Okay, the first thing you need to know is that the openly “out-and-proud” sodomite Robert “Bobby” Mickens is one of the most notorious sacrilegious sodomites in Rome.  He famously would be seen open-mouth-tongue kissing COLLARED PRIESTS on the bridges in the center of Rome.  Mickens was fired by the hardest left English language “c”atholic paper, The Tablet out of the U.K., after he publicly pined on Twitter for the death of Pope Benedict XVI, whom he hated (and hates) with a demonic passion because Pope Benedict XVI actually tried to fight the clerical gay “Lavender” mafia which Mickens swam (and presumably still swims) in.  Mickens is a DEPRAVED, DEMONIACAL human being.  And he is very, very well-connected with Vatican Bathhouse.

Mickens is now published by the sodomite French outfit “La Croix”, which says this on its website:

The Congregation of Augustinians of the Assumption as the sole shareholder of Bayard Presse, assure its stability, freedom and editorial independence.

Along with its diverse global coverage, La Croix International is home to exceptional contributors including Massimo Faggioli, Christa Pongratz-Lippit, Michael Sainsbury and Robert Mickens, with his signature, must-read weekly commentary Letter From Rome.

We are also excited that Mr. Mickens has joined La Croix International as English Editor, bringing his unparalleled experience [That’s one way to put it. -AB] as senior Vatican correspondent for the London Tablet and founding editor of Global Pulse Magazine.

Mickens posted THIS PIECE “The Resignation of Pope Francis” yesterday at La Croix.  Click over and read the whole thing.  Believe me, you’ll recognize what is being said.  Like, word-for-word.

Nevertheless, there have been signs since the very beginning of his pontificate that the question is not if Francis will resign, but more likely when he will actually do so. And the reason is simple. He is anxious that Benedict’s resignation does not go down in history as just another out-of-the-ordinary, once-in-every-several-hundred-years event. Instead, he wants it to become a precedent and something normal. “I keep coming back to this idea which may not please some theologians (and I am no theologian)… I think that a pope-emeritus should not be an exception,” he said in August 2014 while speaking to journalists on a return flight from South Korea.

Retirement becomes institutional, not exceptional

“My thinking is that 70 years ago bishops-emeritus were an exception; they didn’t exist. Today bishops emeritus are an institution. I think that a ‘pope emeritus’ has already become an institution,” he continued. “I believe that Pope Benedict XVI took this step which de facto instituted popes-emeriti,” Francis said. “He opened a door which is institutional, not exceptional.”

….

However, people closest to Francis have said privately that they are convinced he will step down when he believes the time is right time; that is, after he’s discerned that he’s done all he has been called to do and has implemented solid reforms that will be hard for a successor to undo. That would be a way to ensure that Benedict’s resignation does not remain a singular, one-off occurrence and truly does become institutional and not exceptional.

….

Santa Marta and the end of centralized, monarchical Church authority

The Argentine pope made the first — and what is the most significant — reform of his pontificate in the very first days following his election.

It was his decision to shun the secluded papal apartments deep inside the Apostolic Palace and make his permanent home at the Casa Santa Marta, a residence for priest-employees of the Vatican and the place where the cardinals lodge during a conclave.

The choice of address was the beginning of Francis’ slow, painstaking efforts to re-dimensionalize the scope and activities of the Roman Curia and decentralize its power. It was also part of his plan to demythologize the institution of the papacy and eliminate the lingering vestiges of the old papal court.

The pope has curtailed much of the Curia’s longstanding and disproportionate influence over local Churches and all of global Catholicism. He’s done this principally by laying the foundation (not without difficulty and opposition) for structures of synodality, first of all by strengthening and reforming the Synod of Bishops.

He has also promulgated legislation that gives (or is aimed to give) national episcopal conferences greater decision-making and doctrinal authority that has been almost exclusively reserved to the pope and his aides in the Vatican up to now.

But this long-term project, which is only meant to unleash a process that will need years to mature, is not even fully launched yet. Pope Francis still needs to further reform a number of institution and offices in the Vatican that pertain to the all-but-dead monarchical papacy.

Most of them, like the Prefecture of the Papal Household and the Apostolic Camera, were modernized by Paul VI after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). But they require further pruning if not a definitive consignment to history.

In the Voris-Milo interview at the 16:45 timestamp, Milo brings up a point which he is, in fact, 100% correct about, namely the whole “papal resignation” paradigm being a de facto reduction of the papacy into a parliamentary system whereby any Pope could be forced out by having the people around him declare “no confidence”, or just simply saying, “we will make your life a living hell, so you might as well leave”.  EXACTLY.  Because it is the Freemasonic war against ALL MONARCHY, with the PAPACY, a Monarchy instituted by Christ Himself being the ultimate target and prize.

This is why all actual monarchies were systematically eliminated by Freemasonic putsches and wars beginning with the American Revolution, then on to France a decade later,  and finally with World War I when the foul plan was essentially wrapped up with the non-abdication “renunciation of participation in state affairs” (Sound familiar? Ring any bells? Dejavu all over again?) exile of Blessed Emperor Charles I Habsburg.  I would add that it also has a corporate figurehead “Chairman of the Board” dynamic, whereby the “board” could vote the meaningless figurehead out at any time.  SuperNerd and I discussed this in the second part of our Podcast on the Miris Vorlo interview HERE.

Folks, THIS is why the Bergoglian Antipapacy has to be PUBLICLY RECOGNIZED AND NULLIFIED NOW.  This business of sitting around doing nothing waiting for Bergoglio to die or “resign” PLAYS INTO SATAN’S HANDS EXACTLY.  Look, the “RESIGNATION” OF BERGOGLIO WAS PART OF THE PLAN FROM DAY ONE.  Bergoglio was told, I can pretty much guarantee you, by Walter Kasper and the Sankt Gallen Mafia that he would be expected to “resign”, that “resigning” was part of the agreement.  I put “resign” in quotation marks with regards to Antipope Bergoglio because he can’t resign something he never held.  Bergoglio is and always has been an Antipope.  Antipope is not an office or title, it is a CRIMINAL STATUS and nothing more.  Antipope Bergoglio can’t resign any more than Bill Cosby can resign from being a rapist.

Furthermore, the FULL TRUTH has to be acknowledged that Pope Benedict XVI’s attempted resignation was invalid and that he has remained the one and only living Pope since April 2005 because if the full truth is not acknowledged at its root, then assuming a removal or “resignation” by Antipope Bergoglio while Pope Benedict XVI is still alive, the “conclave” called would ALSO BE AN INVALID CONCLAVE, AND WOULD PRODUCE ANOTHER ANTIPOPE – an Antipope with dozens more IQ points than Bergoglio, and 15-20 years younger.  This is why Professor Josef Seifert’s statement that Antipope Bergoglio’s Abu Dhabi pronouncement of the Creed of Freemasonry “invalidating his Papacy” is, while certainly partially admirable, also VERY VERY DANGEROUS because it assigns to Bergoglio something which he has never – not for one second – possessed: The Petrine Office.  If you are operating on the false base premise that Antipope Bergoglio is the Pope, then no matter how well-intentioned you are, your false base premise is going to lead to even greater chaos and damage.  As I have said before many times, the greatest act of violence one can do to the Papacy is to call a man “Peter” who is not “Peter”.

Folks, we have to get this right, and we have to get it right NOW.  “There’s nothing we can do,” “All we can do is wait,” “This is for future generations to sort out,” and “This isn’t my problem to fix” are the impotent bleatings of pathological effeminates.

Might I suggest, “I will take it.  I will take it.  I will take the Ring to Mordor.”

Blessed Charles and Zita, pray for us.
St. Peter, pray for us.
Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

The White House
Washington

August 9, 1974

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I hereby resign the Office of President of the United States.

Sincerely,
Richard Nixon

(If nothing else, you will want to read this piece JUST for the fact that I have managed to work Johnny Paycheck into a defense of the Papacy.)

By now, if you have been reading this space, you can probably recite from memory Canon 188:

Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

But Canon 188 has a “bodyguard” that answers a lot of questions and errors that I see floating around.  Let’s take a look at Canon 332.2 :

Can. 332§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

And here is the Latin:

§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

There are four protections here in these few words that essentially function as a legal fortress around the papacy to protect it from any attack – including, quite amazingly but not surprisingly, from the reigning Pope himself.

Let’s go in order.  The first clause:  If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his OFFICE….  Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex MUNERI suo renuntiet….

Office.  Muneri.  We remember from all of our discussions and citations from the MOUNTAIN of papers and books written in the second half of the 20th century, centered around the German theologians such as Joseph Ratzinger, Walter Kasper, Karl Rahner and Hans Kung that these guys all positively AGONIZED over the distinction between the terms “Office” (munus) and “Ministry” or “Function” (ministerium).  The Miller dissertation, which I’m sure you have by now bought and read, because, after all, why WOULDN’T you, especially if you have any direct interest in these matters? is basically a 300 page agony over the distinction between the terms “Office and “Ministry” or “Function”, and the difference between “ius divinum” and “ius humanum”, all with an eye toward the “fundamental transformation” of the papacy from what it is as instituted by Christ Himself, a monarchical juridical office, into a “collegial, synodal ministry”.

Looking at the specific word used in Canon 332.2, “muneri”, we can learn a little about Latin grammar and specifically the concept of grammatical case.  “Muneri” is the dative singular case of “munus”, and we all know well by now that in ecclesial language, “munus” means precisely OFFICE.  So, Canon 332.2 opens with the firm statement that a Roman Pontiff must resign his OFFICE.  Not, my dears, a facet of the Petrine Ministry.  Let’s look at the text, in Latin, of Pope Benedict’s failed “resignation” speech, Non solum propter.  Remember folks, this is THE ONLY resignation text.  There is nothing other than this:

Fratres carissimi

Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem. Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.

Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam. Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis pro omni amore et labore, quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis. Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim.

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

If you look at the English version posted on the Vatican website, the translation is WRONG in that it translates “munus” as “ministry”.  What we (a bilingual Italian and I) figured out is that the English version was translated not from the Latin directly, but from the Italian, which isn’t surprising at all.  The people who work for the Vatican doing translations are NOT Latinists, but rather people who speak ITALIAN plus other languages, because Italian is now the operational language of the Vatican.  So the Latin was translated into Italian, and then every other translation was done off the Italian.  So, if the Italian version translated “munus” erroneously (with or without malice aforethought), then that error would seep into every other translation.  And, what do we see?  Sure enough, the two instances of “munus” in “Non solum propter” are indeed translated into the Italian as “ministero”, not “ufficio“, which would have been the correct translation.

So, Houston, we have a problem.  After reading the Miller dissertation AND the veritable mountain of texts from the Teutonic academy, much of it EDITED BY RATZINGER HIMSELF, it is 100% impossible that Pope Benedict Ratzinger DID NOT KNOW the precision between these terms, much less the profound significance and gravity of the two terms “munus” and “ministerium”.  Furthermore, do we honestly believe that Pope Benedict did not, at any point, look at Canon Law with regards to Papal resignations, namely Canon 332.2?  Of course he did.  OF. COURSE. HE. DID.

And yet, he wrote and delivered Non solum propter with the money-line:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae….

Canon 332.2 specifically states that the Roman Pontiff, should he resign his OFFICE….  Canon 332.2 then goes on to say in that a Papal resignation must be PROPERLY MANIFESTED, which is pointing directly back at the opening clause.  The Pope can’t resign the Petrine “ministry”, “function”, “position”, “job”, “title” or “post”.  He has to resign the OFFICE – the whole shebang.  And he has to “do it right”, hence “properly manifested”.  This is the Papacy we are talking about, not a Johnny Paycheck song.

But there is another aspect of Canon 332.2 that shoots down a LOT of false arguments with regards to this whole mess, AND warms my heart in that it demonstrates the providential hand of God in the writing of Canon Law, and what a spectacular human resource manager God is, and how much he loves the Papacy and His Holy Church.

I am referring to the final clause, “…but not that it is accepted by anyone.”

You realize what this clause does, don’t you?  It completely protects the Papacy FROM THE MOB, and perhaps more specifically from THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS ITSELF, and, as we have in this case, from the Pope himself should he be in Substantial Error.

This beautiful little clause takes all notions of “peaceful and universal acceptance” of Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation (and OBVIOUSLY the subsequent invalid faux-conclave of March 2013) completely out of the discussion.  The sole arbiter of the validity of a Papal resignation IS THE LAW ITSELF.  And Christ specifically stated that He binds Himself to Church Law when He said to Peter in Matthew 16:19, “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Again, just stop and think about this from a practical, common-sense perspective.  Does it make any sense to you that there would be these laws written about the validity of a Papal resignation, but as long as a sufficient percentage of the College of Cardinals, or the people in general, accepted an illegal, invalid resignation, then… meh, it’s all good?  If so, that would mean that the MOB, either in the sense of the College of Cardinals, or in the sense of the people themselves could WILL a pope’s deposition and the illegal installation of another man as “pope”.  Take for example the Conclave of ARSH 1513 which elected Pope Leo X.  At that time, there were only 31 Cardinals total, of which 25 attended the conclave.  It wouldn’t have been too terribly difficult to execute a conspiracy to oust a Pope if all you needed were to get all or even most of a group that small on the same page, and that their will trumped the Law itself.  

Again, by the “popular acceptance” argument, the WILL of the mob would trump the Natural and Divine Law, and a coerced resignation would be validated by “universal and peaceful acceptance.”  Or, a pope being bought off (simony) would be hunky-dorey, as long as everyone went along with it.  And, as we are living right now and many people are arguing, a papal resignation made in SUBSTANTIAL ERROR would be totally fine and dandy, as long as everyone is cool with it including the very Pope who WAS HIMSELF IN SUBSTANTIAL ERROR, and an invalid conclave would be “sanated” and “validated” by nothing more than the will of the mob.

And remember well that when we are talking about the Papacy, we are talking about a juridical office instituted by Christ Himself, AND GIVEN UNIQUE SUPERNATURAL PROTECTION.  So, the will of the Mob can sever Jesus Christ’s supernatural connection to one man, and transfer it to another man IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW? Does that sound right to you?  No, it is madness. It is CHAOS, and CHAOS is of satan.

The only possible way a person could hold this position is if the SUPERNATURAL aspect of the Papacy were discarded (which sure seems to be the trend these days, especially in “Trad, Inc.”, make your generous donation to their tax-deductible 501(c)3 today!)  You would have to deny either the words of Christ Almighty Himself in the Holy Gospels, or deny Our Blessed Lord and Savior’s Divinity in toto.  

And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
Luke 22: 31-32  

As always, I hope this helps.  Hang in there folks. The truth, and love of the Law will set us free!

Christ Giving the Keys to St. Peter, Guido Reni, ARSH 1624.

Folks, this is what holding a false premise leads to.  Every time.

“I don’t care what that means for papal infallibility.”

“I don’t care what that means for papal infallibility.”

“I DON’T CARE WHAT THAT MEANS for papal infallibility.”

Which harkens back to this:

Here is the entirety of Chapter 4 of Session 4 of Vatican 1.  It’s a short, clear and worth three minutes of your time to read.  Emphases mine.

Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
“The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.” [58]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in public session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of Our Pontificate.

“I don’t care what that means for papal infallibility.”

“I don’t care what that means for papal infallibility.”

“I DON’T CARE WHAT THAT MEANS for papal infallibility.”

Pray for Pope Benedict XVI the one and only living Pope, and for all who have been and are being scandalized and led into error and apostasy by the Bergoglian Antipapacy.

Okay, folks.  It is your mission, should you choose to accept it, to get these translations distributed.  I’m especially keen to get this info into China, as the Chinese Catholics are being ground to dust under the jackboot of the Freemasonic-Bergoglian antichurch regime.

The Bergoglian Antipapacy menu page has been updated.

All my Germans (the Germans are going to go over and clean up the algorithmic version), you know what to do.

All my Spaniards and Latinos, you know what to do.

All my Frenchies, you know what to do.

All my Brazilians and Portuguese, you know what to do.

All my Italians, you know what to do.

All my Chinese, you know what to do.

Six years of this garbage is six years too long.

(Severe chopped onion warning, here, folks.)

First, God bless the transcriptionist, who did an amazing job.  Please say an Ave for her. Eighteen thousand eight hundred forty-four words!

Now that the full transcript is up, with timestamps at the beginning of every paragraph, the entire page containing the transcript itself can be put into a translation algorithm, but I will try to get permanent dedicated pages up in Italian, Spanish, French and Mandarin.

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE TRANSCRIPT.

WHICH IS ALSO NOW AT THE TOP OF THE “Bergoglian Antipapacy” PAGE IN THE TOP MENU ABOVE.

And here is the video itself, with remastered audio, and in high definition, which SuperNerd uploaded just a few weeks ago, and is publicly listed on my YouTube Channel, AnnBarnhardt .  (The original release in November was the data-compressed version.)

But remember, folks, there’s nothing we can do!  Wink. 😉

Ah, yet another super-flattering Ann Barnhardt freeze-frame.  It’s a gift.

So Antipope Bergoglio just declared that:

“god” wills the existence of mutually exclusive religions (which) implies that Francis’ “god” equally wills the truth and the denial of it and therefore is, like the devil, a principle of contradictions.

That is well said. The document stating this was co-signed by a musloid imam who is on the record quite recently as affirming that apostates from the islamic political system should be executed. Mahounds Paradise has the coverage on that.

I gotta tell you, folks, I honestly at this point can not comprehend how anyone can look at Antipope Bergoglio and not instantly see that he enjoys ZERO grace of state guaranteed by the Petrine Promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and as clearly recorded in the Gospels. I’m pretty good at empathy and putting myself in other people’s shoes and thinking through what they might be thinking or what mistakes or confusion they might be experiencing. This is why I am a really good teacher. But I simply can not understand what anyone could possibly be thinking about Bergoglio other than, “There is absolutely no possible way this man can be the Pope. There is absolutely no way this man can even be called Catholic.”

I simply do not comprehend how one can hold in one’s mind that Bergoglio is the Pope without denying the Divinity of Christ.

God is perfect, infinite good. That means that He cannot deceive nor be deceived, and that He is totally, completely, perpetually faithful to His promises.

The image that just haunts my mind is that of Christ, on the Cross, looking down, one by one, at the “Elect” and saying, “How could you have possibly, possibly thought that I would do that to you? How could you possibly think so little of Me? How could you have possibly thought that I would send such an obvious monster and criminal to you as my Vicar? I made you a promise. How could you have thought Me capable of breaking it? Did you never really believe Who I Am, and did you never really believe that I love you?”

Pray for Pope Benedict, pray for Antipope Bergoglio, and pray that if objective evidence isn’t enough, that the light of love radiating from the Sacred Heart of Jesus will illuminate the Truth for the “Elect”.

Infinite Love is Faithful to the end. Not just until 2013.

Well, folks, it’s a day that ends in “y” so that means it’s time for another post on Cardinal Walter Kasper’s life’s work of trying to dissolve the Papacy.

Once again, the German readers are coming through.  May God reward them for their time and effort.

So, you might remember the “Thermonuclear…” post wherein Ratzinger’s opening section of his ARSH 1978 paper in the compendium “Dienst an Der Einheit”, “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes” which is in English, “The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God” considers the hypothesis of a Papacy containing three members, because God is a Trinity, and thus a monarchical papacy is an intrinsically “Arian” structure.  This comes from a theologian of the early 20th century, Erik Peterson.

Well, guess who else is talking about this hypothesis in the very same book?  Yep.  Walter Kasper. As in the Cardinal Walter Kasper who is the head of the Sankt Gallen Mafia that pressured Pope Benedict to resign and installed his boy Jorge Bergoglio as Antipope, and is Antipope Bergoglio’s puppet master.  Except Kasper is MUCH friendlier to it. Imagine that.  I’m going to turn it over to the German readers now….

Dear Ann,

You will recall that Ratzinger on page 167 of the book “Dienst an der Einheit” referred to Erik Peterson’s obscure 1935 work “Monotheism as a political problem”, wherein Peterson surmised that the favour shown to Arianism by the emepror was due to the monotheistic model being a convenient theological corollary of the emperor’s political status. And also how Ratzinger mentioned that this idea was taken further by some, even as far as proposing a trinitarian model of the papacy (as in Solovyev’s writings), in contradistinction to an Arian “Monotheist” model. But it was still unclear why Ratzinger would have mentioned such an obscure work in the first place.

Guess who cites this exact same obscure work by Peterson, 64 pages earlier in “Dienst an der Einheit”, on page 103? Walter Kasper.

And Kasper has his own trinitarian model dreamt up. For Kasper, it is the Church, the Petrine Ministry and the Spirit that make up this “trinity”, even using the term “perichoresis” to describe this interaction.

Dienst an der Einheit, pages 103-4:

“Mir scheint, den Ausführungen über die Begründung des Petrusamtes, über seinen Dienst an der Einheit und seinen Dienst an Glauben liegt eine einheitliche Grundstruktur zugrunde. Es geht nicht mehr um die starre Einheit, von der die antike Metaphysik ausging: ein Gott – ein Reich – ein Kaiser. Diese unitarische Sicht wurde durch das christliche Trinitätsdogma aufgesprengt zugunsten einer Einheit in der Vielheit und einer Einheit durch gegenseitige Durchdringung (Perichorese) Diese trinitarische Logik und Grammatik liegt allem bisher Gesagten zugrunde. Sie begründet eine Einheit der Kirche in der Vielfalt von Kirchen, die durch die communio des eines Glaubens, der gemeinsamen Eucharistie und des brüderlichen Dienstes verbunden sind.”

“It seems to me that the explanation of the grounds of the Petrine ministry, its service to unity and its service to faith is based on a common basic structure. It is no longer about the rigid unity that gave rise to ancient metaphysics: one god – one kingdom – one emperor. This unitarian view was thrown open by the Christian Dogma of the Trinity in favor of unity in multiplicity and unity through mutual permeation (perichoresis). This trinitarian logic and grammar underlies everything that has been said so far. It establishes a unity of the Church in the diversity of churches connected by the communio of one faith, the common Eucharist and fraternal service.”

Perichoresis, as you no doubt know, is the term for the divine indwelling of each Divine Person in the other two.

Kaspar continues:

“Im einzeln bedeutet diese trinitarische Sicht: Kirche und Petrusamt sind zunächst pneumatologisch zu verstehen als Wirklichkeiten, die sich im Geist geschichtlich herausgebildet haben, nur im Geist Gottes verstanden werden können und im Geist auch immer wieder neu in charismatischer Weise verwirklicht werden müssen.”

“In detail, this trinitarian point of view means that the Church and the Petrine ministry are to be understood pneumatologically as realities that have developed historically in the spirit, can only be understood in the spirit of God, and must always be realized in the Spirit in a charismatic way.”

Earlier in the text Kasper takes pains to deny that the monarchial nature of the Petrine Office is ius divinum, and also seeking to deny the jurisdictional nature of the papacy, instead claiming it has more to do with Roman Law than with the Gospel.

Tying things together, I immediately went to the J. Michael Miller dissertation, which is titled, remember, “The Divine Right (ius divinum) of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology”, to see if anything was said about this business of the Papacy being monarchical not because Christ instituted it that way (ius divinum), but trying to say the Papacy was based on Roman Law and the fact that Rome happened to be the imperial capitol, and then whether or not the Roman Primacy was affected when the imperial capitol moved from “Old Rome” to Constantinople (“New Rome”).  Folks, the entire first chapter is a discussion of this.  And, of course, every Pope affirmed that the Pope was the Bishop of Rome and held exclusive Primacy because Christ established it thus (ius divinum), quite to the chagrin of the Byzantine Court.  You can hear Miller’s teeth grinding at this, and in fact the rest of his dissertation has as its point the “need” for the Church to evolve away from the notion of the Petrine Office as “ius divinum”.  Remember, in his conclusion, Miller explicitly states on page 285, “First, ecumenical dialogue might well gain in clarity if the term “ius divinum” is abandoned in the future.”

This is important because Kasper recently referred to his puppet, Antipope Bergoglio, as “the first post-Constantinian pope”.  Back to the Germans….

Dear Ann,

I came across this interview with Kasper on the kath.net website from 21 Feb, 2018 . The relevant parts are translated below. In it, he implicitly denies papal jurisdiction, compares Bergoglio to Christ, and effectively denies both the priesthood and the Eucharistic sacrifice.

http://www.kath.net/news/mobile/62841

“Francis was the first ‘post-Constantinian Pope’ because he came not from the area of the ancient Roman Empire, but from the southern hemisphere. In doing so, he ushers in a new era for the Church: a church, ‘in missionary departure, a poor church for the poor.'”

What Kasper means here is the jettisonning of the idea of the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, something which he has in his other writings associated with Roman Law, not with Divine relevation. You also have to wonder what on earth Kasper would know about a poor Church.

“Like all prophets and Jesus himself, the Pope (sic) causes offense and is misjudged. His reforms of the Curia and other institutions are not his main concern,” Kasper said. “That is often misunderstood.”

“The Pope’s (sic) administration is a ‘pontificate of great prophetic perspectives’ that Francis himself will not be able to complete. Kasper, who already met the Pope as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, hopes ‘that his impulses will be effective beyond this pontificate’. ‘I am grateful for this pontificate,’ said the cardinal.”
..

[On ecumenism]

“According to the step-by-step principle of Pope Francis (sic), the churches should now ‘take the steps that are possible,’ said the cardinal. In his view, there is ‘theologically more possible than we are currently doing’. With the Evangelical Lutheran church, for example, he says that ‘in the Eucharistic and official doctrine it is not entirely unanimous, but it is very, very close.‘”

---

Now, let’s jump back again to Kasper in “Dienst an Der Einheit”, which Ratzinger edited, remember, talking about Roman primacy and the monarchical nature of the Papacy:

Dienst an der Einheit, pages 89-90

Die eigentliche Diskussion nach dem Konzil betraf nicht primär die Frage einer angemesseneren Verteilung der Jurisdiktion zwischen Papst und Bischöfen. Die nachkonziliare Diskussion frage viel grundsätzlicher, als das Konzil es getan hatte, nach dem theologischen Sinn und der theologischen Berechtigung von Jurisdiktion überhaupt. Sie stellte den Jurisdiktionsprimat nicht erst in seiner konkreten Ausübung, sondern in seiner tiefsten Wurzel in Frage.

Beim Jurisdiktionsprimat des Papstes verknoten sich die allerverschiedensten Probleme:

“The actual discussion after the [Second Vatican] Council did not primarily concern the question of a more appropriate distribution of jurisdiction between Pope and bishops. The post-conciliar discussion questioned much more fundamentally than the Council had done, regarding the theological meaning and the theological justification of jurisdiction in general. It questioned the primacy of jurisdiction not only in its concrete exercise, but in its deepest root.

The pope’s jurisprudential primacy ties together the most diverse problems:

Der Terminus Jurisdiktion ist ursprünglich im römischen Recht zu Hause; im kanonischen Recht wurde er nicht etwa abgeschwächt, sondern viel mehr erweitert. Aus bloßer Gerictsgewalt wurde eine hoheitliche Gewalt, die Gesetzgebung, Rechtsprechung und Verwaltung einschließt. Kann ein solcher Begriff, so fragte man, geeignet sein, die brüderliche Grundstruktur der Kirche und den Dienstcharakter, der allen kirchlichen Ämtern nach dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil eigen ist, auszudrücken? Kommt ein Jurisdiktionsprimat, wie er vom Ersten Vatikanischen Konzil definiert wurde, nicht von vornherein einem Angriff gegen die christliche Freiheit gleich?

“The term jurisdiction is originally at home in Roman law; In canon law, it was not weakened, but much more expanded. A mere court power became a sovereign power, including legislation, jurisdiction, and administration. Can such a concept, it was asked, be appropriate to express the fraternal structure of the Church and the ministry characteristic of all ecclesiastical ministries after the Second Vatican Council? Is not a primacy of jurisdiction, as defined by the First Vatican Council, equal to an a priori attack on Christian freedom?”

Dazu kommt ein Zweites: Das Mehr an Jurisdiktion bein Papst ist nicht durch ein Mehr an sakramentaler Ordination begründet. Sakramental betrachtet, ist der Papst Bischöf wie jeden andere Bischöf auch. Der Jurisdiktionsprimat des Papstes setzt also die Unterscheidung von Rechtswirklichkeit und sakramentaler Lebenswirklichkeit voraus – eien Unterscheidung, die sich in dieser Deutlichkeit erst in der lateinischen Kirche des 2. Jahrtausends herausgebildet hat und die bis heute nicht in einer befriedigenden Weise theologische geklärt ist…

“In addition, there is a second: The excess of jurisdiction in the Pope is not due to an excess of sacramental ordination. Sacramentally, the Pope is bishop like any other bishop. The primacy of the pope’s jurisdiction thus presupposes the distinction between legal reality and the sacramental reality of life – a distinction which has emerged in this clearness only in the Latin church of the second millennium and which has not yet been resolved in a satisfyingly theological way.”

Schließlich verbanden sich mit dem kirchenrechtlichen Begriff der Jurisdiktion im Lauf der Geschichte immer wieder Vorstellungen von der Monarchie als der vollkommensten Staatsform; im Vorfeld und im Umkreis des Ersten Vatikanums verband sich damit, wie die Forschungen vom H.L. Pottmeyer und E. Weinzierl aufgezeigt haben, eine ausgesprochen antineuzeitliche und antidemokratische Authoritäts- und Gehorsamsphilosophie. Man wollte dem, wie man meinte, alles auflösenden nihilistischen Prinzip der neuzeitlichen Autonomie das katholisches Prinzip der Authorität und des Gehorsams entgegenstellen. Gerade dieser letzte Gesichtspunkt macht verständlich, weshald die allgemeine Amts- und Autoritätskrise der letzten beiden Jahrzehnten in der Krise des Petrusamtes ihre letzte Zuspitzung fand. Eine Neubesinnung auf den theologischen Sinn von Jurisdiktion und damit auch des Jurisdiktionsprimats ist deshalb unumgänglich.

“In the end, ideas about the monarchy as the most perfect form of government were repeatedly associated with the canonical concept of jurisdiction throughout history; in the run-up to and around the First Vatican Council, as the researches of H.L. Pottmeyer and E. Weinzierl have shown, these ideas were joined to a decidedly anti-modern and anti-democratic authority and obedience philosophy. It was intended to oppose, as it was thought, the destructive nihilistic principle of modern autonomy to the Catholic principle of authority and obedience. It is precisely this last point that makes it understandable why the general bureaucratic and authority crisis of the last two decades found its culmination in the crisis of the Petrine ministry. A new way of thinking about the theological meaning of jurisdiction and thus also of the primacy of jurisdiction is therefore inevitable.”

But remember, there’s nothing to see here, folks, and you are stupid, insane and a schismatic if you think that there is.  Also, if you think there is anything anyone can do about this, you are a bad person who doesn’t pray and doesn’t trust God and is lacking in humility.  Or something.

Yooooooooooubetcha.

“Halt die Klappe, Leibeigene!”