Hard to argue with this, Richard. I'll keep praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit but everything I feel led to is to question the obvious and multiple red flags, not blindly obey when there's so much smoke arising from and floating around the Vatican.
No one is advocating blind obedience. There are no hard facts in this case. Yet. And if/when there are, it is God's job through the Bishops to correct it.
Hard to argue with that as well. I’ve long thought that the diabolical disorientation we were told was to come is here and has caused many to think up is down, left is right, and right is wrong. But it seems it’s even spreading to us who know and had held fast to Truth. It seems that now it’s hard to see clearly, the smoke has spread so thick. so it’s probably best to question but not make final judgements until the facts are clear. Probably wise to keep stepping forward in faith but tread gently and trust the Holy Spirit to guide our steps, or correct them as we misstep, one at a time.
I have great faith that God will keep me informed. My pastor says what you just said about how difficult it is getting. He says to keep close to Jesus in the Eucharist and He and Blessed Mother will pull us through. I add to his words, pray the rosary every day.
Andrea Cionci responds to the German Catholic daily Die Tagespost, concerning their criticism of his recent article on Pope Benedict's resignation. His response provides a good summary of the issue at hand: Dear Colleagues of Die Tagespost, ...here are the facts. The Declaratio di Retirement hides a series of juridical problems involving canons 124, 332 § 2, 188, 17 of the Code of Canon Law. From the inversion between munus and ministerium, to the postponement of the date and time of the renunciation, to general doubts: according to various canonists, the renunciation is a completely void act. The mere fact that such disputes can flourish makes the act doubtful and as such, once again, null and void. Not to mention the institution of the so-called “pope emeritus”, radically contested – unanimously – by internationally renowned scholars (Boni, Fantappié, Margiotta-Broglio, de Mattei …). Benedict XVI has been repeating for eight years that “the pope is one” without ever explaining which one. I have shown that Vatican News attributed the quotation marks “the pope is one and he is Francis” to Benedict XVI while the words were written by the journalist Massimo Franco of Corriere della Sera. Benedict XVI keeps the white robe and justified himself in Seewald’s book Last Conversations by saying that it was “a practical solution because he had no other clothes”. He maintains other pontifical prerogatives such as the P.P. after the pontifical name (Pater Patrum, or Pontifex Pontificum) and the possibility of imparting the apostolic blessing. He uses the majestic plural in his interview books. He lives in the Vatican and intervenes on serious doctrinal issues. I highlighted how in his statements over the last eight years there is a scientific and studied ambiguity: each sentence of his can be interpreted in two different and mirroring ways. Like when he says: “My fans are sorry for my choice, but I am calm and at peace with myself”. A sentence that can be interpreted in two different ways, also according to the hypothesis I will write about below. In the Declaratio di Retirement there are two serious errors of Latin and about 20 other imperfections that were immediately denounced in the press by illustrious Latinists such as Luciano Canfora and Wilfried Stroh. In 2016, Pope Ratzinger declared to Corriere della Sera what had already been written in Peter Seewald’s Last Conversations, namely that he himself wrote the Declaratio in Latin in two weeks because he is “very familiar with Latin and did not want to make mistakes by writing “. The document passed through the Secretariat of State under papal secret – writes Ratzinger – which also “perfected the style”. The latest discovery is the one also cited by your newspaper, again in “Last Conversations” by Peter Seewald: Question. “Was there an internal conflict over his decision (to resign)?”. Response of Pope Ratzinger: “It is not that simple, of course. No pope resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium this was an exception: therefore a similar decision must be pondered for a long time. For me, however, it became so evident that there was no painful inner conflict “. Now, six popes have abdicated in the first millennium, and four in the second millennium. How is it possible? Benedict XVI can therefore only refer with the word “resignation” only to those few popes who in the first millennium were forced to renounce not the Petrine munus, but only the ministerium, the practical exercise of power, for having been expelled by the antipopes. In this case, one of these could be Benedict VIII, expelled by the antipope Gregory VI and therefore temporarily forced to renounce the ministerium before being reinstated on the throne as a legitimate pope. In fact, Pope Ratzinger in the Declaratio renounces only the ministerium, and not the munus, as would be required by canon 332.2. So, he would be telling us that he is still the pope, even if he is without the practical exercise of power. No alternative explanations emerged. These are just a few facts, and you would be right to call them strange. How to explain them? There are only two hypotheses: 1) Pope Ratzinger does not know Latin well, remembers nothing of the history of the Church and is practically fasting in canon law, although he was certainly aware of the fact that in 1983 John Paul II had inserted the dichotomy between munus and ministerium in canon law. Out of pure personal vanity, Benedict insists on wearing the white robe and posing as pope, no longer being pope, remaining completely indifferent to the anguish and doubt that grip so many faithful about who the pope is. It must also be admitted that Pope Ratzinger is also a little spiteful and “enjoys” leaving a shadow of doubt about who the pope is, hindering his successor. 2) The strange and illogical behavior of Benedict XVI over the next eight years is purposely held by him to make us understand that the pope is one and it is he alone, since he himself voluntarily prepared his resignation as legally invalid. This is to allow the modernist Church to reveal itself, to make itself known, but then to be canceled by a whisker, as soon as the invalidity of his renunciation is discovered. It is known that in 2012 he was now deprived of authority (so much so that the president of the IOR Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was expelled without the pope’s knowledge), it is known from the biography of Card. Danneels that his enemies were the cardinals of the Mafia of St. Gallen of which card. Bergoglio was the champion. According to the theory of the so-called “Plan B”, Benedict XVI has handed over to history and canon law an invalid renunciation to separate “the wheat from the chaff” and lead to a purifying schism for the Church. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben says he is convinced that the real reason for his resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience. The resignation would be a foreshadowing of the separation between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, with his resignation from office, Ratzinger would have emphasized his spiritual authority, thus contributing to his strengthening. Now we just have to see who will come out of the office. We have no preconceived positions, we limit ourselves to rearranging the facts according to logic. It is up to you to judge and, if necessary, to usefully contest. However, we cannot continue to pretend that the issue does not exist. If it were verified that Benedict did not validly renounce, the 2013 conclave would be invalid, Francis would be an anti-pope and all his succession line would be anti-popes, just as another anti-pope, Victor IV, succeeded the anti-pope Anacletus II, until St. Bernard of Clairvaux to put things right. The question is uncomfortable, we realize, in fact everyone runs away as soon as it is mentioned, but what serious journalist can take the responsibility of keeping silent in the face of such inexplicable evidence? Catholics still less, and clergymen are bound by an explicit canon to seek the truth and declare it. We believe it is worth addressing the speech and clarifying it, also to protect the legitimacy of Francis and his successors. After all, what is there to fear if everything is in order? https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/art...tti-circa-le-dimissioni-di-benedetto-xvi.html
Rosary is the key and God is keeping us informed, it’s just hard to find the peace and quiet to hear His voice, but very important to do so as the chaos rises
I watched the film and found it interesting. It contains a lot of what we knew anyway. I'm not sure that Joseph Ratzinger is the kind of person to have an endgame which involves appointing arch liberal cardinals with the expectation that they would choose one of their own as Pope who in time would bring to the light the dark secrets and arts of the St Gallen crowd and their pals. If this is a plan, it's a very dangerous one. Daft even. And Ratzinger isn't that. He's honest and open, and the academic in him enjoys debate. When asked why he was appointing liberals he replied that it was healthy for him to be reminded that there are other views than his own. After WYD in Rio he is reported as having said that watching all the young people on the beach, he was convinced he was right to have resigned and have Bergoglio take over. OK, he can be wrong. I'm not sure that at the time of Rio he was in such a position to know. I'd be interested to learn what he now thinks after Pachamama and the curtailing of the Latin Mass, and much else. Muddying the waters by using vague Latin in his resignation speech doesn't sound like Pope Benedict either. There would be an element of dishonesty about it that I don't think sits well with the man. I mean, I've never met him, but I'm a very longterm fan. If he really did omit 'munus' with the intention of having a liberal successor invalidly elected, it's a very dangerous game. I suppose he could have had a vision? Taylor Marshall said something I will never forget when we were all musing in the aftermath of the 2020 US election. Many of us were hearing rumours of a military coup, arrests, etc etc, and with not a lot to go on, we were speculating as to how an (in my view patently invalid) election could stand. He said 'Beware of things that tickle your ears'. I would love to believe that the current nightmare in the Vatican is being carefully monitored before the rug is pulled, but it tickles my ears. This is God's problem. Only God can sort it out.
The case presented in this video - that Pope John Paul II, with the assistance of Cardinal Ratzinger, amended canon law so that any pope must specifically renounce and resign the “munus” of the papacy - was then violated by Pope Benedict when he failed to obey this canon law he helped write in the words of his resignation… This is far from “no hard facts in this case.” This was completely new to me and places an entirely new light on this whole debate. To continue to claim this, in the face of the written documentation to the contrary, is frankly imprudent. Regardless of the relative merits of the messenger.
I don’t think you realize that this continues to be a fringe issue at this time. And it is important to consider the messenger. too much intrigue
No, it’s clearly not a “fringe issue” rather it’s the most important issue upon us. All must now choose Methinks it’s wise that we all drop our predetermined views and deal with the reality at hand. Or we can continue our prideful ways of thinking we know best. I know I don’t know best but can see that something is afoot. Each must choose...
Praying for truth to be revealed is the most powerful thing any of us can do. If Pope Benedict XVI wished to secretly not resign while appearing to resign then he had his reasons for doing so. Let it play out then. Perhaps it's just not for us to know at this time. Acting like we do know, and being disrespectful to the Holy Father ( like calling him Bergoglio, as I've seen so many do) is scandalous and harmful to non-Catholics, new converts, and those with uncertain faith. I think it is very natural to feel confused and concerned about what is going on, though. This is a very hard time. But then again, just a couple months ago I was reading my son his history lesson on the Great Western Schism, during which there were multiple popes all claiming to be the true pope... Imagine how the poor lay Catholics of that time felt! It lasted for decades, with successors in both France and Rome. At least in our situation, there is only one claiming to be pope! I think we should just keep things as simple as possible, be faithful Catholics, and wait it out, while showing respect to our Church hierarchy because it is the right thing to do, whether we think they deserve it or not. Let God sort out the details! He has not abandoned us.
Good gravy, the fruits of Vatican II on display. No ma’am, the most powerful thing we can do is what our Lord came to teach us 2000 years ago. To be His hands and feet and DO to actively Love God above all else and to Love our neighbors in prayer and in deed. To Do, not to be passive. To stand up and DO. Good gravy
Prayer is more powerful than "doing." God is more powerful than you. I'm not sure what's "fruit of Vatican II" about that. If God wants me to do something, He'll lead me to do it, but I'm not going to hear His voice without prayer. "I lift my eyes unto the hills. Where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of Heaven and Earth."
Pope Francis is the Pope. Here's Dogmatic Proof of it. Two Words: Universal Acceptance. https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/
So are we obliged on pain of heresy and automatic excommunication to accept in their entirety all the pronouncements of Pope Francis, including Amoris Laetitia? I can swallow that the election was canonical after reading 1 Peter 5 but as for this papacy; in the words of a friend “I’m sitting this one out”.
