And no, I am not talking about the events leading up to February 11, 2013.
I am speak about the plan moving through sections of the Roman Curia right now to “solve” the problem of a “Pope emeritus”. I have this on the word of a very highly respected member of the Roman Curia who told me of it.
The enemies of Christ realize that this title proves that the resignation was never complete and therefore that Pope Benedict never renounced the Papal Office at all, and is still the pope. That means Bergoglio’s entire reign of terror was uncanonical, a fraud, of no value, not legally binding on the Church in anything.
They cannot tolerate that. So now they feel confident in removing “the evidence of the problem”.
I wonder whether there are different points of view here. Do some want Benedict to stop calling himself “pope”, signing as the “Pastor of Pastors, Pope Benedict XVI” (Benedictus XVI P.P.)*, wearing the white cassock and skull cap? Do others go so far as to want him out of the Vatican and no longer cared for by the Head of the Pontifical Household? Do still others want a “canonical” solution which pretends or keeps up the pretense of a valid resignation?
I believe dissent on this matter is visceral, right now, in the Vatican. The Head of the Vatican Police seems to have been a partisan of the group which holds that Bergoglio has no valid claim, since, when he tendered his resignation this fall, Bergoglio demanded of him that he mention, in his letter of resignation, that he recognizes “Pope Francis as the Successor of Saint Peter”, a textual statement which has nothing to do with a letter of resignation per se, but which proves that Bergoglio is on the war path to punish anyone who thinks otherwise. (Did Sodano’s sacking have anything to do with this? — I do not know, but he certainly does know of the controversy since there is nothing going on in the Vatican that he does not know through his many clients there).
And do not doubt it. The whole Roman Curia knows that Benedict is still the pope and that in their haste they were wrong in presuming that he resigned the office of St. Peter in February 2013. I make this claim on the basis of the human reactions I get when discussing this with learned partisans of the Bergoglian regime. It’s a topic with which they are very familiar and know precisely what to say and not to say to pretend otherwise. They also employ their most forceful anger against those facts and points-of-law-in-application which directly address the problem. It’s such a hot potato, that few are even willing to speak about it. And some even run away when they see you coming, if you have requested to speak with them on this topic.
Their hope is that most of the laity are dopes and will keep eating up the propaganda that their handlers in the press and social media keep putting out: Shut up! Do not think about it! It does not matter! You are seeing things! You are a heretic and a schismatic if you say otherwise!** The Revolution, in the minds of the Bergoglian party, must go forward. They have to have approbation of all that is evil and the utter destruction of the Church which claims to be founded by the true Jewish Messiah. That is the end game.
The Battle of 2020
Pope Benedict XVI for his part has made it quite clear that his “yes” to accept the Papal Office is a “forever” yes. There is thus going to be a battle, and it will break out in 2020. Catholics who love and remain in communion with Pope Benedict need to go on the war path.
We need to identify and contact the 40 to 70 Cardinals, whom the Vaticanista, Edward Pentin, said in 2017,*** were inclined to call an imperfect council to remove Bergoglio on the grounds that his claim to the papacy is vitiated by some canonical problem, whether heresy, schism or invalidity.
We need to mobilize Catholics to financially support any effort which is necessary to defend the person of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict.
We need to keep up the heat on the partisans of error: those devilishly bold individuals who lie in public and are willing to say anything to keep you from realizing
that in Canon Law the Latin word munus HAS NEVER meant MINISTERIUM,
that Pope Benedict NEVER SAID HE RESIGNED the petrine munus
that Pope Benedict NEVER AFFIRMED THAT HE INTENDED to resign the petrine munus.
that the Cardinals and journalists are not infallible, when they say the contrary of nn. 1, 2, or 3.
that the Cardinals, journalists, and Bishops have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to interpret the act of renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013 as an act of renunciation of anything other than ministerium.
Those who are telling these lies are all getting hefty salaries from someone. Those who are calling out the liars get salaries from no one. That should tell you which side is from God and which is from Mammon. As public liars and frauds, they have no right to be seen for what they are not: honest men who are intellectually respectable or reliable. For more than 6.5 years they have marshaled no arguments against the canonical invalidity. And yet they insist that they should be listened to!
We need to organize Catholics in Portugal to prepare a place or places of refuge for the Pope, if He should chose to flee Rome, since, as Our Lady hinted in BOLD LETTERS during the apparitions there, “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved.” And all who know their Catholic theology well, know that that implies that Portugal will at the very least remain in communion with the true Pope, if not be a place of refuge for him and His valid successors, if needed.
May the Holy Saints of the Knights Templar**** in Portugal and their devotees in our own time MOBILIZE.
May we all do our duty now in the most important battle, in the Church, to come in 2000 years.
* Which clearly indicates he has in his own mind never resigned or intended to resign the Papal dignity, despite what some Cardinals are conjecturing.
** This plot to dethrone Benedict is thus evidence that their propaganda has been just that. It has served to hide the evidence from public view, it never was an honest denial.
**** I mention this Order because it took refuge from an unjust suppression in Portugal and was refounded there in the 14th century. There are thus many faithful Catholics devoted to their memory, in Portugal, and I pray they become the network for helping Pope Benedict.
An Open Letter to the Scottish Hermits
“excommunicated” on Christmas Day
I have eaten lunch with one of the signers of your letter, if you remember, in the Piazza Navona, back in 2016. So I consider myself obligated in Christ to say something to you, as a fellow hermit.
Your recent letter denouncing Bergoglio was correct in everything but the most important point. You have presumed that Pope Benedict’s renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013 was in accord with canon 332 §2, when I informed you in my last email, before I lost your email when my old computer fried up, that you should read the information about ppbxvi.org.
I cannot find it easy to understand your position, which basically holds that what a single tweet by the ANSA reporter, Giovanna Chirri, said on that fateful day, is more certain than what Christ promised Saint Peter and what the Church taught infallibly at Vatican I on the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, or even than the certitude of God’s will in adhering to the LETTER of Canon Law, which no one has the right to interpret in any other sense than the letter.
You have instead preferred to break from the See of Rome on account of a man who was never the Roman Pontiff, is a usurper and is rightfully called an Antipope.
Ann Barnhardt does a line by line critique of your letter, and this mind boggling stubbornness of yours, to hold political correctness or human opinion above divine faith. I personally would never have written so strongly as she has, but having read what she has said, I must say I agree 100% because it is entirely rational, entirely based on the Divine Faith, and entirely in harmony with both Vatican I and the Code of Canon Law.
Because outside of the communion and submission to the Apostolic See there is no salvation.
I understand that you may hold fast to the rumor put out by Chirri and all the evil lies of the Revolutionaries who want that tweet to be true, but if you consider men friends who insist Bergoglio is the pope or that a heretic can be the pope, then you need to separate yourselves from their counsel, because it is evil counsel.
In fact, when you take as your truth, not the Gospel nor the laws of the Church, but the statements and assertions of journalists and political correctness, then what you are is not a Catholic, but a modernist, who believes truth changes with the times, and who refuses to apply unchanging principles to judge all things, even alleged papal renunciations.
Sincerely in Saint Francis, a fellow hermit:
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Feast of Saint John the Apostle
P.S. If any reader can send this letter to the HERMITS please do so. They know I have good will for them, from my past attempts to help them in other affairs.
POSTSCRIPT: Subsequently, the Hermits published statements on radio which so discord with the Catholic Faith, that I have to say that I honestly think they are professing heresy, because they seem to exalt the rights of conscience so much as they deny without shame the indefectibility of the Church and the papacy from which that grace comes, simply because they willfully and without cause refuse to accept the terms of Canon 332 §2 according to the norm of canon 17. They actually want Bergoglio to be a legitimate pope so they can justify separation. I get the impression that they want to be Greek Orthodox Schismatics, which is very fashionable in the United Kingdom, but at the same time pretend they are Catholics. Let us pray for their souls, because in their present state I cannot see how they can save their souls. The greatest danger of the eremitical life has always been pride, thinking that you are the source of grace apart from the institutional Church. This is a prime example, sadly.
As you can see from this blog, From Rome, I make it a point to write about topics about which I see no one talking, but which need to be spoken about. In this post I will speak to those men who are slaves to the sins of impurity and how to be liberated in Christ. This is the “you” to whom I speak.*
Some of you have been enslaved since your youth, because no one told you in time what was a mortal sin of impurity and so you developed an addiction to sins of this kind. Some of you had such an addiction and broke it. And some of you fell into such an addition later in life.
The first advice I can give you, is not to take advice from someone who is addicted to the same sin. The internet is full of individuals, with or without degrees in pertinent fields, who are obviously addicted to impurity since they openly say there is nothing bad about such an addiction.
The best advice, of all, is to take the counsel of God and His Saints. This matter is very serious, for as Our Lady says at Fatima, the sins of impurity take the most souls to hell. And Saint Alphonsus says that no soul goes to Hell without the sin of impurity, just like no soul gets to heaven without the virtue of humility.
The second advice I can give you is, that you need to recognize that without Jesus Christ you cannot be saved. There is no self help which can save you, or which you can practice, without Jesus. That is because, the addiction to the sins of impurity is not just a physical or chemical addiction, but a spiritual addiction.
Because, the power of procreation which God has given to men and women, is not merely a biological power. In virtue of the fact that this power cooperates immediately and intimately with God’s creative power, in creating new human souls, at the moment of conception, the power of procreation is the one biological power which touches upon the supernatural and is inextricable from the spiritual.
To understand at the most basic level this power, consider that in 80 days each and every individual adult man in the world (even the most chaste) produces enough zygotes to repopulate nearly the entire planet with its present population. God made the man this way to show us how the power of procreation touches upon the Infinite power of the God of Life.
The misuse of such a power, then, is a very spiritual sin, it is not just a carnal sin.
Now many have spoken about what to do to break such a horrible slavery, from the point of view that these sins are carnal. The first things are fasting and abstinence, which in modern times must be said to include reducing the intake of proteins, vitamins and all nutritional sources, liquor and eliminating all stimulants, whether taken internally or used upon the body. The total destruction and removal of all pornography which you keep at home, in your office, in your car, or under your control (if you have the habit of hiding it elsewhere). The mortification of the eyes and imagination. The firm resolution never to commit such sins again. The removal of your person from occasions of these sins. Ending all evil friendships. Corporal mortifications, such as cold showers. — And in this one must recognize that there is no little sin of impurity. That is, there is no venial sin of impurity. Impurity is always a mortal sin. Because impurity as a sin consists in the use of the procreative power in a way in which it is not ordered to the conception of new souls in the womb of your wife. For that is the only reason and purpose God gave you to use this power.**
These are some of the necessary means to break addiction to carnal sins. Almost every man who has ever asked me counsel about such matters is one which I find, upon interrogation, is NOT practicing the above, or is addicted to self indulgence, as for example, eating too much red meat or using pornography.
But today I want to speak about the spiritual side of this sin. And not simply that a man falls into this sin because he does not have the habit of praying, such as praying the daily rosary. This is true, but why is it true?
Men commit sins of impurity because they are trying to prove something to themselves. This seems at first somewhat of an absurd and abstract statement, but it is not.
This is because, at the human level, we are not pure spirits, nor pure bodies, we are the union of an immortal soul and a mortal body. And often an individual who neglects to recognize this union of extremes in himself, takes action on one level, when action is required on the other level.
Thus, men who consider themselves a failure in anything visible try to compensate by proving that in something else they are a success in something else which is visible. This is why sins of impurity are so common among young men who are in a crisis about who they are to be and whether anyone really loves them in this world, and why they are so common among men who are in a crisis in their marriage or career or job, because they either do not find that they are loved by their wives, or because they think that failure in some other matter, requires them to attempt to succeed by being impure.
I will leave it to psychologists to enumerate all the occasions in which the sense of failure leads immediately to sins of impurity, especially the sin of self abuse, but I will enumerate some.
Failure to win a spot on the team or in the club.
Failure to succeed in a project or mission.
Failure to convince others of your point of view.
Failure to win at some contest.
Failure to distinguish yourself in come accomplishment or talent or in good looks.
Failure to be accepted by someone or group in which you put your hopes for self affirmation.
From the sense of failure most men react by seeking to affirm themselves by some act of impurity. By this they attempt to prove to themselves that they have what it takes to be a man and/or have it more than or better than those men whom they perceive to be their rivals or role models, whether as fathers or as peers.
And this is why only Jesus Christ and the identity He offers you in His Kingdom can save you.
Because only that kind of salvation which is interior and which satisfies that which we need most fundamentally, can rescue us from the real spiritual problem in which we fall, which consists in this, that we recognize that we have failed to be what we were never made to be WITHOUT RECOGNIZING what we are called and made to be.
This is verified in sins of impurity. Because the onset of such sins is nearly always at a time in life in which the individual has in his own eyes failed, because he is seeking to be that which he is not.
And the most common error here, is that a man seeks to be a man who is perfect according to the body, when in truth, we are made to be men who are perfect according to the soul. When we try to satisfy that which Saint Augustine calls, the most intimate desire of our heart, in something else, we find it does not fit, we then consider ourselves a failure, and then we try to make up for the dent or damage to our innermost conception of our own dignity. That is why, as St Augustine says, Thou has made our hearts for Thee, and they are restless until they rest in Thee.
And to be precise, I am not talking here about merely psychological depression. I am talking about ontological depression.
That is why we cannot be saved except by the Most Holy Trinity. Because when you turn back to the Most Holy Trinity, you turn back to the Source of all Order and Identity. And repentance will be just that: the decision made possible by God’s grace and YOUR collaboration with it, to seek again that which you were made to be and to stop wandering down ever-narrowing dark alleys of existence, in which there is no lasting consolation, but only worsening deprivation and worsening emptiness.
We are called to be the adopted sons of the Eternal Father. We are called to be the adopted brothers of the Eternal Son. We are called to be the adopted temples and soldiers of the Eternal Lord and Vivifier, the Holy Spirit. And I will add, we are called to be the beloved sons and knights of the Blessed Virgin, Our Mother in Heaven.
We are called by a Love which has contemplated our own personal individual existence from Eternity. We are called by this Eternal Love to be loved eternally. We are called by this Love which is God to be loved by everyone in Heaven, perfectly and forever. There, where God will wipe away every tear and sorrow and all shall be gladness and rejoicing. A Beatitude which we will posses in soul, but which also will pour over out of our souls into our bodies.
This is why, the most powerful prayer to break from the slavery to the sins of impurity is the Our Father. Because in this one prayer we can come to understand that our eternal destiny our ultimate and perfect affirmation, consolation, encouragement comes from the Eternal Father and finds its fulfillment only In Him.
This is also why repeated meditations or confessions which focus ONLY upon the eternity of hell and how horrible and terribly we have failed God by sins of impurity, is NOT going to solve the problem. It may even make it worse, because it increases the sense of failure and gives no hope or direction where to find true success.***
So my final advice is to contemplate that throne next to Himself to which God has called you, and for which He has made you and in this way you will find a stable ground upon of grace upon which to step forth from this slavery. For if you want that throne in which is found all goodness, you must understand that you must give up all impurity. Because just as the power of procreation touches upon the Infinite, so the virtue of purity is the root of immortality.
Because in the task of being something, where it really matters, that is, in getting to Heaven, God Himself with His Eternal Love and with His Omnipotence, has both made you in Christ and empowers you with His Holy Spirit — if you accept the challenge — to succeed eternally and achieve perfection in being eternally loved by everyone in Heaven, and not according to the flesh, but according to who you are, which is that according to which you are unique in all the cosmos, in all time and eternity.
May Our Immaculate and Ever Virgin Mother, who is so saddened when She sees us sin in any way, especially against purity, be your refuge and path back to God. For She who never was in any way impure was rewarded with the greatest joy in Heaven and She wants you, as Her adopted child, to enjoy that with Her, for as a Mother, Her heart can not rest until She sees you with Her in Her home and at Her table.****
* And I speak to men, for no other reason, that being a man, I know something about being a man. I will readily confess, that as a hermit and consecrated virgin, I know nothing about women.
** And yes, that means, if you do not have a wife, you should never use this power. To understand this, let me use an example from an entirely different matter. At a gun range, when you practice shooting, you shoot at a target. If you shoot at anything else, you will never be allowed to return and may also be arrested and sent to prison. These are the rules of a gun range. And God has His own rules, because all Creation is His Range, and God Has an eternal prison, it’s called Hell. And Arresting Angels (not nice people at all), who are the angels of destruction and damnation (a.k.a devils) which take those in mortal sin to Hell.
*** This why I believe it is necessary for Confessors, during confession, not simply to hear the sins of impurity enumerated by the penitent, or simply talk about the eternity of hell which they merit, but to remind the sinner that he is called to a true destiny where he can succeed in arriving, because God is at his back every step of the way.
**** And She has many graces which no one ever asks Her for. One of which, is the grace to be worthy of Her love through a life of purity. For only the pure shall merit to kiss Her hand in Heaven.
Here is the Video by Brian Murphy, which explains why Pope Benedict XVI never ceased being the only true pope. Now with German Subtitles. Please share this with your German friends, and if you can get a copy to Pope Benedict or Archbishop Ganswein or Cardinal Brandmuller, please do so! For the salvation f the Church in Germany and throughout the worldQ
The purpose of human language is to communicate truth.
This is saying which is agreed upon by nearly every member of humanity. But we often forget how profound its implications are.
Saint Thomas says, that the truth of which we speak here, is the right relation between the human mind and reality as it is. The discovery of truth, then, is the discovery of the right way to understand the reality which is around us or inside us.
But we often forget the other word in this universal definition of human language: communicate. “Communicate” is word which comes from the Latin verb meaning “to build up together” or to “to share gifts with one another”. In the definition of human language we see the profound social aspect of speaking and its goals on the level of society: sharing and the promotion of the perfection of one another. The communication of truth therefore is the fulfillment of the inherent goals both of communication and of truth.
What I have just written could be called the philosophical or anthropological principles of human language. Not just of any one particular human language, but of all human language.
The other tongue
An individual human language is also called a “tongue” from the fact that each language requires for its proper enunciation a way of enunciation which is habitual and requires the tongue which speaks it to adapt accordingly.
But there is another sense of the word, “tongue”, which I want to employ here: this is the sense in which the word means not one kind of human speech, but an entire different philosophy or definition of human language.
Because just as human language according to its natural or proper definition is a set of spoken sounds, which can be recorded in written forms, for the sake of communicating truth, so, if one changes the final purpose of human language, one, as it were, gives birth to an entirely different tongue, on account its altered purpose.
And such a tongue exists. And it has a name, not from its human author, but analogously from the first being which used communication for another purpose: Satan.
Satanic language is a system of communication for the purpose of sharing falsehood, and not for building up or the sharing of gifts, but for tearing down and theft and robbery, and ultimately for murder. As Christ said of its author: “Who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning” (cf. John chapter 8: read this whole chapter to see both Tongues at work)
This other tongue, since it is not creative except of deception — as it has no other reason for being — uses the words of human language and creates new words which serve to hide the lie under the appearance of truth. We can easily recognize these lying words, because of their novelty, and not just any novelty, but a novelty used to overthrow the words which have been used from the beginning.
Every tongue gives birth to its own Culture
Now it is a fact of reality and a truth of anthropology that every unique tongue gives rise to unique culture. This is because the language according to which we speak is the default form for our way of thinking and perceiving. And hence every language gives birth to its own culture: every language, not only in the sense of modes of human speech, but also in the sense of which I speak here, of the two purposes of speech.
The summit and perfection, the culmination and fulfillment of every language finds itself and its salvation in Christ, and in particular, in the preaching of the Gospel, the good news, which is the greatest gift we can share verbally and the greatest truth we can communicate.
The characteristic of a human language which is thus baptized is that it means what it says and says what it means, and both in the most profound way. We see this in Sacred Scripture, where though the Hebrew Language was chosen by God to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah, it speaks in vagaries and in a dark and obscure manner, quite unlike the Koine Greek which the Apostles sanctified for the preaching of the Gospel, which reveals clearly and openly the Salvation which comes from the Incarnation of the Eternal Word of the Father. Shadow passes to light, figure and prophecy to reality and fulfillment.
This is true even on the historical level. Because in very many such cultures, it was the preaching of the Gospel which gave rise to the historical forms of their human languages or at least fixed them in written form as a monument to the ages, and provided a millennial bridge from one generation to the next for the preservation of meaning and signification. We can see this especially in the Latin language, which once understood can grasp the meaning of what writers from the 5th century before Christ to the 19th century after the birth of Christ are saying. We see this especially in languages which had their birth or genesis after the preaching of the Gospel, as for example, English, a language which in its present form knew not disbelief until disbelief was introduced from another land.
The tongue of Satan also gives rise to its own culture. We can see this in the way those who oppose the Gospel have ever acted: denying the plain meaning of words, denying that words have meaning, denying that words mean things different than other words. This attack on human language is a necessary technique of that Tongue which serves to break down the other by the employment of deception.
This technique gave rise to a false and misleading way of reading the Old Testament, so as to convince all who read it to deny that Christ was its fulfillment. It created an entire commentary on the Old Testament filled with vain and false tales and strange and novel doctrines which aimed all with that same purpose. This way of denying Scripture gave birth to a sect in which attacking the good and attacking Christianity was a practiced habit of mind and speech.
All peoples, however, who abandon Jesus Christ and all groups who reject Him, must follow in the same path, because you cannot reject Incarnate Truth without attacking the truth incarnate in every word and speech or thought of mind.
Thus we see this Other Tongue in action in the errors of Nominalism (the philosophical position which says that words do not name anything real), Modernism (the theological heresy which holds that everything in religion comes from sentiment, not God) and the global push for a new form of humanity, divorced from reality and wantonly joined to unnatural falsehoods.
This war of two tongues is most evident in the fight to defend the life of children in the womb and at birth. The entire maniacal and diabolic industry of death and genocide makes its every move on the turn of the meaning of an old word or the invention of a new word to conceal their murderous intent.
Another recent example of this war is the recent study by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, in which the destruction of Sodom is insisted to be a punishment for a lack of hospitality not for a lack of chastity. Still another, is seen in the verbal gymnastics used to insist that Benedict resignation were valid or conformable to the Code of Canon Law also gives rise to entirely new words (Bennyvacantism) used to conceal lies and entirely new ways of reading Canon Law (munus = ministerium), Catholic Doctrine (infallibility does not prevent a heretical pope), or the Bible (the Gates will not prevail means they can succeed some times), which are invented solely for one purpose, to deny the truth.
The war between Satan and Saint Michael the Archangel began with a war of communication with entirely two different tongues. The war of cultures among men also has its source in a war of Two Tongues. I hope, therefore, that this post enables you to discern these Two Tongues and these Two Cultures better. Of them Saint Augustine wrote eloquently in his Book on the City of God, in which he spoke of Two cities: one founded on the love of God unto the contempt of all other things, and the other founded upon the love of self unto the contempt of God.
Vivimos en una era extraña cuando chismosos profesionales (conocidos como periodistas) son titiriteros de las masas porque el 95% de la gente permite que ellos dicten los límites de la realidad, historia, moralidad y religión. Y hasta que algún periodista destacado utilice la palabra “Herejía”, “Cismático”, o “Apóstata” en referencia a alguien que amerita el termino/s, entonces nadie con uso de razón acusaría a un compañero católico de tan horrible ofensa por juicio propio porque como como ellos dicen: “Todo mundo sabe que es cismático rechazar la comunión a un compañero católico de buen estado. ¡Y buen estado significa que aún no ha sido condenado oficialmente por la Iglesia!”
Esto es “gaslighting” (en inglés), por supuesto. Gas-lighting es un término con el cual todos deberían de familiarizarse. Es la táctica de aquellos practicados en la manipulación psicológica utilizada para ganar clientes, sujetos, inferiores, a negar la realidad que conocen y ven, y aceptar que la realidad es lo que el manipulador dice ser.
En cuanto fue elegido Bergoglio (como supuesto papa), comenzó el “gaslighting”. Estas viendo cosas, Él es el papa, no puedes hablar así del papa. Disentir es pecado mortal. Si no lo aceptas como papa estas fuera de la Iglesia.¡No eres católico!
Últimamente, a medida que las herejías y la malevolencia de Bergoglio explotan fuera de todas las proporciones que las de cualquier hereje anterior en la historia de la Iglesia, algunos católicos que anteriormente eran famosos por su ortodoxia doctrinal y moral experimentan ataques apopléticos en sus intentos de sofocar el reconocimiento de la realidad. “Reconocer y resistir” es su mantra. Están empeñados, literalmente, en permanecer en comunión con Bergoglio, luego, no se atrevan a llover sobre sus fantasías mostrándoles hechos de Ley Canónica (cánones números 1364, 1329, etc.) que demuestran que, por derecho divino, los herejes están fuera de la Iglesia, apenas profieren herejía.
Éstos apologetas de la revolución están tan empeñados en negar la realidad de la renuncia fallida del Papa Benedicto (cf ppbxvi.org para información completa). Se descomponen y arremeten. Muestran que su apego al “Papa Francisco” no es ni racional ni razonable, es visceral. Cuán visceral depende, supongo, de si observan los mandamientos sexto o noveno. Este completo colapso psicológico, intelectual y espiritual es el resultado de lo que yo llamo el acertijo de Iscariote. Uso “Iscariote” aquí en el sentido de la palabra aramea para un hombre del mismo pueblo que el falso apóstol, Judas Iscariote. Desde entonces como él, han vendido al verdadero Cristo por las 30 piezas de plata que es reconocimiento público por parte de los Cardenales como “católico fiel”.* Y como lo hicieron por razones puramente egoístas, sentimentales, no racionales y no legales o no dogmáticas, explotan de emoción cuanto más les señalas que han construido su casa sobre una premisa falsa. Entonces, arremeten cada vez más y pierden todos los rastros de aquel excelente personaje que alguna vez exhibieron, convirtiéndose en el proceso, irónicamente, la misma semejanza del diálogo que Bergoglio es, un Troll repugnante y que avienta adjetivos.
Un Estado de Emergencia
Nadie menos que él obispo Gänswein, el secretario personal del Papa Benedicto XVI y cabeza de la Casa Pontificia (que solo tiene un huésped CLAVE CLAVE) dijo que lo que Benedicto hizo en Febrero de 2013 fue a cuenta de un estado de emergencia.
Sus palabras y opiniones se debaten en cuanto a lo que significan, pero sería absurdo negar la realidad que es visible para todo el mundo, a saber, que LA SEDE APOSTÓLICA ESTÁ IMPEDIDA.
Decir que la Sede Apostólica está impedida, significa que el Papa no puede actuar como Papa por alguna razón, ya sea por coacción externa, o porque no hay Papa, o el Papa se niega a actuar por alguna convicción irracional o racional. Éste “ser impedido” provoca un estado de necesidad, porque la cabeza visible de la Iglesia visible, para todos los efectos prácticos, no está en función. El estado de necesidad es una necesidad del tipo que se requiere para el funcionamiento continuo de la Iglesia. Dado que el orden normal de gobierno está obstruido, la observancia de leyes meramente positivas en las que se basa, por necesidad, debe omitirse.
Nuestro Señor nos enseña este principio general a pequeña escala, cuando, en una ocasión, Él y Sus Apóstoles cruzaron un campo de trigo durante un tiempo en el que no habían comido nada, y algunos de ellos comieron los granos de trigo que estaban cerca. Al ser cosechados, algunos fariseos se quejaron de que estaban violando las Leyes del Sábado en contra de trabajar durante el sábado. Nuestro Señor señaló que la necesidad de su hambre les permitió no observar la ley sobre la cosecha. Él respondió con una forma semítica contundente, diciendo: “¡El sábado se hizo para el hombre, no el hombre para el sábado!”
La ley contra la cosecha fue instituida no menos que por Moisés, quien tenía mucha más autoridad en la Antigua Alianza (Moisés básicamente escribió todo, bajo la inspiración y dirección de Dios) que el Papa tiene en la Nueva Alianza (el Papa no puede cambiar el Biblia, ni siquiera el Padre Nuestro, aunque muchos clérigos están confundidos sobre este punto).
Además, está claro, según los principios de la lógica (ex minore),** que si Nuestro Señor dice que es lícito apelar a un estado de necesidad, suspender las leyes del Antiguo Pacto, porque los hombres tienen hambre un sábado por la tarde , entonces, obviamente, es lícito actuar en consecuencia CUANDO LA SALVACIÓN DE TODAS LAS ALMAS EN LA TIERRA HASTA EL FINAL DE LOS TIEMPOS se ponga en peligro grave e inminente. Negar esto sería pura locura.
Este principio de la suspensión del derecho positivo durante un estado de necesidad es sancionado por nada menos que el Papa Pío VI, en su Bula, Cum nos superiori anno, del 13 de noviembre de 1798, donde concede a los Cardenales el derecho a derogar Todos los aspectos no esenciales de las leyes papales sobre los cónclaves, a causa de la supresión de facto de la Iglesia de Roma por la República romana, dirigida por los revolucionarios franceses. ***
Extendiendo esta lección a los asuntos de la Iglesia, se deduce que, como buenos cristianos, estamos obligados por la fe divina a regresar al principio general que Jesús estableció, a saber, LA SALVACIÓN DE LAS ALMAS ES LA LEY MÁS ALTA. Para la Salvación de las Almas, el Padre Eterno sacrificó a Su propio Hijo, y Su propio Hijo aceptó Su muerte ignominiosa en una Cruz. PARA LA SALVACIÓN DE LAS ALMAS.
Si hay alguien, por lo tanto, en la Iglesia, que sostiene que debemos esperar a que el Papa (Benedicto) haga algo, o algún papa futuro que haga algo, ESTÁN FUERA DE SUS MENTES y más correctamente, SON FARISEOS que elevan las leyes positivas establecidas por la Iglesia (que indican lo que no se puede hacer sin el permiso de los superiores) al nivel de reglas que requerirían que la Iglesia se suicidara esperando algún tipo de intervención divina sin colaboración humana. Una intervención divina sin colaboración humana, en el presente caso de la Sede impedida, NUNCA SE HA PROMETIDO explícitamente. (Entiendo que hay algunas grandes promesas de Nuestro Señor y Nuestra Señora, pero ninguna de ellas se refiere explícitamente a una promesa de resolver este problema).
Derecho Apostólico (ius apostolicum)
El concepto de Derecho Divino (ius divinum) es un concepto de la escolástica tardía clásica, muy popular en la época del Concilio de Trento y posteriormente. Se refiere a cosas que han sido decretadas por Dios. El oficio de Pedro existe por derecho divino, por ejemplo.
El derecho apostólico (ius apostolicum) no está tan reconocido. Se refiere a las decisiones de los Apóstoles para el gobierno de la Iglesia. Es de derecho apostólico que la iglesia en una ciudad pueda ser gobernada por varios sacerdotes, por ejemplo.
Tanto el derecho divino como el derecho apostólico son superiores a la ley canónica. Por otro lado, lo que la mayoría de los católicos no saben es que, durante más de 1000 años, a excepción de los cánones decretados en los Concilios, la Iglesia no tuvo derecho canónico. El derecho canónico no es de institución divina o apostólica, aunque el Primer Concilio de Jerusalén c. El año 45 d. C. transmitió decisiones y es el ejemplo de todos los Concilios y Sínodos en la Iglesia.
El derecho apostólico también incluye algunas cosas que no se observan en el curso normal de los asuntos, porque desde la época de los Apóstoles, la Jerarquía Sagrada, para el buen orden de la Iglesia en circunstancias normales se han establecido cánones o leyes establecidas para conducir los asuntos de La Iglesia de otra manera.
Tomemos, por ejemplo, la elección de los obispos. Los apóstoles nombraron obispos antes de morir. Pero cuando pasaron a la gloria eterna, lo dejaron a cada diócesis por derecho apostólico para elegir su propio obispo. Y por “a cada diócesis”, me refiero a los católicos de cada diócesis, laicos, religiosos y clérigos. Así es como la Iglesia sobrevivió a 10 persecuciones romanas. Nadie estaba escribiendo a Roma para pedir una cita, cuando murió su obispo.
Además, es de derecho apostólico que cada obispo sirva como ordinario de su diócesis hasta la muerte. No había retiro (jubilación). Esa es una novedad creada por Pablo VI para eliminar a católicos del Colegio de Obispos y reemplazarlos por revolucionarios sodomitas. El derecho canónico reconoce implícitamente que este concepto de jubilación obligatoria es contrario al Derecho Apostólico, ya que no requiere que los Obispos renuncien, solo dice que deben presentar una carta de renuncia al cumplir los 75 años.
También es de derecho apostólico que los obispos puedan reunirse en sínodos y concilios. Hasta donde yo sé, no hay evidencia de que cada sínodo en la Historia de la Iglesia, que se considere un verdadero acto jerárquico, haya sido aprobado por el Papa. Las leyes positivas actuales requieren que el Papa consienta, pero el derecho apostólico no requiere eso. El derecho apostólico es más racional, porque cuando no hay papa o cuando el papa está preso, ¿cómo pueden obtener los permisos los obispos?
Pero la razón general para la reactivación del derecho apostólico tiene que ver con el principio inherente de subsidiariedad en una sociedad perfecta. Este principio fue reconocido por el papa León XIII. Sostiene que cuando la autoridad superior en una sociedad perfecta falla, entonces la autoridad inferior tiene el derecho de asumir el deber de la autoridad superior y actuar en la medida en que sea necesario actuar para preservar o defender esa sociedad. Dado que el Colegio de Obispos en su conjunto sucede a los Apóstoles, cuando la Sede de Pedro se ve obstaculizada, cada Obispo tiene el derecho moral y apostólico de ejercer en cierto sentido la autoridad de los Apóstoles para volver a poner a la Iglesia en buen estado de funcionamiento. Esta es una responsabilidad asombrosa reservada a casos extremos de necesidad, como está sucediendo hoy, con un gobierno hereje público del Vaticano y un Papa (Benedicto) que piensa que ya no es su deber gobernar la Iglesia o reivindicar sus propios derechos como Vicario de Cristo
En un estado de emergencia, el derecho apostólico y divino revive en puntos que ahora, en el curso regular de los asuntos de la Iglesia, regulados por la ley canónica, presuponen una Sede Apostólica que no está impedida. Estas leyes positivas de la Iglesia, que, si se observan, conducirían a la destrucción de la Iglesia o la pérdida de almas están suspendidas en vigor. Es decir, ya no es un delito canónico o una falta moral NO observarlos con la debida razón.
Si hay obispos o cardenales católicos en la tierra, deben reconocer esto antes de que sea demasiado tarde, o la desafortunada advertencia de Nuestra Señora de Akita sucederá, que los fieles se vean privados de los sacramentos de la Penitencia y la Eucaristía y Órdenes, porque ningún obispo tuvo la sensatez de ver que tenía el derecho apostólico o divino de actuar para preservar la Sagrada Jerarquía durante un papado impedido.
Esto se debe a que, con los Apóstoles ya no en la Tierra, y la Sede de Pedro en silencio, todos y cada uno de los miembros del Colegio de Obispos que permanecen católicos pueden asumir lícitamente los deberes de los Apóstoles para la propagación y preservación de la Fe.
Algunas de las cosas que cualquier obispo, con o sin jurisdicción, puede hacer, por derecho divino o apostólico, durante un papado impedido son las siguientes:
Llamar y convocar un Sínodo o Concilio para condenar las causas de la Sede impedida, o condenar a quienes la están perpetrando. (El Papa Julio II sanciona esto en principio) ****
Llamar y convocar un Sínodo o Concilio para deponer a los demandantes al papado que no tengan títulos canónicos válidos. (Esto se hizo en Sutri en 1046 y fue sancionado por San Pedro Damián, el Papa San Gregorio VII y el Bl. Papa Víctor III)
Reprobar a un papa por renunciar parcialmente y descuidar sus deberes apostólicos del ministerio. (Esto podría decirse que no es tan extremo como los nn. 1 o 2, por lo tanto, también se aprueba ex maiore)
Condenar a los herejes por su nombre, condenar las herejías. (Todos los obispos tienen este deber y derecho por derecho divino y apostólico)
Llamar y convocar un Sínodo o Concilio para condenar las herejías y perversidades que se están propagando por los Enemigos de la Iglesia, ya sea dentro o fuera de la Iglesia.
Ordenar obispos católicos para las diócesis que hayan sido asumidas por un obispo hereje donde el obispo católico haya declarado herejía o apostasía. (San Atanasio de Alejandría hizo esto en muchas ocasiones durante la crisis arriana)
Ordenar sacerdotes y diáconos católicos para los fieles de cada diócesis que se ven privados de los sacramentos debido al clero herético o cismático en su área. (San Atanasio de Alejandría hizo esto en muchas ocasiones durante la crisis arriana)
De hecho, durante los primeros 1500 años de la Iglesia, vemos a obispos regularmente haciendo muchas, si no todas, estas cosas. Tenían el beneficio de no estar plagados de conciencia por la ley positiva de la Iglesia, pero el sistema funcionó. Ahora que la Sede Apostólica, más aún el Vaticano, está completamente impedida y tomada por los herejes, ¡los obispos deben actuar!
Este no es el caso imaginario de los sedevacantistas a los que no les gusta un Papa ni el caso más sólido de los tradicionalistas que no quieren abandonar las tradiciones litúrgicas de su Rito: este es el caso de un ataque frontal directo a la Nueva Alianza: el Depósito de la Fe, las Escrituras y la Tradición, a través de la negación abierta de dogmas y doctrinas y disciplinas clave que provienen de Jesucristo y sus apóstoles.
Oraciones y Peticiones
Por favor oren por los obispos de la Iglesia, porque si no actúan, toda la riqueza, el poder y el prestigio de la Iglesia serán robados por una secta de sodomitas marxistas y cientos de millones de almas perecerán sin la doctrina y los sacramentos debidos.
Por favor, hable también con su obispo, si parece ser algo católico. Esto es crucial Conozco a católicos que tienen contactos y que están haciendo esto ahora. Pero aún queda mucho por hacer.
Los laicos católicos, debido a la inacción de los obispos, se ven obligados a aceptar sacramentos de los herejes y cismáticos y sodomitas perversos. Tienen el derecho divino de ser atendidos pastoralmente por el clero católico que está en comunión con el verdadero Papa. Y este derecho está siendo TRASGRESIDO DE MANERA DEMONÍACA Y UNIVERSALMENTE en todas las diócesis del mundo católico en la crisis actual.
Tenemos el derecho divino y apostólico de actuar con insistencia y con plena aprobación de la enseñanza y el ejemplo de Cristo.
* Utilizo citas aquí, para señalar lo absurdo que es este enfoque, sin ninguna evaluación razonable de los acontecimientos históricos, porque los Cardenales aceptaron una renuncia inválida y luego eligieron inválidamente a un psicópata arco-hereje, por lo que no es exagerado dudar de que los Cardenales están dispuestos o son capaces de reconocer lo que es un fiel católico
** Ex minore es un término técnico de lógica medieval que se refiere a declaraciones (argumentos) que se basan en apelar a algo que es verdadero en un caso menor, y argumenta a partir de eso, que debe ser cierto en un caso mayor. Nuestro Señor hace esto todo el tiempo, por ejemplo, en Sus parábolas del Rey preparándose para la guerra, el arquitecto preparándose para construir una torre, etc., como ejemplos de cómo si la prudencia es necesaria en las cosas terrenales, es aún más necesaria en cuestiones de salvación eterna.
*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Roma, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.
****Este Derecho Apostólico se incorporó en la Si summus rerum Opifex del Papa Julio II, en el Quinto Concilio de Letrán del 16 de febrero de 1513, que disponía que, si se violaba esta ley sobre los cónclaves papales con respecto a una elección simoniaca, los Cardenales que no participaban en la simonía podrían recurrir a un Sínodo o Consejo para destronar al antipapa elegido de forma no canónica. Bagliani y Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. Esta ley papal se publicó anteriormente como La Bula, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, 14 de enero de 1505 (ibid., P. 39). Este principio, reconocido por el Papa Julio II y el Quinto Concilio de Letrán, es el que autoriza el llamado de los Sínodos “imperfectos” en tiempos de necesidad, como el nuestro.
In this Article I will collect all the pertinent evidence. As I am trained in Cultural Anthropology, I will proceed by a forensic method.
Universal Christian Tradition
… holds that Christ Jesus, the Eternal Son of God, was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary in a grotto of Bethlehem, in the early hours of December 25, in the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, while Saturinus was governor of the Roman Province of Syria (which held jurisdiction over Iudaea), and Herod the Great, King, at Jerusalem.
The forensic requirement to disprove the universal tradition, therefore, must be of the highest level. Namely, those who claim that Christ was NOT born on December 25th have to prove their claim. The presumption of right is with tradition.
For this reason, I am not going to presume the tradition is false or wrong. I aim to cite the evidence which is known that corroborates it. I am not a Cartesian who thinks that an a priori doubt makes an investigation scientific, because it actually obstructs an impartial consideration of the evidence, wherein there should neither be doubt nor prejudice to either side of the outcome. Nevertheless, I am an anthropologist, so I know that the universal Christian testimony of the ages is EVIDENCE which cannot be discounted.
In such an investigation, we look for evidence which requires that the birth of Jesus be no later than an no earlier than. These two limits or time points, are called the non postquam and the non antequam, or the point not after which, and the point not before which, respectively.
The Life of King Herod sheds light on the Non Postquam
The narrative in the Gospel of Saint Matthew cites some important historical facts. Let’s begin with the visit of the Magi to the court of Herod. The presupposition of this testimony of Saint Matthew is that Herod was holding court at Jerusalem.
Herod, at the end of his life had very poor health and knew his end was near. At the same time he grew arrogant and insisted on imposing his religious views upon the Jews of Jerusalem. Herod was half jew and mixed-in pagan practices. He went so far as to set up an image of the imperial Roman Eagle above the gate of the Temple, at the entrance to the Court of the Gentiles. This was outside the Temple precinct, but it outraged the zealots. Their rabbis convinced their young men to tear it down. This caused a riot and Herod had the rabbis and the young men who participated in stealing the image sent to Jericho to be executed. They were executed, by being burnt alive, on the night of a Full Moon. We know of these events from Josephus Flavius’ history of the era, entitled the Antiquities, Book XVII, chapter VI, n. 5.
We can deduce several things from Josephus’ account: Herod was still in Jerusalem when the zealots were executed. He was capable of great brutality just as Saint Matthew says. And that the execution took place on January 10, 1 B.C.. (Note that after 1 BC comes 1 AD, there is no year 0), because that is the only Full Moon visible at Jerusalem in this period.
According to historians, Herod left for Jericho, to partake of its curative waters some time no later than the mid of February of the same year. This means that the Magi had to have found Herod at Jerusalem no later than Mid February, 1 B.C. This is the non postquam, since the Magi could not have visited both the Child Jesus and Herod after mid February, 1 B.C..
Tradition holds that the Magi visited Christ on the Epiphany, which is on January 6th.
This non postquam is confirmed by the Roman Historian, Macrobius, in his Saturnalia, Book II, n. 11, where he says that Herod ordered the slaughter of newborns under 2 years of age, at the time of the death of his own son, Antipater. Antipater died 5 days before Herod, who himself perished on April 8, 1 B.C.. So the slaughter of innocents had to have been ordered after April 2nd and executed before Herod’s death. The loss of his heir, Antipater, would have given Herod strong reasons to seek the slaughter of any rival King of the line of the House of David, thus confirming Saint Matthew’s account.
The non postquam enables us to make a first guess at a non antequam when we add the requirements of the Gospel of Luke who says that after 40 days, Our Lady presented the Child Jesus in the Temple, and then the Holy Family returned to Nazareth. Therefore, the Magi had to visit before the 40th day after the birth of Jesus. This means, that the birth of Jesus had to have been before January 6th, 1 B.C..
The Baptism of Jesus sheds light on the Non Antequam
According to the Gospel of Luke 3:23, we know that Jesus was about 30 years old when He began His public ministry, and that this ministry began with His Baptism by John. John himself began preaching a baptism of repentance in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, according to Saint Luke 3:1. Roman Emperors counted their regnal years from January 1 to December 31, even if they assumed power before January 1. This means that the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar began on January 1, 29 A. D.. This corresponds to the Prophet Daniel 9:25 who said that in 483 years after the issuing of the Decree to Rebuild Jerusalem (issued in 454 B.C.), the Messiah would be revealed.
Hence, counting back 30 years, Jesus was born sometime in the Fall to Winter of 2 B.C.. This means that Christ could not have been born before Sept 21th, 2 B.C..
The prophet Daniel also foretold that the Messiah would be “cut off” after a 3.5 year public ministry (Danial 9:27). This is confirmed by Saint John in His Gospel who records 4 Passovers celebrated by Our Lord (John 2:13, 5:1, 6:4, and 11:55). This means that Christ’s Baptism occurred sometime after Nov. 8, 29 B. C., and that therefore, His birth has to be after Nov. 8th, 2 B.C..
It was Jewish custom of the time that Rabbi’s did not begin their public ministry until they were 30 years of age. We also know from the Gospel of Saint Luke, that Our Lord fasted for 40 days in the desert before He began His public ministry. Therefore, since Jewish fasts were preparatory, the fast would have had to ended before His 30th birthday. Hence, the non antequem must be no earlier than December 18th, which is the 40th day from Nov. 8th.
The Temple Service of Zechariah sheds light on the non antequam
We know from the testimony of Saint Luke that the Archangel Gabriel appears to Zechariah while his turn was up for service in the Temple. From the study of Temple practices and the order of the Levites who served there, we know that Zechariah had to have been in the Temple from September 5 to September 11th of the year he served. That means, with travel and other normal delays, that John the Baptist could have been conceived no earlier than the 15th of September, and probably later, since Elizabeth would only be capable of conceiving naturally one out of every four weeks. We also know that Saint John was 6 months older than Our Lord, according to the same testimony of Saint Luke, when he refers to the time the same Archangel was sent to Our Lady. This means that Our Lord was conceived not earlier than March 15th, and thus born no earlier than Dec. 15th. This corroborates the calculation derived from Christ’s Fast and Baptism.
Epiphanius’ testimony on Epiphany sheds light on the non postquam
The ecclesiastical writer of the 3rd century after Christ, Epiphanius says that the Feast of Epiphany was established to commemorate the date of the Wedding Feast of Cana, as the beginning of Christ’s public ministry. If we combine this with the 7 days of Saint John’s Gospel, reckoning that these days were after Christ’s birthday, not before it, then we have a non postquam date of Dec. 31st.. This interpretation is more sound, because it can be expected that after 40 days of Fasting, Our Lord would have returned to Nazareth to meet with His Mother, and from Her learn of the Wedding Feast. It also makes sense, in that Our Lady was giving Him the push to reveal Himself, that He would not have done so before his 30 day birthday, lest He violate established custom.
From the historical record, the Gospel Narratives themselves require that we accept that the Birth of Jesus as occurring after Dec. 18th and before Dec. 31st..
Now, the mid-point between the non antequam and the non post quam, in such studies of this kind is the one with the highest mathematical probability of being the correct date. So what is the mid point of December 18th and December 31st ?…… Calculate it for yourself…
FULL OF THE GRACES AND MERCIES WHICH
THE ETERNAL SON BROUGHT DOWN FROM HEAVEN
AT THE “FIAT MIHI” OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY!
+ + +
If you have noticed, the evidences point to Christ being born in 2 B.C.. You might ask, “Was not Christ born in the year 0 or 1 A.D.?” — Answer: No, because there is no year 0, the year which follows 1 B. C. is 1 A.D.. — But 1 A.D. begins 1 year and 1 week after the birth of Christ. Why is that? — Answer: Because the regnal year of Emperors begins on January 1st, and only once Christ attains the age of 1, can the regnal year be 1. So the First Year of the Christian era is the first full calendar year in which the Child Jesus is 1 year old. Another way to look at it, is this: the year Zero in which many Christians think Christ would have to be born is really the year 1 B.C., because until the day Christ was born, it was Before Christ’s birth. So, in 2020 A.D., we will celebrate the 2020th year of age, according to His Blessed Humanity, of the Incarnate Word of God.
We live in a very bizarre age, when professional gossipers (aka journalists) are the puppet masters of the masses, because 95% of everyone allows them to dictate the boundaries of reality, history, morality and religion. And until some noted journalist uses the word, “Heresy”, “Schismatic” or “Apostate” in reference to someone who merits the term(s), then no rational person would ever accuse a fellow Catholic of such a horrible offense on his own judgement, because as they say, “everyone knows that it is schismatic to refuse communion with a fellow Catholic in good standing. And good standing means, he has not yet been officially condemned by the Church!”
This is gaslighting, of course. Gas-lighting is a term which everyone should familiarize themselves with. It is the tactic of those practiced in psychological manipulation used to get clients, subjects, inferiors to deny the reality they see and know and accept that the reality is what the manipulator claims it to be.
As soon as Bergoglio was “elected” the gaslighting began. You are seeing things, He is the pope, you cannot talk that way about the pope. Dissent is a mortal sin. If you do not accept him you are outside the Church. You are not Catholic!
Lately, as the heresies and malevolence of Bergoglio explode out of all proportions to any previous heretic in the history of the Church, some Catholics who were formerly famous for their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy are going into apoplectic fits in their attempts to stifle recognition of the reality. ‘Recognize and Resist’, is their mantra. They are hell bent, literally, on remaining in communion with Bergoglio and don’t you dare rain on their fantasies by showing them facts of Canon Law (canon 1364, 1329 etc.) which show that by Divine right, heretics are outside of the Church as soon as they profess heresy.
These apologists of the revolution are just as hell bent on denying the reality of the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict (cf. ppbxvi.org for complete information). They become discombobulated and lash out. They show that their attachment to “Pope Francis” is neither rational or reasonable, it is visceral. How visceral depends, I suppose, on whether they observe the 6th or 9th Commandments.
This complete psychological and intellectual and spiritual breakdown is a result of what I call the Iscariot Conundrum. I use “Iscariot” here in the sense of the Aramaic word for a man from the same town as the false Apostle, Judas Iscariot. Since like him, they have sold the true Christ for the 30 pieces of silver of public recognition by the Cardinals as a “faithful Catholic”* and since they did it for purely selfish, sentimental, non-rational and non-legal or non-dogmatic reasons, they explode with emotion the more you point out to them that they have built their house upon a false premise. So they lash out more and more and lose all traces of the fine Character they once exhibited, becoming in the process, ironically, the very likeness of dialogue which Bergoglio is, a nasty, name-calling Troll.
A State of Emergency
No less that Archbishop Gänswein, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and the Head of the Pontifical Household (which has only one guest, HINT HINT) said that what Benedict did in February 2013 was on account of a state of emergency.
His words and opinions are debated as to what they mean, but it would be ludicrous to deny the reality which is visible to all the world, namely, that THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS IMPEDED.
To say the Apostolic See is impeded, means that the Pope cannot act as Pope for some reason, either external coercion, or there is no pope, or the pope refuses to act out of some irrational or rational conviction. This ‘being impeded’ causes a state of necessity, because the visible head of the visible Church is for all practical purposes non-functioning. The state of necessity is necessity of the kind which is required for continued functioning of the Church. Since the normal order of governance is obstructed, the observance of merely positive laws upon which it are based, by necessity, must be omitted.
Our Lord teaches us this general principle on the small scale, when, on one occasion He and His Apostles crossed a wheat-field during a time in which they had had nothing to eat (Mark 2:23), and some of them ate the grains of wheat which were near to being harvested, some Pharasees complained they were violating the Sabbath Laws against doing work on the Sabbath. Our Lord pointed out that the necessity of their hunger allowed them to not observe the law on harvesting. He replied with a forceful Semitic way of speaking, saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!” (Mark 2:27)
The law against harvesting was instituted no less than by Moses (Exodus 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:12,14), who had a lot more authority in the Old Covenant (Moses basically wrote the entire thing, under God’s inspiration and direction) than the Pope has in the New Covenant (the pope cannot change the Bible, not even the Our Father — though a lot of clergy are confused on this point).
Also, it is clear, by the principles of logic (ex minore),** that if Our Lord says it is licit to appeal to a state of necessity, to suspend laws of the Old Covenant given by Moses, because men are hungry on a Saturday afternoon, then obviously it is licit to suspend laws of the Pope, in the New Covenant, WHEN THE SALVATION OF ALL SOULS ON EARTH UNTIL THE END OF TIME is put in grave and imminent danger. To deny this would be sheer insanity. This is poignantly true, when one faction in the Church wants to suspend the New Covenant and found a new religion, and the other faction must chose between observing certain man made laws and allowing the Covenant to be transgressed, or not observing them so as to prevent the transgression of the Covenant.
This principle of the abeyance of positive law in a state of necessity is sanctioned by no less than Pope Pius VI, in his Bull, Cum nos superiori anno, of Nov. 13, 1798, where he grants to the Cardinals the right to derogate from all non essential aspects of the papal laws on Conclaves, on account of the de facto suppression of the Church of Rome by the Roman Republic, led by French Revolutionaries.***
Extending this lesson to the affairs of the Church, it follows then, as good Christians, we ARE OBLIGED by divine faith to return to the general principle which Jesus laid down, namely, THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. For the Salvation of Souls the Eternal Father sacrificed His own Son, and His own Son accepted His ignominious death on a Cross. FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.
If there is anyone, therefore, in the Church, that holds that we must wait for the Pope (Benedict) to do something, or some future pope to do something, THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS and more correctly, THEY ARE PHARASEES who are raising up the positive laws established by the Church (which indicate what cannot be done without permission of superiors) to the level of rules which would require the Church to commit suicide waiting for some sort of divine intervention without human collaboration. A divine intervention without human collaboration, in the present case of the impeded See, HAS NEVER BEEN explicitly PROMISED. (I understand that there are some great promises from Our Lord and our Lady, but none of them refer explicitly to a promise to solve this problem.)
Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum)
The concept of Divine Right (ius divinum) is a concept of classical late scholasticism, very popular in the time of the Council of Trent and thereafter. It refers to things which have been decreed by God. The office of Peter exists by divine right, for example.
Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum) is not as well recognized. It refers to the decisions of the Apostles for the governance of the Church. It is of Apostolic right that the church in one city can be governed by several priests, for example.
Both Divine Right and Apostolic Right are superior to Canon Law. As an aside, what most Catholics do not know, is that for more than 1000 years, except for canons decreed in Councils, the Church had no canon law. Canon Law is not of Divine or Apostolic institution, though the First Council of Jerusalem c. 45 A.D. did hand down decisions and is the exemplar for all Councils and Synods in the Church.
Apostolic right also includes some things which are not observed in the normal course of affairs, because since the time of the Apostles the Sacred Hierarchy, for the good ordering of the Church in normal circumstances has laid down canons or established laws to conduct the affairs of the Church differently.
Take for example the election of Bishops. The Apostles appointed Bishops before they died. But when they had passed to eternal Glory, they left it to each diocese by Apostolic Right to chose their own bishop. And by “to each diocese”, I mean to the Catholics of each diocese, laity, religious and clergy. This is how the Church survived 10 Roman persecutions. No one was writing Rome to ask for an appointment, when their Bishop died.
Also, it is of Apostolic Right that every Bishop serves as ordinary of his diocese until death. There was no retirement. That is a novelty created by Paul VI to eliminate Catholics from the College of Bishops and replace them with sodomite revolutionaries. Canon Law implicitly recognizes that this concept of mandatory retirement is contrary to Apostolic Right, in that it does not require Bishops to resign, it says only that they should submit a letter of resignation upon reaching the age of 75.
It is also of Apostolic Right that the Bishops can convene in Synods and Councils. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that every Synod in Church History, which is regarded as a true hierarchical act, was approved of by the Pope. The current positive laws require that the Pope consent, but Apostolic Right does not require that. Apostolic Right is more rational, because when there is no pope or when the pope is a prisoner, how can the Bishops get permission?
But the general reason for the revival of Apostolic Right has to do with the inherent principle of subsidiarity in a perfect society. This principle was recognized by Pope Leo XIII. It holds that when the higher authority in a perfect society fails, then the lower authority has the right to take up the duty of the higher authority and act inasmuch it is necessary to act to preserve or defend that society. Since the College of Bishops as a whole succeeds the Apostles, when the See of Peter is impeded, each and every Bishop has the moral and Apostolic Right to exercise in a certain sense the authority of the Apostles to put the Church back in proper working order. This is an awesome responsibility reserved to extreme cases of necessity, such as is happening today, with both a public heretic ruling the Vatican and a Pope (Benedict) who thinks it is no longer his duty to govern the Church or vindicate his own rights as Christ’s Vicar.
In a State of Emergency, Apostolic and Divine Right revive on points which are now, in the regular course of Church affairs, regulated by canon law, presupposing an Apostolic See which is not impeded. These positive laws of the Church, which if observed, would lead to the destruction of the Church or the loss of souls are suspended in force. That is, it is no longer a canonical crime or moral fault NOT to observe them with due reason.
If there are any Catholic Bishops or Cardinals on earth, then they need to recognize this before it is too late, or the woeful warning of Our Lady of Akita will come to pass, that the faithful become deprived of the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and Orders, because no Bishop had the sense to see that he had the Apostolic or Divine right to act to preserve the Sacred Hierarchy during an impeded Papacy.
This is because, with the Apostles no longer on Earth, and the See of Peter silent, each and every member of College of Bishops who remains Catholic can licitly assume the duties of the Apostles for the propagation and preservation of the Faith.
Some of the things any Bishop, with or without jurisdiction, can do, by Divine or Apostolic right, during an impeded Papacy are as follows:
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the causes of the impeded See, and or condemn those who are perpetrating it. (Pope Julius II sanctions this in principle)****
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council, to depose claimants to the papacy who do not hold valid canonical titles. (This was done at Sutri in 1046 and sanctioned by St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Gregory VII and Bl. Pope Victor III)
Reprove a pope for resigning partially and neglecting his Apostolic Duties of Ministry. (This arguably is not as extreme as nn. 1 or 2, an thus ex maiore is also approved)
Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the heresies and perversities being spread by the Enemies of the Church, whether inside or outside the Church.
Ordain Catholic Bishops for Dioceses which have been taken over by a heretical bishop or where the Catholic Bishop has declared for heresy or apostasy. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
Ordain Catholic priests and deacons for the faithful of each Diocese who are deprived of the Sacraments due to heretical or schismatic clergy in their area. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
In fact, during the first 1500 years of the Church, we see Bishops regularly doing many if not all of these things. They had the benefit of not being plagued in conscience by positive Church law, but the system worked. Now that the Apostolic See, nay the Vatican, is completely impeded and taken over by heretics, the Bishops must act!
This is not the imaginary case of Sedevacantists who don’t like a pope nor the sounder case of Traditionalists don’t want to abandon liturgical traditions of their Rite: this is the case of a direct frontal attack on the the New Covenant: the Deposit of the Faith, Scripture and Tradition, through open denials of key dogmas and doctrines and disciplines which come from Jesus Christ and His Apostles.
Prayer and Petitions
Please pray for the Bishops of the Church, for if they do not act, the entire wealth, power, prestige of the Church will be robbed by a sect of marxist sodomites and 100s of millions of souls will perish without right doctrine and sacraments.
Please also talk to your Bishop, if he appears to be somewhat Catholic. This is crucial. I know Catholics who have contacts and who are doing this right now. But more needs to be done.
The Catholic laity, on account of the inaction of the Bishops, are being forced to accept Sacraments from heretics and schismatics and perverse sodomites. They have the Divine right to be cared for pastorally by Catholic clergy who are in communion with the true Pope. And this right is being DEMONICALLY AND UNIVERSALLY TRANSGRESSED in all dioceses throughout the Catholic world in the present Crisis.
We have the Divine and Apostolic right to act with insistence and with full approval of Christ’s teaching and example.
* I use quotes here, to point out how nonsensical this approach is, devoid of any reasonable assessment of historical events, because the Cardinals accepted an invalid resignation and then invalidly elected an Arch-Heretic Psychopath, so it is no exaggeration to doubt that the Cardinals are willing or able to recognize what a Faithful Catholic is!
** Ex minore is a technical term of medieval logic which refers to illations (arguments) which are based on appealing to something which is true in a lesser case, and argues from that, that it must be true in a greater case. Our Lord is doing this all the time, as for example in His parables of the King preparing for war, the architect preparing to build a tower etc., as examples of how if prudence is necessary in earthly things, it is all the more necessary in questions of eternal salvation.
*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Rome, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.
**** This Apostolic Right was incorporated into Pope Julius II’s, Si summus rerum Opifex of Feb. 16, 1513, Fifth Lateran Council, which provided that if this law on Papal Conclaves were violated as regards a simoniacal election, the Cardinals not involved in the simony could have recourse to a Synod or Council to dethrone the uncanonically elected antipope. Bagliani & Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. This papal law was published previously as the Bull, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, January 14, 1505 (ibid., p. 39). This principle, acknowledged by Pope Julius II and the Fifth Lateran Council, is that which authorizes the calling of “imperfect” Synods in the time of necessity, such as ours.
This video is in Spanish, but has English subtitles, and the entire transcript in English can be found at the Wild Voice, which has been a prophetic leader on the web, warning the Church about the St Gallen Mafia from the beginning. — Father Martin seems to be a former worker at the Vatican during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Says he knows Joseph Ratzinger personally.
Father Santiago, just as importantly, explains that he knew of the goals of the St. Gallen Mafia to attack Church teaching and overthrow the faith, and he warns against them. A warning, alas, which went unheeded, because the revolutionaries were already in charge at the Vatican.
The blessed and glorious Apostle Saint Paul wrote to the Church of Philippi, these inspired and eternally valid words, nearly two thousand years ago:
Citizenship in Heaven
17 Be ye followers of me, brethren: and observe them who walk so as you have our model. 18For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping) that they are enemies of the cross of Christ:19Whose end is destruction: whose God is their belly: and whose glory is in their shame: who mind earthly things. 20 But our conversation is in heaven: from whence also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory, according to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things unto himself.
(Douay Rheims Translation)
The Apostle, who as such, enjoyed the personal charism of infallibility, was modest in his speech. Many have interpreted this passage as referring to gluttony but it refers principally to lust, and that of men.
Some men, losing all sense of reason or faith (if they ever had it), however, are so stupid and foolish and so ignorant of their own corporal endowments, that they hold that as soon as blood enters some part of their body, that they are inspired. For fools of this kind, the contemporary mass-media lie of gender theory is for them a divine revelation, directly from their god.
To that end they want all things to bend to this new revelation from below: laws, religion, and above all morals.
This is what is behind the outrageous modernism and sacrilege of scripture which was recently published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, entitled, “Che cosa è l’uomo? Un itinerario di antropologia biblica,” (“What is man? A journey into biblical anthropology”), which in its Fourth Chapter concludes thus (source):
L’esame esegetico condotto sui testi dell’Antico e del Nuovo Testamento ha fatto apparire elementi che vanno considerati per una valutazione dell’omosessualità, nei suoi risvolti etici. Certe formulazioni degli autori biblici, come le direttive disciplinari del Levitico, richiedono un’intelligente interpretazione che salvaguardi i valori che il testo sacro intende promuovere evitando, dunque, di ripetere alla lettera ciò che porta con sé anche tratti culturali di quel tempo. Sarà richiesta un’attenzione pastorale, in particolare nei confronti delle singole persone, per attuare quel servizio di bene che la Chiesa ha da assumere nella sua missione per gli uomini
From Rome translation:
The exegetical study conducted on the texts of the Old and New Testament has made evident elements which are to be considered for an evaluation of homosexuality, in its ethical implications. Certain formulations of the biblical authors, like the disciplinary directives of Leviticus, require an intelligent interpretation to safeguard the values which the sacred text intends to promote by avoiding, therefore, to repeat according to the letter, what it also carries along with it as the cultural traits (i.e. baggage)* of that age. Pastoral attention will be required, in particular in respect of individual persons, to activate that service of the good which the Church has to assume in Her mission for men.
Admittedly this is complex double speak. So I will translate it into common English:
In other words, WE ARE INSTRUCTING YOU TO WHITEWASH GOD’S WORD AND HIDE THE SAVING TRUTH OF THE IMMORALITY OF SODOMY FROM those addicted to this sin, lest they repent and no longer serve as agents of the Globalist Marxist revolution for the destruction of all humanity. With Papa Francis’s Blessing. Wink. Wink. Hint. Hint.
That admittedly that is not a literal translation, but rather one in the style of Vatican II, that is of dynamic equivalence! (satirical comment)
Oh, and to those who say, “But this isn’t magisterial!”: “We say: well we agree, since Bergoglio was never the pope (see ppbxvi.org for the Catholic reason), but you really need to get a new line, because people can see through that kind of gaslighting.”
As a matter of fact, Bergoglio has announced that from now on, all Dicasteries of the Roman Curia are equal (see report here). That means, whatever the Pontifical Biblical Commission puts out, is just as authoritative as the Congregation for Divine Worship. — So get set for the next Liturgical Aggiornamento, folks!, on the lines of dumping the “cultural baggage” of the past.
* This parenthesis and its content are a translator’s note, added by the From Rome Blog.
Interview of President Marcello Pera, by Bruno Volpe (Full Text, Italian, here)
President Pera, it seems that the Catholic Church is no longer raising Her voice to protest blasphemies against God…
Catholicism for some time now has degraded, it is losing the cultural and religious war. Catholic leaders are afraid and offer a sad spectacle of behavior. And the most faithful example of this is the one at the top.
You mean pope Bergoglio?
Certainly. He is openly going against Tradition, Doctrine and is introducing innovations, disciplines and inexplicable acts. This pontificate is a scandal in the biblical sense of the word: it leads souls astray and make the faithful stumble, it does not bear good fruits, nay it makes them diminish. Vocations and mass attendance have collapsed, fundraising too, at the Wednesday Angelus attendance has thinned and we can see it in the online photos even if the politically correct MSM wont speak of it. As much as regards the fundaments of the Catholic Faith, this pontificate is an outrage to reason. Nevertheless no one here in Italy, faithful or bishop, says anything, no one has the courage to rebel, even though many are filled with doubts. The problem is that the Church has been reduced to a kind of NGO, which attends mostly to social works, which has made Greta into an idol, which runs after the dreams of socialism, both politically and economically, after the dreams of being-nice-to-everybody, while the shepherds often forget that the salvation of souls is their principal duty.
(President Pera is a devout atheist)
Pera does not exaggerate!
No need to mention that Bergoglio has effectively sanctioned adultery, by allowing adulterers, even public ones, to receive Communion, sacrilegiously, nor that he calls God a liar by claiming capital punishment is always morally inadmissible, nor that his appointees are saying Greta is a Saint nor that you can attend a person committing suicide through euthanasia, But just today, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has published a study insisting that the truth of Scripture according to the literal sense, in passages which condemn sodomy, should not be presented, but that what Scripture intends without its historical conditioning (read prejudices of homophobia) is what should be pastorally employed to evangelize modern man ! (see report here)
At this point, I think it is neither an exaggeration to call into question the sexuality of anyone who still thinks this man is the Pope.