Dr. Edmund Mazza’s Official Statement on the Vatican Criminal Investigation into the Putative Partial Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI:

It is encouraging to learn that the Vatican has an active criminal investigation into the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, a subject I have labored upon for over seven years.

His Excellency, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano first called for an investigation into Pope Benedict’s resignation in 2022:

But before discussing the next conclave, it is necessary to shed light on the abdication of Benedict XVI and on the question of the frauds of the 2013 Conclave, which sooner or later will have to give rise to an official investigation. If there were to be proofs of irregularity, the conclave would be null, the election of Bergoglio null, just as all his appointments, acts of government and magisterium would be null. A reset that would providentially bring us back to the status quo ante, with a College of Cardinals composed only of cardinals appointed up to Benedict XVI, ousting all those created since 2013, notoriously ultra-progressive. Certainly, the current situation, with all the rumors about Ratzinger’s resignation and Bergoglio’s election, does not help the ecclesial body and creates confusion and disorientation in the faithful.” (emphasis mine)

Not only must the role of secret societies and deep state actors be investigated, but also theological factors. Arch modernist and godfather of the Sankt Gallen Mafia, Rev. Karl Rahner once wrote:

If, then, a collective authority-bearing agent exists (and is therefore possible) within the church, [during a Conclave] even according to Catholic ecclesial constitutional law, how might one definitively and certainly prove that according to this constitutional law, iuris divini, such a thing can only exist in the case in which it actually exists today [when a pope is dead and the College of Cardinals elects a new candidate], such that, for example, a presbyteral council could not lead a particular church in principle, or that the bearer of supreme Petrine authority can only be an individual?(emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, it appears we are not just dealing with an heretical opinion held by Rahner back in the 1970s, but potentially Joeph Ratzinger too! As Archbishop Vigano recently revealed, he was informed by Walter Cardinal Brandmüller that Professor Ratzinger supported Professor Rahner’s “shared papacy” idea:

Brandmüller confided to me in January 2020 in response to a specific question of mine – that Professor Joseph Ratzinger was developing the theory of the Pope Emeritus and a collegial [shared] Papacy with his colleague Karl Rahner in the 1970s when they were both “young theologians.” (emphasis mine)

In 1647, Pope Innocent declared that the notion of a shared papacy is heretical. A century later, eminent theologian Pietro Ballerini (1698-1769) explained why. As Cardinal Manningwrites:

 

Ballerini says, that the jurisdiction of St. Peter, by reason of the primacy, was singular and personal to himself. The same right he affirms to belong also to the Roman Pontiffs, St. Peter’s successors. This doctrine he explains diffusely. “This primacy of chief jurisdiction, not of mere order, in St. Peter and the Roman Pontiffs his successors, is personal, that is, attached to their person: and therefore a supreme personal right, which is communicated to no other, is contained in the primacy. Hence, when there is question of the rights and the jurisdiction proper to the primacy, and when these are ascribed to the Roman See, or Cathedra, or Church of St. Peter; by the name of the Roman See or Cathedra, or Church, to which this primacy of jurisdiction is ascribed, the single person of the Roman Pontiff is to be understood, to whom alone the same primacy is attached.

 

If Pope Francis were a valid pope, he would not need the additional “help or association of” Benedict: “in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the precincts of St. Peter,” because allegedly: “anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry…belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church.”

If, as Benedict claimed, “belonging to the whole Church” “belongs solely to the Roman See and is ascribed to the Roman Pontiff,” then the new Pontiff CANNOT share this with an “Emeritus Pontiff;” Popes “need help or association of none for the exercise of this [exclusive] right.”​

If “being pope” is something that attaches to one’s person, it means that it cannot be shared by two people. Benedict opened up the see of Rome to be occupied by Francis, but since he did not give up his personal attachment to the papacy, and since two people cannot share a personal attachment, then Francis would not be pope, Benedict would still be pope.

 

As Manning explains:

 

A personal privilege is that which attaches to the person as such. [On the contrary,] A real privilege attaches either to a place, or to a thing, or to an office.

 

A mixed privilege may be both personal and real; it may also attach to a community or body of persons, as to an University, or a College, or a Chapter. 

 

The primacy, including jurisdiction and infallibility, is a privilege attaching to the person of Peter and of his successors. It is therefore a personal privilege in the Pontiffs. It is personal, as Toletus says, because it cannot be communicated to others. It is not a real privilege attached to the See, or Cathedra, or Church of Rome, and therefore to the person; but to the person of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore, to the See. It is not a mixed privilege, attaching to the Pontiff, only in union with a community or body, such as the Episcopate, congregated or dispersed; but attaching to his person, because inherent in the primacy, which he alone personally bears. The use of the word personal is therefore precise and correct, according to the scholastic terminology; not, indeed, according to the sense of newspaper theologians. (emphasis mine)

 

Let us turn to the words Pope Benedict addressed to his old friend and fellow countryman, journalist and author Peter Seewald in his 2016 book, Last Testament: In His Own Words:

Peter Seewald: “Is a slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?” 

Pope Benedict: “One can…make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The follower of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office enters into your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion.” (emphasis mine)

Seewald merely repeated the words of Benedict’s own Declaratio back to him and Benedict calls it an “accusation”? A “functional misunderstanding”?

Yes. Anyone (Seewald included) who reads Benedict’s Declaratio and concludes at face value that by giving up the “active” duties of a pope, Benedict ceased being papal, has not only misunderstood Benedict’s intentions, but the Petrine ministry itself: “The follower of Peter [the Pope] is not merely bound to a function [i.e. the active administration of the Roman see]”:

I had to…consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy …Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign…a number of bishops…said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply: even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such…If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function…one comes to understand that the office of the Pope [Petrine munus] has lost none of its greatness…(emphasis mine)

So in his 2013 Declaratio, when Benedict said: “I renounce the ministry [ministerium] of the bishop of Rome…in such a way that the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant,” that statement is meaningless because the Papacy is not a “real privilege attached to the See, or Cathedra, or Church of Rome, and therefore to the person; but to the person of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore, to the See.” Benedict had to completely renounce the ontological personal privilege, the Petrine Munus, that entered into his very being, if he wanted to objectively stop being Pope. But this is the very thing it seems he did not completely renounce!

 Dr. Edmund Mazza

14 April 2026

St. Justin Martyr, pray for us!

Today is the feast of St. Justin Martyr.  St. Justin was a disciple of St. John, and was executed in ARSH 165.  His writings were important in my conversion, giving extensive insight and confirmation as to the Church from its earliest days, and in particular the undeniable truth that from day one, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real, Physical, Substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist were the source and summit of Christian life.  

THIS BOOK, “The Four Witnesses” , is an especially excellent collection of writings from the first decades after Our Lord’s Passion, Resurrection and Ascension, which I highly recommend.

Here is the record of St. Justin Martyr’s trial and execution:

The saints were seized and brought before the prefect of Rome, whose name was Rusticus. As they stood before the judgment seat, Rusticus the prefect said to Justin: “Above all, have faith in the gods and obey the emperors”.

Justin said: “We cannot be accused or condemned for obeying the commands of our Savior, Jesus Christ”.

Rusticus said: “What system of teaching do you profess?”

Justin said: “I have tried to learn about every system, but I have accepted the true doctrines of the Christians, though these are not approved by those who are held fast by error”.
The prefect Rusticus said: “Are those doctrines approved by you, wretch that you are?”

Justin said: “Yes, for I follow them with their correct teaching”.
The prefect Rusticus said: “What sort of teaching is that?”

Justin said: “Worship the God of the Christians. We hold him to be from the beginning the one creator and maker of the whole creation, of things seen and things unseen. We worship also the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He was foretold by the prophets as the future Herald of Salvation for the human race and the Teacher of distinguished disciples. For myself, since I am a human being, I consider that what I say is insignificant in comparison with His Infinite Godhead. I acknowledge the existence of a prophetic power, for the one I have just spoken of as the Son of God was the subject of prophecy. I know that the prophets were inspired from above when they spoke of His coming among men”.
Rusticus said: “You are a Christian, then?”

Justin said: “Yes, I am a Christian”.

The prefect said to Justin: “You are called a learned man and think that you know what is true teaching. Listen: if you were scourged and beheaded, are you convinced that you would go up to heaven?”

Justin said: “I hope that I shall enter God’s house if I suffer that way. For I know that God’s favor is stored up until the end of the whole world for all who have lived good lives”.
The prefect Rusticus said: “Do you have an idea that you will go up to heaven to receive some suitable rewards?”

Justin said: “It is not an idea that I have; it is something I know well and hold to be most certain”.
The prefect Rusticus said: “Now let us come to the point at issue, which is necessary and urgent. Gather round then and with one accord offer sacrifice to the gods”.

Justin said: “No one who is right thinking stoops from true worship to false worship”.
The prefect Rusticus said: “If you do not do as you are commanded you will be tortured without mercy”.

Justin said: “We hope to suffer torment for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so be saved. For this will bring us salvation and confidence as we stand before the more terrible and universal judgment-seat of our Lord and Savior”.
In the same way the other martyrs also said: “Do what you will. We are Christians; we do not offer sacrifice to idols”.

The prefect Rusticus pronounced sentence, saying: “Let those who have refused to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the command of the emperor be scourged and led away to suffer capital punishment according to the ruling of the laws”. Glorifying God, the holy martyrs went out to the accustomed place. They were beheaded, and so fulfilled their witness of martyrdom in confessing their faith in their Savior.

(Fun festive fact: I was received into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church nineteen years ago, at the Easter Vigil Mass of ARSH 2007. I knew entering the One True Church would be an adventure, but I had absolutely no idea what an incredible outpouring of grace and favor Our Lord had in store for me. If you had described even 10% of it to me, I would have laughed you out the door. And the adventure is still ongoing. As I have said before, I strongly suspect that I enjoy one of the highest true qualities of life of anyone alive – with a near-zero net worth. In retrospect, being successful was fun; being wealthy was kinda awful. I thank God all day every day for extracting me from “the world”, for all of you- my benefactors and supporters, and for placing me here, now, able to fight in this war against the Antipope, the Antichurch, and all enemies, human and demonic, of Our Lord. Remember Thucydides: “The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.” —Alpha Bravo ’26)

John 20: 19-31

At that time, when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews, Jesus came, and stood in the midst and said to them: Peace be to you. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you. When He had said this, He breathed on them, and He said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. And after eight days, again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. Then He saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see My hands, and bring hither thy hand, and put into My side; and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said to Him: my Lord and my God. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing, you may have life in His Name.

Here’s an amazing tidbit from Fr. Z. In the original Greek, the word for “hand” actually sometimes refers to the hand plus the wrist plus the lower forearm. In Ancient Greek, when you are speaking of just the hand proper, additional words can be added to make that precision. Given this, the reality of what exactly happened to St. Thomas might be far, far more intense that what we imagine.

Our Lord has breathed upon the other ten Apostles, minus the absent Thomas, thus imparting the Holy Ghost upon them, and giving them all the power of binding and loosing, thus instituting the Sacrament of Confession. Then, Our Lord appears to them again on the eighth day, and Thomas arrives, and puts his fingers into the finger-sized nail holes in Our Lord’s hands. Then he puts what the Greek indicates is his entire hand, wrist and lower forearm all the way into the lance wound made by Longinus in Our Lord’s thoracic cavity, at Our Lord’s command.

It is conceivably possible that Our Lord breathed the Holy Ghost upon Thomas WHILE THOMAS WAS HOLDING OUR LORD’S LUNG IN HIS HAND, and that Thomas literally touched Our Lord’s BEATING SACRED HEART, and PALPATED THE STAB WOUND in Our Lord’s Sacred Heart.

Now, consider being Thomas and doing this, but also consider being one of the other Apostles standing there watching this happen, watching Thomas stick his hand and forearm into Our Lord’s side.

And if you’re thinking to yourself, “That isn’t possible…”, well, neither is walking through walls. The resurrected body of Our Lord is in an entirely different category. It isn’t held to the laws of the physical universe that bind us as we await our resurrection that He purchased for us.

People wonder why and how the Apostles were able to do what they did, and all but John were killed for the faith, and John was miraculously prevented from being killed, despite multiple efforts. Well, I reckon if we saw one of our friends stick his hand into Our Lord’s thoracic cavity up to the forearm, hold His breathing lung, and touch His Sacred Heart, we might be… confirmed and quickened, to put it mildly.

Click over and read Fr. Z’s full piece.

St. Thomas, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us, on the Petrine See, vacant these 1198 days, and on Your Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

For your “Just Too Cool” file, a reminder of a beautiful detail from the Resurrection: the significance of the “napkin” that wrapped Our Lord’s head in the tomb. Today, Saturday in Easter Week, we hear in the Gospel:

Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that had been about His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place.
John 20: 6-7

Over the transom came an explanation that a reader heard in a homily:

It was Jewish custom in the relation between master and slave that the dinner table was prepared with a cloth that was to be used as a napkin of sorts, sitting by the other utensils. After dinner, if the master was finished with his meal he would wipe his hands and face, and then crumble up the cloth and leave it near the plate. This was the signal to the slave that the master was finished and had left the dining area.  If however, he folded the cloth and left it a bit farther away from the plate, it indicated he would be returning to finish his meal.

We see this today in table etiquette, particularly when eating in a fancier restaurant.  If one gets up mid-meal, the convention is to either fold the napkin and leave it beside the plate, or to leave it upon the cushion of the seat.  This signals the waitstaff that the guest will be returning, and in more elegant restaurants, if the napkin is left on the chair, the waitstaff will re-fold and place the napkin on the table awaiting the return of the guest, or replace the napkin entirely.  When one gets up to leave, the napkin is left crumpled on the table.

This neat folding of the “napkin” indicating the Return of the Master is echoed in the Mass, of course, when the priest replaces the folded Corporal into the burse.  

Interestingly, the Pall (the small starched square of linen which covers the Chalice) represents the stone that sealed the tomb.

Just. Too. Cool.

Thank you, Lord, for bringing me into your One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church nineteen years ago. Help me to spread the Gospel and lead others to You and Your Mystical Bride, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Ann,

Happy Easter! He is Risen! Alleluia!

After listening to the latest podcast I did want to send over an offer regarding Fr. Murray. Due to my previous work I do have his phone number.

You are correct, he does offer the Novus Ordo, but I can attest that he truly is a lovely individual, which is why what he said hurts so much. I view him very much like how I now view Peter Kwasniewski: kind men of true intellectual gravitas who are grasping at straws and throwing themselves down flights of stairs because they’re operating under the false base premise.

If you’re interested, I would be happy to send the phone number I have for Fr. Murray over, as I trust that you would be both willing and able to refrain from mentioning who gave it to you. I would hate for my action to affect my previous employer.

I too want to see him repent of this, and most of all because of how good of a man I know him to be.

With prayers for your holiness-

Ad Iesum per Mariam,

X

---

[This note was appended to a donation.]

Hi, I’ve been a fan for many a year. 1st time donation. I attend TLM in {location redacted} Anyway, I’m catching up on my Barnhardt.Biz, sipping my coffee, listening to each of the selections of Bortniansky’s Cherubic Hymn Number Seven as I read about the Profound Significance of Our Lord Jesus Christ in a Spiffy Hat. I knew all of that somewhere in the recesses of my mind, was taught it in HS (12 years of Catholic School in Philadelphia in early 70s) but by the end of that article, I had tears streaming down my face. Thank you Ann, for your wonderful clarity. I do love that about all your commentary, Catholic or otherwise, no BS, I am in no doubt as to where you (and faithful Catholics) should be. Thank you.

Happy Easter, He is Risen – Christus surréxit! Surréxit vere, allelúja!

J

Look at the Angel.  He just slays me with his eye contact.  When you see this in person (it is in the Art Institute of Chicago), the effect is ten times stronger.

And now, as has become tradition, what has become quite possibly my single favorite piece of music ever, Bortniansky’s Cherubic Hymn Number Seven.

All we that in mystery
Holy Cherubim portray
As the life-creating Trinity
With thrice-holy hymn we adore and praise.
Come, let us cast off all earthly care
And forget every vain employ.

For the King of All comes in triumph
By unseen hosts of angels brought
To us that bid Him welcome.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

And a blessed, blessed Easter to all.  Christ is truly risen!  Alleluia!!!

Here is an Estonian choir performance:

And here is the SOVIET Academic Choir version.  Yes, even the Soviets were insistent upon maintaining this choral tradition.  Stop and think about that relative to our situation today.

I wonder who the next Epstein Alliance puppet in line is?

Note the date. Easter Sunday. “Praise be to (a)llah”.

Noli Me Tangere, Lavinia Fontana, ARSH 1581

The beautiful painting above is of Mary Magdalene seeing Our Resurrected Lord in the garden close to the Empty Tomb and initially mistaking Him for the gardener.  In art Our Lord is commonly depicted in this specific scene as a gardener by his spiffy gardener’s hat – and only sometimes carrying a gardening implement, as in this image.  As a great fan, connoisseur and wearer of hats, I am always tickled to see Our Lord behatted.

But there is massive meaning in all of this, and it goes back to the Garden of Eden, and teaches us about the Eucharist, and specifically about the importance of worthy and unworthy reception of the Eucharist.  This is especially germane as one of the hallmarks of the Bergoglian and now Prevostian antipapacies is the pogrom of sacrilegious desecration of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Anyone who objects to the enthusiastic desecration of the Eucharist will, of course, be denounced as a “fundamentalist” or “rigid” or whatever is today’s entry in the Antipope Bergoglio book of insults.

Our Lord appeared as a Gardener to Mary Magdalene because He is, in fact, The Gardener of Eden (Genesis 2: 8-9) and would walk in The Garden (Genesis 3: 8).

Interestingly, we see from Genesis that it was His intention to commune with mankind AS FOOD from the very beginning, whether man fell to original sin or not.  The Tree of Life wasn’t a mere foreshadowing of the Eucharist, it was in fact a species of the Real Substantial Presence of God, in the form of food, to be eaten by man in order to give man eternal life.  Again, the Fruit of the Tree of Life was an actual species of the Real Presence, not a symbol.  So Christ was not only The Gardener of Eden, He Himself was also the “Crop”.

Now think about this – when Adam and Eve fell, what did God do? He drove them out and even sent an angel with a flaming, rotating sword to specifically physically block them so that they could not COMMIT THE SIN OF SACRILEGE OF EATING OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF LIFE, THAT IS THE PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE OF GOD HIMSELF, AND THUS MAKE THEIR SITUATION EVEN WORSE.  It wasn’t enough to merely tell them that they couldn’t eat of the Tree of Life (a species of the Real Presence) because Our Lord knew that satan would tempt them to eat it anyway, and they would, because they were now guilty of the sin of pride.

Our Lord drove Adam and Eve out of The Garden and posted an angelic sentry BECAUSE HE LOVED THEM. Our Loving God EXCOMMUNICATED Adam and Eve in order to protect them from themselves, knowing that they would do even further damage to themselves by eating of His Physical Substance unworthily.

Only after Our Lord had incarnated, and True God and True Man had suffered and died for the sins of the world, could mankind once again be able to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Life.  The Cross is The Tree.  Jesus Christ hanging from it is The Fruit of The Tree of Life. The Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, True Food and True Drink. Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection re-established The Garden of Eden, ended the protective banishment, and lifted the excommunication of mankind.

This is why Our Lord said to the Apostles in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday, “With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you…”

When God says, “I’ve REALLY been looking forward to this…”, something incomprehensibly good and profoundly important is about to happen.

And this is why, in these days, growing ever darker, that satan, through his infiltators in The Church – some of them consciously willing, some of them merely stupid, are pushing for what the serpent could NOT effect in The Garden: the sacrilegious desecration of the Fruit of the Tree of Life.

It is true.  There are no angels with flaming swords to prevent unrepentant sinners from receiving the Eucharist.  Would that there were.  I would be very happy if I were blocked from receiving the Eucharist by an angel, because then I would absolutely know that I was not in a state of grace, and could take steps to correct that in the confessional. It is always a nagging concern in the back of one’s mind every time one receives the Eucharist.  Or, at least it should be.

But, considering the steps that God took in The Garden of Eden, one should think very long and very hard about the gravity of unworthy reception, and of the truly satanic malignancy of this final push to get those in openly unrepentant mortal sin to desecrate the Eucharist, and for the priests, who have been the last line of defense, standing in place of the angel, instead to be the willing facilitators and encouragers of sacrilegious desecration of Our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist.

And this is why Our Risen Lord appeared to Mary Magdalene as a Gardener, as we can tell by the spiffy hat.

I hope this helps.

Resurrexit, sicut dixit, alleluia.

He is risen, as He said.

When God Incarnate says He is going to do something, YOU TAKE IT TO THE BANK. To have faith in Jesus Christ and His promises is NOT a species of psychological infantilism, being “dippy”, or a “refusal to deal with reality”.  As events continue to unfold, ALWAYS remember the words of the angel at His empty tomb: “SICUT DIXIT”.

AS HE SAID.
AS HE SAID.
AS HE SAID.

Please accept my warmest Easter greetings. I pray that we will all sing the eternal praises of God Almighty together in the Eternal Beatitude that His Passion, Death and Resurrection has purchased for us.

He is risen.
As. He. Said.

Alleluia.