Benedict XVI unequivocal: "I resigned, but I did not abdicate"

Any proof? And to what extent was this considered? “Research into what might have happened?” I remain a skeptic at this point. I also know that Ann B believes that Benedict is still Pope. Except that he’s not.

 

Having listened to them, I can say their info was factual and explored topics like canon law in depth. Taylor Marshall also did some interviews with Professor Mazza that don't go into quite as much detail.. And he may be more palatable for some.

 

He did receive a dossier outlining Vatican bank corruption from a group of 3 cardinals he had secretly appointed to conduct an investigation. He resigned within weeks of receiving the dossier. In my opinion, he may be trying to protect the papacy from evil forces that have infiltrated the Church and especially the Vatican.

I am no expert on Benedict's character although I do believe him to be a good, holy man.

 

You understand me, sunnyveil

 

Point well taken, HH. I was in the same sinking boat back then and probably planning to throw you overboard next! And the current downhill trajectory of the Church requires more prayer and less analysis at this point, anyway! Since we here at MOG are in Mary's Army, prayer is the obvious way forward: we are foot soldiers, not generals!

Lord have Mercy!

 

Thank you, Mario. Good insights.

 

The charges of heresy, both material and formal, against this pope are well documented in multiple places and therefore already very public.

There are many resources that outline these serious charges.

Here’s one place to start educating oneself regarding these public accusations of serious heresy. The links in this article take the reader to many other resources in this regard:

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-francis-accused-of-heresy-by-clergy-and-theologians

 

This seems to nail it.

 

What if Francis is operating under a metaphorical 'gun to his head' and questionable practices have been done by him to appease modernist factions who would cause a schism eg Germany ?

 

That’s possible. But if he does something like change the mass to prevent schism I’m calling BS. They’ve been working on it since 2017, so it’s not some last minute concession done in fear. He’s the one who started synodality and encouraged bishops to speak without fear (even if what they say is heresy) and spoke out against rigorous doctors of the law, people who believe in an absolute moral law.

Seems more like a pretext than a reason. Like the government blaming economic woes on a pandemic rather that a failed ponzi scheme. Feels more like wishful thinking.

 

do you think that the German bishops will demand concessions from the Universal Church in order not to initiate a rupture?

 

I'm glad this thread wasn't locked. It has a high level of debate and discussion, provokes thought and helps me (and presumably others) to get a handle on the issue. I think that the Church will make a decision long after my lifetime!!! Given that the college of cardinals is stuffed full of Francis' appointments, I don't think we can reasonably expect another JPII or Benedict XVI any time soon. Barring divine intervention, we are in for a prolonged time of trial. We will all of us have to draw closer to God. The prophecy of Ralph Martin was along these lines, was it not?

 

I think the German bishops are actually in bed with Mr. Bergoglio. It was him who initiated synodality. He also stated he would go down in history for having caused a schism.

 

It seems more likely that Pope Benedict is operating with a gun to his head. He quit after he started looking into some Vatican deep affairs.

 

Prophecy seems to indicate it, but prophecy can be misinterpreted.

I just know there is a so-called ecumenical mass or abomination of desolation that we are not to attend. Read the Book of Destiny by Father Kramer. It is not against the faith to believe Rome can be the epicenter of the Great Apostasy.

 

Thanks. I’ve been moderating various Catholic forums for twenty years now so I’ve come to trust my instincts/intuitions about these things. Folks certainly don’t always agree with those decisions. MOG members are always free to appeal to @padraig in case of serious disagreement. It’s his forum.

 

This is my husband's theory

 

He is a secular humanist. He operates openly under Masonic principles, even if he himself is not a Mason. He has openly said his greatest influence as a young adult was a communist co worker.

No, he knows exactly what he’s doing, and he’s doing it of set purpose.

Please folks, open your eyes. It’s too late in the game for such false hope and overly credulous theories. Seek wisdom in this through ardent prayer and fasting.

 

The story has legs because of the visible signs given by Pope Benedict (dressing in papal white, refusing to leave the Vatican, etc.), because of text of the Resignation itself as well as statements by Pope Benedict after the fact like the ones Cionci has outlined. As for why Pope Benedict would have resigned invalidly or partially, either willingly or through error, Cionci attempts to answer that question (translation):

"For two thousand years, a moment of great crisis has been announced for the Church, with a seizure of power by anti-Christic forces. We have the advent of an “idol shepherd” (Prophet Zechariah), a “False Prophet” (Revelation of St. John), a “false extravagant church” (Blessed Katharina Emmerick), a “Rome seat of the Antichrist” (Our Lady of La Salette), a “bishop dressed in white” (Fatima), a “propaganda church pope” (Fr. Julio Meinvielle), of “the smoke of Satan entering the Church” (Paul VI), of a “final test with apostasy from within” (Art. 675 of the 1992 Catechism), of an “Anti-Church and an anti-Gospel” (St. John Paul II), of “Satan at the top of the Church” (Don Stefano Gobbi) … In short, the possibility of a spiritually evil coup d’état is certainly not new and has been known for some time.

Do we want to believe, then, that Cardinal Ratzinger and St. John Paul II have remained inactive without preparing an emergency plan “B”?

Already in 1983 they elaborated – perhaps in this anticipation – the “hypnotic” diversification between munus and ministerium of the papal office: so effective that even today even insiders sometimes get lost in it. In Libero we have hypothesized that it could be a “mirror mechanism” inspired by the vision in the mirror of the bishop dressed in white of the shepherd children of Fatima.

Therefore, considering that the (documented) attacks of the St. Gallen Mafia came from within, and admitting that these were the expression of what has been prophesied for two thousand years, from a strategic point of view, the best system of reaction for Pope Ratzinger could certainly not be that of a frontal and asymmetrical opposition. Can we imagine – as certain sedevacantists would like – Benedict XVI in 2005, with the whole world painting him as a grim, obscurantist and retrogressive pope, raining excommunications on modernists, suspending here, expelling there?

It would have been political suicide: he would have done nothing but strengthen the propaganda of his enemies, inside and outside the Church, condemning not only himself, but also preparing, perhaps, in reaction, a legal succession with a modernist pope.

When Monsignor Viganò identifies the Council as the root of the current drift, he is not wrong, and certainly in 2013 the metastasis of neo-Arian-Lutheran modernism, (with a homosexuality of the clergy now endemic) had reached a state that demanded a drastic decision. Vatileaks had even highlighted a fierce internecine war between factions and even alleged plans to physically eliminate the Pontiff.

When the moment arrived, Benedict XVI probably pulled the “emergency lever” without hesitation, voluntarily, in science and conscience. The most intelligent, effective and holy way to react was through a retreat (a word he uses often), not before having “undermined” the enemy invasion ground. In strategic studies it would be called a “deception plan” with “elastic retreat” and “false target”.

Ratzinger fed the wolves that besieged him the “meatball” of the ministerium and, retreating into a role as a supposed pope emeritus, preserved the munus, granting the enemy forces within the Church an experimental time, to unravel, so that the Catholic people would be scandalized, that they would understand the emptiness and theologically destructive content of Masonic modernism enslaved to globalism.

Catholics had to see the pagan idol enthroned in St. Peter’s, the “mestizo Madonna relief of migrants,” the doctrinal upheavals, the politically correct changes in the missal, the esoteric-Masonic dew and a thousand other unheard of upheavals and reversals of sound doctrine.

The faithful had to see the Church as a slave of the “world”, dialoguing with abortionists and homosexualists, it had to hit rock bottom, “hitting its nose” like the prodigal son. They had to get to “be the swineherds” before becoming aware and returning to the house of the pope..." https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/art...missioni-invalide-ricostruzione-mai-smen.html

 

how would the validity of the jubilee of mercy and the year of St. Joseph be in this case? would plenary indulgences since Francis' election be invalid?