Post updated, see bottom of post re rumors about Pope Benedict.
Cognitive dissonance and diabolical disorientation. When truth is treason and faith is … heresy?
What are we to think of these times? We have sodomite prelates masquerading as profound theologians, and two manifestly separate individuals who we are assured constitute together one papal office.
The latest tempest has been regarding the possibility of a “Papal Diarchy” or as the Remnant’s Chris Jackson termed it, the “Two-Headed Pope”. As elsewhere noted, Antonio Socci and Vittorio Messori wrote on this in early 2014. Our previous posts regarding this subject were “The Suffering Pope?” in February 2014 and “Abomination” in July, 2014. However, the last post we had on the subject was Professor Roberto de Mattei’s rebuttal in Sandro Magister’s site Chiesa, which we cross-posted in “One Pope” in September, 2014.
In that post, Dr. de Mattei rebuts Fr. Stefano Violi and Professor Valerio Gigliotti, both progressivists who have publicly supported the institutionalization of the “Pope Emeritus”, that is the concept that the Petrine ministry may be separated into two functions, one spiritual and one administrative. Dr. de Mattei writes of the positions of Violi and Gigliotti regarding Pope Benedict’s resignation:
“His powers,” Violi writes, “seem to him insufficient for the administration of the ‘munus,’ not for the ‘munus’ itself.” Proof of the spiritual essence of the “munus” is taken as having been expressed in the following words of the “Declaratio” of Benedict XVI:
“I am well aware that this ministry (munus), due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out (exequendum) not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.”
In this passage, according to Violi, Benedict XVI distinguishes not only between “munus” and “executio muneris,” but also between an administrative-ministerial “executio,” carried out in actions and words (“agendo et loquendo”), and an “executio” that is expressed with prayer and suffering (“orando et patiendo”). Benedict XVI is seen as having were announced the active exercise of the ministry, but not the office, the “munus” of the papacy: “The object of the irrevocable resignation is in fact the ‘executio muneris’ through action and word (‘agendo et loquendo’), not the ‘munus’ entrusted to him once and for all.”
Gigliotti also maintains that Benedict XVI, in ceasing to be supreme pontiff, has taken on a new juridical and personal status.
The split between the traditional attribute of “potestas” and the new one of “servitium,” between the juridical and spiritual dimensions of the papacy, is claimed to have opened the way “to a new mystical dimension of service to the people of God in communion and charity.” The “plenitudo potestatis” would be left behind for a “plenitudo caritatis” of the pope emeritus: a third status “with respect both to the condition prior to elevation to the see of Peter and to that of the supreme leadership of the Church: it is the ‘third embodiment of the pope,’ that of operative continuity in the service of the Church through the contemplative way.” * * *
At this point, I do hope that you read, (or re-read) Professor Roberto de Mattei’s article here. He clarifies some important points to keep in mind in all this confusion and concludes that the emerging figure of pope emeritus, which presents the papacy and indeed the church itself in a sacramental, non-juridical character, is false and opposes the two-thousand years of Catholic tradition and practice.
If the pope who resigns from the pontificate retains the title of emeritus, that means that to some extent he remains pope. … But why is he still pope after the abdication? The only explanation possible is that the pontifical election has imparted an indelible character, which he does not lose with the resignation. The abdication would presuppose in this case the cessation of the exercise of power, but not the disappearance of the pontifical character. This indelible character attributed the pope could be explained in its turn only by an ecclesiological vision that would subordinate the juridical dimension of the pontificate to the sacramental.
It is possible that Benedict XVI shares this position, presented by Violi and Gigliotti in their essays, but the eventuality that he may have made the notion of the sacramental nature of the papacy his own does not mean that it is true. There does not exist, except in the imagination of some theologians, a spiritual papacy distinct from the juridical papacy. If the pope is, by definition, the one who governs the Church, in resigning governance he resigns from the papacy. The papacy is not a spiritual or sacramental condition, but an “office,” or indeed an institution.
The tradition and practice of the Church clearly affirm that there is one and only one pope, and his power is indivisible in its unity. Bringing into doubt the monarchical principle that rules the Church would mean subjecting the Mystical Body to an intolerable laceration. What distinguishes the Catholic Church from every other church or religion is precisely the existence of a unifying principle embodied in a person and directly instituted by God.
There can no more be two true popes than there can be two true Churches. One is false.
So what are we to conclude? Archbishop Gänswein assures us that,
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.”
Archbishop Gänswein, who is Pope Benedict’s secretary here asserts that his master, Benedict XVI “lastingly transformed” the papacy, the very “foundation of the Catholic Church”. In this seemingly hubristic claim, we must agree. Like his successor, Pope Francis the Humble® he has indeed irrevocably changed the Church. But not for the reasons Gänswein supposes. The truth of the matter is obscured behind what is aptly referred to as “the fog of war”, a situational confusion in times of combat. All we know for sure is that the previous Pope, through his secretary, claims to have changed the institution of the papacy, a foundation of the Church, thus contradicting the words and intention of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
During the horrid time of this disheartening papacy, we have had the revelations of Austin Ivereigh about dishonesty in the conclave that elected Bergoglio, which were discounted, but then partially confirmed by no less than Cardinal Danneels, himself one of the St. Gallen Group, the self-titled “Mafia Club”. At this point, only the Good Lord Himself knows for sure who is really the pope, but since He has not given us a clue, we must conclude that the pope is the man universally assumed to be the validly elected pope, that is, sad to say, Jorge Bergoglio.
It actually matters little which of the two, Ratzinger or Bergoglio are called pope, as neither of them can be considered as faithful to their Petrine ministry as Vicars of Christ. Our Lord has not provided us with any clear means of deposing either or both of them and so we must suffer them both as they wreak havoc on the Bride of Christ. There is no solution to this but to await the final cleansing of fire, flood, blood and spirit, which will free the Church at the cost of an even more immense suffering. This is the culmination of Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser’s Age of Apostasy which includes the oft-quoted passages foretelling the coming of the Great Monarch and the Holy Pope. The two bring about the period of peace promised by Our Lady of Fatima, which will be Age Six of Holzhauser’s Seven Ages. After this will come the Anti-Christ.
We will post on this subject soon. But for the present, we are here given a valuable glimpse into the errors of this time. Much time is wasted by well-meaning Catholics who attempt to defend “good” Pope Benedict against “bad” Pope Francis. Both are hardened modernists and we need to offer rosaries and acts of reparation for them both and pray especially for our good priests who are primary victims of this chaotic “fog of war”.
A commenter on our previous post, ‘Who really wrote Amoris Laetitia?‘ asked if we had any clarification on the rumors that Pope Benedict is dead. Denziger Bergoglio has a bit more,(see Rumors about Benedict XVI).
One rumor was quite interesting and even contained a photograph:
Denziger – Bergoglio noted:
“What is happening with the elderly pontiff at this moment? On May 16 a Tweet was divulged through a false Twitter account attributed to Cardinal Pietro Parolin, claiming that he had just died. The news was promptly denied and the false account deleted. It is not the first time that this has happened, for the same news had already been spread on January 29, through a false account of Cardinal Bertone, while on March 31 the news was repeated through another false account accredited to Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, a week after Lombardi had explained the existence of a new tomb in the Vatican grottos: “It is the tomb of the next deceased Pope.”
May God have mercy on us all!
Most pure and perfect Lady of Fatima, Queen of the Holy Rosary, shelter us in thy Immaculate Heart, bring us safely to Heaven!
Please, pray the Rosary and confound the devil!
~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.