Ann Barnhardt dumps Francis, seeks Refuge in Benedict XVI

Novus Ordo Watch ^ | June 20, 2016 | Novus Ordo Watch

[SGNA]

Barnhardt goes Resignationist...

Ann Barnhardt dumps Francis,seeks Refuge in Benedict XVI

She’s finally figured it out: Francis cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church. The outspoken colorful controversialist Ann Barnhardt has announced on her web site that she can no longer hold that Francis is or ever was a true Pope, the Vicar of Christ. The reason for Miss Barnhardt’s change of mind is found in the very opening paragraphs of her blog post:

It is now clear to me, and I feel it morally incumbent upon me given my position to publicly state that I believe Jorge Bergoglio, “Francis” to be an Antipope, never having been canonically elected, and that Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI is still the Roman Pontiff.

The sheer quantity of evidence, and the diversity of the confluent evidence sets, is now so utterly overwhelming that I believe that a person, fully informed of the dataset, would have to engage in the willful suspension of disbelief to continue to acknowledge Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff.

(Ann Barnhardt, “Vocem Alienorum: The Voice of Antipope Francis Bergoglio Is the Voice of A Stranger”, Barnhardt.biz, June 19, 2016)

Thank you, Ann Barnhardt! Indeed, it does very much require a “willful suspension of disbelief to continue to acknowledge Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff”, and this willful suspension is still being entertained by such people as John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt, Bp. Richard Williamson, Bp. Bernard Fellay, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, Steve Skojec, and so many others who either do or ought to know better. We suspect that Miss Barnhardt will no longer be allowed to blog for The Remnant now, but this remains to be seen.

As for the “sheer quantity of evidence” that is “so overwhelming”, we have been cataloguing it on our special page here:

• The Scandals, Heresies, and Errors of Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”)

No doubt, what probably put Barnhardt over the edge was Francis’ latest blasphemous and outrageous attack on holy matrimony, which began to hit the news late on Thursday of last week:

• Francis: “Great Majority” of Marriages today are Invalid because People don’t realize it’s indissoluble — but “Fidelity” in Cohabitation = Real Marriage!
  

So, Barnhardt has finally had enough and concluded there is no way Francis could possibly be the head of the Catholic Church. Bravo!

But here comes the rub: Instead of embracing Sedevacantism, Barnhardt now insists that the true Pope is Benedict XVI — Joseph Ratzinger, the old Modernist who just recently claimed, via his private secretary Georg Ganswein, that he is the “contemplative” part of a two-member “papacy” in conjunction with the “active” member, Francis:

• “Abp.” Ganswein: Benedict XVI created “Expanded Papacy”

That’s the same Joseph Ratzinger who has publicly endorsed Francis as Pope, who has long denied the dogma of the Resurrection, who denies original sin, who disparages infant baptism, who has had his very own Assisi interfaith abomination, who claims that because of World War II we can no longer speak of the time since Christ’s Birth as a time of salvation, who told a Lutheran worker in the Vatican not to become Catholic, who gave “Holy Communion” to a known Protestant leader, and so on (see all the links and more here).

That Joseph Ratzinger.

Lodge Brothers? Benedict XVI and “Cardinal” Bergoglio exchanging a Masonic handshake

Barnhardt offers her own theory as to how and why Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid, quoting Novus Ordo (1983) Canon 188 to substantiate her thesis (the traditional equivalent in the 1917 Code is Canon 185), which talks about “substantial error” as being one of the factors that can render a resignation invalid. Her reasoning is curious — she claims that Benedict XVI could not validly resign from the papal office because he believes error (it’s heresy, actually) about the papal office (that it can consist of two people). In other words, he is Pope because he doesn’t believe in the papacy. Now that’s a new one even for Novus Ordo standards!

Instead of looking at Canon 188 of the Novus Ordo 1983 Code of Canon Law, perhaps Miss Barnhardt should have spent some more time researching Canon 188 of the traditional 1917 Code of Canon Law, which says:

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: . . .

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith

(Canon 188 n.4; underlining added.)

But, no matter. For Barnhardt, Benedict XVI is a valid Pope because he is a heretic, that is, he espouses a heretical concept of the papacy (she does not say it is heretical, but it is). If that isn’t putting everything upside down, similar to what Francis just did as he declared marriage to be fornication and fornication to be marriage, it is hard to imagine what would be.

So, if anything, Barnhardt ought to conclude that Benedict XVI cannot be Pope because he holds to a heretical concept of the papacy. Instead, she has persuaded herself that this heresy is not what makes his election or continued putative papacy invalid, but his resignation! This is absurdity on stilts!

Barnhardt says that “Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s ontology is CLEARLY warped”, but hers is no less so: She believes a man who professes heresy against the papacy is Pope precisely because of that heresy, which rendered his resignation invalid. By the way, which Novus Ordo canonical commentaries explaining the term “substantial error” in the Novus Ordo Canon 188 did our quirky blogger consult? We don’t know, but she definitely doesn’t quote any of them, and glancing at the explanation given in the standard The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary by Coriden et al., it seems to refer to error of fact, i.e. being in error about some event or state of affairs, not error of law:

Substantial error is a mistaken judgment that is not of minor importance and is truly a cause of the consequent resignation. This would be the case in which the officeholder judged that he or she had caused serious injury to someone when this was not objectively correct.

(James A. Coriden, et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1985], p. 109; italics added.)

So, not only does it refer to error of fact, this error must also be the cause of the resignation. To apply it to the scenario Barnhardt proposes, it would mean that Benedict XVI resigned because of his belief that the papacy admits of having more than one member — and that would need to be proven to have been the cause, not just asserted. And besides, it is not an error of fact anyway but an error of law — being mistaken about what the papacy is.

In any event, Barnhardt has no case even by Novus Ordo standards as long as her interpretation of Canon 188 and her ideas about Ratzinger are unique to her.

Oh well, at least we can’t say we didn’t see it coming. Less than 60 minutes after Benedict XVI announced his resignation to the public on February 11, 2013, we sent out a tweet predicting that we would eventually have people claiming the resignation to be invalid:

This should get conservative Novus Ordo conspiracies started: Who forced him to step down? Resignation by force, you see, is invalid. #pope

— Novus Ordo Watch (@NovusOrdoWatch) February 11, 2013

While Barnhardt is not basing her refusal to consider Benedict’s resignation as valid on fear but on substantial error, the result is the same: she believes it was invalid and so he’s still Pope and Francis isn’t.

Clearly, the idea of embracing Benedict XVI as the true Pope even today, is a lot easier to swallow for many, and appears to provide a much less “offensive” alternative to Sedevacantism, that dreaded S-word that no one wants to be stigmatized with. Hence they now dish up the craziest justifications for why Benedict XVI is Pope — this being driven not by the objective facts but by the perceived need to avoid both the position that Francis is Pope and the conclusion that Sedevacantism is true. So, prepare for a lot more absurdity down the road. Anything at all will eventually be acceptable to these people, as long as it permits them to maintain that Francis isn’t Pope and Sedevacantists are wrong.

Here once again we can see why Fr. Anthony Cekada once rightly talked about an irrational fear of Sedevacantism, a veritable “Sedevacantophobia” — for that is truly what it is. “Hey, guys, so I believe Francis isn’t Pope, fine — but don’t you call me a Sedevacantist; I’m not that!”

Sedevacantist? Eww...

The phenomenon of adhering to Benedict XVI as the “true Pope” even after his resignation is not new. The first public high-profile individual to fall for it was the Rev. Paul Kramer, formerly affiliated with the Fatima Center and Rev. Nicholas Gruner. The eccentric blogger Eric Gajewski is another adherent of this curious position, which we have termed “Resignationism”:

• “Fr.” Paul Kramer Rejects Francis’ Claim to the Papacy
• “Fr.” Kramer: “Benedict XVI Still Pope!” — Enter the Resignationists
• Antonio Socci: Benedict XVI might still be Pope
• Benedict XVI says he agrees with Francis
• Benedict XVI: “My Resignation was Valid”
• Resignationism: Now “Abp.” Georg Ganswein Weighs In
• Resignationism 2.0: Enter “Cardinal” Scola
• “Papal” Biographer: Schism with Benedict XVI as Antipope is Possible

“Don’t worry: As long as they think ONE of us is Pope, all is saved…"

All that is left for us to say is to repeat something we said in two different posts on the topic of Resignationism, back in 2014, addressing the question of who benefits (cui bono) from this entire confusion in the Novus Ordo Church about one Pope, two Popes, two half-Popes, one two-headed Pope, etc.:

Be that as it may, it is clear this whole thing is a complete mess. But we are convinced it serves only one purpose: to draw those trying to be good and faithful Catholics in the Novus Ordo Sect into more confusion and give them a new “way out” of Francis if they cannot stomach his full-throttled apostasy: dump Franics, but believe Benedict XVI is still Pope. Anything, anything at all, to keep you from drawing the only sound conclusion today: The Chair of St. Peter is vacant. Sede Vacante!

(Novus Ordo Watch, “Resignationism: Now Ganswein weighs in”, March 2, 2014)

We also see great irony here. In Novus Ordo Land, people are discussing whether we have one Pope or two Popes, when in reality, we have none.

And who benefits from this confusion? Cui bono? Clearly, this whole Resignationist business is greatly aiding the destructive mission of the Vatican II Church, because it gives people yet another reason to cling to the Modernist sect rather than discover real Catholicism the way it was exclusively known before Vatican II. It is another useful distraction to keep you focused on things other than the manifest subversion of the Catholic Church by false teachings and disciplines condemned prior to the Council.

Distractions like this have worked well for the Modernists in the past, and they are part of the overall game plan. As long as they have you accepting one of their Modernists as Pope, they really don’t care if you believe Francis is Pope or Benedict. If that’s what it takes to keep you in their church, they don’t mind you believing that this Modernist over here is really Pope, rather than that other Modernist over there. It is simply one more way to keep people from realizing that all the papal claimaints since the death of Pius XII have been usurpers — and it provides a convenient way out for people who realize that Francis cannot possibly be Pope, yet still do not wish to accept the Sedevacantist position.

These Resignationist episodes illustrate rather well how important it is for us to adhere to Catholic principle over emotion. The Resignationist theses, with or without “Cardinal” Scola, only confuse or impress those who go by emotion rather than Catholic theology, for those who go by real theology know that Ratzinger was never a valid Pope in the first place, and the whole Modernist cult in the Vatican is a gigantic farce perpetrated by the Catholic Church’s enemies. Alas, too many people, swayed by emotion and a display of externals rather than Catholic teaching, have persuaded themselves that Ratzinger was this great pitbull of Catholic Tradition and orthodoxy, when in fact he was nothing of the sort.

Whatever it takes, apparently, for people to find a way around Sedevacantism. This is what happens when a desired predetermined conclusion dictates what you believe, rather than the objective evidence. At some point, people will have to man up and face reality, always remembering that God’s grace assists us no matter what the circumstances we find ourselves in: “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn 8:32).

If you are genuinely concerned about an invalid papal election, we suggest you focus your energies on investigating the conclave of 1958, which for the first time [in history] replaced a Catholic Pope with a Modernist — rather than that of 2013, which simply swapped one Modernist for another.

(Novus Ordo Watch, “Resignationism 2.0: Enter ‘Cardinal’ Scola”, June 2, 2014)

Sad to say, Anne Barnhardt is the latest victim of the antipope-swap of the Vatican II Sect; and to justify it, she has set a new milestone in anti-sedevacantist silliness: Benedict XVI is Pope because he doesn’t believe in the Papacy.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Related Links:

• The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope
• True or False Pope? Resources on Sedevacantism vs. SSPX/Resistance

Jun 20, 2016, 11:01 AM

Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said content.

Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Back To Top]

[SGNA]

Contrary to Ann Barnhardt's erroneous position, below are multiple citations on the correct teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that the Papal See is vacant if the claimant is a formal heretic, apostate or schismatic before or after his election to the papacy. If beforehand, the election is "null, void and worthless".

By Divine Law and the teaching of the Roman Catholic church, the apostate, heretic and schismatic Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope precisely because he is an apostate, heretic, and schismatic.

Bergoglio is not a Catholic by his own acts hence it is impossible for him to be the earthly head of a body of which he is not even a member.

The same goes for Ratzinger and all the post-1958 Vatican-2 heretical papal usurpers who were all formal heretics before their respective elections rendering them "null, void and worthless' as stated below.

CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL IV, 15TH FEBUARY 1559 - (ROMAN BULLARIUM VOL. IV. SEC. I, PP. 354-357)

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]

that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power, without any exception in respect of those to which they may have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the Faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or provoked or committed any or all of these.

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-

that subject persons, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:

(i) the clergy, secular and religious;

(ii) the laity;

(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;

(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;

shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

The above citation specifies Catholic teaching on the nullity of the election of candidates to the papacy if they were formal heretics, apostates or schismatics before being elected.

This has been the case of all those invalidly elected since 1958.

The following citations deal with the fall from the Office of the papacy by their own act if a valid pope were to defect from the Catholic Faith by heresy, apostasy or schism.

In other words, both possibilities have been covered in advance by Divine Law and by specific teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.

Four Doctors of the Church regarding defection from the Faith by a Pope.
 

St. Robert Bellarmine:  "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed."

St Robert Bellarmine, "De Romano Pontifice", ("On the Roman Pontiff"), liber II, caput 30:

"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction,

Fundamentum hujus sententiae est. quoniam haereticus manifestos nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union.
 

St. Alphonsus de Liguori on the fate of a heretical pope:

"Del resto, si Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d'essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato."

--"Verita della Fede", part 3, ch. 8, no. 10.
In: Opere dommatiche di S. Alfonso de Liguori (Torino, G. Marietti, 1848), p. 720. (Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, v. 8)

 "For the rest, if God should permit that a Pope should become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope, and the pontificate would be vacant."
 

St. Francis de Sales on papal infallibility and heresy:

"En l'ancienne loy le grand pretre ne portait pas le rational si non quand il estoit revestu des habits pontificaux et qu'il entroit devant le Seigneur. Ainsi ne disons nous pas que le pape en ses opinions particulieres ne puisse errer comme fit Jean XXII, ou etre du tout heretique comme peut etre fut Honorius. Or quand il est heretique expres *ipso facto* il tombe de son grade hors de l'Eglise et l'Eglise le doit ou priver comme disent quelques uns, ou le declarer prive de son siege apostolique et dire comme fit St. Pierre: Episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Quand il erre en sa particuliere opinion il le faut enseigner, adviser, convaincre comme on fit a Jean XXII le quel tant s'en faut qu'il mourut opiniatre ou que pendant sa vie il determina aucune chose touchant son opinion, que pendant qu'il faysoit l'inquisition requise pour determiner en matiere de foy, il mourut, au recit de son successeur en l'Extravagante qui se commence *Benedictus Deus.*"

St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (Tan Books), p. 388 (part II, art. VI, ch. 14)

"Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilest he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the *Extravagantes* which begins Benedictus Deus." (Ib. p. 305-306)
 

St. Thomas Aquinas on loss of jurisdiction by heretics:

Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 39, art. 3. (Utrum schismatici habeant aliquam potestatem)

"...Potestas autem iurisdictionis est quae ex simplici iniunctione hominis confertur; et talis potestas non immobiliter adhaeret; unde in schismaticis et haereticis non manet; unde non possunt nec absolvere, nec excommunicare, nec indulgentias facere, aut aliquid huiusmodi; quod si fecerint, nihil est actum."

 (Whether schismatics have any power.)

"...The power of jurisdiction, however [as opposed to the power of Orders, which he has just discussed], is that [power] which is conferred simply by the injunction of man; and this power does not adhere immovably; therefore it does not remain in schismatics and heretics. Hence they can neither absolve, nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgences, or anything of this sort. If they do this, the act is null."

Pope Innocent III (1198), Sermo 4:

"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, could cast him out or trample him under foot – since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.

"Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.

"In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men'."

Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 188.4:

Canon 188:  "Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine
ulla declaratione, si clerus ...     (4) a fide catholica publice defecerit."

Canon 188:  "There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration.  These causes are:
(4) if he has publicly fallen away from the Catholic faith.

Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Galatians 1 : 8-9

8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

--------------------------------------------------

The Vatican Council (1869-1870) - (which defined papal infallibility)

"For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

[Chapter Four of the Third Session]

"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].

[Chapter Four of the Fourth Session]

-----------------------------------------------

In a conference given after his return from the Vatican I council, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati related the following :

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago)

[bubbacluck]

Crikey! That’s a lot of rules!

[jobim]

Steve Skojec points out the flaws in a layperson determining
that Francis is not pope, and Benedict is:

http://www.onepeterfive.com/if-francis-is-an-antipope-we-cant-know-it-yet/

John Vennari is of the same mind with Skojec.
They are persuasive to me.

[Secret Agent Man]

What doesnt work better with two leaders?

Look at all the cruise ships with two captains.

Where would the usa be without our two presidents?

How could the RCC run without the popes?

[Lurkinanloomin]

That’s why I left.

Ann is right, this is a fake Pope.
Popes don’t resign, they die in office.
Somehow Benedict was “convinced” to resign so this fake Pope could be installed.

[SGNA]

Ratzinger's works placed by the Holy Office on the Index of Prohibited Books in the 1950's.

Coat and tie" Rahner and Ratzinger at Vatican-2

Karl Rahner's testimony exposes Ratzinger's heretical complicity at Vatican-2

Ratzinger attacks and denies the Bodily Resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of either soul or body for the just at the Last Judgment.

To put it plainly, Joseph Ratzinger was the George Soros of Vatican-2.

Contrary to Ann Barnhardt's opinion, he's not the pope either!

[LukeL]

God turned Israel over to evil and corrupt rulers when the Jews turned from God. It would be crazy to think God would not do the same for Christians. Most people have itchy ears and there are far too many willing to scratch them.

[GraceG]

Pope jesuit has already been imprached in my mind along with barack obama....

[ctdonath2]

Deranged times, when even the old rhetorical aphorism “is the Pope Catholic?” garners a “no” answer.

[SGNA]

I agree with Ann on the following excerpt from her essay:

---

By Whose Authority Do I Presume to Denounce Bergoglio?

I titled this piece “Vocem Alienorum” from John 10 – the Good Shepherd discourse:

Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers (vocem alienorum).

This proverb Jesus spoke to them. But they understood not what He spoke to them. Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not. I am the door. By Me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.

I am the Good Shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the Good Shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know Me. As the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father: and I lay down My life for my sheep.
John 10: 1-15

The notion that we laymen – the sheep – are NOT to listen and discern whose voice it is that we hear is abject lunacy. The notion the we laymen – the sheep – are to sit and wait for the hirelings – that is to say today’s faithless and effeminate clergy and prelates – to TELL US that the lying, hissing heresies and blasphemies we hear are, in fact, the words of a wolf before we react is clearly refuted by Our Blessed Lord. Further, the notion that we the sheep should willfully suspend disbelief and follow A WOLF if the hirelings tells us to, is, again, utterly irrational patent absurdity which is explicitly refuted by Our Lord and Savior in the Gospels.

We laymen, the sheep, are to listen and discern. If we hear the voice of satan and follow it, we will answer for it as we stand alone, as individuals, before Jesus Christ at our particular judgments. Blaming the hirelings will be no defense. It is abundantly clear by now that to follow the heretical, blasphemous Bergoglio is to turn away from the sweet voice of Our Savior, and instead to follow a wolf.

It is also very instructive at this point to revisit Galatians Chapter 1. St. Paul could have put this caution in no stronger terms. It speaks for itself:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
-Galatians 1: 8-9

Who am I to judge?

WHO DO I HAVE TO BE?

[faithhopecharity]

for all the attack points mentioned against Pope Benedict, he was apparently sincere and certainly he was a recognizable Catholic

today’s situation is far more problematical

[SGNA]

Link to Ann's original essay

[Ketill Frostbeard]

Ann is such a warrior woman. What a fearsome yet excellent Odinist she would make.

[clee1]

I have no problem with the Catholic laity. Most of the ones I know are devout, faithful Christians.

However, the Catholic Church, the “Institution” is hopelessly corrupt, and always has been - at least since the Dark Ages.

[SGNA]

John Vennari makes insane statements that Bergoglio is the valid pope, denounces anyone who brings up CATHOLIC teaching that states the opposite then insists he would not permit Bergoglio to teach the catechism to his children.

Vennari and the rest of the sorry lot refuse to abide by what the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches in this matter, viz. from the citations above:

Pope Paul IV:

7. (ii) the laity... shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs

What more do you possibly need?!!

Beroglio: "God does not exist!" video at link

He has praised a mass murdering abortionist at the Vatican! What more does it take!!?

ALL the post-1958 papal calimants are heretics and NONE of them have been the pope!

The Vatican-2 Church they head is NOT the Roman Catholic Church but a bait-and-switch apostasy from the true Church!

[jobim]

Regardless of what you, or I, or Ann think,
there is objective truth as defined by the
Church in her Magisterial authority.
Just as it is not up to us to determine
whether a particular individual is a saint or not.

[SGNA]

Ping.

[SGNA]

That’s a lot of rules!

Yep, but people still don't bother reading ANY of 'em or applying them to Bozo the apostate! Instead they insist that either this heretic or the other one still has to be the pope.

Same deal as not reading the U.S. Constitution but blindly bowing to Zero in D.C.

[SGNA]

God turned Israel over to evil and corrupt rulers when the Jews turned from God. It would be crazy to think God would not do the same for Christians. Most people have itchy ears and there are far too many willing to scratch them.

Saint Paul: 2 Timothy 4:3
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.

In this instance though there is definitely infiltration and the fish rotting from the head down.

[Sergio]

bkmk