(Originally penned and posted on March 19, ARSH 2013. Even I am freaked out by how prescient the final paragraph is. -AB ’23)

If I had a band, I’d name it “Spectral Doughnut”. But I don’t, so anyone who wants the name can have it.

Did you know that the official, fancy-pants mathematical term for a doughnut is “torus”? Well, not for a doughnut as a foodstuff, but for the shape of a doughnut: a tube bent around such that the two endpoints connect.

Conceptually, the torus is everywhere in life. Extremes on either side of a human spectrum have the nasty habit of being the same position. The most obvious example of this is in the political sphere, and while I’m not much of a Glenn Beck fan, Beck did explain this a few years ago. The far left is all about totalitarian control by a cadre of oligarchs. There really isn’t any such thing as a true dictatorship, because one man cannot physically force an entire government or people to do his will. He will always have a cadre of enablers and henchmen around him, and if he loses the support of that cadre of henchmen, they will kill him. Thus even the most seemingly solitary dictator is really just a frontman for an oligarchy. Dictatorial oligarchies use brute force to impose their will and have no respect for the Rule of Law. They consider themselves to be the law. If they want it, they take it, and if you don’t like that, they kill you. In modern politics, the most brutal thug with the worst case of psychopathy wins.

The far right is the same thing. The far right is anarchy, which means no government. This is also referred to as “unrestrained capitalism”.  The idea of “no government” sounds good on the surface, especially when you’re faced with the truly satanic government we have now, until you realize that also means NO RULE OF LAW. Likewise with the idea of “unrestrained capitalism”, also sometimes called “Anarcho-capitalism”.  It sounds good on the surface, right?  Not that “unrestrained capitalism” actually exists anywhere.  The closest any economy ever gets to “unrestrained capitalism” is actually a two-layered paradigm wherein the oligarchs are indeed completely unrestrained and can steal at will with zero recourse by the victims, and everyone not in the oligarch class is literally regulated into the ground.  A true, universally unrestrained capitalism is a nonexistent boogey-man used by Marxists to demonize and vilify capitalism, and a shallow and desperately naive fantasy of a handful of economists – most of whom have clearly never had any meaningful experience with markets or business.  But even in the realm of thought exercises, this universal anarchy clearly leads to hell also.  Every man for himself. In this environment, once again, the most brutal thug with the worst case of psychopathy wins.  Oddly, “unrestrained capitalism” has only manifested when a far-left oligarchy comes to power – as stated above.

Pardon you? Hell, I won’t even indict you! Hell, I won’t even QUESTION you! (Barry Soetoro and Jon Corzine)

While the philosophical paths may differ, the ends are exactly the same. No matter which arm of the doughnut you favor, if you move away from logic, reason and truth, proceeding out of which is charity in the true sense of the word, meaning love of neighbor, not just throwing “free stuff” at the nebulous conceptual mob of “the people” or “the poor”, or as with anarchy a total indifference toward neighbor, you are going to end up with exactly the same end: an elite, minuscule, ruling class with a massive, brutally oppressed underclass, and lots and lots of dead bodies. In both the far left and far right, to quote Obama’s Manufacturing czar Ron Bloom quoting Mao: All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

That is only partially true. All political power in a godless regime, either far right or far left, comes from the barrel of a gun. In a Godly monarchy, the power comes from God Himself. The same could possibly be said of an early Godly republic, but history proves that republics never last long.

Socialism and unrestrained capitalism are basically the same thing: the two arms of the torus touch. Marxist-socialist-communist systems forcibly steal the property of the underclass and deliver it into the insatiably greedy hands of the minuscule oligarch class. Unrestrained capitalism does EXACTLY the same thing. A minuscule cadre of what are today called banksters, but used to be called robber barons, forcibly confiscate, in simple terms STEAL, the property of the underclass and hoard it for themselves. It is the same thing. This is why these banksters, who one would at first blush think of as capitalists, are always found in bed with Marxist politicians. Marxism and unrestrained capitalism are essentially the same thing: theft and looting of the underclasses by a cadre of super-rich oligarchs, with zero rule of law, only the brutal rule of men from the barrel of a gun.

This has become so clear today because the banksters and Marxist politicians now routinely swap jobs. Jon Corzine went from Goldman Sachs to the United States Senate and the New Jersey statehouse back out into MF Global. Hank Paulsen went from Goldman Sachs to heading the U.S. Treasury Department. Almost all politicians after leaving office either by being voted out or retiring (if they ever do), usually go straight onto corporate boards. For the politicians that never retire, they place their family members in corporate positions.

Bottom line: beware of ANYONE who is constantly pushing one of these political or economic extremes, because both move AWAY FROM GOD, and ultimately meet up in the same place: hell. When far leftists are beating the drum of “the poor” and “the people”, that means there is about to be a massive, and utterly dehumanizing confiscation of wealth, which will end up in the hands of the oligarchs, and the poor will get poorer, thus “necessitating” more dehumanizing confiscations in the name of “the poor”. And that is when the dead bodies REALLY start to pile up. Run away from that evil at full speed. And when capitalism becomes unrestrained and there is no Rule of Law, and all that matters is who you know and what connections you have, and the only way to “succeed” is to be a thieving thug psychopath, then run away at full speed. That’s what I did.

(This is the jaw-dropping speech, personally edited by Pope Benedict before its delivery, in which +Gänswein lays out in no uncertain terms the Substantially Erroneous intention by Pope Benedict to fundamentally transform the Papacy into an expanded, collegial, synodal shared-ministry – to “demythologize” the Papacy. This speech, coupled with Canon 188, is what made me beyond morally certain that Pope Benedict never validly resigned, and therefore Bergoglio was and is an Antipope- which is obvious. I reprint the speech here in full. JUST READ IT. And remember, Pope Benedict edited and approved this speech before it was delivered by his Personal Secretary. This speech is entirely consistent with Pope Benedict’s words at his “final audience” on February 27, ARSH 2013, in which he made clear that he was “remaining in a new way… within the enclosure of St. Peter.” Emphases mine. -AB)

---

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

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO and TO ENROLL

Join us starting Pentecost Sunday May 28th for a 7 class Mini-Course on Ancient Rome! Experience the world of legions, martyrs, and slaves in “Romans, Christians, Barbarians!” Enter the world of the Caesars and learn how the Stone rejected by the builders became the Cornerstone. Learn what lessons the rise and fall of Rome  has for our own time!

(Originally penned and posted on May 17, ARSH 2012. The conclusion and warning about the “brutality of totalitarian oligarchy being proportional to the effeminacy and cowardice of the men in a conquered culture” was taken at the time by many people as the ravings of an unhinged spinster, detached from reality and warning of things that could never, ever happen in the U.S.A.

Lee Greenwood, to this day, now a decade later, remains unavailable for comment. -AB)

Today is the Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord. Forty days after the Resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven in the sight of a rather large crowd of His disciples. It was very dramatic, as the sight of a Man levitating straight up into the sky and passing into the clouds and out of sight would tend to be. Imagine a Saturn V rocket or Space Shuttle launch, except a Man, who was just in front of you, speaking and eating with you, suddenly zoomed straight up into the clouds like a Saturn V. This isn’t a fairy tale. This really happened. Can you imagine how simultaneously terrifying and wonderful such a sight would be? The word for it is the overused-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless word “awesome”. The Ascension was AWESOME.

Anyway, the gospel for today’s Mass in the 1962 Missal is the Markan account of the ascension, and it ties perfectly into what the recent topic has been around here, namely the feminizing and attempted reduction of Our Lord into a brainless, castrated, impotent equivalent of a pet dog who is too stupid to relate to us in any way more sophisticated than “slobbering us with kisses.” In the modernist, post-conciliar milieu WE are the master. WE call the shots. WE are the arbiters of truth. WE are the standards of goodness. Jesus? He’s the the dog. Pat him on the head, put some food in the dish, and let Him out to pee once a week. And if He isn’t all slobbery kisses and if He gets underfoot, or barks, or becomes in any way inconvenient, well, we’ll just put Him down and go find some other dog, and then we’ll name THAT dog “jesus”.

The entire reading is Mark 16:14-20, but let’s just luxuriate in the first verse, verse 14:

 At length He appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and He upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen Him after He was risen again.

He UPBRAIDED them. He didn’t “slobber them with kisses.” The Risen Christ, Resurrected and Transfigured in Glory UPBRAIDED them for not believing.

UPBRAIDED.

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of “upbraid”:

1. To criticize severely : to find fault with
2. To reproach severely : to scold vehemently

He chewed their asses. Up one side and then back down the other.

Think about this. He is minutes away from ascending and instead of “slobbering them with kisses” Jesus Christ, in perfect charity and complete love, in order to make absolutely certain that they got His message and understood exactly what was going on and what they were expected to do so that they and the rest of the world could hear the Gospel, criticized them, found fault with them, reproached them, and scolded them. Vehemently.

And then, after getting their butts chewed by God Almightly, they watched Him ascend to heaven in a terrifying and awesome display, the purpose of which was to put an exclamation point of masculine command on the Great Commission to go forth and spread the Gospel to every corner of the earth. He could have just disappeared. He could have walked off into some trees and vanished without any drama. But He didn’t do that. He went all Saturn V on them.

And you know what? That’s exactly what those people did. They went forth and spread the Gospel, and most of them were executed for doing it. Why? Because masculine strength is inspiring and beautiful and attractive and good – these are Godly qualities. Masculine strength says, “I care enough about you to chew your ass, and I want you to follow me into battle and fight beside me because I think you’re worth it and I believe in you. But you need an ass-chewing, and I’m going to give it to you.” Think Patton. Think Aragorn (fictional). Think Charles Martel. These leaders are mere types that point to the ultimate Man and Leader of Men, Jesus Christ.

YOU GET SQUARED AWAY, AND SQUARED AWAY RIGHT NOW, AND FOLLOW ME!

But, as I said, the Marxist-homosexualist infiltrators have purged all of this from the Liturgy, the priesthood and the Church so that you are primed to be rolled by the State and will refuse to fight for Truth, Goodness, Beauty or Justice. Who are you going to follow? Are you going to follow “superfun girly pacifist jesus”, who is really the non-existent imaginary friend of countless homosexual priests and bishops, and a mere fictional propaganda mascot of the Marxist infiltrators, who could not give any less of a crap about you, or whether you end up in heaven or hell? Imaginary “girly jesus” wants to slobber you with kisses so you’ll LIKE HIM, and who, conveniently enough, ratifies and encourages the sin of COWARDICE.

The brutality of a totalitarian oligarchy is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the cowardice of the men of the non-oligarch “underclass.”

I am hard-pressed to think of a more cowardly population of men than the men of contemporary Western Christendom.

You do the math.

Now, for your joy and allegorical edification, please enjoy a Saturn V launch with the Cavalry Charge from the Finale of the William Tell Overture, a particularly special piece of music around here.

Lord Jesus Christ, Ascended to the Right Hand of The Father, have mercy on us and on Your Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

I buy and take Vitamin D3 combined with Vitamin K2 in liquid drop form. Dosing is simple because one drop is 1000 IUs. So you just stand there and count the drops. I do 15 drops per day just normally, and 50 drops per day when I feel any sort of possible bug. I carry a 50mL bottle of Vitamin D drops, and a bottle of Ivermectin that I have dispensed out of the big 500mL bottles I buy, and into a 50mL blue glass dropper bottle in my purse at all times, so that I can take it OR give the bottles away to someone who might need it.

Once again, the dripping malignity of the pharmaceutical industry is on full display, not only in the poisons they push, but in WHAT THEY HAVE CONCEALED. Safe, effective, CHEAP drugs and simple supplements could have saved countless lives, and even lost man-hours and the mild misery of colds, flus and inflammation. But it was all concealed in order to accomplish the largest wealth transfer in human history, with the Deep State operating as the middle man.

I ask the question again: if they’ve hidden this from us, WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? Do they know that some cheap, safe substance that is hiding in plain sight, like Ivermectin or Vitamin D, cures… cancer? Alzheimer’s? Parkinson’s? Multiple Sclerosis? Lupus? We know that type-2 diabetes is cured by a zero carbohydrate diet, which is precisely why the “food pyramid” pushed 6-8 servings of carbohydrates per day religiously. What will be the next curative to be exposed as having been willfully and maliciously concealed by BigPharma and the Deep State?

Be still, and see that I am God…

Vacate, et videte quoniam ego sum Deus…

Psalm 45:11

I’ve been a science geek since pretty much day one, and I’ve always been ESPECIALLY fascinated by anything to do with astronomy and astrophysics.  I consider it a great consolation, and CLEARLY of the Divine Providence that here, now, in what appears to be a massive epochal shift at minimum, or the End of All Things at maximum, that we have the technology to not only SEE the physical universe in ways never before imagined, but that such knowledge can be so easily shared and consumed on YouTube.

When I was a very young sapling, while knowing without a doubt that God existed, was PERSONAL, and that Jesus was God, I would become very frightened as I lay awake in bed at night thinking about the vastness of the universe, and especially about TIME, and whether or not time and space were infinite, and what exactly that meant.  These questions, absent the One True Faith in its fullness, were terrifying to me.  And now, here I am forty years later, and I find that which so shook me as a child to be a massive source of consolation and CONFIDENCE.

A Supernova is when a star exhausts all of its fuel, and since there is no longer the massive OUTWARD pressure of the fusion explosions to offset the massive inward, compacting force of the star’s own gravity, the gravity wins, and the star implodes so violently that it causes shock waves that bounce back out and cause the outer layers of the star to explode.  The amount of energy released in a supernova is simply incomprehensible.

The most well-known Supernova is actually what we now see as the Crab Nebula, the first object listed in the Messier Catalogue.  The Crab Nebula came into existence according to human observation here on earth when its star went Supernova on 4 July, ARSH 1054. It was visible for 642 days, until 6 April, ARSH 1056.  For the first 23 days after the explosion, it was so bright that it was visible in the DAYLIGHT.  The nebula of the remnants of the exploded star were identified first in ARSH 1731 using telescopes, and again in ARSH 1758 by Charles Messier, who tabled it as the first object in his now-famous Catalogue of celestial objects.

There have been EIGHT observable supernovae in recorded history in what we now know is our Milky Way galaxy.  It is now estimated that in our Milky Way galaxy, there is approximately one supernova per century. Current estimates for the number of stars in our Milky Way galaxy now stand at 100 to 400 BILLION stars.  And of those, ONE goes supernova per century.

The Milky Way is BIG, huh?  And supernovae are EXCEPTIONALLY rare events, agreed?

Well, consider this: astronomers now estimate there to be one to two TRILLION galaxies in the universe (and that number keeps climbing as space-based telescopes come online).  Let’s use TWO TRILLION as our number of galaxies, and assume that our Milky Way is an “average sized” galaxy.

So that means that there are TWO TRILLION supernovae per century.
Divide by 100 and you get TWENTY BILLION supernovae per year.
Divide 20,000,000,000 by 365 and you get 54,794,520 supernovae PER DAY.
Divide 54,794,520 by 24 hours and you get 2,283,105 supernovae per hour.
Divide 2,283,105 by 60 minutes and you get 38,051 supernovae per minute.
Divide 38,051 by 60 seconds and you get…

634 supernovae PER SECOND, EVERY SECOND, in the observable universe.

 Take a normal breath. Inhale-exhale. Roughly 1250 stars went supernova as you took that breath.

Folks, the physical universe is BIG. And you know what? God made it EXCLUSIVELY for us. And it can even be said, EXCLUSIVELY for YOU. That’s right. Because God is infinite, it is possible for Him to love each individual as a separate infinity, which contains in it the entire universe. He made the entire physical universe for ME exclusively, and for YOU exclusively. Because each of us subsist in a discrete infinity of His Love, each of us, and every human being that has ever or will ever exist, are the exclusive cause of the physical universe. (When you start doing business with infinities, things get weird, hence my use of the adjective “exclusive” which would be a contradiction outside of the domain of the infinite.)

I even have a proof text of this for you, and it will stop you in your tracks. Our Lord told St. Teresa of Avila, doctor of the Church, the following:

“I would create the universe again, just to hear you say that you love Me.”

So if you’re feeling worried or anxious, just take a breath and say to yourself, “1250 supernovae just happened. And He made it, sustains it, and would make it all again, just to hear me say, ‘I love You.'”

In those two trillion galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, He holds EVERY electron in its valence shell orbit, and holds every atomic nucleus together, and holds every quark that makes up every proton and neutron in place. Consciously.

And while He’s doing that, He is in infinite rapturous attention of your every thought and feeling, always respecting your free will as a sovereign being, and coming down on the altar at every Mass to be close to you in the Eucharist, and waiting for you in the confessional to forgive your sins, if you will just only say that you are sorry and mean it. And then, while sustaining the physical universe, clicking off over a thousand supernovae for every breath you take, He also reposes in the Tabernacle of every Catholic church in a ciborium, under the appearance of bread wafer, hoping like a lovestruck youth that you will walk in the door and… acknowledge His existence. Maybe even tell Him you love Him. Or that you will stay and hear Mass and be present at the foot of the Cross in ARSH 30 as He dies in The Eternal Sacrifice for love of you, so that you might be with Him forever – IF you so choose, freely.

Inhale. Exhale. 1250 supernovae.

And you worry? You worry about a bunch of imbecilic perverted criminals? You tell yourself that “God has been beat. His Church has been destroyed.” REALLY? Do you REALLY believe that? You REALLLY believe that Antipope Jorge Bergoglio and his Roman Queeria “beat God”? Or ever could?? That’s a laugh line if ever there was one, folks.

Everything that happens is driving toward a greater good. This Antipope/Antichurch situation WILL resolve. And you should pray and work toward being a part of that resolution, because God put you here in this time and place for exactly that.

The accelerated advances in astrophysics and cosmology have matched EXACTLY the temporary reign of Satan as revealed to Pope Leo XIII in ARSH 1884. Why? Maybe so you could read this post and know that God’s love for you is infinite, and so you could be reassured and edified at any moment, in any place, including a prison cell or concentration camp, simply by taking one breath.

Inhale. Exhale. 1250 stars just went supernova. And He made it and sustains it all for me, and would make it all again just to hear me say that I love Him.

Hang in there, folks.

As always, I hope this helps.

Barnhardt Axiom #1: If you can’t stand in front of it and physically defend it with a rifle, then it isn’t really yours, and probably never was.

Barnhardt Axiom #2: The culture has degraded such that seeking and/or holding office, especially national-level office, is, in and of itself, proof that a given person is psychologically and morally unfit to hold public office.

Barnhardt Axiom #3: If full-on kinetic World War 3 breaks out, the worst possible outcome for humanity would be that the former-US/Washington DC regime win.

We all know this is purely a money-making publicity stunt, but what I simply cannot comprehend is how he could do this to his wife and his children.

Oh, wait, I guess the answer to my own question is clearly stated in Axiom #2. 🤦🏻‍♀️

Hi Ann –

Thanks for all you do! I have been perplexed over what I might/should be doing at the Te Igitur during the Mass. Over the last few years, when that moment arrives during the Holy Mass, I just omit praying or even thinking of P.F., [the writer is here referring to Antipope Bergoglio] since I agree with you on his ‘lack of position’, shall we say.

So what should I pray for at that moment, if anything? I guess I never thought too hard about it, but it does seem to me now, as in times past, that perhaps there is a prayer that is appropriate in lieu of the name P.B.?

I just thought I would ask what your thoughts are about this, and what you or others do at the Te Igitur, given the seat is vacant.

Sincerely in Christ,

J

---

Quick review for those who aren’t Latin Mass-goers: All of the various fixed prayers of the Mass are referred to by the first two words of the prayer. So when we’re talking about “the Te Igitur”, we are talking about the first prayer of the Canon of the Mass, immediately after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy…) within which the Pope and the local Bishop are prayed for by name. Here is the text in Latin and English.

---

Te ígitur, clementíssime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum, Dóminum nostrum, súpplices rogámus, ac pétimus, uti accépta hábeas et benedícas, hæc ✠ dona, hæc ✠ múnera, hæc ✠ sancta sacrifícia illibáta, in primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antístite nostro N. et ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus. 

We therefore, humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ; Thy Son, our Lord, that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to accept and bless these ✠ gifts, these ✠presents, these ✠ holy unspotted Sacrifices, which in the first place we offer Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church to which vouchsafe to grant peace, as also to preserve, unite, and govern it throughout the world, together with Thy servant our Pope, and our Bishop, and all orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. 

---

Before Pope Benedict died these 132 days ago as of this writing, at the Te Igitur and any other mentions of the name of “The Pope”, such as if the “Pro Pontifice” propers were optionally added, or at the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday wherein the Pope is prayed for by name in the second of the nine prayers of the Great Intercessions…

V. Let us pray for our most holy Father Pope N., that our Lord and God, Who chose him to the order of the Episcopate, may keep him in health and safety for His holy Church to govern the holy people of God.

P. Let us pray.

D. Let us kneel.

R. Arise.

V. Almighty and everlasting God, by Whose judgement all things are established, mercifully regard our prayers, and in Thy goodness preserve the Bishop chosen for us: that the Christian people who are ruled by Thine authority, may under so great a Pontiff, be increased in the merits of faith. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.

R. Amen.

…I would whisper very quietly at the utterance of ‘Francis’, “He’s not the Pope. Benedict is the Pope. Give it to me.”

Now since Pope Benedict died these 132 days ago, if I am hearing a Mass at which it is either known to me or very likely that ‘Francis’ is mistakenly commemorated, I whisper, “He’s not the Pope. Give it to me.” Because the Te Igitur is for the commemoration of the LIVING Vicar of Christ, and there is no living Pope right now, therefore that clause should be simply omitted, and only the local Bishop is named in the Te Igitur.

What do I mean by, “Give it to me”? I am asking Our Lord to give ME any temporal punishment (such as time in Purgatory) that might be due the priest for his mistaken commemoration of an Antipope. Why do I say “might be due”? Because only Christ can judge the hearts of men, and weigh each man’s conscience, knowledge of the situation, and most importantly it seems to me, the intense fear and coercion that priests are under with regards to the wretched apostate tyrant Bergoglio. Any priest who were to publicly announce that he was morally certain that Bergoglio is an Antipope would probably be the unjustly “canceled” and probably invalidly laicized. But he would be immediately functionally incapable of administering the Sacraments and living his priestly vocation, not to mention jobless, homeless, and stripped of his retirement benefits (we’ll leave the question of ANYONE under the age of 55 getting any retirement benefits for another conversation) and health insurance.

Should a priest be willing to suffer persecution? Of course. But at the same time, you’d have to be a sociopath utterly devoid of human empathy to not appreciate the pressure that priests are under. So if I can appreciate from the comfort of my armchair the pressure they are under, how much more does Our Lord? So, we pray for priests, and even ask to bear some of their burden if it will help. This has the effect of letting Our Lord know that we’re serious – really, really serious – about getting this Antipapacy mess resolved, AND it has the effect of INCREASING filial charity towards priests who are mistaken on the identity of the Vicar of Christ, instead of causing one to descend into resentment and even hatred of them.

Should they know by now, after ten years of near-daily proof that Bergoglio is a raging apostate at total war with Jesus Christ and His Holy Church, observably in violation of the infallibly defined dogma of Papal Infallibility, and thus pointing backwards to February of ARSH 2013 and Pope Benedict’s obviously invalid, substantially erroneous attempt to only partially resign and thus “fundamentally transform the Papacy into a collegial, synodal shared Office”?

Yes. Yes they should. They really, really should. But, how many of us have done things that we SHOULD have known (and deep down maybe DID know) were wrong, but we did them anyway? Probably the best example of this that has touched everyone reading this is entering into a bad marriage. It’s hard these days to not have civil divorce be within one degree of separation of oneself. Bad signs are almost always present before a trainwreck marriage is entered into, to the spouses themselves and outwardly to observers. But the human capacity for denial and self-delusion, especially in the attempt to avoid or delay suffering, or to maintain a false happiness, is gargantuan.

Having said that, let me remind the readership, both lay and clerical, that for a priest, bishop or cardinal to “get right” in terms of the Bergoglian Antipapacy would require about forty-five seconds in the confessional booth, whereas sacramental marriage is indissoluble.

“Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It has been one week since my last confession. I am a priest. I have come to the realization with moral certainty that I have mistakenly commemorated an Antipope at the Te Igitur and in public speech for the past ten years and failed to commemorate the true Pope for the last decade of his papacy. I was deceived. It was an honest mistake, which I now clearly see and greatly regret. I meant no harm to Our Lord and His Holy Church to whom I am forever espoused and love with all my heart….”

“…Ego te absolvo….”

Done. Finished. Over.

But, I, Ann Barnhardt should have probably done more. I have done a lot, but I could have done, and could still be doing more. This isn’t over. Not by a long shot.

In direct answer to the original question, what to pray at the Te Igitur? In addition to praying for the local ordinary, I always pray the Matthew 17:20 Intention:

That Bergoglio be publicly recognized and removed as Antipope and the whole thing be nullified, that Pope Benedict be publicly recognized as having been the one and only living Pope from April ARSH 2005 until his death and for the Petrine See in se, that Bergoglio repent, revert to Catholicism, die in the state of grace in the fullness of time and someday achieve the Beatific Vision, and for the repose of the soul of Pope Benedict Ratzinger.

Let me leave you with an absolutely outstanding essay that Supernerd sent to me a few months ago. It was written by an SSPXer who has been browbeaten for years from his 1958 Sedevacantist friends for attending Mass in which “Francis” is erroneously commemorated. The 1958 Sedevacantists argue that to even attend such a Mass is to proclaim oneself in union with Bergoglio and his heresies. (As if Our Lord doesn’t know and understand your mind and is confused by your presence at Mass. Facepalm.) But what I’m about to block quote below is a simply masterful logical explanation of the dynamics of the Te Igitur as a whole and how it logically relates to the “una cum”. It is exactly this kind of irrefutable logical COMMON SENSE that makes the world go ’round. THIS thoroughly irrefutable consilience is why “unlettered laynothings” can go toe-to-toe with Ph.Ds, canon lawyers and Cardinal Princes of the Church. If what any such people are saying is internally contradictory, irrational, illogical or simply not observable reality, then they are wrong – period. And not only CAN they be refuted, they MUST be refuted, with credentialism being nothing more than a laughable distraction to be dismissed with a chuckle.

Click over and bookmark this post. I’ll block quote the meat of it so that it cannot be erased.

---

Assuming, for sake of the argument, that the una cum does what sedevecantists say that it does, who does the paragraph claim to be in union with? “Pope Francis.” But there is no such person. He’s not a pope. His name isn’t Francis. He’s a villainous heretic named Jorge Bergoglio wearing a costume. So, at worst, the paragraph places the Mass in union with a fiction. 

If we’re going to precise, strict, and legalistic, we should follow those principals to the extreme – especially if it means doing otherwise causes us to accuse millions of faithful traditional Catholics of being schismatic heretics …. A little restraint is in order. 

But, let’s continue to some things that won’t cause people to roll their eyes at me. There are a number of canons that one must employ when discerning the intention and meaning of a writing. Some of these are:

• Ordinary-Meaning Canon: Words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings—unless the context indicates otherwise.
• Fixed-Meaning Canon: Words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted.
• Omitted-Case Canon: Nothing is to be added to what the text states or reasonably implies (casus omissus pro omisso habendus est). That is, a matter not covered is to be treated as not covered.
• Negative-Implication Canon: The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).
• Unintelligibility Canon: An unintelligible text is inoperative.
• Series-Qualifier Canon: When there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies to the entire series.
• Proviso Canon. A proviso conditions the principal matter that it qualifies—almost always the matter immediately preceding.
• Whole-Text Canon. The text must be construed as a whole.
• Presumption of Consistent Usage: A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text; a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning.
• Harmonious-Reading Canon: The provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory.
• Irreconcilability Canon: If a text contains truly irreconcilable provisions at the same level of generality, and they have been simultaneously adopted, neither provision should be given effect.
• Ejusdem Generis Canon. Where general words follow an enumeration of two or more things, they apply only to persons or things of the same general kind or classspecifically mentioned (ejusdem generis).
• Prefatory-Materials Canon: A preamble, purpose clause, or recital is a permissible indicator of meaning.
• Absurdity Doctrine. A provision may be either disregarded or corrected as an error (when the correction is textually simple) if failing to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve.

Let’s apply each of these to the relevant phrase: “unite, and govern her throughout the world; as also for Thy servant {“Francis”} . . . our Pope, and N . . . our Bishop, AND FOR ALL ORTHODOX BELIEVERS AND ALL WHO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH.”

1. Ordinary-Meaning Canon: Words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings—unless the context indicates otherwise.

Ordinarily, a pope is Catholic. A non Catholic pope is impossible. Consequently, that phrase applies to “all orthodox believers who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith,” including the [Catholic] pope. Nothing in the ordinary meaning implies that it unites one with an anticatholic, apostate, who happens to be an idolatrous antipope.  

2. Fixed-Meaning Canon: Words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted.

At the time the text was adopted, everybody knew that one must be Catholic to be pope. Furthermore, the authors of the text intended it to apply only to ALL ORTHODOX BELIEVERS AND ALL WHO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH,” which necessarily excludes heretics. 

3. Omitted-Case Canon: Nothing is to be added to what the text states or reasonably implies (casus omissus pro omisso habendus est). That is, a matter not covered is to be treated as not covered.

Antipopes and heretics are omitted from the text, but “orthodox believers who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” are specifically included, as the ultimate qualifier. Therefore, we can assume that the text does not intend to unify the Mass to heretics and schismatics. 

4. Negative-Implication Canon: The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).

The specific expression of “orthodox believers who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” necessarily implies the exclusion of heretics, antipopes, and schismatics. 

5.  Unintelligibility Canon: An unintelligible text is inoperative.

The notion that the paragraph intends to unite “all orthodox believers who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” with heretics, schismatics, and antipopes is nonsensical. The authors surely did not intend such a perverse result. Forcing that interpretation renders the entire paragraph unintelligible, and therefore inoperative, and not illicit or schismatic. 

6. Series-Qualifier Canon: When there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies to the entire series. 

The phrase: “thy servant {“Francis”} . . . our Pope, and N . . . our Bishop, AND FOR ALL ORTHODOX BELIEVERS AND ALL WHO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH” is a series that ends with a modifier “who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.” Consequently, that modifier applies to the entire series. In other words, applying Canons 1-6 to the phrase causes the unavoidable conclusion that it a) assumes the “pope” is Catholic, and b) EXCLUDES HIM IF HE’S NOT.

7. Proviso Canon: A proviso conditions the principal matter that it qualifies—almost always the matter immediately preceding.

The application of proviso canon is the same as the series qualifier canon. In other words, “in union with Francis” PROVIDED he is Catholic.

8. Whole-Text Canon. The text must be construed as a whole.

Reviewed as a whole, it is manifestly obvious that the intent of the text is to unite the Mass with “orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” and only “orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.” 

9. Presumption of Consistent Usage: A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text; a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning.

It is consistently presumed that the pope is Catholic. If he’s not Catholic, he’s not pope, and therefore he’s not in the Canon. 

10. Harmonious-Reading Canon: The provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory.

The only way to read the Te Igitur harmoniously is to presume that it naturally excludes non-Catholics and antipopes, for all of the reasons above. Otherwise, the sentence would literally contradict itself.  

11. Irreconcilability Canon: If a text contains truly irreconcilable provisions at the same level of generality, and they have been simultaneously adopted, neither provision should be given effect.

If the Te Igitur both united the Mass with a) nonCatholics, schismatics, heretics, and antipopes, while also using the ultimate universal qualifier “and all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith,” then it would be truly irreconcilable and neither provision would be given effect. 

12.  Ejusdem Generis Canon. Where general words follow an enumeration of two or more things, they apply only to persons or things of the same general kind or classspecifically mentioned (ejusdem generis). 

There is one class of people that is specifically mentioned “orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.” Therefore, those general words only apply to the specific enumeration of the “pope” and “bishop” immediately preceding them, if they are of same kind or class that was specifically mentioned – Catholic. 

13. Prefatory-Materials Canon: A preamble, purpose clause, or recital is a permissible indicator of meaning.

The phrase “all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” is the purpose clause of the paragraph. Consequently, it is a permissible indicator of meaning for the entire paragraph. 

14. Absurdity Doctrine: A provision may be either disregarded or corrected as an error (when the correction is textually simple) if failing to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve.

No reasonable Catholic would interpret the Te Igitur as intentionally uniting the Mass and those assisting it with a heretic and/or antipope, because the paragraph is specifically limited to Catholics. In other words, the sedevecantist position on the una cum violates the absurdity doctrine.

---

I would add in conclusion that an otherwise solid and orthodox priest erroneously uttering the name “Francis” at the Te Igitur is a clear sign that said priest wishes to be in union with the Petrine See, even though he is mistaken in identifying Antipope Bergoglio as the Pope, just as St. Vincent Ferrer’s mistaken utterance of the name of an Antipope for a time was manifestation of his total unity with Rome. Now, if I can understand this precision with regards to the many priests I know and have heard Mass celebrated by, and even call friends, in which I know for a fact that “Francis” is commemorated, and I have zero doubt as to their desire for and unity with Holy Mother Church, how much more can Our Lord comprehend it – He who knows their hearts and minds better than they themselves do?

And so I return to the question of whether I have and will do everything I can to help resolve this horrific situation. Believe me when I say…

I HOPE THIS HELPS.

St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us.

St. Peter, pray for us.

Our Lady of Copacabana, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us and on your Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.