in the upper Basilica of our Lady on a Sunday morning at which there were quite a number of individual pilgrims, groups of pilgrims and, to the point, large families of pilgrims in the pews, you know, with moms and dads and boys and girls kneeling before the Holy Sacrifice. Absolutely beautiful. I was, of course, the luckiest priest in the entire world to have this privilege of bringing the Mass of Tradition, of the ages, back to Lourdes after many decades when it had been banned. The pilgrims loved it. Besides being the “Latin Mass” chaplain I had also been a permanent member of the Italian Language Chaplains Group, and of the English Language Chaplains Group, and of the French Language Chaplains Group. But I digress.
After Mass I made my way back over to the Chaplains House, brought my vestments and Missal and such back to my room on the top floor. I would watch the rivers of pilgrims, by the thousands, coming down the small mountain in back of the Chaplains House, coming off the last stretch of the “Upper Stations.” Finally I went down to the dining room for lunch. It was a perfect summer Sunday. Because of my unique position of having been with so many language groups depending on their needs I could decide at which table to sit. This day there were a few empty places at the English Language Chaplains Group table, so I headed there. You have to know that on any given day there may be present any number of bishops and cardinals and politicians and dignitaries in that dining room.
Present at “my” table was a “Temporary Chaplain” who was single-handedly throughout the decades responsible for the erosion of the prayerful atmosphere at Lourdes, responsible for the destruction of the “Youth Mass”. Needless to say, he hated the Mass of 1962, of the Ages, of Tradition, with great passion. His hatred was always a subject of discussion at table. Not able to forbid the Mass, his plan was to attack me. As soon as he saw me he shouted out for all the dining room guests to hear that I was pedophile. The room, of course, went silent. I asked, “Why do you say that?” He said, thankfully, just as loudly for all to hear, as this was his point in his war against the Traditional Mass:
“I say you are a pedophile because you say that damned Latin Mass and we’ve gone beyond that and you scandalize children who attend that Mass giving them the impression that that Mass is good when it’s not because it’s destroying their character; it’s destroying their ability to look forward, to the future. They’re vulnerable at that age and you’re taking advantage of them by saying that horrible Latin Mass. Pope Benedict should be deposed. Damn him.”
With appropriate stares burning through that “Temporary Chaplain” from all present, the hubbub of the meal immediately picked up again and again it was a beautiful Sunday. I brush that kind of thing off like I brush away a mosquito. It’s annoying for about one second, and then one forgets about it. Whatever. It’s better if you don’t let it draw blood, perhaps infecting you, lowering you to that level.
I remember telling that story in front of a priest who was quite the ecclesiastical climber. He heard the whole story, but all he wanted to hear is that I had “been accused” so that he could smack me down and play the hero. That’s so disgusting. He immediately had me reported to my superior. That superior, who got a frantic call from a certain individual in Rome about my outing a particular leader of the lavender mafia, took the opportunity – upon hearing the entire story, with a witness – to have me immediately thrown into a dumpster. That was literally the only place in the world I was allowed to exist with a blessing. Yep. They all said that it didn’t sound like a credible accusation, but an accusation is an accusation. That was it. Period. It happens all the time.
Seeing these antics and their anguish and their abuse of office and their climbing up on the corpses of their brothers whom they kill at will, I actually laughed, brightly grinning, even while out of the blue I was threatened with a law suit should I ever repeat how I was being treated. Well, I didn’t use any identifying markers in the story, did I? No. Again, lol, still today. Sorry, but I can’t be hurt. Jesus died for me. So, it’s like… someone else can hurt me in some way? No. That would be laughable. It is laughable. Pfft.
Note to my fellow priests who have been accused, whether you’re innocent or guilty. Our Lord also died for you and brings you His sanctifying grace. And then, after that, ecclesiastical ladder climbing over your corpses doesn’t really matter does it? No. Keep the faith. Or regain the faith. This life is short. Heaven is around the corner, much sooner than later. Remember, it’s all about Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One. It’s not about climbers climbing the ladder on mountains of dead priests that they’ve killed. Instead, it’s about Jesus. Only Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One.
By the way, I’ve since been able to climb out of the dumpster. And if anyone thinks that a post like this is a scandal about the priesthood and vocations, I say that such a person is utterly ignorant of the way things are. Jesus had his Judas, did He not, telling us also the way things would be should he call someone to the priesthood? Yes. This kind of thing doesn’t put off vocations. It inspires young men to fight the good fight. Why? Because it helps them to understand that it’s about Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One.
By the way, that “Temporary Chaplain” gave me a donkey as a parting gift when I left Lourdes as I had originally planned before I even went there (I had asked for two years to hear the confessions of the millions of pilgrims – one year we had 12 million pilgrims). This was perhaps a year after his fake-news accusation. He still considers and always considered me a friend. He just didn’t like the Traditional Mass and was blaming the Mass for all of society’s ills. Typical. Anyway, here it is, part of my collection. BTW, the “A” stands for donkey in French, as the French name for donkeys begins with “A”. But we all know the meaning in English literature, don’t we? Yes, we do. Whatever. Jesus has also conquered stupidity. BTW, I always ask dying parishioners to tell Jesus that there is a donkey priest down on earth who needs His special help. They say that surely Jesus will respond that all priests are donkeys, so which one in particular was in need of special help? Hahaha. But I think Jesus will know exactly who the donkey priest is.
The rather well connected Thomas D Williams (son in law of an acquaintance of mine) wrote the other day about a conspiracy to force Benedict out and to replace him with someone a bit more malleable[!], hinting at this, among other things, by way of tidbits from Julian Paul Assange’s Wikileaks about John David Podesta, and from hints from Archbishop Luigi Negri, close friend of Pope Benedict XVI: HERE.
But hey! What do I know? All I know is that the little tidbits that keep coming in are consonant with and answer the most questions about various developments, including the double-murder of Pope Francis’ pregnant “Front of House” “Receptionist” at the time of the gay-marriage referendum in Italy, when enormous pressure was put on the Catholic Hierarchy not to say anything about it, or else. I mean, really, the repeated tantrum like public protestations of the porporati that they didn’t say anything were apoplectic. Some pieces haven’t yet come into the spotlight, and need to be aired. The pressure isn’t just about moral topics and the manipulation of voters’ consciences.
I think I should go have a chat with Julian. I do, after all, have a number of ulterior motives to go to London. The Embassy of Ecuador is just a stroll away from where I would stay, which is just on the other side of Hyde Park (with some 40 volumes of materials to analyse there…), and a bit closer to the American Embassy [!], and a stone’s throw from Tony Blair’s back yard. I’ve been waiting to have a certain chat with Tony since early 2010 about a certain televised debate I would like to set up. He would be the moderator. It’s on a topic he’s spent his retirement facilitating one way or the other. A best friend of mine who is also a best friend of his would boil the billy for the encounter. I don’t think it’s illegal to speak to Assange, or slip a message to him, since he hasn’t been formally charged with anything as far as I know. If you know differently, let me know.
Hah! As soon as you saw that title to this post, admit it, you thought I was referring to Pope Francis, whom I love to pieces. Instead, it seems there is a movement in the Church to elect a new Pontiff, for which action, I contend, the world and the Church is not now prepared, not until Pope Benedict clarifies what it is that his Archbishop Secretary said a while back about his sharing the Petrine Ministry. It would not do to have three Popes, two of whom are, you know…
Elizdelphi has, nevertheless, taken matters into her own hands, and has gone as far as to begin a design on, of all things, my own papal coat of of arms. Hah! It being that I’m a simple priest in the tiniest parish in North America, I’m hoping that people will not take this as a serious campaign and condemn me as a mortal sinner for such shenanigans as these. My detractors don’t seem to realize that I’ve done much worse in crucifying the Son of the Living God with my sin. But let’s get on with some art appreciation!
I note the triple crown regarding prophet (the unvarnished glorious truth), priest (the only Priest being Jesus) and king (the latter involving fatherly governance) has returned. She regrets not finding a way immediately to add Saint Michael. I’m thinking that the white background can be filled with vertically placed feathers representing the Holy Spirit and the messengers sent to instruct us in that fiery truth of love.
The motto is wonderful. You will see these words together throughout the Scriptures, and my dad liked to repeat them to me a lot: “Goodness and kindness, George, goodness and kindness.”
Elizdelphi says that the blue is water in honor of Lourdes where I was a chaplain for a couple of years at my request. Perhaps she knows that Lourdes is connected with Our Lady of Mount Carmel with which I have a long and far reaching history, throwing me, time and again, in front of those at the top of the Order. The Immaculate Conception appeared as Our Lady of Mount Carmel to Saint Bernadette. The water can refer to the bitter sea after which our Lady is named, Our Lady of Sorrows. That follows from the clear vision she had as the Immaculate Conception, seeing clearly what we needed when seeing her Son crucified in front of her. She perfectly saw our horror and could perfectly intercede for us. I’m going to say that the blue is the rain coming down upon Elijah’s seven fold prayer on Mount Carmel after the great sacrifice and conversion of the people. The rain cloud came up out of the sea to end the 3 1/2 years drought of punishment. I say that the water is flowing down Mount Carmel. It’s in the form of Mount Carmel, no?
She says that the Star of David represents Mary. O.K. In that case, the Blessed Sacrament is the seventh point of that star, found in the womb of the star as it were. The donkey, kneeling before Jesus, makes up the three stars of the Discalced Carmelite Order, and the donkey, you have to know, has for many thousands of years been the symbol of the Jewish people. By the way, I’m Jewish! Christ is the Head of the Body and we the members, as Saint Paul says. Mary is our mother.
There is only a couple of changes I would make with the donkey, and that’s to ditch the bridle, to change the color to gray, and to add the cross which is borne by all palestinian donkeys.
For those of you new to such “don’t follow the rules of heraldry” papal coats of arms, perhaps a reminder is needed that this donkey has been resurrected from the dead. You should remember that Corbinian’s bear on the coat of arms of Benedict XVI was actually a donkey, that is, fulfilling the role of the donkey after he killed the donkey. Benedict called himself that “donkey”. See the outrageously wonderful 2005 article of Archbishop Raymond Burke about the newly elected Pope Donkey, Benedict XVI. And then, to those of you who are fuming mad and flinging the rest of us into hell in all the mortal sin you suppose I and Ratzinger and Burke (who may well be the next Roman Pontiff) are in for speaking of the papacy being filled with the likes of a jackass, to you I say, lighten up. Have some Christian mirth. Rejoice! The Lord is good and kind. Again, I will say it: Rejoice!
And, just to say it:
(1) Donkeys are intelligent, only doing what they understand, which really is smart. They are not “stubborn as a mule.” Mules are stubborn as mules as they have a reason to be belligerent.
(2) Donkeys can sing: their braying is their praying, as it were.
(3) Donkeys are always with the Holy Family, carrying Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem, warming Jesus with donkey-breathing at the crib, carrying the Holy Family down to Egypt and then all the way back to Nazareth, carrying Jesus into Jerusalem. I’m happy to be a donkey!
P.S. If I place the donkey in adoration before Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, what with salvation coming from the Jews, I am not thereby bringing the Jews to Auschwitz. I’m Jewish. That’s me and any Christian and any Jew who would like to share this greatest love the Jews have given to the entire human race. Jesus, the Jew, is the best, as is His mom.
And… and… if Chesterton still has anything to say about it, behold:
When fishes flew and forests walked
And figs grew upon thorn,
Some moment when the moon was blood
Then surely I was born;
With monstrous head and sickening cry
And ears like errant wings,
The devil’s walking parody
On all four-footed things.
The tattered outlaw of the earth,
Of ancient crooked will;
Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb,
I keep my secret still.
Fools! For I also had my hour;
One far fierce hour and sweet:
There was a shout about my ears,
And palms before my feet.
RomeReports reports from Rome that “Benedict XVI will go back to the Apostolic Palace for the first time after his resignation. He will be honored at Clementine Hall for the 65th anniversary of his priestly ordination. Joseph Ratzinger was ordained priest on June 29, 1951, in Freising,Germany. He was 24-years-old. The event is scheduled for Tuesday, June 28th. Pope Francis will be joining the Pope Emeritus.”
I’m guessing now, but surely that’s an icon of “Our Holy Father Benedict” as the Benedictines call their sainted founder, with the statue being that of Saint Michael, I guess. There is some stomping on the crescent moon in any case. This seems to be a most pleasant conversation.
The blue sapphire, lapis lazuli, found with the first river of paradise in the Book of Genesis, and found with the most sacred places throughout the Scriptures, reminds me of Benedict’s Angelus message of September 14, 2008 in Lourdes, France, where he said the most extraordinary words of his priestly life about the Immaculate Conception.