Truth, we are told, is stranger than fiction. And we believe it, because most of us have directly experienced, or otherwise observed, phenomenal things unfold in ways that simply could not be scripted. “You can’t make this up” is another way of expressing astonishment about a truth that has come to light – against all odds and even our wildest imaginations.
In this vein, Italian journalist and author Andrea Cionci has something remarkable to say about the “resignation” and current status of Pope Benedict XVI. Vatican intrigue garners attention even in overwrought works of fiction, but his sober thesis – a product of years of intensive investigation – is more dramatic than the most fantastical works of fiction.
Something truly historical and consequential has been going on, largely unnoticed. This obviously concerns Catholics but also has wider, generalized ramifications considering the foundational role of the Catholic Church in what remains of teetering Western Civilization.
Cionci maintains that, in reality, Benedict XVI remains the sole legitimate Pope and, moreover, that he has been communicating this fact in a particular manner, as circumstances allow. I say “as circumstances allow” because, Cionci argues, Pope Benedict XVI has retreated into an Impeded See and, as a result, is limited in his ability to communicate “with the outside world from his situation of confinement.”
Impeded See, of course, is quite an unfamiliar term. But there are specific provisions within Canon Law – such as canon 412 – that pertain to situations in which a Bishop, for a range of reasons, is prevented from exercising his authority within a given diocese; canon 335 refers specifically to the Pope (Diocese of Rome). These are in Canon Law for a reason: bishops have been forcibly obstructed before, just as there have been dozens of anti-popes over the centuries. As Cionci notes, nihil sub sole novum – there is nothing new under the sun.
So when Benedict XVI read his startling Declaratio in February of 2013, it was taken as a straightforward renunciation of the Papacy; adversaries within the Church and the media either didn’t notice or downplayed the imprecision, ambiguities and errors it intentionally contained. But his statement, interpreted properly, was actually an indirect announcement that he was going into a state of self-exile in an Impeded See. He was giving up the active role of governance that exclusively befits a Pope because his opposition was so intense and pervasive that he wasn’t able to practically exercise it anyhow. But he did not renounce the Papacy.
Benedict XVI purposely composed his Declaratio to resemble a renunciation in order to entice would be usurpers hostile to fixed tenets of Catholic faith and morals, in a manner that would ensure he remained de jure the Pope, even though he would cease being the de facto Pope.
Let me pause, as that is a lot to wrap your head around. It’s not too late to buckle up. There’s more.
Such a maneuver may have roots as far back as 1983, when then Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II collaborated to amend the Code of Canon Law. This currently binding version of canon law distinguishes the divine title or office of the Papacy (munus) from the practical exercise of power (ministerium) that could
be delegated or even possibly seized by one who does not rightfully hold the office. It also requires that a Pope freely choosing to renounce the Papal office must renounce it (the munus in Latin) explicitly, which Benedict XVI has never done.
There is a centuries-old precedent for this in an anti-usurpation feature of dynastic law promulgated by nobility (German and otherwise); they codified a distinction between a dynastic title (actual nobility) and the potential ability to exercise its power without actually holding the title.
Aware of the extent of the subversive infiltration within the Church in 1983, might they have been laying the groundwork to protect the Church, should those hostile forces ascend to the point where they would be on the verge of seizing power?
Cionci concludes that Benedict XVI’s intent – which necessarily entails a degree of speculation, however well founded – was nothing less than to initiate a purifying schism within the Church; a schism between those faithful to its core, perennial teachings, and those within the Church who are keen on ushering in doctrines antithetical to Catholicism.
Indeed, Cionci asserts that not only is Francis a usurping anti-Pope, but he is one “whose objective is to demolish Catholicism”. That is an explosive allegation. But is it true? Sadly, it sure looks that way. Such a strong statement clearly corresponds with many recent developments, and the overall gravity of the situation.
To take but one ratification of this assessment, Cardinal Müller expressed something similar in a recent interview about radical proposals to alter doctrine – such as revamping Church teaching about homosexuality – being advanced in ongoing gatherings (synods) and by members of the hierarchy. Such maneuvers, he stressed, do indeed constitute a “hostile takeover” and “occupation” of the Catholic Church – a clear attempt to destroy it from within.
This emergence of a “new Church” under Francis completely at odds with the legitimate Church, Cionci suggests, also makes Ratzinger look like a prophet; just before becoming Pope in 2005, he noted: “Very soon it will no longer be possible to affirm that homosexuality, as the Church teaches, is an objective disorder in the structuring of human existence”.
It must also be said that even the man, Cardinal Müller, who rightly objected to the ongoing “hostile takeover” of the Catholic Church, can’t quite bring himself to acknowledge (despite Cionci’s direct pleading) the apparently unassailable canonical evidence that one hostile occupant – Bergoglio – has no legitimate claim to the Papacy at all. Might Müller’s stance, laudable yet lacking, accentuate the credibility of the thesis that Benedict XVI, a true champion of Catholicism, has been holding out as a solitary, stalwart defender of the faith?
To the obvious question about why Benedict XVI took the steps he did, Cionci gives a simple answer: no one would really obey him anymore. He faced an overwhelmingly stacked deck inside the Curia – a veritable mutiny. He was also regarded as the primary obstacle to the international left and other powerful global figures who would rather have a “pope” openly shill for a “New World Order”, as “Francis” did in a (“pandemic” era) 2021 interview with La Stampa.
Benedict XVI had to go because his steady, erudite and eloquent defense of Catholicism over several decades was regarded as a unique threat to their agendas, one that might even be capable of delivering a “true conquest of modernity”.
There may have been threats against him; some have been reported, others perhaps not. Even though the rebellious antagonism he encountered is easy to grasp, one naturally wishes for more details. But, as Cionci notes, some specifics have yet to be unveiled.
The title of his new book – a bestseller in Italy, the first part of which is now available in English – is “The Ratzinger Code”. He concedes the title is a bit provocative. It’s not as though there is some sort of arcane or esoteric code only accessible to the initiated.
It rather expresses Benedict XVI’s method of communicating from behind enemy lines. It can’t be direct. It often contains errors or oddities that attract attention. Upon inspection, certain statements allow for two different, opposing interpretations. He has consistently used this technique since withdrawing from the scene in 2013.
It began with his Declaratio and has continued – remarkably – to the present day. Aside from the all-important distinction between the Latin terms munus and ministerium in his supposed “resignation”, why hasn’t anyone belabored the point that an authentic abdication must be immediate and simultaneous, rather than delayed or deferred, which was a key feature of Benedict XVI’s announcement? And did the translations from the original and binding Latin version of his announcement obscure the difference between a legitimately “vacant” see, which would correspond with a (never actually) renounced munus and enable a conclave to appoint a successor, and an “empty” see, which would not?
Even how Benedict XVI is identified – as Pope “Emeritus” – is curious because that entity simply does not exist within the Catholic Church. It never has. It is totally novel – and lacks any juridical or canonical basis. But most – having never considered the matter – are satisfied with the notion that “emeritus” simply means former or retired because the term “professor emeritus”, for example, is so familiar.
But there is another angle to consider. Cionci points out that the word “emeritus” is a derivative of a Latin verb that means: to merit or deserve. Seen in this light, Pope Emeritus literally means the one who deserves to be the Pope. Interesting.
Benedict XVI has said he still dresses in white because there were no other suitable clothes available. That is obviously absurd. Could he have meant that there is no other sartorial option – aside from his current manner of dressing – to reflect his status as a Pope who, under duress, has relinquished the active exercise of his authority – an authority that remains his?
Does the fact that he resolutely declined to modify his Papal Coat of Arms, despite a friendly offer to do so from the man who had helped compose it, mean anything?
Is he communicating anything of significance when he refers to prior Popes who have stepped down in a manner that is either: (a) obviously historically incorrect – or (b) a specific reference only to a Pope who did not abdicate (and thus always remained the Pope) but was forced out by usurpers?
Cionci addresses all these matters – and several others – in an engaging, credible manner. Any one of these items might raise an eyebrow; taken all together, they raise both.
He also succeeds in demonstrating that Pope Benedict XVI has never lied about his status; indeed, Ratzinger manages to convey the truth despite his predicament. This is quite important since many naturally wonder why he doesn’t speak forthrightly about the situation; others go further by asserting that if he remains the Pope, he has deceptively allowed the masses to believe Francis is the Pope. Cionci’s contention that the “impeded see does not declare itself: it simply exists”, helps this matter come into focus.
Some aspects of his thesis might be more difficult to absorb than others. But they are all worth mulling over. And the thing that, above all, must be kept in mind is that this matter – who the Pope actually is – fundamentally hinges upon canon law.
As the Colombian attorney Estefania Acosta persuasively argues: the text of Benedict XVI’s Declaratio itself renders his supposed resignation null and void. This is an objective evaluation – one that in no way depends on Benedict XVI’s “subjective or psychological situation”, nor “his perception of the surrounding factual and/or juridical reality”, nor “his motivations or specific purposes.”
Only from this firm foundation does Cionci advance his thesis. From there he applies logic in his quest for answers; it is only natural to seek a deeper understanding of what has been happening. In so doing, he has drawn on several well-placed sources from a wide range of fields. He has assembled many pieces of information that can be said to form a revealing mosaic; even if some pieces prove to be defective or are still missing, that mosaic has taken a recognizable shape. And it is compelling.
His thesis simply cannot be dismissed, though it has been mocked. Labeled, you know, as a “conspiracy theory”. Given the events over the past couple years – the unsound, unprecedented, repressive, and injurious measures mendaciously imposed on the healthy masses in the name of “public health” – many may have now warmed to the notion that the only difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is a matter of a few short years if not months.
Perhaps those who have become more aware – red pilled – that their trust in medical authorities, regulatory agencies and the media has been greatly misplaced will be open to Cionci’s thesis. Perhaps Catholics who have been wondering about “Francis” in the back of their minds will give it the attention it deserves.
At the very least, Cionci’s thesis is plausible. But it would be more accurate to say that it has great coherence because it is incontrovertibly based on canon law and robustly supported by the cascading force of logic.
This work, bereft of technical jargon, is designed to be accessible to the layman and it is. But it is evident, in several ways, that this work is a translation from the original Italian. There are also unfortunate, recognizable errors in both language and punctuation. But given the urgency of the matter, it is far, far better that this major contribution is available now even with those blemishes.
Cionci’s book deserves a wide audience in the English-speaking world. I can’t wait for the second part.
Matthew Hanley is the author (most recently) of the award-winning book, Determining Death by Neurological Criteria: Current Practice and Ethics, a joint publication of the National Catholic Bioethics Center and Catholic University of America Press.
The morals of the Church are not rocket science. Even the simplest of people understand one man , one woman, one family. All other sexuality falls short of that sacrament of marriage.
These rocket science moralist add nothing. They are merely reflections of dominant culture already in place.. Yes there is a hostile takeover over the global bureaucracies in general by concerted socialist effort, so hell will not prevail against even the Church after all?
How anyone can trust The Catholic Church is beyond me, why? Well try this one for starters.
Bible Ten Commandments Catholic Ten Commandments
1st
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
1st
I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
2nd
Exodus 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my Commandments.
Deleted. See also idolatry in the Catholic Church
(There is idolatry in the Papal system so the second Commandment has been deleted or sometimes it has been absorbed into the first. All remaining Commandments are therefore shifted along one count.)
Anyone can cherry pick quotes from the Bible to bolster their own ideology, even the devil himself. This is why Christ created the Church and the papacy. It is protected by the Holy Ghost and Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The faith and morals of the Church remain unchanged. The deposit of faith is perfectly in tact despite the infiltration and musings of evil men who are trying to destroy it from within. Did you forget that Judas was an Apostle? Should the other Apostles have abandoned Our Lord because Christ allowed this evil inside his mission? No, Christ was showing us our future. There is no salvation outside of the one, true Church founded by Our Lord himself. You have created your own church and are refusing to suffer with Our Lord. This is our time, we are suffering the Passion with Our Lord. We will walk through every step as He did. Do not reject this suffering for your own “pure” version of religion. You worship yourself when you do that. There are over 70,000 Protestant denominations and who knows how many people who just read the Bible and decide for themselves what it means. Do you really think God permits more than one truth? The First Commandment proves otherwise.
Wrong!
The satanic catholic fake church was never approved by Christ Jesus, Paul, Polycarp and probably not even Linus…
The satanic catholic fake church was built 300+ years after the Crucifixion and falsely laid claim to these name… without their approval.
Also…
The satanic catholic fake church literally changed the wording in Ancient Christian Documents… from “Church of God” to “Universal Church”… which the word catholic is derived from, in Greek.
The satanic catholic fake church is a complete LIE!!!
For all of your posturing, your polemical style is far more Islamic than Christian. You certainly aren’t reflecting anything Jesus taught.
truebearing…
Maybe you haven’t ever read much of the Holy Word of God…
Christ Jesus called some Vipers, snakes, hypocrites, blind fools, child of the devil…
Glad I can help teach you about the satanic catholic fake church, which was built upon lies…
How about this for starters- why are you quoting the Bible, which is a set of writings declared to be scriptural? If you don’t trust the authority of the Catholic church, why are you accepting the Bible as scripture? If you agree that the Catholic Church got it wrong, why do you believe Martin Luther got it right in amending it? If he was correct in removing some writings, was he in error in not removing more or adding some in the Catholic church rejected when declaring the canon in ~350 AD?
Stop making sense, we all know, thanks to our holy prophet Mel Brooks, that there were originally three tablets with 15 Commandments but Ole Mo dropped one of them and fibbed that there were only 10.
Yes, and after that he leaped onto a Blazing Saddle and rode off into the sunset.
Says the fool who worships a profoundly irrational con-woman who is the queen of the non-sequitur and unhinged advocate for laisse-faire malignant narcissism.
Here is a good summation of Ayn Rand’s fake religion:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-10-reasons-ayn-rand-was-dead-wrong/
This is a plain diversion from the article and shows an obsession to shout out an irrelevant opinion.
Siddi, if you and sumsrent took all your knowledge of the Catholic Church and rolled it into a ball and placed it on the edge of a razor blade it would look like a BB rolling down the Garden State Parkway.
Who do you think preserved the Bible all those centuries?
The Jewish faith
I have always felt that Red Francis was illegitimate
Dr. Edward Mazza and Ann Barnhardt have been preaching this for years.
Barnhardt rocks!
Also Bro. Alexis Bugnolo, whose website “From Rome” has an exhaustive chronology and compendium of every document relating to the canonical legitimacy of the conclave which “elected” Bergoglio.
He is an expert Latinist, and helpfully made a faithful translation of (expert Latinist) Pope Benedict’s glaringly ungrammatical “Declaratio” to show how the Pope was deliberately making the document useless as a genuine renunciation of office.
It is ironic that “the spirit of Vatican II” allowed this subterfuge to succeed, as since Vatican II, clerics and prelates are no longer as fluent in Latin as Benedict, and so are not good translators themselves. Latin is still the official language of the Church.
Canon Law in its strictest interpretations will determine the situation in the end, possibly even post-mortem. But for now, the argument isn’t going away, and we are clearly occupied by non-Catholic forces. The church is not herself, and its structure is being dismantled before our eyes, although of course the true church can never die nor be defeated. It can be reduced and interfered with greatly, but it will (in the totality of the mind of God it already HAS) prevail. Only in human-time must we wait to see the outcome.
This is all very interesting and Benedict might indeed still be the legitimate leader of government representing over a billion people, but if anything is to be done about the situation it had best be done soon. The man is 95 years old and no matter how healthy and mentally engaged he is, not too many people live to be much older than that.
Cionci is correct and it was one of the most brilliant chess maneuvers seen in the history of the world. Benedict told Archbishop Fellay of SSPX that his ‘authority stopped at his office door”. A man proverbially backed into a corner by scheming hierarchy and he has neutralized them. It does not matter if he dies it still does not make francis the Pope nor does it validate any of his pronouncements or appointments. He is attempting to purge the institutional church and leave it with a faithful remnant to build an authentic institution observing the Magisterium.
everyone knows this even francis who refuses to be called vicar of christ or rise to high altar in St. Peters. A modern day Martyr to the faith.
So long as church and state are separated the evil of the Catholic Church, the evil of all Christian churches, the evil of Christianity, is greatly reduced. That’s a good thing. Nevertheless, Christianity is always weaponized for theocracy.
The modern problem is that Christianity, just as it was dying off, helped to spawn a secular version of it’s mysticism called Marxism. It would be no surprise then that the two, highly and fundamentally related, systems of mysticism and unreason would undergo a temporary rapproachement, a temporary historical synthesis, until the time when Marxism drops the pretense of being secular, the pretense no longer necessary, and reverts back to and is absorbed by its mother — Christianity. And the Christian Dark Ages return to rule the West.
“Christianity prepared the ground. It paved the way for modern totalitarianism by entrenching three fundamentals in the Western mind: in metaphysics, the worship of the supernatural; in epistemology, the reliance on faith; as a consequence, in ethics, the reverence for self-sacrifice.” – Leonard Peikoff
Part 1
“ So long as church and state are separated the evil of the Catholic Church, the evil of all Christian churches, the evil of Christianity, is greatly reduced. That’s a good thing. ”
For once we agree. And this is the only true thing you wrote.
I’ve already beaten Peikoff and you for that ignorant bullshit quote over and over and over and over again. I need not cover them again.
However, I will note that nobody sane or competent – which generally excludes Peikoff and yourself- that all three of the pillars that supposedly were entrenched by Christianity were evident centuries before Abraham, let alone Yeshua the Carpenter.
Indeed, all of them are present in abundance in the Homeric Trojan Cycle.
Part 2
Let us count the ways, shall we?
“Worship of the Supernatural”? The war supposedly originates because a Goddess tricked a bunch of other goddesses to squabble over a mortal’s judgement, leading to a strife between deities that leads to nervous mortals desperately trying to navigate to victory against their mortal enemies without triggering overwhelming reprisal from said mortal opponents’ godly patrons. Even the wisest and most powerful of Kings fears the Gods if they know what is good for them, and are quickly killed or worse if they run afoul.
“The reliance on faith”? Faith, prophecy, and religion are treated as if they were one of the “soft sciences” of military science, with comparable seriousness as interpersonal relations and chain of command. Indeed, the central arc of the siege itself is about the Greeks following every possible trail of every possible prophecy to slowly choke the Trojans of any possibility of survival as divinely outlined in prophecy. And of course the only reason Achilles is on the war fleet at all is faith.
Part 3
“Reverence for self-sacrifice”? Sacrifices aplenty – both of self and of others – abound in the Trojan Cycle. Achilles sacrifices his life for fame and to avenge his brother in arms and probable lover. The Greeks sacrifice a virginal daughter of noble blood in order to appease the gods before setting out. Ajax the Greater sacrifices his life in order to atone for his unholy dishonor after he goes mad and slaughters holy cattle. Hector sacrifices everything in an ultimately futile attempt to save his city and his people.
The list goes on and on and on and on.
The Trojan War might never have happened, and it almost certainly did not occur as portrayed by Homer, but it does portray a very real cultural world and values. It became a model in both religious and secular life to the Ancient Greeks. It shows the superstitious, fearful, religious, and authoritarian the Aegean World was about a thousand years before Jesus Christ.
And when one understands an iota about comparative mythology and realizes it was one manifestation of common myths and values among the Indo-Aryans (and thus has close relationship to the Mahabharata Cycle), you realize this was anything but an anomaly..
Part 4
It makes a mockery of Peikoff’s claims about Christianity. And it makes a mockery of your crass ignorance and bigotr.y. It reveals that your “rationality” is but a superstition.
It is also worth noting that for all the blather of you and Pinhead Peikoff about the roots of totalitarianism, the first recognizably systematic totalitarian work emerged from Plato’s Republic in the course of a thought experiment among Polyheistic pre-Christian Greeks and even impeccably rational and worldly ones (at least, by the standards of their time). In which Plato supposedly laid out how an “ideal” society would be founded and defending it with intense logical argumentation. Indeed, even the Gods themselves and the sacred myths about them became tools in the hands of the Philosopher-Kings.
Part 5
Part 5
And there is a strong strand among the most influential of totalitarian philosophers to be at best lukewarm about Christianity. Augustus of course lived before Christianity and created the model of universal Empjre in Europe that all others would follow. Dante was a Guelph-turned-Ghibelline who became bitterly hostile to the Catholic Church and who was likely quasi-agnostic, and favored elevating a German Empire into a universal, totalitarian monarchy.. Gaspar de Francia created 19th century North Korea in Paraguay and was excommunicated for his actions. Marx was the child of agnostic former Jews who converted to better fit into Prussian bureaucracy and who later embraced a secular, outright self-consciously satanist rebellion, something Lenin followed. Ludendorff was a fanatical Wotanist who tried to set the stage for a persecution of Jews in WWI and the gradual phase out of Christianity.. Mussolini was a fervent atheist and caustic anti-Christian, especially in private. Hitler seeems to have been in the mold of Ludendorff religiously. And I could go on.
“And I could go on”
Please don’t.
Ah yes, if it isn’t Satanic sumsrent, 9/11 Reuther and shill for Kadyrov and the Iranian Mullahcracy.
If you wanted me to take your requests seriously, you should stop being a lying asshole.
Everything in opposition to Christ Jesus is satanic. <<< Period.
And wrong!
I don't shill for Iran… all of satanic islam is satanic. Except… the world is duped to believe Iran is the only bad guy… when the Sunni prop up Iran against Israel. When all of satanic islam is against Israel…
You must be duped as well… aye?
Part 1
“Everything in opposition to Christ Jesus is satanic. <<< Period.
And wrong!"
Not even Christ claimed as such. See the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance, and also why Feenyism is a heresy.
Also: in what fucking world are people like Bin Laden, Kadyrov, and the Iranian Mullahcracy – all of whom violently denounce the idea that Jesus Christ was son of God or a Savior, persecute Christians, and sponsor terrorism – are not "satanic"?
And yet you've repeatedly carried water for them.
" I don't shill for Iran… "
Yes, you do.
Such as emphasizing "Satanic Sunni Islam" while whitewashing the Iranian Mullahcracy and its decades of terrorism against Christians and the US (ironically often by financing Satanic Sunni Muslim Jihadis like Bin Laden).
You do realize that the Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas are all Sunni terrorist Organizations… killing Jews and Christians…
Don’t pretend that the Shiite are the only ones killing Jews & Christians!
You should also realize… both the Sunni & Shiite use the same satanic quran!
…
Additionally; satanic Shiite Iran is no more a threat to the world than any of the satanic Sunni…
But… you’re duped to believe only Iran is… <<< brainwashed…
Part 2
“all of satanic islam is satanic.”
Then actually act like it.
Except… the world is duped to believe Iran is the only bad guy… ”
The world’s duped to believe a lot of things, but not that. Indeed, compare how much blame the Saudis get for Yemen compared to the Houthis and Iranians in the MSM, and how fervently the MSM has carried water for “outreach” to Iran.
If anything the world is being duped to believe Iran is far better than it has been.
“when the Sunni prop up Iran against Israel. When all of satanic islam is against Israel…”
Sunnis aredivided about whether Israel or Iran are the greater enemy, as shown by the latest cleavages between the PLA and their Gulf State backers.
“You must be duped as well… aye?”
Nay, you are just a satanic dupe.
Remember who the Father of Lies is.
Part 6
This is not, of course, to say every non-Christian or agnostic philosopher in the West was an apostle of authoritarianism. The much-maligned Machiavelli for instance helped found modern Republican constitutionalism more than we know. Nor was there an absence of Christian or Jewish theorists of totalitarianism or proto-totalitarianism. They just generally are not well remembered. How many times did Marx cite Frederick III of Denmark-Norway?
Ok, what about Thomas Hobbes?
And this is limiting our sights quite narrowly to Europe, without talking about such matters as the Legalists of ancient China or the Mesopotamian God-Monarchs. How much have you bothered studying any of them? From your conduct it seems quite evident the answer is “not much.”
Wow! Thank you for writing this article in a secular journal. The battle inside the Church has been raging for years, and most of the world is clueless to what is going on. As others have noted, God will not allow His Church to fail, however many people can be led to hell by the false teachings of Bergoglio and the bishops in union with him. Even the Devil knows he can’t win in the end. His only way to get back at God is to lead as many souls to hell as possible and he is now reaping a large harvest due to the infiltration of the Papacy and many leadership roles in the Church. Now is the time to pray God will turn things around before many more souls take the bait of Satan and end up with him in hell. Benedict, for his part, is doing what he can to expose the cancer in the Church for those who are paying attention. God bless him.
Yes… the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church…
Sadly… the satanic catholic fake church is not part of the Church… or is that… Praise God it’s not…
I’m not about all his with that new book , one or of the other. Nevertheless , it might be worth mentioning that only a few years ago on Conservative talk radio some guest scholars had been speculating on a theory that higher up Roman Catholic clerics at the Vatican had started to take into consideration that Pope Benedict XVI was too strong when it came to the subject of Islam. So those Vatican knowing how very violent with bombs and other deadly devises might become offend by some of the statements thta Pope Benedict had had said , So they began to worry that some jihadists might start bombing churches, cathedrals monasteries and shrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
Therefore, they pressured Benedict to resign and then they replaced him with a pope who is very favorable towards Islam. That man is Pope Francis.
Bergoglio is the very first Poop to take on the “Francis” name…
The so called Saint Francis of history was known for trying to unite satanic islam with Christianity…
No, St Francis wanted to convert the Islamists and he sought martyrdom in doing so.
Wrong! You wouldn’t know the Truth if it slapped you in the face!
In fact… the satanic catholic fake church teaches it worships the fake god allah of satanic islam…
catholicism is satanic!
Sumsrent
Do you just make this shit up or do you go into a trance first?
It’s been going on a long time—-subverting the apostolic and biblical truth—in the Catholic Church. Red Francis has been stocking the colllege of cardinals with leftists,progressives, and those who want. Shape the church to be another unbiblical and pro-homosexual , green energy, and open borders. God help us.Dear Father in Heaven remove the phones and bring Benedict back.
Part 1
“ So long as church and state are separated the evil of the Catholic Church, the evil of all Christian churches, the evil of Christianity, is greatly reduced. That’s a good thing. ”
For once we agree. And this is the only true thing you wrote.
I’ve already beaten Peikoff and you for that ignorant bullshit quote over and over and over and over again. I need not cover them again.
However, I will note that nobody sane or competent – which generally excludes Peikoff and yourself- that all three of the pillars that supposedly were entrenched by Christianity were evident centuries before Abraham, let alone Yeshua the Carpenter.
Indeed, all of them are present in abundance in the Homeric Trojan Cycle.
I’ve always been deeply frustrated with Pope Benedict in the sense of, why would he ever step down, only to enable Jorge Bergoglio to become Pope Francis? It’s akin to if Justices Alito or Thomas were to step down during the Biden administration. This article mitigates my frustration somewhat, claiming that he stepped down because “no one would really obey him anymore.” Who knows, maybe there’s a modicum of truth to that. But I’m still not convinced. He still would have had plenty of power – in using the bully pulpit to inspire the masses, as well as to stave off the rise of the current Pope.
Did you ever hear of St. Malachy of Armagh’s prophetic vision of the 112 popes during his visit to Rome in 1139? It is fascinating to note that he never got a single name on his list wrong,, except the last pope who is Francis. The name of the last pope from Malachy’s prophecy is Peter the Roman. The last pope is supposed to be the False Prophet that is written about in scripture. It seems that Francis fits the description of “antipope” quite well.
Many nominal or otherwise faithfully attending parishioners are falling away from the truth of the Holy Scriptures. They cave to the immense social pressure and compromise their faith. I’m not writing to judge them, but it is a sign of the times we are currently living in.
See 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 2 Thessalonians 2, Daniel 8:21-27
This era in prophecy is known as “The Apostasy”.
People no longer “do God”.
I have concluded that the mysterious “Katechon”, spoken of by St Paul, that limits the power of the Antichrist (and his shill Bergoglio) , is Benedict XVI.
I think “He” that Paul the Apostle (Shaul of Tarsus) is referring to is the third person of the trinity, who is the Holy Spirit.
Bungnolo: right on bergoglio, wrong on ukraine. Unclear if he is just a youtube shill?
Pope Francis is as authentic as a 3 Dollar Bill the Vatican really blew it with this phony
I can’t speak on the Catholic religion-I wouldn’t even try. But just politically, Pope Francis’ effect on the world of millions(billions?) of Catholics and non-Catholics sure looks like part and parcel of “globalist” communist far-left, Islamist-leaning political trends. Doesn’t it? And that’s truly troubling. And also sad.
( Some of the comments have been as digressive off topic of article and just as nutty as I thought they might be – sigh)
escorts in Poland