by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Or, what Sherlock Holmes would say about the case of the Incongruous Renunciation
I have always been a fan of Sherlock Holmes, the fictional private detective in late Victorian England, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, to popularize the new method of forensic investigation among the public police forces of his day.
As Sir Arthur writes in his Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes: “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important”.
This maxim is actually something the great Scholastic Theologians of the Catholic Church would readily agree too, because they held that every individual effect is marked by its causes. Thus, every small detail about everything, says something about the causes of that detail. We have only to study the details to find the clues.
Here at the From Rome blog I have applied this method to the controversies over the vote rigging at the Conclave of 2013, which I have extensively examined. (You can see all the articles at The Chronology of Reports about “Team Bergoglio”), and to those about Benedict’s Renunciation (See the topical Index to Benedict’s Renunciation).
In this post, I want to share a lingering doubt I have about Benedict’s renunciation which I cannot shake, because it is seemingly confirmed by a host of details which have been overlooked by everyone, but which all point to the same conclusion, namely Benedict’s disgust with the College of Cardinals, not just as men, but as an institution.
Anomalies, Anomalies
As as translator of not a few Papal Bulls and Latin texts, when I examined the Latin of the Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, the first thing which struck me was the the phrase ab his quibus competit. This phrase stuck me, because in Latin, which is a Language which is eminently laconic, it is a lot easier to write ab Cardinalibus electoribus. Why say, that the new supreme pontiff is to be elected by those who are competent to do so, and not by the Cardinal electors?
This question grows with a sense of significance, when you realize that Pope Benedict, according to the testimony of Archbishop Gänswein, wrote the text himself. And even more so, when you consider he wrote this text to be read out in the presence of the Cardinals themselves! In the refined halls of power, such a statement is much more than a faux paux, it is a positive insult and reproof. It is as if he is saying that the Cardinal Electors are not competent to elect a supreme pontiff. It is even more like saying, that his successor will not be elected by Cardinals at all!
This one small detail is something over which Sherlock Holmes would have had a panic attack of brain storming, because it is so incongruous of a statement to make in such a situation as a papal resignation, that it has to have causes which are not yet so obvious but which are crucial to understanding what happened and why it happened and what it all means.
I get a lot of guff and criticism for my speculations at this blog, mostly from those who do not appreciate the forensic method or the power of observation. As a trained anthropologist I understand why they do not understand and I understand why they are wrong in being oblivious to small facts. I know from the history of Archeology that entire theories of explanation of ancient, long lost cultures, were over turned by the finding of a single artifact, or a common artifact in a bizarre position or location. So I know professionally, that the methodology of Sherlock Holmes is not a fictional fantasy, but a real life powerful method of investigation and discovery.
If you find one anomaly, look for others
A single anomaly is hard to interpret, because as the Scholastics say, the individual which is the sole member of its species cannot be understood in itself. This means that when you find one anomaly, you need to look for more evidence and try to seek its causes. Other anomalies are the most important things to find, because then they establish a network of causes which can reveal the true meaning behind each anomaly. This is because it is harder to hide something in everything, than in a single thing.
The second anomaly which I noticed as translator of the Declaratio is that the Vatican had falsified all the vernacular translations. I reported this in the Article, The Vatican has known all along that Benedict’s Renunciation was invalid as written, and here is the proof. A brief summary translation of which, can be found in Italian at ChiesaRomana.info.
The obvious inference is that those who came into power after Benedict’s renunciation were trying to hide the evidence. But the less obvious inference is that Benedict wrote a renunciation which was obviously invalid and they were trying to hide the obviousness of it. And from that we can safely infer that there was a conflict between Benedict and whom he knew or suspected would come into power after his resignation. This final inference supports an understanding of the first anomaly, that Benedict was calling the Cardinal electors incompetent to elect a supreme pontiff.
This leads to an understanding which like a key can be used to decode the Declaratio. Now it is clear why Benedict calls himself the Successor of Saint Peter, but calls the one to be elected the new Supreme Pontiff. “Supreme” smacks of dictatorship and thus points to a Peronist. We can be certain that Benedict knew that Bergoglio was going to be elected because Bergoglio was the leading candidate in the previous conclave, and because Benedict was elected in opposition to Bergoglio. That opposition having crumbled in the College of Cardinals, it was obvious who would prevail. Benedict also as Pope had the resources of the Vatican spy network so he probably always knew what Bergoglio was up to prior to the conclave to suborn others and expand his power networks. The recent history of the European Bishops’ Conference, written by the the Bishop of St Gallen, shows that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger knew well of the existence of the St Gallen Group even before 1992. So we can be sure that Ratzinger maintained a dossier on them and kept his eye on them. We know now, that as Pope, most of his Pontificate was in preaching against the very errors, heresies and deviations which Bergoglio is now promoting. We know this by comparing what he was teaching with what Bergoglio is teaching, and it is a direct contradiction of it.
From all this, then, we can say decisively and with great certitude that the Declaratio was written to oppose the St Gallen Mafia and to lay down a maneuver against them. It was not a surrender, but it was made to look like a surrender. I explained my theory about this in the Article entitled, How Benedict has defeated “Francis”.
And because this was its primary motivation, for it to be successful Benedict had to decide from the beginning to be extremely discrete and divulge his intention with no one, not even Gänswein. I have long thought that this inference was improbable, but I recently obtained proof that Pope Benedict does not tell his private secretary everything, in the video prepared by Bavarian State TV, entitled, Ein Besuch bei Papst Benedikt XVI. em. Klein Bayern im Vatikan, which aired on January 3 in Germany. For in that video, Benedict reveals that there are things in his office of which he never told the Archbishop. And the Archbishop expresses both surprise and dismay.
The Crown of all Anomalies
It was only, however, when I took it upon myself to examine the Latin text with the eye of a Latin teacher correcting the homework of a student, that I found the crown of all anomalies. Yes, I found more than 40 grammatical, syntactical and stylistic errors. So many that it seemed to me impossible a pope could write such a thing. Either he was handed it to be signed, or he wrote it in haste, or he intentionally made it sloppy Latin to conceal something from obvious view. For, if you have ever watched British TV, and were a fan of Doctor Who, then you know, that the best place to hide a key is on a wall designed to hang dozens of keys, for there you can not only hide it in plain view, but hide it in such a way that it cannot be found or stolen.
And thus I was led to infer that Benedict was hiding something in the text, something more than just an invalid resignation of ministerium instead of munus. So I re-read the text and looked for anomalies, and now I wish to speak openly of what I found, of which I did not speak openly before in my Articles entitled, Clamorous Errors in the Latin Text of the Renunciation and A Nonsensical Act: What the Latin of the Renunciation really says.
And Benedict hid this anomaly right up front, in the place you would least expect to hide anything. I refer to the very first sentence of the Declaratio:
Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem.
As I said before, I have always thought it significant that Pope Benedict was promoting the study of Saint Bonaventure’s Scholastic Theology more and more during the later years of his Pontificate. That Doctor of the Church is an expert on the interpretation of textual statements. But that Doctor of the Church has his own way of using Latin. So being the translator of his Commentarii in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, I just happened to have a great familiarity with the Latin of Bonaventure. And that made me see something of which I think no other has taken notice.
It is the word decisionem.
Latinists were focusing on the word immediately prior to this, vobis, because the Latin verb communicem takes an object with the preposition cum and thus requires vobiscum not vobis.
They then proceeded to simply fault Benedict for his poor choice of words, in writing decisionem instead of consilium. And in my critique I reported their opinions of this matter.
But what I did not report is my shock at the seeing the word decisionem, because in the writings of Bonaventure this word always means a “cutting off”, and has the sense of an amputation or pruning, as is done to a vine. Recall that in Scripture, Our Lord Himself says that He has to occasionally prune His people to take away dead branches and promote regrowth and fruitfulness. If you know anything about Joseph Ratzinger, then you know that as a theologian he likes to weave discourses around the meanings of Biblical images and words. Thus, one is led to the conclusion that he chose decisionem for reasons more significant than apparent.
If you combine that meaning with vobis and ignore the presumption that the latter was intended as vobiscum, the entire meaning of the sentence changes to something so radically unexpected, that only one having unraveled the chain of inferences and made a study of the anomalies in the text could possibly be prepared to accept that Benedict might indeed have meant that which the Latin actually says. Which is as follows:
Not only for the sake of three acts of canonizations, have I called you to this Consistory, but also for the sake of the life of the Church to communicate something of great importance: your being cut off.
As I just said, this reading seems incredible, but it explains all the anomalies which I have heretofore found in the text and in the history of the Renunciation. The purpose of the Declaratio was NOT to renounce the papal office, it was to Uproot the College of Cardinals as an institution from the Church, so as to save the Catholic Church from the complete Masonic infiltration of that institution.
We know now, seven years on, that the College of Cardinals has shown perfect compliance with the Freemasonic regime of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and even its most conservative Cardinals have pledged unswerving loyalty to that regime. We also know that it has been a century long project of Freemasonry to infiltrate the College so as to take over the Catholic Church from the top down. We also know that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI were well informed by Saints and private revelations of the coming battle with the Anti-Church and False Prophet. Finally, we know that both collaborated decisively to renew the canonical penalties of excommunication against Freemasons in the Church (Declaration on Masonic Associations, Nov. 26 1983.) in forma specifica, that is, in the most solemn and authoritative manner of an express Papal approbation of a notice given the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
It makes sense, then, if you know a key fort containing the greatest treasure of your kingdom is going to fall to the enemy, because of a complete treachery and rebellion of the military commanders holding it for you, the wisest council is to allow it to fall, without advising those commanders, while secretly removing the treasure, so that they are deceived in thinking they have triumphed and so that your removal of the treasure can be conducted in safety and during the confusion of their gleeful and exuberant seizing of the fort.
And this is what it seems Benedict did and intended to do. It also explains why Benedict acts the way he does and refuses to clarify his situation. Why he does not even take the Archbishop into his confidence. It also explains a lot of other things, which did not seem entirely anomalous before. For example, in his final year of pontificate, he made both Muller and Ganswein Archbishops, but not Cardinals, as if for his closest of friends he somehow did not want them to be members of that College.
If all these observations and inferences are correct, then one can with great probity conclude that it is the intention of Pope Benedict that after his earthly demise, that the Church of Rome, and not the College of Cardinals, who are held fast in a solidarity of dissent with Bergoglio, elect his successor: a thing about which I speculated about in my Article, Whether with all the Cardinal electors defecting, the Roman Church has the right to elect the Pope? And a thing of which even Pope John Paul II alludes in a most cryptic manner in the papal law on conclaves in his introduction, where he says, that it is a well established fact that a conclave of Cardinals is not necessary for a valid election of a Roman Pontiff (Universi Dominici Gregis, Introduction, paragraph 9).
Indeed, a study of the history of papal renunciations and the canons of the Church shows, that it was Pope John Paul II, in 1983, who by adding munus as the canonically required object of the verb “renounce” in canon 332 §2, actually created the canonical possibility of an invalid renunciation in the case of a pope who renounced something other than the petrine munus! A very small alteration, but one which not only prevented the office from being shared, according to the loony and heretical speculations of German theologians, but allowed a Roman Pontiff to give the appearance of a valid resignation, so as to deceive the forces of Freemasonry in the Church.
Now all this seems absurdly immoral, but in truth it is neither illegal nor illicit. For since the man who is the pope has the canonical right to renounce the petrine munus, it follows ex maiore that he has the moral right to renounce anything less than the munus. In cases of grave threat, he also has the moral right to dissimulate. Thus by renouncing the ministerium, not the munus, Pope Benedict posited an act which power hungry men without respect for the law or for the truth or for the person of the pope, would overlook during their rush to convene an invalid conclave. And thus their own fault and sin and haste would result in their canonical separation from the Church through an act of schism and usurpation. Yet, by renouncing the ministerium and not the munus, as required by Canon Law, Pope Benedict left sufficient evidence for all the Catholic faithful in the world to discover the truth, a thing of which he was confident they could do, because the quasi soul of the true Church is the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Inspirer of all truth, Who guides His faithful always to and in the truth.
In this way, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have acted with great foresight and angelic prudence over the last 4 decades to enable that the Office of Saint Peter pass, not through the hands of men who have betrayed Christ en masse, but through the hands of the faithful of the Church of Rome, who precisely on account of their fidelity to the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of law, recognize what he has done and why he has done it.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]
I cannot help but feel that you have been gifted with great grace to see all this in the way you have. Praise be to God! Your findings give me ever greater confidence and hope. May you always serve God faithfully, seeking the truth.
I’ve learned to love and pray for His Holiness Benedict XVI so much more after his invalid resignation, knowing his move was 50 steps above and ahead of the enemies of the Church.
By the way, so many of Sir Arthur’s short stories could have really been about today’s mysteries surrounding the hierarchy.
“A Study In Scarlet” (about the corrupt College of Cardinals – hence the scarlet, also, your picture with Benedict dressed in Scarlet here is fantastic!).
“The Sign of the Four” (A tail about 4 Cardinals that once upon a time signed a dubia that went nowhere: Burke, Brandmüller, Caffarra, and Meisner Two now dead).
“A Scandal in Bohemia” (About a bunch of heathen, sodomite, prelates. The scandal actually ended up in Sankt Gallen)
St. Sherlock Holmes, pray for us!
Reblogged this on PASSAPAROLADESSO.
Br. Alexis, is there a connection between the word “decisio” meaning separation and “discessio” which was used by Tychonius to describe the end-times division of the Church and which Ratzinger wrote about as a young theologians and again invoked in his remarks at the tomb of Celestine V in 2009? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this!!
Also, have you reviewed Antonio Socci’s The Secret of Benedict XVI? And if not, would you please do so? Socci is completely in accord with you and I think that what you write here is in fact revealing what “the secret” is!!
Thank you for your witness
Giuseppe Pellegrino
Giuseppe,
Decisio is from de-cidere, to cut from
Discessio is from decedere, to walk from
They may sound alike, but they are very different to a Latinist. The later is applicable to the division in the Church since it is clear that in the Apocalypse the LORD wants his people to separate from the whore of Babylon. Here discessio could be translated, walk out, walk away…. but decisio is more a word regarding the action of a superior to defend the life of his vinyard, and is so very biblical.
Stunning disclosures! Fits with very early witness that Heaven had directed Benedict’s “resignation” and the revelation given to St. John Bosco that the next pope would be elected not by anyone on the main ship but from those from the auxiliary ships defending it. Praise God!
This would also make a lot of sense of his comment about “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves” in 2005. http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato.html
We MUST keep him in our prayers.
Reblogged this on RemnantDisciplesJtM.
I thank all for the reblogs. That is powerful. Share also on FaceBook, if you still use that awful platform. Because that is also powerful. Twitter too. Also, all are free to translate my posts into their native languages for their own blogs and websites. Spread the word. The Truth belongs to everyone, and everyone has a right to know it.
We are Brother! Thank you for the encouragement and reminder though!
Thank you Br. I also drop links in to conversations on other blog sites. Let them know the Truth. Pray for the gift of God’s enlightenment to spread.
Dear Brother Alexis,
With this brilliant post, you outdid, if such were possible, even YOURSELF!
Agree 2,000%…..
“Contra factum non fit argumentum!”
Your grateful brother sergio
I cannot help but feel that you have been gifted with great grace to see all this in the way you have. Praise be to God! Your findings give me ever greater confidence and hope. May you always serve God faithfully, seeking the truth.MINDREADING .
Dear Br Alexis,
I’m reposting all your posts on Facebook and Twitter. Brian Murphy’s vidéo that I translated in French I even sponsored for a full week for all French speaking countries.
Keep the good work.
Re this present post, would you please comment the following:
Benedict XVI: “Among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is the future pope, to whom I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience (2-28-13).”
Thank you.
Thank you Father. As for the comment, at any time one can say of the College of Cardinals, that there is a future pope, to whom we owe our obedience. It is a polite expression, but it does not signify anything really. We can also say that among the Collge of Cardinals there are a lot of future damned souls, but that would not be so polite to say on such an occasion. For a man who can say ministerium when he should say munus, I think we need to listen to precisely what he is saying and what he is not saying.
I just read UDG, if the pope can be elected other than by the college of cardinals…how would that happen? What would an election of a pope look like if not by the college? By what other means?
I detest Wikipedia, but this is a good historical review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_selection_before_1059
That Pope Benedict used DECISIONEM in that way purposely is simply too obscure, Nor can I accept your translation, because in such a syntax it should have been VESTRUM DECISIONEM, and your translation would also require ALIQUOD or something like that. Also, I do not think the man is a deceiver, or liar, flawed maybe, and wrong, but not that. The point on the question of MUNUS is well made, but this, I am afraid this takes the argument too far.
Dear Hg Potter, your knowledge of Latin is showing. Vobis is the intensive possesive form of the pronoune, called the dative of possession. Aliquod is nearly never used, it is presumed in good Latin prose. To dissimulate is not to deceive or to lie, see a good book on Moral Theology. But thanks for your comment.
Brother,
If what you say is true, and you are the only one to have determined this to be the case, how when Benedict dies will the people of Rome know they are to elect the next pope and not simply let it pass, accepting the status quo. For your argument to be true, there must be some mechanism upon Benedict’s death which will alert the Church of Rome to Benedict’s now hidden desires. What do you believe that to be?
Thank you.
All Rome knows this, go to ChiesaRomana.info In fact, if you walk down the street in Italy and ask whether they think Benedict or Francis is a true pope, 60% will say Benedict, and of the 40% who dont, after a short conversation to clear up the confusion of what the question means, another 20% will say Benedict. Only those who dont believe the faith say Bergoglio.
Brother,
Thank you for the reply, but the thrust of my comment wasn’t to imply everyone popularly believes Francis is legitimate pope (I’m aware of the dissent), but what I am asking is how Benedict intended or intends to make known in a canonical fashion, that which no Church authority has yet to support? Benedict certainly can’t have done all which you say he did, and simply hope that when he dies, the Church of Rome will suddenly declare the see vacant and have a popular election. So how do you believe Benedict intends to finish his work of circumventing the cardinals if that is what he is doing?
Thank you.
James, you speak as one who does not know the canonical history of the Church. What can I say, there are hundreds of scholars at Rome who know how the pope is elected with out a Conclave or a College of Cardinals. Its part of the history of the local Church.
Reading this I am left with hope and belief in its truth.
How can I express pr paraphrase what you wrote in laymen’s language?
Can someone offer a synopis of this article using laymen’s terms for others like myself who understand but do not know how to pass it on?
Theresa, I am not good at summarizing, so I will invite others to offer their suggestions, here.
Dear Theresa,
I would give the article to others for them to read. For, even if they do not understand all of it upon their first reading of it, they can study it further or ask Br. Brugnolo a question in the comments section of a more recent post of his. To offer a synopsis of the article to others when speaking to them, I would start by saying that Pope Benedict, for reasons unknown, started to speak of his fondness for the writings of Saint Bonaventure towards the end of his pontificate. Saint Bonaventure, in his writings, uses the word ‘decisionem’ in the sense of ‘cutting off’ or ‘pruning.’ Now, Benedict was criticized by Latinists for his use of the word ‘decisionem’ in the context of the rest of the sentence which Br. Brugnolo explained above. But, if the word is read in a different light–which is what Br. Brugnolo is proposing–then, the meaning is coherent and profound. Namely, that Benedict, who knew that, as a whole, the College of Cardinals is corrupt and needs to be pruned, i.e. ‘cut off,’ from the Church, which in this example, we can imagine as a tree. On account of their desire to elect Cardinal Bergoglio to the See of Rome, their disdain for Church law, etc…, the Cardinals either ignored the parts of the Declaration that make it invalid and “elected” Cardinal Bergoglio. By willfully separating themselves from the true Pope, they became schematics and as such, have separated (cut off or pruned themselves) from the Church. Therefore, per the tradition of the Church and the writings of PopeJohn Paul II, the Church of Rome, not them, are the ‘competent authorities’ to elect the next pope after Benedict. When Benedict said that he is cutting them off, what he meant is likely: “By tricking you into thinking that I am resigning when I am not, I am allowing you, on account of your wickedness and desire to be rid of me, to enter into schism by following a soon-to-be-elected antipope, and thus, to lead yourselves and your evil intentions out of the Catholic Church.” Benedict did this for reasons explained in the article above. Cordially in Christ.
Why can´t I share to Facebook? This article is stunning, rings true and bears out everything I have been thinking for the last few years!
You should be able to share it. Perhaps it is easier to copy the URL and paste it into FB than press a FB button
Dear Br Alexis, we have been trying to do a paraphrase summary to aid understanding for those new to the subject. Let us know if this is accurate.
1 There are a host of details about Benedict’s renunciation have been overlooked by everyone, but which all point to the same conclusion, namely Benedict’s disgust with the College of Cardinals, not just as men, but as an institution.
2. In the Act of Renunciation, Benedict says the new supreme pontiff is to be elected by “those competent to do so”, and not (which would be easier to say) by the Cardinal electors. And he reads this aloud in front of the cardinals. Why? As if to say, you lot are *NOT* competent.
3. If you find one anomaly, it is important to look for others because then they establish a network of causes which can reveal the true meaning behind each anomaly. This is because if several hidden things are found it will point clearly to their source, rather than if only one hidden thing is found.
4. A second anomaly. the Vatican had falsified all the vernacular translations.
Why? Obvious: those who came into power after Benedict’s renunciation were trying to hide the evidence of the invalidity.
Less obvious: those who came into power after Benedict’s renunciation were trying to hide the evidence of the DELIBERATE invalidity.
5. The Inference is that there was a conflict between Benedict and whom he knew or suspected would come into power after his resignation. –> this supports the interpretation of the first anomaly!
6. Now it is clear why Benedict calls himself the Successor of Saint Peter, but calls the one to be elected the new Supreme Pontiff. [but NOT the Successor of Peter], Bergoglio was the leading candidate in the previous conclave. Plus that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger knew well of the existence of the St Gallen Group even before 1992.
7. As Pope, most of his Pontificate was in preaching against the very errors, heresies and deviations which Bergoglio is now promoting.
8. –> the Declaratio was written to oppose the St Gallen Mafia and to lay down a maneuver against them. It was not a surrender, but it was made to look like a surrender.
9. The Crown of all Anomalies
Benedict hid this anomaly right up front, in the place you would least expect to hide anything: the very first sentence of the Declaratio:
This was because the best place to hide a key is on a wall designed to hang dozens of keys, this explains all the Latin errors. Benedict must have been hiding correct Latin in the text, but hidden among so much bad Latin that it was mistakenly assumed by the Latinists also to have been wrong.
MOST IMPORTANT
10. And it is this. The use of decisionem instead of consilium. In the writings of St. Bonaventure this word always means a “cutting off”, and has the sense of an amputation or pruning, as is done to a vine. Pope Benedict was promoting the study of Saint Bonaventure’s Scholastic Theology more and more during the later years of his Pontificate.
11. What the Latin ACTUALLY says: Not only for the sake of three acts of canonizations, have I called you [the cardinals, [including the Dean, +Sodano] to this Consistory, but also for the sake of the life of the Church to communicate something of great importance: your being cut off.
12. The purpose of the Declaratio was NOT to renounce the papal office, it was to Uproot the College of Cardinals as an institution from the Church, so as to save the Catholic Church from the complete Masonic infiltration of that institution.
13. Now we understand the anomalies: i) so many Latin errors, ii) the falisifed vernacular translations of the Declaratio; iii) announcement before the cardinals, iii) not calling the next man elected “Successor of Peter”, iv) why the real meaning was missed by previous Latinists who focused on a different error (which in reality wasn’t!!) v) the reason for the use of “whose competence it is” to describe the electors of the next pope.
Yes, this summs it up.
Isn’t it interesting …. that it has been reported that Benedict’s Vineyard at Castel Gandolfo Was Uprooted recently in an article here: https://gloria.tv/post/RzMNDA3r7Z2q1RoYMcXT7y9B2. It’s as if the physical uprooting of Benedict’s beloved vineyard is a sign from Heaven to what Benedict did in his well thought out resignation in order to prune the vineyard of the College of Cardinals. Thank you Br. Alexis for being a great latinist as well as an admirer of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Who. I remember that episode of the Keys.
As an interested layman who follows Vatican politics, but who is no expert, my first reaction is that this is really far-fetched and sounds like a conspiracy theory like you would find in a sensational novel or movie.
But it explains so much… !
A good friend of mine pointed me to this article when I said that I didn’t think Pope Francis’ election was invalid. Once again, I am not so sure. The idea that Pope Saint John-Paul and Pope Benedict, both men of incredible intellect have been playing the long game against the forces of evil we all know are running rampant within the Church is very appealing, and gives me hope that things might improve sooner rather than later, but if everything you are saying is true, I still don’t understand what happens when Pope Benedict passes away. It seems to me that there’s nothing stopping the College of Cardinals from going further and further down the rabbit-hole by electing more and more radical Popes.
I know God wins in the end, but I fear for the millions of souls at risk of being lost in this confusion and turmoil.
I am curious for clarification, I find lots of this theory compelling and interesting, and perhaps I missed something, but why should JPII and B16 bother with all this?
Wouldn’t it be much more efficient t to have just spent a large amount of time excommunicating bad Cardinals (probably most of them, but even so). Why bother with the long game when you have the authority to crush them in a fell swoop?
Brad, the Church of Rome is not called the Barque of Peter for nothing. Popes are in law monarchs, but weak popes are presidents.
Reblogged this on RemnantDisciplesJtM and commented:
It all makes perfect sense. This article is a “must read.”