Imho, Dr Mazza has given brilliant insight into what (the even more brilliant) Pope Benedict has done. Pope Benedict was forced to resign by the wolves around him who had international backing. His Holiness did it in such a way that he did not relinquish his mandate as the Vicar of Christ, which he has already clearly said is impossible for him to give up after he accepted it at his election. (.....with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“) In the newly released book by Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict reiterated that the spiritual dimension of the papacy is his alone. However, he resigned his position as the Bishop of Rome, and gave clear signs that this is the only position which he is giving up, by stating very clearly in his resignation speech that he is giving up his Ministry as Bishop of Rome, and also, as pointed out by Ann Barnhart, by the fact that he placed his pallium (which is purely a symbol of his role as Bishop of Rome) on Pope Celestine's tomb. He never resigned the Petrine Munus, as explicitly required in Canon Law for a papal resignation to be valid (it is a fact that Canon Law had been modified to include this explicit requirement during John Paul II's papacy). Pope Benedict confirms all this by: 1) calling himself Pope Emeritus. Pope because he is indeed still the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. Emeritus because he is now the former Bishop of Rome. 2) continuing to use his papal name of Benedict XVI (instead of reverting to Joseph Ratzinger), and signing off as PP Benedictus XVI 3) continuing to give his Apostolic Blessing 4) continuing to wear the papal white 4) continuing to live in the Vatican. Abp Ganswein, in his speech at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 2016, talked about the brilliant way in which Pope Benedict has altered the papacy. Now, with the insight given by Dr Mazza, we can understand that Pope Benedict changed it by separating the Papacy from the position/ ministry of Bishop of Rome. This possibility had already been discussed by theologians many, many years ago. (When Peter was given the keys to the kingdom by Our Lord Jesus, Peter was not yet the Bishop of Rome. Therefore there has been debate about whether it is necessary for the Pope to also be the Bishop of Rome). And as Abp Ganswein said, “Decuit, potuit, fecit” "....it was fitting, because Benedict XVI was aware that he lacked the necessary strength for the extremely onerous office. He could do it, because he had already thoroughly thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of popes emeritus for the future. So he did it." There are many other details discussed by Drs Mazza and Marshall, which make it worthwhile to watch their lengthy video. Pope Benedict executed a brilliant move in order to protect the Church. He may or may not have gotten instructions in a mystical manner. But what is certain is that he knows the contents of the unreleased part of the Third Secret of Fatima, and in all probability, acted in the manner that he thought was best for Holy Mother Church. +
Sounds great for those brilliant enough to get inside the more brilliant mind of Pope Benedict. Thus far, that special brilliance is reserved for a few like Archbishop Ganswein and Dr. Mazza. Meanwhile, the other billion or so Catholics must wait until the Pope Emeritus dies and his last will and spiritual testament are read before we find out to whom he has entrusted the task of selecting his successor. You couldn't make it up. Meanwhile, here in what once was the land of saints and scholars, I've just watched Mass from a Carmelite church in Cork. The priest reminded us that Corpus Christ used to be celebrated on a Thursday to commemorate the Last Supper but now it's on a Sunday. He reminisced about growing up in Dublin when the whole community prepared for the procession of the Blessed Sacrament through the city's streets with a place of honour being given to first Communicants. Then he lectured whichever few of the faithful who bother to tune in (most likely pensioners) of their obligation to give to the poor and of the evils of racism and xenophobia. He ended with the good news that the sodomite led and abortion promoting government is permitting public Masses from the end of the month and he will know how many faithful will be admitted when the government decides whether the social distancing will be reduced from two metres (any reduction will be down to pub owners having petitioned the government). If the 2 metre limit is retained, 30 people will be admitted to Mass which will likely be held a few days per week (not necessarily on Sunday) and there will be only one Mass per day because the church will have to be sanitised afterwards. All of this is contingent upon the faithful adhering strictly to the rules because breaking them could incur a fine from the government and non-compliance will result in the faithful once again being excluded from Holy Mass. The apostasy in Ireland began and continues in the priesthood. It was well hidden from the faithful in the days of the processions. Nowadays accusations of lack of charity, racism and xenophobia are the distraction from what the Church has consistently failed, and continues to fail, to address and correct. Benedict's "brilliance" is no substitute for the plain speaking we have been denied ever since the smoke of Satan entered (via the wide opens windows) of the Vatican, our chanceries, monasteries, our convents and especially our seminaries. Our Lord Jesus Christ has been relegated to history while the talking points of politicians and unelected international agencies are emphasised in our churches. And they wonder why the pews are emptying? Political speeches are more palatable down the pub with a pint and a bag of peanuts. And, in case you think it's any different in your corner of the world, have I got news for you. I watched online Mass from the Cathedral in Singapore during the week. The homily from your Bishop had all the "inclusive" talking points. He left out the racism and xenophobia elements but was more specific about where your money should go - to the Church. He did wax lyricial about prophets among the people but his description of prophecy wasn't Heaven sent visions of the future. It was more about being able to calculate what is likely to happen based on astute assessment of current events. These are the type of prophets he's hoping will become active in Church ministry. Welcome to the post-Christian world.
14Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians, 2:14
'Negotiated' papal resignation? I got the impression that it came from nowhere - only the person present who had Latin reacted. I believe Benedict that he had an inner battle for discernment about resigning. I still wish he hadn't. Benedict hates all confrontation - if the spiritual testament were to say some powerful but not comfortable things then he would rather be dead than face the wolves (he could be said to have fled once). However I just think that it will be a wonderful statement of faith and we will be edified by it. Has anyone read the posthumous publication of JPII's diaries? It did cause a lot of controversy since the late Pope wanted his notebooks burned after his death. I have met one of the priests involved with that project and he impressed me as a man of God and indeed someone not at ease with elastic theology of the current papacy.
Certainly, the smoke of Satan has entered the church. This has been highly visible since Vatican II, as Pope Paul VI himself lamented. The action of Pope Benedict XVI in resigning the Ministry of the Bishop of Rome, while remaining the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, is surely tied to the Third Secret of Fatima. As we know, in the vision of the Third Secret there are 2 men, one of whom is the Holy Father and the other, the Bishop in white. We have these 2 men in the Church today - Benedict the Pope, and Bergoglio the Bishop. I am convinced that the second part of the Third Secret (which has to date not been released despite explicit instructions by Our Lady) holds the key to understanding the sad state of Holy Mother Church today, and to Her restoration. It is foolhardy to presume that we already know its contents and therefore it is not going to make any difference whatsoever if it were to be released. Our Lady wants to warn us of the dangers concerning the life of Christians, as previously alluded to by Cardinal Ratzinger. Fr Malachi Martin said that with the release of that secret, churches and confessionals would be full of people beating their breasts and turning back to God. If the secret was only about the apostasy in the hierarchy, would people be rushing to fill the churches and confessionals? Of course not. In the thread 'The Third secret of Fatima and corruption in the Church', I have stated what Fr Ingo Dollinger and Msgr Silvio Oddi said the Third Secret is about - a bad council (Vatican II) and a bad Mass. Abp Vigano, in his latest statement, has acknowledged that he himself had been deceived by the errors in Vatican II documents and the ensuing actions. [Viganò describes how the Second Vatican Council led to the “obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs, and saints.” The doctrine, discipline, and liturgy – simply the entire life of the Church has been since altered, without too much resistance from the Church's clergy. Here, the prelate admits his own deficiency with regard to the Council. “I confess it with serenity and without controversy: I was one of the many people,” Viganò goes on to say, “who, despite many perplexities and fears which today have proven to be absolutely legitimate, trusted the authority of the Hierarchy with unconditional obedience. In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a conflict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fidelity to the Church herself.” He speaks here of a “perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fidelity,” something that came to a peak under the current pontificate.] https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...rancis-was-chosen-to-revolutionize-the-church ---------- Thus, "even the elect have been deceived". +
The Bishop of Singapore is like most Novus Ordo bishops. I haven't been watching any NO mass. It's the TLM for me, where the true liturgy is; and the homilies/ sermons contain the true teachings of our Faith. +
I Here's my take. Imagine this following scenario The church and its tenets have been compromised to the world for many decades and the power struggle to destroy the church has been very subtle; the infiltration of the church by secularism/globalism has been clandestine. The extent of the usurp of power was known in a limited way by the faithful including the good clergy in the 1970's; Saint Pope JPII was aware of this subterfuge but had not the means nor the mandate to intercept, why? because his primary mission was to consolidate/strengthen the faithful and to instil a foundation of hope in the youth of his time. (This was the right course, because we needed this) When Benedict XVI took power he became not only privy to the ploys and plots of the enemy but he also became a victim to the ultimate end game of the evil plot ! I believe those in alliance with the globalists that had accumulated power in the hierarchy of the church, had threatened not only his life but also the lives of many innocent thousands (in one way or another), as we know they had the power to influence many governments (including China) to implement many unholy laws/decrees/prohibitions world wide. Benedict could have remained the pope, knowing that many evil plans were to be executed under his pontificate, no matter what he said or did in defiance to these plans because the power had been irrevocably imbalanced in favour of the evil ones and he would be unable to stop them; however he could consider a way to counter these diabolical plans. I believe he now had to consider a risk/benefit situation for Christs church! And he did just this by using his great intellect in theology, scripture, cannon law and church councils, he was able to seemingly accommodate the wolves by resigning, but he secretly kept the see of Peter safe! Well what good is that, to us the faithful? The good is this.......If and when the Bishop of Rome decides to change church teaching and laws, Emeritus Benedict who is the supreme pontiff can use his authority to simply state these new teachings are null and void, therefore the average catholic remains with the true teachings. If Pope Emeritus Benedict dies and laws are changed by the bishop of Rome,after Benedict's death, then the testimony of Emeritus Benedict will ensure that all Catholics that are receiving the Blessed Eucharist on the tongue and attending the LM , etc are still in Communion with the church and can be not be excommunicated. This scenario of course would cause a schism but we the true faithful would be vindicated, knowing that the true pontiff had validated the remnant. The above is not very well explained, I hope you get my gist.
What evidence is there that we haven't got all of the third secret of Fatima? My memory isn't good but didn't the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger state when the Secret was revealed that this was all of it? Are we saying they were/are liars? Aren't there enough prophecies which state the signs of the times, apostasy, sacrilege, sins against the priesthood and the Holy Mass?
I was surprised that the Vatican I Council had the opportunity to definitively declare that the Primacy (i.e. Peter) and the Roman See are inseparable, but didn't. Then it threw me that there are some respected theologians from the past that believe the 2 can be separated for just cause. And yes, Dolours, the discussion in the second half of the video concludes with both Marshall and Mazza stating they believe Benedict is convinced he still holds the Primacy, but not the Roman See. Also, Mazza is convinced that Benedict sees himself as the restrainer of 2Thess 2:6-7; obviously, Marshall doesn't see that conviction as remotely possible because Marshall believes the restrainer and the AntiChrist are inter-connected. And for him, the AntiChrist doesn't come on the scene until after the appearance of the Great Monarch, which doesn't seem to be on the immediate horizon. For me, their discussion reopens the possibility of a divide between the Primacy and the Roman See. And the opinion that Pope Emeritus Benedict might be the Restrainer actually fits my tentatively held timetable of Chastisement/AntiChrist/3DD/Era of Peace. I need a whole lot more convincing, however, before I see Benedict in that role! O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Interesting point Mario - I would be more inclined to see The Pope Emeritus as believing he still has the charism of Peter - which he does. He has said he won't interfere or speak (much). However I cannot see Joseph Ratzinger maintaining a strict silence - he was born to teach and to write.
Very soon, AED, within the next four years, I believe. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
It's been a lonely journey for you here, Sg. I'm glad the good archbishop has your back! Safe in the Father's Arms!
PE Benedict is 93 years old, and so frail a wind can bowl him over. I often wonder how much longer he will be with us. Is that what you mean, Mario?
