Logic, folks.

Here below is the full text of +Ganswein’s infamous speech of 20 May ARSH 2016 delivered at the Gregorianum in Rome, which I have been told by people in the know was pre-read and heartily approved by Pope Benedict himself.  The text here is the official translation of the original Italian by the bilingual American vaticanista Diane Montagna.

+Ganswein analogized Pope Benedict’s attempted “expansion of the Petrine ministry” into a “collegial, synodal office”, a “fundamental transformation” such that the Papacy would “never be the same again” …to THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

Hey, remember that time when you quit your job just like any other resignation, and how that was so totally normal and non-extraordinary that your closest associates declared, with your approval, that it was, you know, like the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION? Like God creating His own Mother and holding her free of the stain of Original Sin by the merit of His own death on the Cross 50 years +/- later?  You know, completely, totally normal and in no way different than any other resignation?

But remember folks, if you think it even POSSIBLE that there is any sort of problem here, you are a crazy fantasist.

Apropos of nothing at all, here is my essay on the psychological abuse and control tactic of GASLIGHTING, something that anyone who has spent any time working for any of the intelligence agencies would be not only versed in, but expert in deploying. No matter how much clear evidence, no matter how obvious and logical the dataset, just keep calling anyone who points any of it out of being “crazy”. The vaccine is safe and effective, the resignation was legal and valid, the vaccine is legal and valid, the resignation is safe and effective… 

But what really leapt out at me after re-reading the FULL +Ganswein address was this little logical pickle:

If Pope Benedict’s “resignation” was just like every previous Papal resignation, and “Pope Emeritus” is just a way of saying “resigned Pope”, why is Pope Benedict XVI referred to by +Ganswein, with Pope Benedict’s approval, as having created a “new institution” as “history’s first Pope Emeritus?”

How can Pope Benedict be simultaneously just exactly like all other resigned Popes, but at the same time “history’s FIRST Pope Emeritus”, “entirely different” from all previous Popes that resigned, and that “to date there has never been a step taken like that of Benedict XVI”?

That is a stone-cold violation of the Law of Non-contradiction.  Something can not BE and NOT BE at the same time.  Pope Benedict cannot both be and not be the first “Pope Emeritus”.  Something cannot be both “entirely different” and “entirely the same” as something else.  So, something MUST be wrong with the base premise, because the logical truth table here is yielding first-degree corollaries in violation the Second of the Three Laws of Thought.

Logic, folks.  It’s a constitutive quality of God Himself.  That’s why the opening 14 verses of John’s Gospel are proclaimed at the end of every Mass in the Traditional Rite. “In the beginning was the LOGOS….”

I urge you to read the entire Ratzinger-approved +Ganswein speech below, and see for yourself how “thought leaders” are actively misleading you when they claim that there is no evidence that Pope Benedict’s failed attempted partial “resignation” was anything other than completely normal and run-of-the-mill, just like all previous Papal resignations… and, apparently “normal” like the Immaculate Conception was “normal”.

——————————————————-

Eminences, Excellencies, dear Brothers, Ladies and Gentlemen!

During one of the last conversations that the pope’s biographer, Peter Seewald of Munich, was able to have with Benedict XVI, as he was bidding him goodbye, he asked him: “Are you the end of the old or the beginning of the new?” The pope’s answer was brief and sure: “The one and the other,” he replied. The recorder was already turned off; that is why this final exchange is not found in any of the book-interviews with Peter Seewald, not even the famous Light of the World. It only appeared in an interview he granted to Corriere della Sera in the wake of Benedict XVI’s resignation, in which the biographer recalled those key words which are, in a certain way, a maxim of the book by Roberto Regoli, which we are presenting here today at the Gregorian.

Indeed, I must admit that perhaps it is impossible to sum up the pontificate of Benedict XVI in a more concise manner. And the one who says it, over the years, has had the privilege of experiencing this Pope up close as a “homo historicus,” the Western man par excellence who has embodied the wealth of Catholic tradition as no other; and — at the same time — has been daring enough to open the door to a new phase, to that historical turning point which no one five years ago could have ever imagined. Since then, we live in an historic era which in the 2,000-year history of the Church is without precedent.

As in the time of Peter, also today the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues to have one legitimate Pope. But today we live with two living successors of Peter among us — who are not in a competitive relationship between themselves, and yet both have an extraordinary presence! We may add that the spirit of Joseph Ratzinger had already marked decisively the long pontificate of St. John Paul II, whom he faithfully served for almost a quarter of a century as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many people even today continue to see this new situation as a kind of exceptional (not regular) state of the divinely instituted office of Peter (eine Art göttlichen Ausnahmezustandes).

But is it already time to assess the pontificate of Benedict XVI? Generally, in the history of the Church, popes can correctly be judged and classified only ex post. And as proof of this, Regoli himself mentions the case of Gregory VII, the great reforming pope of the Middle Ages, who at the end of his life died in exile in Salerno – a failure in the opinion of many of his contemporaries. And yet Gregory VII was the very one who, amid the controversies of his time, decisively shaped the face of the Church for the generations that followed. Much more daring, therefore, does Professor Regoli seem today in already attempting to take stock of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, while he is still alive.

The amount of critical material which he reviewed and analyzed to this end is massive and impressive. Indeed, Benedict XVI is and remains extraordinarily present also through his writings: both those produced as pope — the three volumes on Jesus of Nazareth and 16 (!) volumes of Teachings he gave us during his papacy — and as Professor Ratzinger or Cardinal Ratzinger, whose works could fill a small library.

And so, Regoli’s work is not lacking in footnotes, which are as numerous as the memories they awaken in me. For I was present when Benedict XVI, at the end of his mandate, removed the Fisherman’s ring, as is customary after the death of a pope, even though in this case he was still alive! I was present when, on the other hand, he decided not to give up the name he had chosen, as Pope Celestine V had done when, on December 13, 1294, a few months after the start of his ministry, be again became Pietro dal Morrone.

Since February 2013 the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation which Benedict XVI has profoundly and permanently transformed during his exceptional pontificate (Ausnahmepontifikat), regarding which the sober Cardinal Sodano, reacting simply and directly immediately after the surprising resignation, deeply moved and almost stunned, exclaimed that the news hit the cardinals who were gathered “like a bolt from out of the blue.”

It was the morning of that very day when, in the evening, a bolt of lightning with an incredible roar struck the tip of St. Peter’s dome positioned just over the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles. Rarely has the cosmos more dramatically accompanied a historic turning point. But on the morning of that February 11, the dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, concluded his reply to Benedict XVI’s statement with an initial and similarly cosmic assessment of the pontificate, when he concluded, saying: “Certainly, the stars in the sky will always continue to shine, and so too will the star of his pontificate always shine in our midst.”

Equally brilliant and illuminating is the thorough and well documented exposition by Don Regoli of the different phases of the pontificate. Especially its beginning in the April 2005 conclave, from which Joseph Ratzinger, after one of the shortest elections in the history of the Church, emerged elected after only four ballots following a dramatic struggle between the so-called “Salt of the Earth Party,” around Cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela or Medina and the so-called “St. Gallen Group” around Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy-O’Connor; a group that recently the same Cardinal Danneels of Brussels so amusedly called “a kind of Mafia-Club.” The election was certainly also the result of a clash, whose key Ratzinger himself, as dean of the College of Cardinals, had furnished in the historic homily of April 18, 2005 in St. Peter’s; precisely, where to a “dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires” he contrasted another measure: “the Son of God, the true man” as “the measure of true humanism.” Today we read this part of Regoli’s intelligent analysis almost like a breathtaking detective novel of not so long ago; whereas the “dictatorship of relativism” has for a long time sweepingly expressed itself through the many channels of the new means of communication which, in 2005, barely could be imagined.

The name that the new pope took immediately after his election therefore already represented a plan. Joseph Ratzinger did not become Pope John Paul III, as perhaps many would have wished. Instead, he went back to Benedict XV — the unheeded and unlucky great pope of peace of the terrible years of the First World War — and to St. Benedict of Norcia, patriarch of monasticism and patron of Europe. I could appear as a star witness to testify that, over the previous years, Cardinal Ratzinger never pushed to rise to the highest office of the Catholic Church.

Instead, he was already dreaming of a condition that would have allowed him to write several last books in peace and tranquility. Everyone knows that things went differently. During the election, then, in the Sistine Chapel, I was a witness that he saw the election as a “true shock” and was “upset,” and that he felt “dizzy” as soon as he realized that “the axe” of the election would fall on him. I am not revealing any secrets here, because it was Benedict XVI himself who confessed all of this publicly on the occasion of the first audience granted to pilgrims who had come from Germany. And so it isn’t surprising that it was Benedict XVI who immediately after his election invited the faithful to pray for him, as this book again reminds us.

Regoli maps out the various years of ministry in a fascinating and moving way, recalling the skill and confidence with which Benedict XVI exercised his mandate. And what emerged from the time when, just a few months after his election, he invited for a private conversation both his old, fierce antagonist Hans Küng as well as Oriana Fallaci, the agnostic and combative grande dame of Jewish origin, from the Italian secular mass media; or when he appointed Werner Arber, the Swiss Evangelical and Nobel Prize winner, as the first non-Catholic President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Regoli does not cover up the accusation of an insufficient knowledge of men that was often leveled against the brilliant theologian in the shoes of the Fisherman; a man capable of truly brilliantly evaluating texts and difficult books, and who nevertheless, in 2010, frankly confided to Peter Seewald how difficult he found decisions about people because “no one can read another man’s heart.” How true it is!

Regoli rightly calls 2010 a “black year” for the pope, precisely in relation to the tragic and fatal accident that befell Manuela Camagni, one of the four Memores Domini belonging to the small “papal family.” I can certainly confirm it. In comparison with this misfortune the media sensationalism of those years — from the case of traditionalist bishop, Williamson, to a series of increasingly malicious attacks against the pope — while having a certain effect, did not strike the pope’s heart as much as the death of Manuela, who was torn so suddenly from our midst. Benedict was not an “actor pope,” and even less an insensitive “automaton pope”; even on the throne of Peter he was and he remained a man; or, as Conrad Ferdinand Meyer would say, he was not a “clever book,” he was “a man with his contradictions.” That is how I myself have daily been able to come to know and appreciate him. And so he has remained until today.

Regoli observes, however, that after the last encyclical, Caritas in veritate of December 4, 2009, a dynamic, innovative papacy with a strong drive from a liturgical, ecumenical and canonical perspective, suddenly appeared to have “slowed down,” been blocked, and bogged down. Although it is true that the headwinds increased in the years that followed, I cannot confirm this judgment. Benedict’s travels to the UK (2010), to Germany and to Erfurt, the city of Luther (2011), or to the heated Middle East — to concerned Christians in Lebanon (2012) — have all been ecumenical milestones in recent years. His decisive handling to solve the issue of abuse was and remains a decisive indication on how to proceed. And when, before him, has there ever been a pope who — along with his onerous task — has also written books on Jesus of Nazareth, which perhaps will also be regarded as his most important legacy?

It isn’t necessary here that I dwell on how he, who was so struck by the sudden death of Manuela Camagni, later also suffered the betrayal of Paolo Gabriele, who was also a member of the same “papal family.” And yet it is good for me to say at long last, with all clarity, that Benedict, in the end, did not step down because of a poor and misguided chamber assistant, or because of the “tidbits” coming from his apartment which, in the so-called “Vatileaks affair,” circulated like fool’s gold in Rome but were traded in the rest of the world like authentic gold bullion. No traitor or “raven” [the Italian press’s nickname for the Vatileaks source] or any journalist would have been able to push him to that decision. That scandal was too small for such a thing, and so much greater was the well-considered step of millennial historical significance that Benedict XVI made.

The exposition of these events by Regoli also merits consideration because he does not advance the claim that he sounds and fully explains this last, mysterious step; not further enriching the swarm of legends with more assumptions that have little or nothing to do with reality. And I, too, a firsthand witness of the spectacular and unexpected step of Benedict XVI, I must admit that what always comes to mind is the well-known and brilliant axiom with which, in the Middle Ages, John Duns Scotus justified the divine decree for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God:

“Decuit, potuit, fecit.”

That is to say: it was fitting, because it was reasonable. God could do it, therefore he did it. I apply the axiom to the decision to resign in the following way: 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.

The momentous resignation of the theologian pope represented a step forward primarily by the fact that, on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, he introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of “pope emeritus,” stating that his strength was no longer sufficient “to properly exercise the Petrine ministry.” The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst); as though, by this, he wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then Joseph Ratzinger took as archbishop of Munich and Freising and which he then naturally maintained as bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis,” which means “fellow workers in the truth.” In fact, it is not in the singular but the plural; it is taken from the Third Letter of John, in which in verse 8 it is written: “We ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers in the truth.”

Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.

It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.

In his overview of the pontificate, Regoli clearly lays this all out as never before. Perhaps the most moving part of the reading for me was the place where, in a long quote, he recalls the last general audience of Pope Benedict XVI on February 27, 2013 when, under an unforgettable clear and brisk sky, the pope, who shortly thereafter would resign, summarized his pontificate as follows:

“It has been a portion of the Church’s journey which has had its moments of joy and light, but also moments which were not easy; I have felt like Saint Peter with the Apostles in the boat on the Sea of Galilee: The Lord has given us so many days of sun and of light winds, days when the catch was abundant; there were also moments when the waters were rough and the winds against us, as throughout the Church’s history, and the Lord seemed to be sleeping. But I have always known that the Lord is in that boat, and I have always known that the barque of the Church is not mine, it is not ours, but his. Nor does the Lord let it sink; it is he who guides it, surely also through the men whom he has chosen, because he so wished. This has been, and is, a certainty which nothing can obscure.”

I must admit that, rereading these words can still bring tears to my eyes, all the more so because I saw in person and up close how unconditional, for himself and for his ministry, was Pope Benedict’s adherence to St Benedict’s words, for whom “nothing is to be placed before the love of Christ,” nihil amori Christi praeponere, as stated in rule handed down to us by Pope Gregory the Great. I was a witness to this, but I still remain fascinated by the accuracy of that final analysis in St. Peter’s Square which sounded so poetic but was nothing less than prophetic. In fact, they are words to which today, too, Pope Francis would immediately and certainly subscribe. Not to the popes but to Christ, to the Lord Himself and to no one else belongs the barque of Peter, whipped by the waves of the stormy sea, when time and again we fear that the Lord is asleep and that our needs are not important to him, while just one word is enough for him to stop every storm; when instead, more than the high waves and the howling wind, it is our disbelief, our little faith and our impatience that make us continually fall into panic.

Thus, this book once again throws a consoling gaze on the peaceful imperturbability and serenity of Benedict XVI, at the helm of the barque of Peter in the dramatic years 2005-2013. At the same time, however, through this illuminating account, Regoli himself now also takes part in the munus Petri of which I spoke. Like Peter Seewald and others before him, Roberto Regoli — as a priest, professor and scholar — also thus enters into that enlarged Petrine ministry around the successors of the Apostle Peter; and for this today we offer him heartfelt thanks.

Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household
20 May 2016

 

 

Another item for the “If only there were VISIBLE SIGNS of Bergoglio being an Antipope…” file.

Good grief. The classic Diabolical Narcissist lack of self awareness demonstrated by these satanic faggots really is something to behold. Don’t worry, folks. The Streisand Effect will be in full force here.

“The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead backfires by increasing public awareness of the information.”

Watch public knowledge of and interest in Fatima, La Salette and Akita skyrocket. The next thing you know Tucker Carlson will be going on Joe Rogan to discuss them.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Bergoglio and Fernandez are going to 'demote' La Salette, Fatima, Akita

They intend to 'airbrush out' all the 'prophets of doom', that is, the Marian apparitions that warn of God's punishment of sinners, that urge reparation in response to God's anger, that prophesy the… https://t.co/8ugIqPHzAp

— Nick Donnelly (@ProtecttheFaith) April 24, 2024

An eagle-eyed reader sent me a link to this website on Diabolical Narcissism, as the author had linked to my ARSH 2016 video. The post below is fascinating- on DN mothers, and the entire site is invaluable. Here’s a pull quote from the link below:

https://www.chastitysf.com/q_narcissism_mother.htm

“The liberal Catholic Church will not aid your healing because, it, along with the secular culture in which you live, holds out the false belief that being nice and accepting anything will bring utopia to earth. But no, that is all just an open door to demons who bring hell to earth.”

Yup. He nailed it.

Like I said, worth a click AND a bookmark.

www.ChastitySF.com

My DN Video plus essay links are HERE.

The Diabolical Narcissist’s Prayer

That didn’t happen.
And if it did happen, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was that bad, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is a big deal, that’s not my fault.
And if it was my fault, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did mean it…
You deserved it.
Amen.

This person is a perfectly normal, decent human being among my readership, and I’m assuming probably over the age of 65, who saw this at BarnhardtMemes.com the other day; and this person thought that this clearly AI generated image (it’s even clearly signed) of Antipope Bergoglio and prelates warmly receiving and shaking the hand of satan, with a satanic “priest” looking on, with the caption “Yes, it’s this bad”, was a real photograph.

Even after the world falling for the glaringly obvious CoronaScam and billions of people having themselves and their children injected with an obvious poison, many doing it multiple times because the faggots and skanks on the Tee Vee told them to, even after that, I think we all still underestimate how gullible and easily fooled people are.

I’ve always known that there are people who simply do not “get” satire, but that which was a mere foible before is now essentially weaponized.

I also want to remind people how powerful confirmation bias is amongst most people- if something feeds into one’s bias, even if that bias is true (in this case that Antipope Bergoglio is an evil Luciferian – totally true) people will convince themselves EASILY that “confirming data”, no matter how ridiculous, is real and true. I assume that the person who emailed me thought that Antipope Bergoglio did a public meeting and photo-op with a man dressed in heavy, intricate costume and make-up as Lucifer. Or, less likely but trivially possible, the person thought that this was literally satan. I highly doubt that, but it’s possible, especially with schizophrenics, of which there are more and more every day. A.I. images are intensely dangerous for people whose brains already see no difference between fantasy and reality. Interestingly, marijuana greatly weakens this fantasy-reality differentiation in the brain. It’s been legalized for a clearly calculated reason, folks.

This A.I. crap is just getting started, and it’s going to get to the point of being so convincing that only the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit of Understanding and Counsel, especially, will guide one through. If you aren’t Confirmed, get Confirmed. If you are Confirmed, pray this “re-activation” prayer early and often so that you can always accurately see and size up the world, so that you can help yourself AND help others.

I hope this… HELPS.

---

“Almighty God my heavenly Father, You knew me before the creation of the cosmos and You wanted me to come into existence to bring You glory. Of all the possible universes You could have created, You created this one and You called me into it at exactly the time and place You chose for me so that I could fulfill my part in Your unfathomable plan. You willed that I have the honor to be baptized into the Church You designed and You maintain for our well-being. You willed that I receive the Body and Blood of Your Son and the indwelling of Your Spirit. You willed that I should also be confirmed so that our relationship be even deeper and that I might be an even better instrument of Your will. I now call upon that mighty Sacrament of Confirmation. Through it make me strong to bear whatever burdens I must endure in Your service. Make me wise to recognize accurately and then strong to resist, resolute, whatever is out of harmony with Your will as manifested especially in the beautiful Tradition You have guided in the authoritative, infallible and indefectible Church. Even if that disharmony should come from those whom you have endowed with the grace of Orders and seated even in the highest places of teaching, governing and sanctifying, make me steadfast. With confidence in Your plan for me I ask this for myself and for the brethren through the Holy Spirit’s Gifts and in the Name of Jesus Christ Your Son, who lives and reigns with You, ever one God, world without end. Amen.”

And yes, I agree that unless the Bergoglian Antipapacy is called out, the CIA has the “successor” lined up. Why would they NOT?

What I now think

Joseph Ratzinger was forced to resign by Obama/CIA
Bergoglio was the globalist/Deep State operative prepared since at least 2005
The 2013 Conclave was rigged by cardinal operatives on the inside
The objective was to make the Vatican/worldwide hierarchy an agency… pic.twitter.com/VzIEhjEy73

— Nick Donnelly (@ProtecttheFaith) April 20, 2024

“It happens all the time.”

Yup.

Enjoy this video of Biden talking about how many ‘F*ck Joe Biden’ signs he sees and how many little kids flip him off 🤣

pic.twitter.com/n6LRFQshuC

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 19, 2024

In one of his very first acts as pope, Pope St. Pius V in Cum Primum on April 1, 1566 ordered that sodomites be executed by the secular authorities.

Two years later, he declared in a Constitution:

“That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery” (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for (Constitution Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum, Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

–***–

This sodomite crap isn’t a game, folks. Satan is playing for keeps, and we would all do well to face this fact now.  Better late than never.

And I’ll say what others won’t: a primary motive behind Antipope Bergoglio and his ghostwriter, the Dread Faggot Fernandez’ Luciferian war on capital punishment, and the silence on the part of the bishops and clergy, is the fact that so many of them are themselves guilty of capital crimes: sodomy, enabling of sodomy (Romans 1: 32), complicity in the CoronaScam and death injections, and some of them, especially in the infiltrated Vatican, have engaged in literal human sacrifice in the context of satanic rituals. They want to abolish the death penalty so as to avoid it themselves. They’ll get theirs, be it in this life or the next.

Antipope Bergoglio (a sodomite) and Touchme Fagnandez, sodomite and author of child grooming handbooks. Can you believe ANYONE still thinks these two Luciferian faggots have anything to do with the Catholic Church, much less the Magisterium or the Papacy? The mind reels.

The certainty with which one suspects Antipope Bergoglio of being not merely a criminal usurper, but the actual False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist continues to leap higher. He is undeniably attempting to put himself OVER and ABOVE God and His Holy Church, at the head of an Antichurch being erected inside the Vatican so as to deceive the world into believing that the Antichurch is and has replaced the One True Church.

Bergoglio is obviously an Antipope, and has been all along, and sits at the head of the ANTICHURCH. It’s obvious. There is simply no way the Petrine Promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ to His Body and Bride, The Church, can be reconciled to Bergoglio as Pope without violating the Law of Non-contradiction, and thus denying the Divinity of Christ.

---

Some helpful quotes on the death penalty:

Avery Cardinal Dulles

“The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium. Consistency with scripture and long-standing Catholic tradition is important for the grounding of many current teachings of the Catholic Church; for example, those regarding abortion, contraception, the permanence of marriage, and the ineligibility of women for priestly ordination. If the tradition on capital punishment had been reversed, serious questions would be raised regarding other doctrines.”
(2004, Avery Cardinal Dulles)

St. Augustine

The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.

(The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)

St. Thomas Aquinas

It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). …

Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)

The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.

They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”

(Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146)

“…a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear, for capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. …the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori

It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority: it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it; and it is the duty of the officers of justice to execute the sentence; God Himself wishes malefactors to be punished.

John Senior

Justice is simply the social good, and it must therefore be done. It is defined as “giving each his due” – cuique sum, “to each his own.” A man is due his life because he is a living thing; it is his nature to have life; and, since it is also his nature to be moral, if a man commits a crime, he must be punished because punishment is retributive – punishment is the penalty due the criminal in justice to him. Proportioned punishment is due him, too, and you cannot deny him that right without yourself committing an injustice against him deserving punishment in turn. The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.

There is another justification for punishment besides retribution. Pain and deprivation are medicinal. They hurt so much that the criminal can learn that crime does not pay – or at least that the victims pay back. If you want to teach the prisoner a trade or put him to useful work, well and good; but those things are secondary and must never interfere with the first and proper use of punishment, which is the restoration of the equality of justice not only in society but in the person of the criminal. A person who commits a crime has indulged his will against reason; a disequilibrium has been established in his soul, as Plato says, which can only be righted by retributive exercise of reason against his will. The greatest evil in the world is to do wrong without being punished.

They object to punishment itself; and that is because they deny the existence of justice; and that is because they deny that man is free, that man is responsible for his acts. Crime, they say, is sickness. It must be cured, or better, prevented by prophylaxis of the spirit, by the extermination of free will altogether so that men will react like Pavlov’s dogs to sensitivity training and even to psychosurgery and drugs . . . . They say crime is illness. Now if that were true, there could be no moral act whatsoever. If man is not free to choose evil, he is not free to choose good . . . . Everyone must remember the story of the murderer who said in court: “You can’t blame me, it was my heredity and environment that caused me to kill” and the judge who replied, “It is my heredity and environment that sentences you to hang by the neck until dead.”

(The Death of Christian Culture, Chapter 7)

---

BarnhardtMemes.com

Elwood:
It’s 106 miles to Chicago, we’ve got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it’s dark and we’re wearing sunglasses.

Jake:
Hit it.

---

Yep, It’s pretty much this:

Crossed with this… does a theme emerge?