A Pope who doesn’t fear schism may cause one By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Sep 11, 2019 “I am not afraid of schisms,” Pope Francis told reporters during his latest airplane press conference. Well, I am. And I’m afraid of any Roman Pontiff who isn’t afraid of splitting the universal Church. Which means that, yes, I’m afraid of Pope Francis. As we head into the Amazon Synod, there are numerous indications that the Pope and his allies will use the meeting to ram through another set of dramatic changes in Church teaching and discipline. He is willing to break with our fathers in faith; he is willing to break with his brothers. I fear that the Pope is determined to have his way, regardless of the cost to Church unity. As I remarked recently, in the past few weeks we have seen disturbing signs of a new attitude at the highest echelons of the Vatican: a willingness to suppress and dismiss critics of the Pope without even a pretense of gentility. That aggressive approach—perhaps a bid to ensure “irreversible change” in the limited time available—was on display when the Pope replied to a question from Jason Horowitz of the New York Times, about the criticism the Pope has encountered from American Catholics. Horowitz introduced the question of schism, asking if it worried the Pontiff. But he did not suggest that it was an imminent threat. He acknowledged that some American Catholics are “very critical,” but he pointed out to the Pope that it was “some of your closest allies who have spoken of a plot against you.” Thus the Times reporter traced the current discussion of schism to its proper source. It is not the Pope’s critics who are suggesting a break; it is his allies who claim that any criticism—however mild, however respectful, however logical—is a threat to the Pope’s authority and an assault on Church unity. In his response to Horowitz, Pope Francis made it quite clear that he accepts his allies’ analysis of the American scene. He accepts the preposterous reading of American affairs by his friend Father Antonio Spadaro, who sees American conservatism as the greatest threat to the papal agenda, and insists that “there is a campaign of disinformation against Pope Francis that links American and Russian interests.” He welcomes the work of the French author Nicolas Seneze, who sees a conservative American plot against the Pope. He believes his advisers when they explain that all criticism of his statements and policies on doctrinal issues—on the Eucharist, on the indispensable role of Jesus Christ in salvation, on the indissolubility of marriage, on the male priesthood—is really a smokescreen, a pretext, because the critics are really interested only in advancing a conservative political agenda. In his long, rambling statement, the Pope did not answer Horowitz’s questions as to whether he had learned anything from his critics, or whether he had plans for further dialogue with them. Instead he offered a disjointed reflection on criticism, claiming that he always welcomes honest criticism and hinting that his American critics are hypocrites, advancing their own hidden agenda. The Pope’s statement was so far removed from the reality of the situation that it is difficult to say whether it was marked by dishonesty or delusion—or perhaps both. “First of all, criticism always helps, always,” the Pope said. At the outset of his African voyage, a papal spokesman had said that Francis is “honored” by criticism. Now the Pope himself told Horowitz, “I always benefit from criticism” and “a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me.” Really? Having covered Vatican affairs throughout this pontificate, I cannot recall a single instance in which Pope Francis made a gracious public response to any critic, on any topic. But I can easily recall dozens of occasions on which he lashed out as his critics—characterizing them as Pharisees and hypocrites, “doctors of the law,” rigid and uncharitable. “To criticize without wanting to hear a response and without getting into dialogue is not to have the good of the Church at heart,” the Pope continued. But it is he who refused to respond to his most famous critics, the four cardinals who submitted the dubia. Four princes of the Church raised probing questions on vital doctrinal issues, and he declined to answer them. When Archbishop Vigano launched his scathing denunciation of the Pontiff, Francis promised that he would offer “not one word” in reply—although he did impugn the archbishop’s character. When American bishops demanded an explanation of the Vatican’s involvement in the McCarrick scandal, the Pope promised a full accounting—but a year later, no such accounting has emerged. When Cardinal Müller expressed concerns about papal statements, the Pope abruptly dismissed him from his role as the Vatican’s top doctrinal watchdog; more recently he has dismissed the German cardinal as “like a child.” These are not the words nor the actions of a leader who welcomes honest criticisms. They are telltale signs of a willingness to ride roughshod over critics. And since they come from a Pontiff who has simultaneously shown a willingness to believe that powerful American forces are plotting against him, we can probably expect to see further signs of papal hostility later this year, as the bishops of the United States make their ad limina visits to Rome. As he wrapped up his astonishing statement, Pope Francis finally voiced some sympathy for his critics, because “they are going through a tough time,” and closed by saying, “we much accompany them gently.” A tough time, yes; that is an understatement. But how can we really believe that the Pope plans to accompany us gently—that he does not indeed plan to continue ignoring our concerns, questioning our motives, denouncing our beliefs? Pope Francis is not afraid of a split in the Church. I am. That’s why I’m afraid of this Pope.
THE MYSTERY OF POPE BENEDICT’S ACTIONS IN RESIGNING ONLY PART OF THE OFFICE OF POPE BEGINS TO BECOME MORE UNDERSTANDABLE AS THE CHURCH APPROACHES THE CLIMAX OF BERGOLIAN REVOLUTION Posted on September 11, 2019 How Benedict has defeated “Francis” by The Editor https://abyssum.org/2019/09/11/the-...pproaches-the-climax-of-bergolian-revolution/ by Br. Alexis Bugnolo Pope Benedict XVI, who has been lauded by many as a brilliant theologian, is in my opinion, a more brilliant chess player, for he has defeated the AntiChurch with the most incredibly subtle and effective manuever which could ever be conceived, and which takes a great deal of study to recognize, if you, like myself, took at face value the hearsay which has been put out for the last six years. Admittedly, the honor and glory for it belong first of all to God, Who enlightens all men and inspires them at times to do things mere mortals could never conceive of. But also, thanks goes to God for sending Our Lady to Fatima to reveal to Sr. Lucia a secret which has until this day remained hidden, so as to give sound counsel to the true Successor of Saint Peter in the End Times. How Pope John Paul II strengthened the Bulwark of the Church against the AntiChurch I believe that with that knowledge, Pope John Paul II did 3 things: first, he chose Joseph Ratzinger to come to Rome and prepared him to succeed him; second, he added the term munus to canon 332 §2, to constrain all of his successors to the obligation of renouncing the Petrine Munus so as to resign the papacy; and third, he promulgated a new law on Papal Elections, which would nullify any attempt of the AntiChurch to usurp the Papacy or elect successors to AntiPopes (by requiring that all valid conclaves meet within 20 days after the death of valid popes). Pope John Paul II warned the Church of the AntiChurch which was rising. He beatified Ann Catherine Emmerich to give papal approval to her own visions in this regard. It should not be surprising then, that in secret, or I should say, in the bright light of day, in papal acts he prepared the Church against that Evil to come! By these three acts, Pope John Paul II set the chess board and enabled his chosen successor, Ratzinger to enact a stratagem of deception to defeat the forces of darkness. The Forces of the AntiChurch struck quickly No sooner than Pope John Paul II had died that the St Gallen Mafia, which had been meeting in that Swiss town for some years, mobilized to put Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne in the Conclave of 2005. Bergoglio, as is now known, garnered the most votes after Ratzinger. In his campaign to get elected he promised radical financial reforms in the Vatican, so he could pose as a savior and reformer, though his agenda was that of Cardinal Martini, to make the Church into the Bride of the Anti-Christ. Recently an Argentine Priest revealed, that Pope Benedict, soon after his election in 2005, had asked Bergoglio to be Secretary of State (see report here). Benedict intended by this offer to diffuse the conflict which arose in the Conclave, and to draw out the real intentions of Bergoglio. Bergoglio’s refusal manifested his deceit, because all the reasons given in the Conclave for his election, which in truth could be done by a Secretary of State, if honest, would have spurred him to accept Benedict’s offer. But without the papal authority, his evil and malign agenda could not be advanced. — By this sign of offering the olive branch of peace, Benedict signaled to his own supporters, that after himself there would come an Anti-pope (cf. Prophecy of St Malachy). With the threefold knowledge of the future had from the Third Secret, from Pope John Paul II and from his own experience in the CDF, Pope Benedict now knew what he had to do. He knew Bergoglio wanted power and would be blinded by its offer. He took preparations to defend the Church with tradition and as the pressure built from the St Gallen Mafia, the crafted their defeat in secret. Benedict knew that removing the Lavender Mafia from the Vatican was key to defending the Church. But as court documents revealed, in the WikiLeaks controversy, as that effort led to the destruction of the careers of many sodomites, they moved against Benedict to have him removed. His Pontificate had removed about 5,000 perverts from the clergy. As I have written before, there was in my estimation a formal attempt at a Coup d’etat (see report here). And this was actually put in motion, with the intent to effectively imprison Pope Benedict (see Report here). — The Conclave pact in 2005 among the warring factions of Ratzinger (Church) and Bergoglio (Anti-Church) also prepared the way (see report here). But, with their cause lost at that conclave, the St. Gallen Mafia would have to wait for Benedict to resign, because being old, he revealed that he was inclined to resign in a few years, anyhow. As he lingered on, however, their rage and impatience exploded. The restoration of the Ancient Mass and the expansion of the permissions for its use caused a general outburst among the wicked clerics. I myself know this took place in the Italian Bishop’s Conference in 2011, because a Bishop who attended told me how Cardinals and Bishops stood up, one after another, and said the most vile things against Benedict. I also know personally, from the testimony of a Sicilian Businessman, who was in Shanghai, that the Cardinal of Palermo had warned that Benedict could die within a year from poor health. The St Gallen Controlled Media expanded this and reported it as if the Cardinal has said that Benedict had a year to live or else. That report was published on Feb. 11, 2012. (cont'd) +
Benedict’s Master Stroke Pope Benedict XVI then played his master stroke. In the Summer of 2012 he indicated to Cardinal Bertone that he was going to resign. He discussed the matter with no one but his secretary Ganswein and a few others. I believe that he wrote the text of abdication in the Fall of 2012. I also postulate that he intentionally showed the Latin text (the invalid one) and a faulty German translation (which makes it appear the Latin is a valid formula) to members of the St Gallen Mafia, to obtain their consent to it. By that act he sealed their doom. Because only one who was fluent in Latin and knowledgeable about Canon Law and who accepted the traditional metaphysics of the Church would be able to see that the resignation by that formula would be invalid. Ratzinger further prepared the ground by emphasizing for years before, that his favorite theologian was Saint Bonaventure. This caused scholars, like myself, to start studying St. Bonanveture’s Scholatic method for textual analysis of the signification of expressions, which is unparalleled among all the Doctors of the Church. On Feb. 11, 2013, he read outloud in Consistory the text of the invalid formula. On Feb. 28, 2013 he explained that he had resigned the “active ministry”. The St. Gallen Mafia spread the word of a valid resignation. The rest is history. The only thing is, that Benedict began to give signs of the truth, not only for the sake of the Faithful, but to annoy the St Gallen Mafia. He kept wearing the papal cassock, retained the titles of Your Holiness and signed with PP. Benedictus XVI, and continued to give the papal blessing. He did these things to get faithful Catholics to examine the text of resignation and discover it was invalid. — He did this also, because, I believe, he was obeying Our Lady’s word at Fatima, in which She had revealed that there would come a time in which the Catholic world thought there were 2 popes, but only one of which was the true pope. The one who was the true Pope would continue to wear white, the other would usurp the office; and that the Anti-Church would attack the true Pope and the faithful gathered about him. By an invalid resignation Pope Benedict has canonically invalidated everything Bergoglio has done, can do, and can ever do! Bergoglio is now an AntiPope because of the clever trick Benedict played on him. And Bergoglio is so entangled by this stratagem of Benedict that he cannot admit its existence, because if he does, he must give up his claim to the papacy. If Benedict should die, then there will be no valid Successor of Saint Peter unless the pre-Bergoglian Cardinals meet in conclave within 20 days. Otherwise, as Pope John Paul II declares any action the Cardinal Electors take will be invalid. If they fail to do this, the Church will not be bereft of a paope, because, as Pope John Paul II taught in UDG’s prologue, the institution of the College is “not necessary for a valid election” of the Roman Pontiff: there is still the ancient Apostolic Law regarding the right of the Roman Church to elect the Pope. (The right of election will fall to those Catholics of the Diocese Rome, who recognize that Benedict always was the only true pope, and that Bergoglio was always and is only, and nothing more, an Antipope.) Benedict has defeated “Francis”! Note: I wish to publicly apologize to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for anything I have said in criticism of him, since it was not until today that I understood what he had did and why he had done it, nor that as Pope he was acting for the good of the Church in the best and only way he could see to do, acting on the basis of the counsels of Our Lady and Pope John Paul II. +
This This Gives me hope. I pray it is true. Did bishop Gracida write it? It makes a lot of sense. Oops. I see now it is a brother. Italian I think.
The only thing is that there is hearsay in this article. Pope Benedict “knew Bergoglio wanted power and would be blinded by its offer.” How can we know what PE Benedict knew unless he tells us himself? I’m just saying that this article has flaws which keep me from believing it.
This explanation could certainly give the meaning to why the children of Fatima stated that they only "assumed" that this "bishop in white" whom they saw in the image given them was the Pope! Could they have been representing, in their thinking then, those faithful of today who rather naturally would also only assume that the person wearing white, "Francis", like a Pope does, is the Pope when he is still in truth only a "bishop" since a bishop who has been named a cardinal remains a bishop. Outside of that part of the secrets given, the Fatima apparitions had called out by name the other figure of a Pope who would as well play out in the given secrets. Why not this one too in this particular part of the given secrets??? And apparently Francis, while in Fatima, also referring to himself as a "bishop in white" when comparing himself to this figure in this part of the secrets and perhaps then, without knowing it, declared himself to be in reality still only a bishop!
Yes, well, it is only the reasoning of the author who it would seem believes that P. Benedict, perhaps knowing that he held the position of judgement of the motivations of others as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would have this ability to see such motivations within those around him, esp. as he was a main target of their tactics. It is an angle at least for consideration. Otherwise the seat of Peter could have been brought down by force.....as in threatening the use of the time Benedict was a bishop in Germany during another case of abuse to discredit him....perhaps as invalid for that reason.....as well as the threat to also bring down his beloved brother for same in that other scandal of the choir in Regensburg. This is something that I've heard from some who had contacts at the Vatican. This way (as seems to be happening here within the political scene of this deep state attempt to take down the secular place of highest authority) those who had infiltrated the hierarchy would expose themselves through their satanic ideas being blatantly put into action which could cause thinking Catholics to finally put two and two together about just who is who!
Brother Alexis Bugnolo Rebuild My Church - An Interview with Brother Alexis Bugnolo https://theradicalcatholic.blogspot.com/2015/04/rebuild-my-church-interview-with.html
The author of confusion has sure been busy. This Benedict thing is so absurd. Since when did the Pope not accept and drink to the dredges that cup which God has given him even to include his death? Even anti popes have not brought upon the church this sort of confusion. Two men wear white in the Vatican while men such as Jimmy Akin put on their decoder ring and decipher their teaching to feed the flock?!? We are the sheep. I am not a theologian. None of us should need to read or listen to one in an attempt to understand the deliberately vague and muddied modernist teachings of the church. Teachings handed down by the Pope to the bishops and the priests who in turn are meant to feed us to ensure our and our families salvation and just maybe by putting into practice become like our Lord along the way. The bishops and priests especially in the US have been giving us gall for decades and the fruit is plainly evident. Many lead us astray and right off a cliff while they sit back and enjoy the view from their beach house with their new seminarian conquests of the week. If this is not evident all we have to do is look back 60 years to what they told those who came to them way back when the pill came out and they said to them to simply follow their conscious. Why would they say this? They said it because they had no idea what to tell them. This coming from those who should all understand the self evident natural law and our sacred place in it. It has gotten to the point that there are few worth listening to or seeking their counsel. The vast majority drizzle out words of platitude in place of that which is bitter but which will save your soul.
The Brother, while seemingly well-intentioned, is wandering dangerously close to sedevacantism here. I'd imagine it's beyond his pay-grade to deem any pope an 'Anti-pope'. It is beyond doubt that God has a role for Benedict. We can be as sure as it is possible to be, I think, that Pope Benedict is a good man. He prayed hard before making his fateful decision. I take it that he continues to maintain a certain papal role because, although one might resign the papal office, it must be asked can one 'un-pope' oneself? The dead popes are still popes, wherever they are (Heaven, Purgatory or Hell), are they not? It is certainly extraordinary how Benedict has persevered. Before he resigned, he seemed very feeble and I thought at the time he might have resigned for fear of dementia and becoming the puppet of the wolves-imagine the confusion if they had succeeded in getting their arch-enemy to do their will? Now we are facing the incredible possibility that Benedict might outlive Francis (although the latter looks as tough as old rope). If this came to pass, what then?
We face excommunication if we don’t accept the Pope. You are right, this brother is dangerously close to sedevacantism.
It is the same playbook. I cant forget that creepy email of John Podesta's about infiltrating and creating a Catholic "spring" and Hilary C. Saying in a campaign speech that the Catholic Church must be made to change. Also I know from a friend who had many Vatican contacts that BXVI was literally besieged. Very few people he could trust. I always wondered if he was the one Jacinta saw in her vision. Having said all of that there is much we dont know and many unanswered questions so HH has a point.
Good reminder. This forum is a true forum where we can discuss and analyze and help each other. I really appreciate it!!
Yes, there is much we don't know. Much that is above our pay grade. We would like answers and sometimes we don't have clear-cut proof. Even if there is an investigation, often nothing is done about the matter. We must accept the sitting Pope and follow the True Magisterium. At some point, God will act and we will know the Truth. "We see through a glass darkly" to quote the Scripture. The sodomites are apparently winning this game, but God has the final say. He is omnipotent and almighty. We are the sheep of His pasture. I caution against spreading anything to the contrary.
This article talks about a global alliance to educate young people to build a new humanism. Not once does the Pope mention the Name of Jesus. In fact, from his document there is a quote that says The Pope said the first step is finding “the courage to place the human person at the center.” https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-09/pope-francis-educational-alliance-new-humanism.html This statement is in direct opposition to all that we know as Christian Catholics. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. Also, Pope Francis' statement must be contrasted with the September 2nd message from the Virgin Mary in which she said, it is high time for you to kneel before my Son to acknowledge Him as your God, the center of your life. Jesus, Who is God, is the center of our lives, not human persons! Another article gives explanation why he gave some of St. Peter's relics away https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/...lains-relics-gift-patriarch-bartholomew0.html
People often ask me: What should we do? When division threatens, it is necessary to strengthen unity. This has nothing to do with a team spirit as it exists in the world. The unity of the Church has its source in the heart of Jesus Christ. We must stay close to it, in it. This heart that was pierced by the lance so that we might be able to take refuge there will be our house. The unity of the Church rests on four columns. Prayer, Catholic doctrine, love for Peter, and mutual charity must become the priorities of our soul and of all our activities. —Cardinal Robert Sarah from The Day Is Now Far Spent
