Last evening someone sent this link to me about a European Human Rights Court decision which overturned the decision of a French court. It was overturned by this reasoning: "In an opinion rendered Oct. 13, the Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that by punishing Bouton for her display, France violated the article of the European Convention on Human Rights that protects freedom of expression." CAUTION: The article is truly disturbing to read. Even more disturbing is what the Human Rights court said about the offence. This is where "nice" has led us. We have to prepare ourselves in case we find ourselves in this or a similar situation. The "church of nice" will not have our backs. The Church Militant will have to act accordingly, regardless of the cost... https://www.foxnews.com/world/court...mulated-aborting-jesus-catholic-altar-topless
All the Ifs in the world don't amount to a single definite. Francis is the Pope. We have seven Sacraments and the papacy isn't one of them. Benedict resigned. He didn't bifurcate the papacy. Pope Francis hasn't taught against the Faith. The two instances cited by Dr. Mazza are not sufficient to declare the Pope a heretic. Giving Communion to Pelosi is poor judgment, scandalous and probably sacrilegious but it isn't a formal teaching. The Abu Dhabi document can have an orthodox meaning. Pope Francis told Bishop Schneider that the plurality of religions is down to God's permissive will. I have wondered whether Benedict's living on, apparently with his mind as sharp as ever, was God's way of protecting the Church by keeping alive the only person on earth who would make Francis wary of crossing the line into changing Church teaching. Benedict's lingering on could also be a protection against any attempt to oust Pope Francis. Not all shady characters in the Church are modernists. Do you think that the deferral of the Synod is due to the possibility of a world war? The official reason seems rather lame. God will protect the Church from teaching error. A looming world war should be enough to get even the most wayward Bishops (and us) on the narrow path.
Nevertheless, our present pope has scandalously approached the edge, at the least, with Amoris laetitia which is certainly formal teaching. And does the Pachamama incident have an 'orthodox meaning'? I don't disagree with you that he is the pope, but that he might not be a good one is quite a possibility. There is just too much happening, for which he bears responsibility, for people not to be scandalised and misdirected. What are people, poorly formed in the Faith, to make of headlines about pro-abort, atheist, anti-Catholics being appointed to the Papal Acadamy for Life? This is all they are likely to hear about such an appointment. Is it not inevitable that most will assume that the Church has no real difficulty with abortion, particularly when the likes of Biden and Pelosi are treated as dignitaries?
Correct. The loss of souls through this false teaching is a tragic possibility. That is the real chastisement right now. The judgement of God begins with the House of God scripture tells us. The House of God is going through a horrific judgement. God have mercy when the judgement begins in earnest with the rest of the world.
If it walks like Duck, quacks like a Duck and looks like a Duck, then it's a Duck. I don't need an angel to come down from heaven to tell me so. God gave us common sense for a reason. He's bad as they come.
How culpable are the many from a Catholic background who have been denied anything remotely resembling a proper cathechesis and who receive so many media-publicised false direction from those whom they can hardly be blamed for regarding as the proper authorities? I have been fortunate to encounter Truth, so there's no such excuse for me. We all have a duty to do our job; for decades, it appears that those in the Catholic Church charged with seeing that the Faith is handed on have not been doing their job. What do they consider their job to actually be?
The phrase 'more Catholic than the Pope', used to describe people with a tendency to publicly excessive piety; now it seems to describe just about everybody. As for that other formerly ironic phrase, 'is the Pope a Catholic', one despairs.
So many are wandering out there, & imho, they actually want to come back. But they aren't interested in buying an "old car from the '70's". These could be our neighbors, family etc. They watch ~ probably they think we're nuts and that's ok. They are seeking Truth, and hopefully we can help them just by being as faithful, hopeful and as charitable as we can. God will do the rest.
When I was very young I used to like to go out drinking , pretty well every night. This activity involved meeting and talking to many, many strangers. Looking back on it I was very , very naive in this, a common fault amongst the very young and the very immature. My basic assumption was that everyone was like myself. I had no real experience of evil or very bad people. Of course I had a kind mental understanding in that I had understood very well that there were and had been evil people people; but I had never really had face to face dealings with them. Or, if I had , I just could not place them for what they were. For in order to recognise the evil fully in others we have to have at least some basic understanding of ourselves. But the years rolled on by and I got down in the darkest mud with a lot of truly, truly evil and disgusting people and this really woke me up to the utter reality of wickedness. I also got down in the dark mud with a lot of the wickedness in my own soul too. It seems to me that many in the highest places in the Church remind me of my much younger self who cruised stupidly from bar to bar thinking everyone I met was just fine. Floating about in pink clouds of naive, sweet smelling foolishness. They would not recognise evil if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.
Honest question: Back in your younger days, was there anything/anyone that could have swayed you from the path you were on? Was there anything or anyone that could have dragged your arse outta the pit you fell into? (prior to Our Lady's intervention?)
My Spiritual Director wrote me a letter which would pretty well have scared the devil himself to death. Pointing out how far I had fallen. If he could not have shaken me, who knew me best, I guess no one else could have. But being in the past evil myself (and I hope that is in the past) and having had a lot of contact with other evil people, some even worse than myself I can say this, that when you stare into the eyes of some folks all you get to see are endless gaping dark holes gazing back at you. How then can most ordinary folks who live sheltered lives from any kind of evil readily grasp the concept of evil in others? Then when you ask them to move forward from this to try the grasp the possibility of a truly evil Pope. How can they do this? It is impossible for them. Here stands this guy ,smiling; all in white, with a Cross round his neck. Surrounded by smiling Bishops and Cardinals, saying kinda nice things and joking. ...and my goodness..well.. he's the Pope? How can a Pope be evil? ...and you're never, ever,ever going to shake them on this. Never. Not in a million, million years; at least with words anyway. They have to have their face rubbed right on it. To meet evil head on face to face, to experience it themselves. To meet someone with a gun who wants to kill you. To meet folks who torture and beat you. To have head on collisions with the devil and with demons. To meet smiling folk who are being paid to betray you and and lead you to your death. To meet people like priests and monks who, whilst appearing good and holy, at once rise up against you because they recognise any semblance of goodness in yourself and unutterably oppose it and despise you for it. These things cannot be taught; they have to be lived. To go out into the darkness and wrestle with it, as indeed Jesus did Himself. Moreover evil takes many forms. One of them is in being a shape shifter. Of evil appearing to be good. The very,very worst kind of evil there is.
I have experienced similar to you, but not to the same degree, for lack of a better word. You ended up in jail and received the "help" you needed. Myself, I gave up completely & tried to end it. I had seen pure evil stare me in the face, and had no idea what to do, so I gave up. I woke up in an old part of a hospital, named for St. Michael. An old lady dressed very oddly to my eyes was sitting in the room with me, reading a magazine. When I opened my eyes, she looked right at me and said "they sent me to keep an eye on you". I could have cared less. Only just recently I saw a picture of that same woman. Feeling stunned is an understatement. For 30 years I kept fighting, and I can't in good conscience say it was on my own. No spiritual directors around these parts at all. So, you fall down over and over again, but you get back up and keep seeking the Truth. Looking back now, I can see all the times there was a little grace here or there, trying to get my attention, but that's now, in hindsight. I regret that. imho, you are absolutely right in what you are saying about those sheltered from this. They just don't know. It's truly, I believe up to us to do what we can do to help those who cross our paths, and leave the rest to Our Lady. We ourselves cannot save the world, we can only do what we are asked to do. I thank you personally for what you have done over the years. Your story gave me hope to fight on. How many others has it affected? To God be the glory ~
https://www.frontpagemag.com/has-benedict-xvi-been-indicating-he-still-reigns-as-pope/ Has Benedict XVI Been Indicating He Still Reigns as Pope? Bombshell new book puts forth compelling thesis. October 27, 2022 by Matthew Hanley 45 Comments 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. [Continued in next post]
[Continued from above post] 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.
So many wise words. I would say on meeting the Devil head on face face to face as an adult, the one thing that would scare you about him and make your hair stand on end is his utter, utter difference. I would use old Norse type ancient words... otherness, errie, What makes the Devil so frightening is the total absence of Light. It is as if everything we know is turned inside out. No breath of goodness, no warmth. But curiously a blessing in that he happens to be a very great teacher. A perfect red pill moment. Once you see him face to face; there is no going back. In a kinda mysterious way it is a privledge to meet him. My Spiritual Director said it is a compliment. But having met ultimate evil it becomes much, much easier to recognise his friends. ..and yes to call them out. We are not being uncharitable in calling out evil for what it is is. Shout to the whole world about it is my policy. Simply call a spade a spade, don't hang about. It's wonderful Lois that you have been granted these graces, but equally wonderful that you have been given the grace to recognise them. We have a wicked, Bad Pope. You don't have to like the fact, simply face up to it. It is not Charity, or kindness, or being nice to pretend what is so, isn't. Quite the opposite.
I believe it to be true, but I'll leave you with this thought: "the first step towards loving your enemies is recognizing that you have them". After that, you can only follow your conscience as best you can.
Yes, Unfortunately the Modern Western Church has pretty well lost her balls (for want of a better word) and become Feminizied. Pretty much as Culture at large as been . She had given herself to the Spirit of the World. Of going with the pink flow. Which is why it is dying. It needs to grow a pair...and grow them quickly. There is nothing wrong with a woman being Feminine. But there is something atrocious about Men being Feminine. Especially our Clergy. Women, by the way, hate Feminine men worse than anyone. They might pretend that they don't and go along with it all, but they secretly or unsecretly don't. Once the men's private parts are clipped they despise them. I would say in the Vatican, you are talking now about a bunch of Eunuchs..or worse.
All scandalous. The list of scandals is as long as your arm but they don't amount to sufficient proof to declare him a heretic/anti-Pope and seek his removal. Long term, I think that his behaviour concerning the vaccines and closing the churches will turn out to be the most harmful to the Church's relationship with secular powers. Even the Vatican used coercion on its staff for the co-operation with evil. Qualifying evil by calling it "remote" doesn't make evil good. He's not a good Pope but I don't think he's as bad as some people make him out to be. A bit of a hypocrite but some soul searching might show a trace of hypocrisy in most of us. The point I'm trying to make here is that all the heretic/anti-Pope accusations are going nowhere. Pope Francis won't be removed. He is very careful not to cross the heresy line in his official teaching. So, what do the accusations achieve? Division. Undermining Papal authority. Sowing doubt about an Ecumenical Council of the Church. Broad brush tarring of the majority of Bishops who don't fit the modernists' label of "Francis haters". We are being sifted like wheat, used by people of the secular left and right to weaken the unity of the Church. One side picks some report about the Pope (not always accurate) and starts the woe is us reaction. The other side accuses them of Protestantism and taunts them to leave the Church. (There's a real cringeworthy video likening Pope Francis to Jesus and St. Paul and accusing anyone seeking clarity from Pope Francis of having double standards if they don't complain about Jesus and St. Paul failing to clarify everything. You couldn't make it up). A weakened papacy is the last thing we need because the great reset is coming. Whether or not it turns out to Schwab's version of reset will make little or no difference to restrictions on our freedom to practice the Faith. The ECHR is not an EU outfit and will likely remain in place even if the reset sees the end of the EU. (See Lois's link about their judgment on the atrocity in the French church.) Synodality might prove to be not such a bad thing in the long term. God can bring good from the worst human machinations. Incidentally, (off topic, or maybe not) look who Sunak's father-in-law is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._R._Narayana_Murthy
