The Mysterious Necessity of the Mystery of Iniquity

It would seem that we have not yet exhausted the implications of Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication. Sandro Magister has picked up on an aspect that has tended to be overlooked.  In Tuesday’s article (here) he notes the significance of Archbishop Gänswein’s comments of May 20.

Benedict XVi Resigns and Lightning strikes, Feb. 11, 2013.
Benedict XVi Resigns and Lightning strikes, Feb. 11, 2013.

Gänswein – with the weight of one who is in the most intimate contact with the “pope emeritus” in that he is his secretary – had said that Joseph Ratzinger “has by no means abandoned the office of Peter,” but on the contrary has made it “an expanded ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member,” in “a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a shared ministry.” …

“As of February 11, 2013, the papal ministry is no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and nonetheless it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed in his pontificate of exception (Ausnahmepontifikat).”

The formula, emphasized by Gänswein with the use of the German word, is not accidental. It contains a transparent reference to the “state of exception” theorized by one of the greatest and most talked-about political philosophers of the twentieth century, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985).

According to this theory, a “state of exception” is the dramatic hour of history in which the ordinary rules are suspended and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own. …

A word to the wise. Where Gänswein, citing the book by Regoli, refers to the “group of St. Gallen” and its role in the conclaves of 2005 and 2013, the reference is to the cardinals who used to gather periodically in the Swiss city of St. Gallen and who first opposed to the election of Ratzinger and then supported the election of Bergoglio.

The group included the cardinals Carlo Maria Martini, Basil Hume, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Achille Silvestrini, Karl Lehmann, Walter Kasper, and Godfried Danneels, the last two of these being particularly dear to Pope Francis, in spite of the fact that Danneels was proven to have attempted in 2010 a cover-up of the sexual offenses of the then-bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, against his young nephew. (end quote Magister)

The above remarks are merely a preface to introduce an analysis by Guido Ferro Canale, which Magister then offered.

Excerpts below; for entire article, please see Chiesa.

Continue reading “The Mysterious Necessity of the Mystery of Iniquity”

The Fog of War

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.

The two popes ?
“Poor Holy Father, we must pray for him!” (Blessed Jacinta)

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.” * * *

Continue reading “The Fog of War”



NOTE: Dr. Roberto de Mattei has correctly explained this situation and I have copied his explanation in the post One Popefrom September 16, 2014. There is also an updated post on May 25, 2016 which includes a later explanation from Dr. de Mattei, “The Fog of War”

Although I have kept this old post online for reference sake, Dr. de Mattei’s explanations in the above 2 posts is the best explanation of a totally unacceptable situation brought on by two modernists, Ratzinger and Bergoglio, both of whom have harmed the Church greatly.

As time goes on, more and more knowledgeable writers are concluding that there are serious problems with the “diarchy” resulting from having not one, but two “bishops in white” in residence at the Vatican. Robert Siscoe’s excellent article for The Remnant expresses it perfectly and is here presented in its entirety. (The bolded portion is added) If you don’t already subscribe to The Remnant, please consider it. Together with Catholic Family News, they are indispensable to keep informed. Here goes:

The two popes ?
Two Popes?

In a Papal “Diarchy”, Which Half Is Infallible?  Continue reading “Abomination”