"Two Popes": Has the Papacy become a Diarchy?

''Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”


So which one is infallible?

 

Which one actually published this?

 

If this doesn't fulfill the prophecies of Ann Catherine Emmerich nothing will ever do so.

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/ganswein-papacy-was-transformed-in-2013.html?m=1
RORATE CÆLI: One is Simon, the other is Peter? - Gänswein: Papacy was changed in 2013 into an "expanded" Petrine Office with two members. - Does this confirm the Socci-Messori thesis of a papal diarchy?
From the viewpoint of "current events" perhaps the topic that will attract more attention is his reference to the election of Benedict XVI in 2005 as the outcome of the battle between two factions of Cardinals: the infamous "St. Gallen" group of liberal Cardinals who wanted to prevent Ratzinger from ascending to the papacy and the "Salt of the Earth" group of conservative Cardinals who supported him. Surely our regular readers will remember the furor last year when the machinations of the St. Gallen "mafia" was first revealed in a biography of Cardinal Danneels -- see our posts about it (St. Gallen Mafia) as well as the Pentin's detailed interview about the 2005 conclave with Paul Badde.
From a theological and dogmatic point of view however, more attention is warranted by Gänswein's comments on the transformation of the very office of the Papacy after February 11, 2013, his claim that the resignation of Benedict XVI was of a different character compared to previous papal resignations, and his assertion that that there are "not two popes", but one yet expanded Petrine Ministry with Francis and Benedict both as members -- one active, the other contemplative.

The idea that the papacy itself has now been transformed in its very depths, and that to effect this transformation Benedict XVI's will and actions in February 2013 were enough, raises extremely sensitive, nay, disturbing questions about the very theology of the Church. Questions and.... implications we dare not discuss here for the moment. As for how two men cannot be both Popes and yet be both members of one Petrine ministry....

It is all too easy to dismiss Gänswein's comments as merely his personal opinion, if not for the fact that in addition to being a doctor of Canon Law and a former official of the CDF he is, above all, the secretary and daily companion of Benedict XVI himself. Surely we can take his interpretation of Benedict's resignation as a faithful reflection of the latter's own thinking.
The thesis that since March 13, 2013 the papacy has become some kind of "diarchy" was first expressed in the writings of Antonio Socci early in 2014, then taken up by Vittorio Messori a few months later on the basis of an article written by the canonist Stefano Violi. Providentially, Rorate had published translations of both Socci's and Messori's articles in just one post:


We beseech all of our readers to read the above post, which now assumes tremendous importance.

Coming back to Pentin's article, here are the relevant passages regarding the conclave of 2005 and the "transformation" of the papacy:


In a speech reflecting on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has confirmed the existence of a group who fought against Benedict’s election in 2005, but stressed that "Vatileaks" or other issues had "little or nothing" to do with his resignation in 2013.
Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.”
***

Gänswein drew attention to “brilliant and illuminating” and “well documented and thorough” passages of the book, written by Roberto Regoli and entitled Oltre la crisi della Chiesa. Il pontificato di Benedetto XVI — “Beyond the Crisis of the Church, The Pontificate of Benedict XVI.”
The German prelate especially highlighted Regoli’s account of “a dramatic struggle” that took place in the 2005 Conclave between the “so-called ‘Salt of the Earth Party’” (named after the book interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) comprising “Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medina" and their adversaries: "the so-called St. Gallen group” that included “Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor” — a group Cardinal Danneels referred jokingly to as “a kind of mafia-club,” Archbishop Gänswein recalled. (...)
“The election was certainly the outcome of a battle,” Gänswein went on, adding that the “key” to the Conclave was Cardinal Ratzinger’s “dictatorship of relativism” homily that he gave on the first day of the election when he was Dean of the College of Cardinals.
***

Various reports have suggested that pressure was exerted on Benedict to step down. One of the latest came last year from a former confidant and confessor to the late Cardinal Carlo Martini who said Martini had told Benedict: "Try and reform the Curia, and if not, you leave.”

But in his speech, Gänswein insisted "it was fitting" for Benedict to resign because he "was aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”

Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: "cooperatores veritatis", which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”

Archbishop Gänswein point out that the motto is not in the singular but in the plural, and taken from the Third Letter of John, in which it is written in verse 8: "We must welcome these people to become co-workers for the truth".

He therefore stressed that since Francis’ election, there are not “two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.”

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”

Archbishop Gänswein repeated that Benedict’s resignation was “quite different” to that of Pope Celestine V.

“So it is not surprising,” he said, “that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel, while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane 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.”

 

Much ado about nothing. The rule is that the Pope must be the Bishop of Rome, so what difference does it make if he is Pope Emeritus or Emeritus Bishop of Rome? Being Emeritus Bishop of Rome would automatically make him the Pope Emeritus. Benedict was close enough to Pope John Paul to see what happens when the Pope is too ill to exert his authority so he retired or renounced or whatever they like to call it because he knew that the Church needed a Pope with the physical and mental strength to steer the ship. The authority lies with the serving bishop, and in the case of Rome the serving Bishop is Pope Francis. I would expect every bishop emeritus to pray for his successor and give advice when asked. Pope Francis is blessed that he has such a good, holy and learned man praying for him and on hand to give him advice.

I hope he takes advantage of having the Pope Emeritus nearby and doesn't turn to the members of that St. Gallen group, although I'm not confident that it's the Pope Emeritus he turns to. Reading about some of that St. Gallen group sends shivers down my spine. The late Cardinal Martini is said to have complained that the Church was 200 years behind the times. Wasn't Cardinal Daneels the leader of the St. Gallen group and then Cardinal Bergoglio their preferred candidate? We all need to pray that the Church in Belgium, as presided over by Cardinal Daneels, wasn't/isn't their model for a modernised Universal Church. This piece from the Brussels Journal is enough to turn the stomach and scare the daylights out of any Catholic, even the most lukewarm: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4471 .

I don't believe that Benedict and Francis are the two popes foreseen by Anne Catherine Emmerich. She seems to be prophesying a legitimately elected Pope of the one true Church and a false pope of a separate, fake Church. We can make sure it doesn't happen in our lifetime by heeding the Fatima message of observing the First Saturday devotions, doing penance and praying for Pope Francis and all our Bishops and Priests.

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/ganswein-papacy-was-transformed-in-2013.html#more
One is Simon, the other is Peter? - Gänswein: Papacy was changed in 2013 into an "expanded" Petrine Office with two members. - Does this confirm the Socci-Messori thesis of a papal diarchy?

Double-Headed Church?

Edward Pentin's latest column on National Catholic Register (Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry) reports on a speech delivered by Archbishop Gänswein at the Pontifical Gregorian University, May 20. The speech, as reported by Pentin, has two topics of capital significance.


St. Gallen Mafia) as well as the Pentin's detailed interview about the 2005 conclave with Paul Badde.


From a theological and dogmatic point of view however, more attention is warranted by Gänswein's comments on the transformation of the very office of the Papacy after February 11, 2013, his claim that the resignation of Benedict XVI was of a different character compared to previous papal resignations, and his assertion that there are "not two popes", but one yet expanded Petrine Ministry with Francis and Benedict both as members -- one active, the other contemplative.

The idea that the papacy itself has now been transformed in its very depths, and that to effect this transformation Benedict XVI's will and actions in February 2013 were enough, raises extremely sensitive, nay, disturbing questions about the very theology of the Church. Questions and.... implications we dare not discuss here for the moment. As for how two men cannot be both Popes and yet be both members of one Petrine ministry....

It is all too easy to dismiss Gänswein's comments as merely his personal opinion, if not for the fact that in addition to being a doctor of Canon Law and a former official of the CDF he is, above all, the secretary and daily companion of Benedict XVI himself. Surely we can take his interpretation of Benedict's resignation as a faithful reflection of the latter's own thinking.
The thesis that since March 13, 2013 the papacy has become some kind of "diarchy" was first expressed in the writings of Antonio Socci early in 2014, then taken up by Vittorio Messori a few months later on the basis of an article written by the canonist Stefano Violi. Providentially, Rorate had published translations of both Socci's and Messori's articles in just one post:


We beseech all of our readers to read the above post, which now assumes tremendous importance.

Coming back to Pentin's article, here are the relevant passages regarding the conclave of 2005 and the "transformation" of the papacy:


In a speech reflecting on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has confirmed the existence of a group who fought against Benedict’s election in 2005, but stressed that "Vatileaks" or other issues had "little or nothing" to do with his resignation in 2013.
Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.”
***

Gänswein drew attention to “brilliant and illuminating” and “well documented and thorough” passages of the book, written by Roberto Regoli and entitled Oltre la crisi della Chiesa. Il pontificato di Benedetto XVI — “Beyond the Crisis of the Church, The Pontificate of Benedict XVI.”
The German prelate especially highlighted Regoli’s account of “a dramatic struggle” that took place in the 2005 Conclave between the “so-called ‘Salt of the Earth Party’” (named after the book interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) comprising “Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medina" and their adversaries: "the so-called St. Gallen group” that included “Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor” — a group Cardinal Danneels referred jokingly to as “a kind of mafia-club,” Archbishop Gänswein recalled. (...)
“The election was certainly the outcome of a battle,” Gänswein went on, adding that the “key” to the Conclave was Cardinal Ratzinger’s “dictatorship of relativism” homily that he gave on the first day of the election when he was Dean of the College of Cardinals.
***

Various reports have suggested that pressure was exerted on Benedict to step down. One of the latest came last year from a former confidant and confessor to the late Cardinal Carlo Martini who said Martini had told Benedict: "Try and reform the Curia, and if not, you leave.”

But in his speech, Gänswein insisted "it was fitting" for Benedict to resign because he "was aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”

Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: "cooperatores veritatis", which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”

Archbishop Gänswein point out that the motto is not in the singular but in the plural, and taken from the Third Letter of John, in which it is written in verse 8: "We must welcome these people to become co-workers for the truth"

He therefore stressed that since Francis’ election, there are not “two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.”

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”

Archbishop Gänswein repeated that Benedict’s resignation was “quite different” to that of Pope Celestine V.

“So it is not surprising,” he said, “that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel, while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane 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.”

 

Things are getting very interesting . This was conspiracy theory stuff year ago that could get one thrown off the forum. Promoted by Fr Kramer or Antonio Socci.

Now it is confirmed by Pope Benedicts private secretary.

We have just entered the 100th year of Fatima , and things are starting to rumble.

 

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2016/0...akes-over-task-of-saving-church-from-francis/
Jesus Assumes New Role As Savior Emeritus After Catholic Blogger Takes Over Task Of Saving Church From Francis


Catholic blogger Nicholas Robison, best known for his blog, More Catholic Than Jesus, announced today that he has officially assumed the role of Savior of the world, ending Jesus Christ’s illustrious and often controversial reign.

The stunning news comes after years of speculation from Catholic websites that Jesus Christ was no longer able to handle the rigors of the office.

“We just feel like it’s gotten pretty obvious since the Council that He’s no longer up to the task,” roommate and spokesman for Robison, Clyde Barnes, told the press. “A whole series of bad appointments, providential allowances of culture decline, and disastrous permissions of evil have convinced us that we need a fresh approach at the very top level. He’s, frankly, been a big disappointment since Vatican II and, though we respect Jesus’ many contributions to Church history, we just think it’s time for him to be put out to pasture and let a more steady hand take the wheel.”

Barnes went on to say that Robison’s first order of business as savior would be to guide Pope Francis into early retirement where he would “be free to speak off-the-cuff to himself all he wanted without any repercussions,” and that this decision would “inevitably usher in a new age of orthodoxy once he had been replaced by Cardinal Burke.”

At press time, Robison has announced that Jesus will henceforth go by the title Jesus Emeritus Christ, and that he will remain in Paradise to live out an eternal life of contemplation.

 

Unbelievable. Yesterday, I wondered if Padraig might add a dislike button so we can dislike posts also. In the case it would not be directed towards you Brian but just to dislike the article.

 

It's satire. Some folks appreciate gallows humor, some find it distasteful. I usually enjoy EOTT. Fortunately lots of folks DO see the humor in this.

 

Yeah, not my thing.

 

I am not certain where the best place is to post this but I want to post this somewhere. What do you think is meant by the line I highlighted in red?
Shortly before he died in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the members of his order and warned them of great tribulations that would befall the Church in the future, saying:
Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.

The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.

Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.

There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.

Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.

Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.

Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.

(Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250; underlining and paragraph breaks added.)

 

Personally I think this is more for the time of the overt anti-christ's takeover and will be accomplished in his "false prophet" who could very well be an apostate member of the hierarchy of the Church. The AC would be looking for someone who has been a recognized member of the institutional "Catholic" church to give his NWO "universalist" institution a kind of respect and linkage to what millions in the world have trusted in the past. The AC could declare that this false prophet is "canonically" or ritualistically raised to the position of respect and authority for his new "church". And if such a person says all the right things, respecting "tradition" and the outward rituals and externals, people in such confused times would then feel more secure in trusting this NWO institution of "love and inclusiveness".

Mark Mallett has addressed this writing here:

http://www.markmallett.com/blog/the-prophecy-of-st-francis/

Could this be Pope Francis in the saint’s prophecy? Simply, no. The reason is that he was canonically elected. He is not an anti-pope. This was acknowledged by no less than the

​

former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith who is one of the greatest theologians in modern times, his predecessor, Benedict XVI. And not a single Cardinal, particularly those more renowned faithful and holy sons of the Church, has stepped forward to say that something incongruous took place in the Conclave or in Benedict’s resignation.

There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd… [My] last and final job [is] to support [Pope Francis’] pontificate with prayer. —POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI, Vatican City, Feb. 26th, 2014; Zenit.org

..........
While the Church is not unfamiliar with more than one pope vying for power in her sometimes troubled past, today’s situation truly is unique: a pope who has peacefully resigned his pontificate to another, who in turn, has not missed a beat in upholding the unbroken tradition of the Church while at the same time attracting souls to the love and mercy of Christ.

 

Ganswein insisted though that there are NOT two popes.

Spring 2016 - 100th Anniversary of the Fatima Angel Appearances

http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr114/100th Anniversary of Fatima Angel.pdf

 

Report: New Miracle of the Sun in Fatima
Occurs on Father Gruner's Birthday

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/2016/newsviews0518.asp

 

EarthtoAngels, Well done! At first, I was going down the road "of might this be Pope Francis" and then I stopped myself, actually edited the post. You provided all of the documentation that I could not possibly find by myself. Thank you. We need to stay aware but the SHNHTF yet, well at least not all of it.
Edited: I do see what others are saying about PF, I don't want you to think I have been living under a rock...but no proof exists.

 

Disappointing there appears to be no mobile phone video footage of the miracle of the sun although most people in the report who were witnesses were of the older age category!

 

That reminds me of the interesting fact that every time in Church history that there was an actual Antipope there was ALWAYS the counter claim of the true Pope. God doesn't leave us guessing.

 

pope-used-argentinian-ghostwriter-for-controversial-document-on-the-family-claims-vatican-expert
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...document-on-the-family-claims-vatican-expert/

 

Dolours, that link to Brussels journal in your post has to be the most disturbing article I have ever read in my life. Is it real.

Interesting if true how the concerned parents were told they had to obey their Bishops.

How could the catechism be used to publish child pornography. I can't understand this.

I wonder if they had time or interest in teaching the 10 Commandments.