Hello! I'm Anne Barnhart. Again, sorry. Hopefully for the last time this time, especially on this topic.
You can tell by my title where my thought process is with regards to all of this.
This is the Part 3, Bergolian Anti-Papacy video, which I have simply titled,
Enough. Enough.
I've got a lot of ground to cover. I have designed this, once again, so that this presentation will be standalone because a lot of new eyes are going to be here.
There's a part one video, there's a part two video. It's hours. The two of them together are, I don't know, four hours.
or four and a half hours, something like that.
But I want this to stand alone
so that the new eyes don't feel like they have to go back
and watch four hours of video
to get the correct base premise.
But those of you who are familiar with the arguments,
there's new content all the way through.
So stick with it.
And we've got a lot of ground to cover,
so let's get right into it.
Why this video is unfortunately necessary. Well, first and foremost, Pope Benedict is dead. He's been dead for 280 days as of this recording.
And so, obviously, that's new information, new dynamics, and it absolutely needs to be addressed. So, I'm more than happy to do that.
It has been over four years since the part two video was produced.
Now, in my mind, it feels like it was only a couple of years ago, but that's
because all of us had two years of our lives basically stolen from us.
And so it seems like it's, it's a shorter time than it actually was,
but it's been four years.
We have.
four years of more data, more information, more crystallization and synthesis of all of this.
And so, yeah, it merits making another presentation. Reason number three for making this video,
edification of the remnant faithful in the face of a bizarre uptick in Francis' Pope. And I am
going to spell Francis F-W-A-N-C-I-S-S.
because it really angers me that St. Francis of Assisi, St. Francis de Sales,
female Francis of Rome, St. Francis of Rome, that these people are having their
name be smirched and soiled by this
this filthy apostate anti-Pope. So, edification of the remnant faithful in the face of the bizarre
uptick in Fuentes' Pope air, gaslighting, threats, and agitprop. A response has to be made.
We're not just going to lay down and take this whipping.
here comes the rebuttal and number four for the historical record and personally speaking for my
well speaking for myself to assuage my conscience i couldn't live with myself if i didn't feel like
i did everything that i could have done in this situation um thanks as always to mr videographer
And thanks, once again, to my friend Phil for letting me use his place to produce this video.
Alright, let's get right into it. Pope Benedict is dead. He's been dead for 280 days and counting.
The sea has been vacant for 280 days because there is no living pope.
What else would the sea be?
Do we honestly think that when Pope Benedict died, that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ just said,
Okay, I'm going to hand the keys to an...
obvious, non-Catholic
evil man
has no canonical relationship whatsoever to the papacy,
sure, I'm just going to hand him the keys,
and he's going to be my vicar on earth.
This is imbecility, and it's objectively obvious because the Petrine protection, the Petrine promise is obviously not in place with this filthy, wretch, Bergoglio.
It's clear, it's obvious, there's no debate about this.
is empty because there's no living Pope either there's a Pope or there isn't
there is not right now why be afraid of the truth the mendacity of implying that
this interregnum is exactly the same position as the sea being vacant for 65
years
since the death of Pius XII, for example, for two generations, is off the charts.
It's off the charts mendacity.
The political football of 1958 Sadvocantism is one of Satan's more brilliant chess moves, and we must not fall for this gambit.
Do not be afraid of the truth.
This Interregnum is only 280 days long.
This is, historically speaking, we're still very much within the range of..
of things that have happened, and this could all be taken care of and ended today if someone would just step up and do it.
So, don't be afraid of this accusation of being called a Sedevacantist,
with the implication being that you're in exactly the same camp as the 1958 Sedevacantist.
If you want to refer to this as an interregnum, yeah, fine. That's absolutely valid, too. It's an interregnum.
Okay, let's talk about false base premises.
Operating from a false base premise leads to chaos and hell.
Logical truth tables only yield reliably true corollaries.
The base premise is 100% true. Not partially true, a little bit true, even mostly true. It has to be 100% true.
Any argumentation that begins with the false base premise that Jorge Bergoglio is or ever was the Pope will yield false truths which can and will
Deceive even the elect. We are seeing it happen in real time. This is current events that the elect are being deceived from operating from a false base premise.
I'm gonna use FBP a lot in these slides. So, just reiterating, when you see FBP, false base premise.
This is referred to in logic as the principle of explosion, or ex falso pod libet.
From falsehood, anything follows.
follows you can get any corollary out of a out of a logical truth table anything if you're false
if your base premise is false since when are partial truths acceptable protestantism
is a partial truth.
Protestants, most of them, believe in a triumvirate.
Godhead. They believe in the incarnation of our Lord, that he suffered, died, was
buried, and rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven.
Bye.
It's only a partial truth.
And so, when you are not dealing with the fullness of truth, you can go off into all of the various and sundry heresies, errors, and lies that, for example, Protestantism yields.
So, it...
is it now that partial truth is good enough or what about arianism or any other christian heresy
they're all heresies are
are a twisting of the fullness of truth so that you're backing off of the 100% level.
Even if you're only backing off to 99%, Satan takes that and shoots it off into chaos and hell.
Is the one true faith and our Lord himself, the Divine Logos, being truth himself, a matter of just horseshoes and hands?
grenades. It doesn't matter. Just get close and close enough.
No!
is demanding the fullness of truth.
As a base premise, mirror...
Rigidity, I don't think so. I think it is the only acceptable position. It's the only acceptable standard
obviously
Brief review to establish the base premise in the fullness of truth for those who are new.
Pope Benedict never validly resigned. Period.
Canon 188. A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice,
substantial error, that's our big one, or simony, is invalid by the law itself.
Who are you to judge? It's not me judging it! It's invalid by the law itself!
You don't need any sort of a.. you don't need to call a counselor or do anything of the sort!
You look at the Canon Law, you say,
''Oh, okay! Here it is right here!''
The resignation was invalid by the law itself, not by the word of Ann, not by the word of any of the cardinals or anyone.
It's invalid by the law itself.
Issues such as shenanigans at the March of 2013 faux conclave, Bergoglio's heresies, his myriad heresies,
while interesting and should be recorded for the historical record, are not germane.
They're not legally germane. They're not canonically germane.
There was no conclave in 2013.
There has not been a conclave in the Catholic Church since April of 2005.
There was no conclave in 2013.
Stop referring to it as a conclave.
Stop acting like it meant anything.
It didn't. It meant nothing.
There was no conclave in 2013 to apply JP2's document, University Domenici-Greggi's, to stop...
University Domenici-Greggi's is fine as a document, but it has nothing to do with this.
These are red herrings.
Remember, the Venn diagram of Berbolio...
Zero and the papacy have zero overlap. Zero.
Any base premise that is not in the fullness of truth is false.
It has to be in the fullness of truth, or else it is in itself, in its essence, false,
and therefore leads to the principle of explosion.
False-true corollaries.
Here's your Venn Diagram.
The Papacy, Bergoglio. See that big white space between the two circles?
It's because Bergoglio and the Papacy have no overlap, nothing to do with each other.
Bergoglio has never been the Pope, will never be the Pope.
So, we've got to be clear on this, because if you're not clear on this..
You're gonna get into a situation where people are saying, until our Lord returns in glory..
Well, Pope Francis said..
And that has to be completely put down. There is no Pope Francis.
Pope Francis is a fiction, and we have to stop acting like Pope Francis is a reality.
It's not. It's a lie. It's an illusion. It's a deception.
Let's go into, real quick, what I think just nails this whole case down.
We only need to look, really, at two things.
We need to look at Pope Benedict's resignation speech that he gave on February 10th of 2013 at a consistory.
And we need to look at his so-called final audience on the 27th of February 2013 in St. Peter's Square in front of 200,000 people and all over television.
And it's all very, very publicly documented and available.
I was personally there, although at the time...
I didn't speak not even a word of Italian, so I didn't catch what was said. But in the intervening time, studying this, and then, of course, translations come out, and you're able to see exactly what he said.
quote is actually, we're going to start with the February 27th last audience.
So, everybody on planet Earth, everyone agrees, and it cannot be contested that on February 27th, 2013,
everybody agrees that Pope Benedict was the one and only Vicar of Christ on Earth.
So, there can be no debate about this. Here's what he said.
The always is also a forever, referring to the papacy.
There can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign, the active exercise of the ministry.
We could stop right there. Right there.
Well, we'll keep going.
My decision to resign, the active exercise of the ministry, does not revoke this.
Why that clause, the active exercise of the ministry?
Why not just say, my decision to resign?
Why did he make that precision?
Why did he add that clause in?
The active exercise of the ministry.
It's right there.
We'll continue.
I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on.
I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining...
remaining in a new way at the side of the Crucified Lord.
power of office for the governance of the church.
The power of office for the governance of the church.
Again, why does that clause even need to be there?
Because he's making the precision that he's only exercising the active, he's only resigning the exercise of the active governance of the church.
It's clear as day. I don't understand why we even are still debating this.
But in the service of prayer, I remain."
Again, there's that word, remain.
So to speak, in the enclosure of St. Peter.
Where does he remain? In the enclosure of St. Peter.
What is the enclosure of St. Peter? The papacy.
St. Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope.
Oh, look at that!
Benedict whose name I bear is Pope. What did he continue to go by? Did he revert
to Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Ratzinger, anything like that? No, he
remained and continued to use
the name Benedict. It's right there, present tense.
Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this.
He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive,
again, he's clearly stating what his intention is.
He's only resigning the active ministry for the governance of the church, okay?
It's completely given over to the work of God.
Last audience, February 27th, 2013, St. Peter's Square.
It's clear as day.
There are people who are trying to argue that everything I just pointed out
means exactly the opposite of the clear sense of the words.
It's gaslighting. At least one of these people is a former, maybe retired, maybe not fully retired, CIA agent.
Now, a few years ago, I would have never mentioned that.
I would have rolled my eyes and said, okay, come on, tinfoil howl.
Knowing what we know now, what we've learned in the last four years, really in the last two years,
about U.S. intelligence agencies.
FBI especially domestically and their attempts to infiltrate and basically go into an undercover
state of war with the Catholic Church, specifically the traditional Latin mass communities.
Knowing what we know now
Um, yeah, I am going to mention that one of the key people who's trying to rebut this and failing miserably, embarrassingly so, is literally an ex-CI agent.
Here is a non solemn propter. This is what he said on February 10th in a
consistory delivered in Latin. Only a couple Cardinals in the room had any
idea what he said because why would Cardinals of the Catholic Church have
any familiarity with Latin? Most of them don't anymore. This was the only
This is the only legal thing he did to allegedly resign.
He never wrote a document that said, I resign or anything and signed it. Nothing.
All he did was read this statement in the consistory. Read it on February 10th, 2013.
Now listen, I've convoked you to this consistory. He's talking to the Cardinals. That's what a consistory is.
not only for the three canonizations which he had just announced, but also to
communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the church.
After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I've come to the certainty that
my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of
the petrine ministry.
I am well aware that this office, okay now he switches back to office, this
office, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with
words and deeds but no less with prayer and suffering.
Look what he just did there. He just teased out the distinction between the prayer...
contemplative, prayerful contemplative suffering aspect of the papacy and the
active exercise of the governance of the church. He just pointed out that he is
that he is drawing a clear line and making a distinction and he switches
back and forth from and he switches from ministry to office okay the office must
be carried out
Not only with words and deeds, active governance, but no less with prayer and suffering, prayer and contemplation and suffering.
So he's taken the word office and he's tried to make the precision that he believes that it's two, the office is composed of two different things.
We'll keep going.
However, in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by the
questions of deep relevance for the life of the of the life of faith in order to
GoVERN
GOVERN
the bark of St. Peter, and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary.
Strength, which in the last few months has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the
Ministry. What ministry? The ministry of governments, active governance. That's what he's referring to.
Ministry entrusted to me for this reason and well aware of the seriousness of this act.
With full freedom I declare that I renounce what?
the ministry of Bishop of Rome. Not the office, the ministry. Which ministry? Well,
he just said it. The active governance of the church. He's been making this
bifurcation and this precision all throughout the statement. A successor of
St. Peter entrusted to me by the Cardinals
on 19 April 2005 in such a way that as from 28 February 2013 at 20 hundred
hours the Sea of Rome, the Sea of St. Peter will be vacant and a conclave to
elect the new supreme pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose
competence it is. Okay, what is what is he saying the College of Cardinals is
going to have to go do? They're going to go have they're going to have to go
elect his successor to do what?
to do what? The active governance of the church, the ministry of the active
governance of the church. He has made it very clear that he believes that prayer,
contemplation, suffering is one ministry and that there is another one, active
governance. He's gonna remain prayer, suffering, contemplation, but he wants
them to elect another guy to do the active governance part.
this is this is nonsense this is nonsense and people were calling this
out as nonsense very quickly after this happened it just didn't get much press
there were Italian canonists who called this all out and the College of
Cardinals and the apostolic signatura and all kinds of people completely dropped
the ball on this completely
It is clear that his call to elect a successor referred to the active governance of the church,
while he would remain, until his death, the, or even a, praying and suffering pope.
Why do I put a praying?
and suffering." Pope in scare quotes like that. Well...
What if, in his mind,
his successor, then resigned too.
Well, then, you could potentially have two praying and suffering retired, semi-retired
popes, and then, then they would elect another guy to do the act of government.
You see...
Obviously, what he's trying to do here, it's crystal clear.
clear. It's undeniable. And observable reality shows that this was in fact his intention.
obvious, irrefutable reality right in front of us. Don't need to read anybody's
mind. Nothing. It's right there in front of us. Look at the picture. Look at him
sitting there in the papal white, in the Vatican. Here's, here's Cardinals coming
in who have just been, who have just been elevated after a consistory and have
been given their red hats.
And what are they doing? They're coming, they're genuflecting to him,
receiving him, calling him Holy Father, Benedict, Pope Benedict.
So again
going through the list. Continue to wear the papal white, retain the papal name,
Benedict, and style, His Holiness, Your Holiness, living in the Vatican,
confirming the brethren, having audiences, writing books, etc, etc.
giving this is the big one again i think you've got him you you've got it you've got him dead to
rights here giving my
apostolic blessing. In writing, two examples. First one in German. Notice the
last sentence.
minem, my apostolic blessing, first-person, possessive, my apostolic blessing, not the
apostolic blessing. And for those of you who don't know, the apostolic blessing is the
papal, the pope's blessing. It can be delegated. That's not what he's doing here.
my, my apostolic blessing. Why? Because he believes, he clearly believes himself to be a pope, still the pope, still a pope.
And if he intended to retain even a nanoparticle,
of the Petrine office, if he intended to retain the smallest, tiniest, tiniest bit of it,
then the resignation is invalid, because you can't do that.
If you're going to resign, you have to resign the whole thing.
The second one is in Italian.
This is a letter that he sent to Cardinal Serra.
What does he say?
Seguendo la sua domanda imparto la mia bened...
La mia! La mia benedizione apostolica.
La mia, mia, first person possessive, my apostolic blessing.
Got them right there.
We can stop. Why do we have to keep debating this?
What about Pope Emeritus, or as the CIA agent pronounces it, Emeradus, Emeradus, Emeradus.
Did you not go to university, Professor Emeritus?
This non-canonical title, fabricated by Pope Benedict.
proves his substantially erroneous intention to remain a pope. Why do I say that?
Let's talk about a secular university professor emeritus. Does a professor
emeritus
cease to be a PhD when he when he retires and becomes an emeritus? Is he stripped of his
doctorate? Is he banned from teaching or even having an office on campus? No, a professor
emeritus is still 100% a PhD and can even teach and work, albeit usually at reduced hours.
Let's talk about bishop emeritus. This is a thing. Does a bishop emeritus cease to be a bishop?
No, of course not.
Is he stripped of his episcopacy?
No, of course not.
Is, for example, Bishop Grisita, down in Texas, who's 99, almost 100 years old now, a World War II hero and retired bishop down in around Corpus Christi or Galveston or something like that, is Bishop Grisita still a bishop?
Of course he is. Not only that, but Bishop Criseida and all bishops will stand before Christ at their particular judgment as a bishop.
Ergo, a pope emeritus would likewise still be a pope, by definition, by logical definition,
the title is an ontological impossibility. There can only be one living Pope at a time.
Christ Almighty established the office of the papacy, one man.
who has successors upon his death or valid resignation down through time.
You can't, the whole Pope Emeritus thing makes no ontological sense and proves what Pope Benedict's mindset was.
Yeah, I'm still going to be a pope, just like a professor emeritus is still a professor and a bishop emeritus is still a bishop.
I'm still going to be a pope.
to be Pope Emeritus there were people calling that out quickly because we
didn't he didn't start using that until into March I think but before before the
fake conclave happened so like the first couple of weeks of March there were
canonists calling this out and saying no no this this is this is impossible it
is and always will be we do not need
to read Benedict's mind, and there is no Gnostic secret code involved in any of
this. You don't need to read someone's mind when you have their public words
and deeds on the record. Objective evidence is the diametrical opposite of
mind reading. This situation is the opposite, the opposite of Gnosticism.
Everything is open and visible, which is why an unlettered, lay-nothing spinster
like me can easily speak.
see what's going on. I'm not special, I'm just a kid in the Emperor's new clothes
who's saying he's not wearing any clothes. That doesn't make me special, it
makes me, it makes me a rational human being.
If Pope Benedict was playing 5D upside-down underwater chess
and went to his grave without saying a word about any of this.
Or at least leaving a dead man's switch.
What's a dead man's switch?
Like, hey, when I die, you, you, and you immediately release this, this, and this.
He did no such thing.
And he had a biographer.
Seewald, the German, is his biographer.
He could have left a dead man's switch easily.
He did no such thing.
If he were playing 5D upside down underwater chess
and died and didn't say a word about any of it,
then he would be one of the most evil men in the history of the church.
And I don't believe for a second that that's true.
being mistaken about something and making this horrible error that he made
is not being just one of the most evil people in history. It's just making a
mistake. And what a tragedy that nobody corrected him before he died. He was weak
and he was wrong.
The same applies to the Siri thesis. There's a group of people who think that in 1958, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of Genoa, I think, was elected pope, accepted, and then was threatened by Freemasons, and then said, okay, yeah, I'll quit.
But in pectore, in his heart, continued to know, think, and believe that he was actually the pope.
We know this is wrong because Cardinal Ciri, likewise, never said anything to anyone about this, if it were true,
didn't leave a dead man's switch, and died with leaving the world in this state of error and confusion.
with no visible evidence of it. Again, if that were the case, which it isn't, but if it were the case,
that would make Cardinal Siri one of the most evil men in the 2,000 year history of the church,
and I do not believe that for a second. In fact, it's nonsense.
Hi guys, Anne here just jumping in real quick. In my haste I forgot to mention the last sentence on this slide in red.
And we're talking about, you know, Pope Benedict and this whole theory or thesis that Pope Benedict was playing five dimensional upside down underwater chess and trying to outsmart his enemies, and didn't commit any substantial layer.
It was all completely intentional on his part.
Sadly, this is wrong. And what it's also doing is it is attributing the whole master strategist
label to the wrong person. The master strategist in all of this is not and was not Pope Benedict.
The master strategist in all this, as always, is the divine providence, that is God himself.
It is God himself who has who has kept and did keep the papacy and then the subsequent
Bergolian anti-papacy completely visible. And if you just stop and think about how
visible all of this has been, Pope Benedict saying all of these things right out in public,
continuing to be highly visible.
as the Pope wearing the white, etc, etc, going by Pope Benedict. All of these things so highly
visible. And then on top of that, the visibility of Bergoglio as an obvious anti-Pope. I mean,
we're not even talking about the subtleties of political jockeying, as has been the case with
almost all of the previous anti-Papacies. The visibility...
that has been provided to us by the divine providence.
precisely in the fact that anti-Pope Bergoglio is such a raging, evil, non-Catholic, apostate arch-heretic.
The visibility of all of that. Again, who is the master strategist here?
It's the divine providence who loves us so much and loves his holy church so much that
he makes sure that everything about this incredible, unprecedented situation has been and continues
to be completely and totally visible so that we can know what's going on.
but we can't know we can't know anything all of this pearl clutching and oh this is all beyond
my pay grade that's a dodge it's a pure dodge what are you talking about we can't not know
scripture prophecy apparitions of the mother of god canon law objective observable reality how
could it be any more obvious
saying we can't know is false and it's clearly an effeminate dodge with you
know with people taking on the airs of presumed sanctity oh I couldn't begin to
presume to have any idea
What? You're a human being. You have a rational intellect. You can see, you can hear, you can read, you can think.
Of course we can know. Of course we can. We're talking about the identity of the Vicar of Christ on earth.
That is not knowable?
Are you are you kidding me? Do you do you think about what you say?
Now.
We could stop there, but I want to hit the Ganswine speech.
The Ganswine speech is what brought everything together for me.
Pope Benedict's personal secretary, the Bavarian Archbishop Georg Ganswine,
went to the Gregorianum, the Pontifical University in the center of Rome, and
gave a detailed speech and laid all of this out.
Now, all that's legally germane, like I said, is what was said and done in February of 2013.
And Non Solompropter and the last audience speech provide more than enough proof of substantial error and invalidity of the attempted partial resignation.
However, the Gantwine speech delivered at the Gregorian on May 20th, 2016.
Read and approved. Eyewitnessed. Read and approved by Pope Benedict provides a
massive point of consilience, which is my new favorite word within the last four
years. I'd never heard this word before and an attorney, a civil attorney said
and what your work and and other people, Non Vinnie Mark, Mark Doherty at the Non Vinnie Pottram blog, Dr. Matza, and other people who have been working on this question, the work you have done and the fact that
all of your different streams of argumentation, every data set, every evidence point, all leads
back to exactly the same conclusion. In law, there's a term for that. It's called
conciliance. When every evidence stream and data point points to exactly the same conclusion,
that in and of itself
is evidence that the proposition or the contention is true.
So this speech provides a massive point of conciliance that cannot go unmentioned.
A few quotes. This is Ganswine.
Since February of 2013, the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before.
That's interesting because it's immutable. It was established by Christ. It can't be changed.
So we've got a problem right off the bat.
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.
from what to what. The papacy was established by Christ and is therefore immutable. That's me, that's me.
Now, the picture here is, um, this is Ed Penton's piece that he published after attending this speech. Excuse me.
And I saw this headline
And I just about fell over.
What? Look at that. Archbishop Gales won. Benedict XVI sees resignation as expanding the Petrine ministry.
Openly reported. It's Ed Penn's headline. National Catholic Register. It's right there.
Continuing on, before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and
understands his task as participation in such a Petrine ministry.
Repetition is the mother of understanding. Say it one more time.
before and after his resignation.
after his resignation. Benedict understood and understands his task as
participation.
in such a Petron 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 complimented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension as a quasi-shared ministry.
Why are we even debating this?
Seven years after this speech was made, why is this question still being debated?
It is a mystery to me.
But wait, it gets worse.
Since the election of his successor, Fuentes, on March 13, 2013, there are not
therefore two popes but de facto an expanded ministry with an active member
and a contemplative member.
Right there.
This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, Benedict, his papal name, or the white cassock.
This is why the correct name by which to address him, even today, is Your Holiness.
That is the papal style, folks. That's not the style of a bishop, archbishop, cardinal, nothing like that. Only the pope.
this is also why he is 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, successor for what? The active governance of the church, right, you're
you're getting this, and a new stage in history of the papacy which he by that
step enriched with the power station of his prayer and compassion located in the
Vatican gardens. Successor to what?
only the ministry of the of the active governance of the church. A canonical and
ontological impossibility. Substantial error. It was the least expected step in
contemporary Catholicism, Ragoli writes, Ganzwein quoting an Italian author named
Ragoli, 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.
35 years later.
He has not abandoned the office of Peter, something which would have been entirely impossible for him.
after his irrevocable experience.
acceptance of the office in April 2005.
Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, believed that in accepting the papacy that it was irrevocable.
This is actually also erroneous. The papacy is a juridical office and can be validly resigned.
And when you resign, you stop being the pope, period. When you resign validly, which he did not do.
What part of the word irrevocable do we not understand exactly?
And furthermore, the papacy is revocable. It is a juridical office from which a Pope may resign.
That's why we have Canon 332.2, which specifically addresses the resignation of a Pope and how it has to be and what the specifics are.
Why in the world would canon law contain a canon addressing the valid resignation of a pope
if it's not possible for a pope to resign, if the papacy is irrevocable?
We also have Canon 188 that covers all resignations within the church and also 131.1. We'll get to all of these.
131.1. Let's start there.
The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself.
delegated that which is granted to a person, but not by means of an office.
What does this have to do with it? We've already kind of touched on this. I hope
you see where we're going here. Okay, so Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, thought
that he was going to bifurcate the papacy so that another guy could do the
active governance of the church. Well, what he wanted
essentially he wanted to delegate that role to somebody else.
But look what it says.
Delegated that which is granted to a person, but not by means of an office.
If you delegate responsibility to somebody, it doesn't confer an office on them.
Excuse me.
Pope Benedict tried to quit by delegation of the ministry of the acting
governments of the church to his concurrent successor and failed
because the entire maneuver is completely non-canonical and
ontologically impossible. Ergo, he remained the one and only living Pope
until his death 280 days ago, whether he liked it or not.
and people get after me and say like that's not nice for you to say that whether he liked it or not
I don't, I don't want to be nice. Nice means you don't know anything and you
just go along with whatever anybody says because nesire, the root, the Latin root
means no nothing, to know nothing. Not nice. I have no interest in being nice.
whether he liked it or not.
He wanted to quit. He wanted to run away. He was scared, almost certainly, and he
despaired and he threw up his hands and he tried to quit. And he had a history of
this. He ran away and quit in 1969 when the Marxist student riots hit. He was
teaching at the University of Tepingan, I believe, and he got in his car and he
drove away. Quit.
He attempted to quit when he turned 70. He was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and
Upon his 70th birthday
He wrote up a resignation and handed it to Pope John Paul the second saying I would like to resign
From the CDF and I would like to become like the head of the Vatican Archives or library or something like that
And kind of retired and JP to said nope
Get back over to the Holy Office get back to work. Absolutely not
His history, people who know Joseph Ratzen or personally know that he had a personal
history of quitting and tried to quit this.
Canon 188, we already have recited this, a resignation made out of grave fear
that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is
invalid by the law itself. What does substantial error mean? Ignorance or
misjudgment about the essential nature, main terms, or principal motive of the
object of an act. All three here, we've got them in all three. What is the
essential nature?
of what he was trying to do.
renunciation of the office he failed to do that he only he only renounced the
ministry of the active governance of the church so he fails their substantial
error main terms munus
Office.
that is, that refers to being. Pope Benedict was the Pope. Charles III is
the King of England.
um
What's a future tense one? When Charles the Third dies or abdicates, Prince
William will be the king. Note the verb there. Be. To be something. That is what
office refers to. Ministry refers to things that you do.
possible optional contingent activities that are derived from being the Pope or
the king or the president or the whatever the prime minister whatever
being versus doing these two words are not synonymous they are not
interchangeable they do not mean exactly the same thing in fact they mean wildly
different things
Principal motive, fundamental transformation of the papacy into a
collegial, synodal, shared ministry with both an active and a contemplative
member. Okay, his principal motive in this resignation is erroneous, so you're
done. You're in substantial error. It's not valid, and it's not valid by the law
itself.
Canon 332.2, if it happens that the Roman pontiff resigns his office,
munus in the Latin, in the original Latin, you have to resign the office just
like Nixon. When Nixon resigned, he had a secretary type up a resignation letter
that said, I resign the office of the presidency of the United States of
America effective at noon today. Signed it. Richard M. Nixon.
I resign the office, not, I don't resign being the commander, uh, being the commander in chief.
I don't resign, um, being the, the chief executive. No, I resign the office. I resign
being the president in total.
validity of a papal resignation. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't finish.
Cana 332.2, if it happens that the Roman pontiff resigns his office, munus,
it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested.
which it wasn't, because he never resigned the office, but not that it is accepted by anyone.
This is very important. Validity of a papal resignation has nothing to do with the College
of Cardinals or their acceptance. Validity is judged by the law itself, per Canon 188,
and is totally non-contingent upon anyone except Christ's acceptance.
The office of the papacy is completely, totally, and exclusively between Christ Almighty and the man, in this case Joseph Ratzinger.
100% between them. There is no intermediary, nothing.
The church is not between them. The College of Cardinals certainly isn't.
Canon Law is a manifestation of our Lord. Our Lord is the backstopper of Canon Law.
Christ himself is the backstop of a validly promulgated Canon Law, which is
right now the 1983 code, which is flawed, but it's what we're under, like it or not.
through the power of binding and loosing.
The office of the papacy is bestowed and withdrawn
solely directly between the man in question and our Lord.
The College of Cardinals and even the church herself
are not mediators.
This is Pastor Eterna, session four, chapter one,
paragraphs four through six.
Why, I have it right here, let me read it to you.
To this absolutely manifest teaching
of the sacred scriptures,
as has always been understood.
by the Catholic Church are clearly opposed to the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent
the form of government which Christ the Lord established in his church, and deny that Peter,
in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed
by Christ with a true
and proper primacy of jurisdiction. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was
not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself but rather on the church and that
it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister. Therefore,
if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the Lord as prince of all
the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant or that...
It was a primacy or honor only,
and not one of true and proper jurisdiction
that he directly and immediately received
from our Lord Jesus Christ himself.
Let it be anathema.
Infallible Vatican I ecumenical council document promulgated.
It's, this is an article of faith.
Canon 359. When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals possesses
only that power in the church which is attributed to it in special law. What
this canon does is 100% prohibit and utterly nullify.
any conclave convened while the Petrine Sea is still occupied. That is not vacant. Look at the
first clause, the first phrase, when the apostolic sea is vacant. And it wasn't. It wasn't.
in 2013. No matter what the circumstance, including totally unprecedented circumstances,
such as this current situation of Pope Benedict XVI, trying to partially resign only the
administrative governance minister.
stereo and expand the Petrine office into a collegial, synodal shared ministry.
There was no conclave in March of 2013, therefore debating whether the conclave
violated canon law is a red herring and will yield only additional chaos. We must
adhere to the fullness of truth.
The fullness of truth, 100%, not 99, 100%.
Let's talk about visibility. Everything about this entire mess has been highly, highly visible.
Pope Benedict's February of 2013 and forward words and actions were reported on and eyewitnessed
immediately by the entire world. Likewise, everything that anti-Pope Bergoglio has done,
it's all been out in the open. I contend that the reason that there has been this massive
technological just...
exponential explosion in the last hundred and fifty years or so that the
divine providence allowed this to happen precisely so that knowing that this
whole mess was going to happen that this anti-pope
This wretched, wretched anti-pope couldn't hide behind the Vatican walls.
Everything this imbecile has said and done has been instantly available.
to basically everyone on the planet.
basically everyone on the planet is walking around with a baby television in
their pocket that gives them unfettered access to the to all of basically human
knowledge and current events which can be instantly translated into their own
mother tongue. Think about that.
Why has the divine providence allowed this to happen, even with all the bad that goes along with technology,
so that anti-Pope Bergoglio and the Freemasons and the infiltrators and Lucifer could not hide?
Visibility.
Compare this with the Siri thesis, which we talked about before, or the notion that John XXIII and forward have all been anti-popes.
anyone have known? How would anyone have known if if it were true, which it isn't,
but if it were true that John the 23rd was an anti-pope?
How would anyone have known?
How would a pew-sitter?
have known about what went on and, you know, shenanigans and all this kind of stuff,
there was no obvious visible evidence of any of this.
How would anyone have known?
Visibility is a hallmark of the Church.
The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
You put those four things together and what you get is visibility.
In contrast, people have known from the beginning when Bergoglio walked out while they were talking about the fact that Pope Benedict's resignation was sketchy, invalid, Pope Emeritus was impossible, that talk started almost immediately.
When Bergoglio walked out on the locha?
naked just wearing a just wearing a white cassock and what's the first words out of his mouth?
Buona sera. Good evening. Not praise be Jesus Christ. No. Buona sera. From literally the first words out of his mouth, it was visible that something was horribly, horribly wrong.
what a what a gift from God.
In contrast, people have known from the beginning and both Pope Benedict and anti-Pope Bergoglio have been consistently visible in their respective roles.
Guys, even Protestants and atheists know that Bergoglio isn't Catholic and therefore isn't the Pope.
it couldn't be more visible.
Saying that the church is invisible is textbook Lutheran heresy.
That's Luther's whole thing, that the church is a mist, it's invisible, you can't see it.
This is completely wrong.
The church militant today is extremely visible in terrifying eclipse, and this is a real photograph of a partial eclipse over the Vatican like in 2013 or 14 or something like that.
Eclipses are highly visible and they're terrifying.
Everything about this is visible.
I really love this. This is so edifying. This is a verse from the Song of Songs, the Canticle of Canticles.
I am black but beautiful, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of cedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
Do not consider me that I am brown, because the sun hath altered my color. The sons of my mother.
have fought against me. They have made me the keeper in the vineyards, my vineyard I
have not kept." Now, this is the official commentary of what I Am Black But Beautiful
means.
That is, the Church of Christ, founded in humility, appearing outwardly afflicted, and as it were, black and contemptible as it does today.
But inwardly, that is, in its doctrine and morality.
which, remember, anti-Pope Bergoglio cannot touch and has not touched.
There is no Pope Francis. There is no Magisterium of Francis.
He has no engagement with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church whatsoever.
But inwardly that is, in its doctrine and morality, fair and beautiful.
I just find this fascinating. The picture on the lower left was taken in
2015. You can see the Dome of St. Peter's there, and the picture on the right was
taken two months ago. The Dome of St. Peter's is literally turning black. Now
is this proof of anything? No, but
I find it, I find it very interesting, especially given the I Am Black But Beautiful verse from Song of Songs.
Let's talk about this whole universal peaceful acceptance nonsense.
Universal peaceful acceptance, that is, well, everybody's gone along with it, so it must be true.
He must be the Pope, because everybody's gone along with it.
Universal peaceful acceptance cannot ratify an illegal conclave. This is
simple logic and common sense. God is himself truth and he can neither deceive
nor be deceived.
for God to arbitrarily ratify an observably illegal, invalid, non-canonical conclave
would make him, God, a capricious jerk devoid of rationality, pure will.
Who does that remind you of?
There's a political religion that claims it's actually considered the ultimate heresy of
Christianity that claims that God is pure will.
Capricious can change his mind on a dime.
No rationality figuring into it.
Pure will.
What's that religion called?
It's called Islam.
For God to arbitrarily ratify an observably illegal and valid non-canonical
conclave would make him a capricious jerk, devoid of rationality, pure will."
Allah, aka Satan. It is a paradigm of abject chaos and lawlessness.
This is a perfect description of Satan under his moniker Allah.
How can you hear and recite the last gospel after
almost every traditional Latin mass, and not get this, in Principio Erat Verbu, in the beginning.
was the word, the logos, rationality, rationality, logic, okay? Saying, well, yeah, Jesus would just go along with this, even though it's completely illegal and non-canonical, because, well, everyone else went along with it, so, you know, whatever.
It's the first four words of the Gospel of St. John.
In the beginning was the word.
In the beginning was rationality and logic.
God is himself rationality and logic.
Okay, guys, jumping in here real quick with an edit, three of these slides actually didn't
make it into my PowerPoint presentation, so I have to do a little, um, a little...
ex post facto insert here. Okay, let's look at this slide. We're talking about the idea,
the logical fallacy of begging the question. This is a very misunderstood term in the English
language. Begging the question is when you assume and argue that the conclusion of your argument is
true and thus thinking backwards insists that your assumed conclusion
proves the truth of your base premise. It is one of the most egregious logical
fallacies that there is, and universal peaceful acceptance, as applied in this
context, is kind of the ultimate example of begging the question. This is how you
get the jaw-droppingly false assertion that a universally accepted quote-unquote
conclave
proves infallibly that the conclave was legal, whether it was or not, thus reducing the antecedent
requirement of legality to a meaninglessness and irrelevancy. It's absolute luciferian chaos. So
the universal peaceful acceptance people are saying that
because everybody goes along with the fact that Bergoglio is the Pope that
proves that Bergoglio is the Pope so you see how we're thinking backwards here
how the assumed conclusion is is being used to to as a proof set of the base
premise and nothing could be more logically false and egregious.
Now here we have this citation by John of St. Thomas that these people who use
this universal peaceful acceptance argument cite and cite and cite and
poor John of St. Thomas he's just been absolutely drugged through the mud by
these people and what these people are doing is they are very very very
intentionally
and you know with full malice of forethought I believe one of the primary people who's
who's doing this is in fact a 32nd degree freemason can't make this up and he's telling
everybody you know Bergoglio is absolutely 1000% the pope because everybody goes along with it and
universal peaceful acceptance and here's this citation from John of St. Thomas to prove all this
now let's read this citation
and you can see I've put in red here the part of this citation that these people are just glossing
over and skimming over and pretends doesn't even exist so let's read it.
In the present controversy, we discuss whether or not it is de fide that this specific person who has been legitimately elected is the pope and the head of the church, as well as the degree of certitude with which this proposition is to be held.
Our conclusion is the following.
It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected,
And accepted by the Church is the Supreme Pawniff and the successor Peter.
Not only Quod Se and himself, but also Quod Nos in relation to us.
Although, it is made much more manifest, Quod Nos to us, when de facto the Pope...
define something. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion that his legitimacy
is de fide, even though when he considers it as a theological question, he might not
think that he believes it with divine faith.
So there's the citation of poor John of St. Thomas
that they use.
And again, I made it very clear when I read it
and you can see it highlighted in red.
What is the antecedent qualifier
that these people who are using this citation
just gloss over and pretend doesn't exist?
The antecedent qualifier is that the man in question
who's being put forward as the pope, was legitimately elected. If he's universally
peacefully accepted, and he was legitimately elected, but you have to have that antecedent
there first. It goes on in the second paragraph of the citation, lawfully elected and accepted by
the church.
The lawful election is the antecedent. The accepted by the church is after the fact.
Accepted by the church does not go back and prove that a man was lawfully elected.
The lawful election has to be there before.
Okay? Universal peaceful acceptance does not go back and heal or sanate or ratify an unlawful,
illegitimate election, which is exactly the case of what we have here.
So, TRAD, Inc., that is, you know, traditional Catholics, professionals in the media make
their living off of the church and have to be seen as being...
connected to and in submission to the institutional church, which at this point
is almost completely overtaken by the Mongolian, Luciferian, anti-church. But
these people, in order to maintain their income streams, they have to maintain
that attachment to the institutional church.
So, they're gleefully, gleefully denying the dogma of papal infallibility because they
have to in order to continue to make the argument that Bergoglio is the pope.
But in the same breath, while they'll gleefully deny the dogma of papal infallibility, they
will assign a completely fabricated infallibility.
to what, to the College of Cardinals?
Well, universal peaceful acceptance,
all of the College of Cardinals have gone along with this.
Let's just call that cardinolatry, shall we?
Then they'll take it to the next step and say,
well, almost everyone on earth
believes that Francis is Pope.
So now in terms of the laity, what can we call that?
We call that synodolatry.
right? I think that's a great word that we all need to start using because the
anti-church is trying to destroy the church through through means of a
fabricated form of democracy which has no place in the church and they're
calling it synodality and synods. So yeah well if all the lady if all the
visitors go along with this then it must be true.
So let's call that synodolatry.
Then, well, let's just, at this point,
let's just push our chips all in.
Everyone on Earth, even now,
Non-Christians say that Francis is the Pope of the Catholic Church.
So if everyone goes along with it on Earth, there actually is a word for that. It's called autolatry,
the the worshipping of the group itself, okay? So if everyone on Earth believes Francis is Pope,
then Francis is Pope. So what you've now done is you've elevated the College of Cardinals,
the laity, and even just humanity itself, non-Christians, above canon law, and ultimately
above God himself, because you're saying...
that Cardinals, the laity, even non-Christians, just the totality of humanity, that these are the
arbiters of truth, not God, that these are the arbiters of reality, and even lies can become true
if enough people go along with it. So then that leads to this. Does universal peaceful acceptance
also apply to the near total global acceptance of contraception?
There's hardly anyone left on a percentage basis. Statistically speaking, there's hardly anyone left on this planet who believes that contraception is any sort of a sin.
In fact, most people think it is an absolute moral imperative and a moral obligation.
Does that change the reality of the situation? That contraception is always and everywhere mortally sinful? No, it doesn't.
What about divorce? Remarriage? Well, I mean, if everybody goes along with the fact that
Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who are both divorced and have previous valid marriage spouses running
around somewhere, but they've been married for 40 years and everybody goes along with
this.
Does that make them married?
Even though they're in completely illicit, invalid, unreal marriages that are sinful, they're committing adultery.
Well, if everybody goes along with it, you see, now we're getting into autolatry.
Now we're getting into where all of humanity basically acknowledges something, so therefore the lie becomes true.
Look where we are now, with sodomy.
Most of the planet, and certainly most Catholics,
are completely fine with sodomy and don't believe that it's a sin.
Does that change anything?
And of course, what about child slaughter?
Again, a plurality of quote unquote Catholics today
in the post-Christian West think that abortion
should be legal up to a point.
It's okay to kill the baby as long as it's less than,
as long as it's less than three and a half months old
or whatever it is, whatever it is that they say.
Well, if everybody goes along with it,
does that make it okay?
What about suicide?
What about euthanasia suicide?
Well, if everybody goes along with it, then it's okay.
Well, it's not the way it works, folks.
It doesn't change anything.
We are not the arbiters of reality.
We are not the arbiters of truth.
And so then you just, you asked the question, how is this not this whole universal peaceful
acceptance that Francis is Pope?
How is this not another manifestation of the Burgolian, Luciferian, anti-church agenda
of synodality?
You know, as I sit here recording this.
Over in Rome, they're having this synod where they're all sitting around and they are going to ratify sodomy.
And they're going to say that times have changed, morality has changed, what applied before no longer applies now.
They're literally engaging in synodolatry, pure synodolatry, and they're even calling it that by name, and they're saying synod, synod, synod, perpetual synod, everything's up for debate, everything's up for a vote, and ultimately autolatry, where the people themselves are worshipping themselves.
So, how is this whole...
universal peaceful acceptance thing, not precisely hand in glove, more than kissing
cousins, more like kissing siblings, with the whole anti-church agenda of
synodality, the ratification of lies and error by popular vote. It's exactly what's
going on here. So it's it's all tied up with this idea
of you know Americanist democracy by by any means necessary the only the only acceptable
mode of being for any organization is is democracy and voting and the people decide
what is true and what is real and this is it's absolutely Luciferian.
And it also bears, we need to bring up the whole idea
of the census fidelium.
This is a very real concept in the church,
that, you know, the faithful Catholics,
they have a sense of what is right and what is wrong.
And you can look to that overarching sense of what is true
and what is not true among the faithful members
of the church, and that is, you know,
that is an evidence set in and of itself.
But the problem is, is that it's not the sense of the world, it's not the sense of the people,
it's the sense of the faithful.
And then you have to ask the question, who is the faithful?
Who does this apply to?
Who gets a say in this?
And the painful truth that we all have to look at, and this has to be stated,
Is it if you deny the infallibly declared dogma of papal infallibility, if you deny
dogma, which so many of these trattic people do, are you still inside the church?
Or are you so off the rails that what you say and what you think doesn't even count
towards the census fidelium?
Because if you're not faithful and you don't believe in the dogmas of the church, then
how can it be said that you and your voice can even contribute to the census fidelium
in as much as it applies to anything.
Does it even apply to this question that we're talking about
with regards to the papacy, Pope Benedict's resignation?
No, because remember, who is the baseline arbiter
of whether or not Bergoglio is the Pope,
whether or not Pope Benedict validly resigned?
It's canon law, it's not the people.
But isn't it interesting that, yeah, there are faithful Catholics, and in fact a plurality of them by now, and we'll talk about this a little bit later,
who actually, yeah, do know that something's wrong, that something's up, that Bergoglio isn't the Pope,
and that probably Pope Benedictine resigned.
Your faithful, pew-sitting Catholics,
more and more and more of them,
are in fact coming to this realization,
or have been at this realization for years now, bears mentioning.
Let's look at Canon 748.1.
All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church,
and by virtue of divine law, are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.
So, people ask me, who do you think you are? And the answer is, who do I have to be?
Not a rhetorical question.
Do I fall under the general category header of all persons?
Do you?
fall under the general category header of all persons.
So, you and I, we, are bound.
Boun't!
to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church.
Do you think that the identity of the vicar of Christ on earth,
the principle of unity and the standard of schism,
is a thing which regards God and His Church?
Is the church invisible at its earthly head?
Is it? Does that make any sense? Does it make any sense that the principle of
unity and the standard of schism, which is the Pope in his person, that he is
either invisible or that he is unimportant or unknowable. You
hear that a lot. We can't know. We can't know.
What are you talking about? Think about what you're saying!
Schism is mortal sin!
And you can't know? You can't know?
who the Pope is, and it's not your place to ask any questions.
Canon 748. All persons are bound.
All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God in His Church.
Remember, talk about credentialing.
I had this hurled at me, and I chuckled, and I would hasten to remind everyone saying,
Who is this chick?
Who is this heartbeat standing here screeching about all of this?
Wasn't wasn't she like a cattle broker or something? What is going on here?
She doesn't she doesn't have any competency in in this topic
Criticulism.
Ms. Barnhart, do you have a degree in canon law? No, sir, I do not.
I would hasten to remind everyone that Lucifer is the ultimate credentialist.
He was the first credentialist, and he's the ultimate credentialist.
Why do I say that?
When Lucifer...
was presented the information that the second person of the trying Godhead would be incarnating into the world through a little girl in Palestine.
this humble little girl.
He flew into a prideful rage. That is why he turned his back on God and fell and
took a third of the choir of angels with him because she wasn't qualified.
He was. He was created as the highest angelic being, and he believed that he, angels are sexless, but we refer to Lucifer in the masculine pronoun.
Um...
He believed that he should have been the one.
the vector through which the second person of the Trinity incarnated into the world.
In other words, yes, what I'm saying is Lucifer basically wanted to be in the role of the
Blessed Virgin Mary.
He wanted to be the vector through which the second person of the Trinity entered into
the world.
And she wasn't qualified.
That, that little girl, what are you talking, little girl, what are you talking about?
No. I'm the highest created angelic being. It should be through me and I will not
serve. I will not serve. Credentialism.
Careful with that.
The rise of holier-than-thou anti-intellectualism among Francis' Pope, Partisans.
Unbelievable.
Rewriting the Gospels. Just rewriting the Gospels.
The disciples of John the Baptist.
Okay? John the Baptist sends his disciples,
Go ask him who he is.
Go ask Jesus of Nazareth who he is.
They go, they ask him.
What does he say?
the blind sea, the deaf ear, the lame walk.
Gather and process the observable evidence and draw a conclusion.
Use your brain.
Let's look at the Good Shepherd. What should they have said according to these partisans who are absolutely desperate for whatever unbelievable reason to insist that Bergoglio is the Pope?
What should have those people said?
according to them, I couldn't possibly say.
This is above my pay grade. I would never dare.
I would never dare form an opinion much less stated.
You're in complete contradiction to the Gospels.
Let's look at the Good Shepherd discourse.
The sheep know me, they know the sound of my voice.
There are wolves, there are faithless hirelings, but the sheep, the sheep.
sheep, us, unlettered laymethings, pew sitters, all of us, as individuals,
we must discern the voice of the shepherd and the voice of a stranger we must not follow.
The words of our Lord and the holy gospels, the sheep must discern the voice of the shepherd.
But what these people would have us believe is that we need to sit around and wait
for a group of men who are at minimum
Weaklings and failures.
And, more observably, are apostates, sodomites, marxists, and luciferians.
And a lot of these people say that they aren't even that what they are is a completely different religion.
So we need the sheep. We need to sit around and wait for the wolves to tell us who's who and what's what.
This makes absolutely no sense. None. And it's completely contrary to the holy gospels.
How about Peter's explicit declaration of Christ Divinity?
Who do you say that I am? our Lord said. Peter stepped forward and said thou art
the Christ the son of the living God and our Lord said blessed art thou Simon
Barjona.
Well, according to these people, what should Peter have done?
He should have said, I couldn't possibly say.
I'm going to go to the temple and I'm going to ask the high priest and the Sanhedrin.
I'm going to ask them because I'm just a fisherman.
I couldn't possibly say.
According to these people today, that's what he should have done. He should have deferred
to the enemies of Christ. The enemies of Christ. It's an exact analog.
That makes no sense.
Our Lord, then, as a result of Peter's act of faith in saying,
thou art the Christ, making the statement, thou art the Christ.
He gave him the papacy.
built on that foundation of his faith in that moment.
That's why Peter was the Pope.
Just say it. Peter's declaration of Christ's divinity happened before the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost and without the sacrament of confirmation.
Advantages that every one of us can enjoy and avail ourselves of.
Gifts of the Holy Ghost that are conferred at confirmation, wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.
One I really want to zoom in on is council, because a lot of people actually don't know exactly precisely what that means, and it is extremely important in this context.
The gift of council is the ability to quickly and accurately assess a situation, yielding the ability to formulate solutions to unexpected and even unprecedented problems.
So, in other words, navigating our way through this, and look what it says, quickly and accurately.
Not waiting around, not kicking the can down the road, saying, well, some future pope decades or centuries hence will sort all this out.
No, what the gift of counsel is, is that you can...
You're on the battlefield of life in the world, and you look at what's going on, and you look at what's happening, and you're able to quickly get a sense, an accurate sense of what's going on so that you can then make good decisions and act provably.
Do we believe this is a real thing?
To declare that the identity of the Pope is unknowable, or that anything can be done about an antipapacy, is a denial of the reality of the gift of counsel, and therefore the sacrament of confirmation in toto.
If the sacrament of confirmation isn't real, tell me what other sacraments aren't real.
Are holy orders real? Is matrimony real?
But really, let's get right to the point.
Is the Eucharist real?
Gonna want to be careful with all of this.
Let's talk about schism.
Canon 751. Schism is the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of
communion with the members of the church subject to him.
I am in absolutely no way, shape, manner, or form in schism.
never happened.
I am in union with the Petrine Sea, which happens right now to be vacant for these 280 days and counting.
And I am in full communion with all the people who are likewise in communion with the Petrine Sea.
Can we now see why the fullness of truth regarding the correct identity of the Vicar of Christ
on earth is just slightly important?
Because as I've said several times already, the Pope is the principle of unity and standard
of schism in his person.
You kind of need to know who he is. And if you get into a situation where a usurper comes in, is an anti-pope, and then forms an anti-church...
That's a problem. Gonna wanna be careful with that. Gotta get this one right. Excuse me.
This is painful.
Last October, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, wonderful man, gave a speech at the Augustinianum in Rome.
And at the conclusion, Dr. Kwasniewski forcefully bellowed to a packed room.
We all just need to get used to the idea of being in schism with Pope Francis.
Apparently raucous applause, hooray, all of this.
If your logical truth table is yielding the corollary, that mortal sin, schism is mortal sin.
That mortal sin is a moral obligation.
Thank you.
And you are rallying people to engage in it?
Do you think maybe you need to pump your brakes and check your base premise?
Do you think maybe something's wrong?
Did it ever occur to you?
How can that not be obvious?
It blows my mind.
What is going on here?
Well...
Our Lord warned us that even the elect would be deceived.
And what I want to do and help with in as much as I can.
is to see to it that as few of the elect are deceived as possible and the ones
who are living in deception now correct themselves before it's too late.
especially Peter.
He's so, he's such a good guy. Faithful, devout, pious, sincere. Good guy. The elect, if ever there was.
And he's deceived.
We gotta do something about this.
I gotta do something about this.
Couldn't live with myself if I didn't.
Who is and is not in schism? We have three quotes here.
Delugo, neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power.
There's your citation, number one.
And these are old. These are old citations. This isn't anything that's happened in the last 10 years. This is all back in history. So, we have, these people are non-biased in these quotes, okay? They're not talking about Bergoglio.
Reverend Ignatius Zall, nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult.
Or, if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope, or the validity of his election,
or if one resists him as the civil head of the state.
Remember, the pope used to be the king, the monarch of central Italy.
Okay. Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948. Finally, Werns and Vidal. Finally, they cannot be numbered among the Schismatics who refuse to obey the Roman pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation.
1943.
These quotes are actually not presented by me as defense. They're not defensive.
Because you know what? We're not on defense. We're on offense.
We have the ball because we have the truth. So we're on offense.
We are driving.
We will go into the end zone. We will go into the end zone.
We will then make the two-point conversion, and we will then recover the on-side kick.
You take that to the bank.
And this isn't a numbers game. It doesn't matter. We have the truth.
demanding union with and submission to a non-Catholic and declaring the papacy and
say to be the problem, is textbook, textbook schism, and is not absolved by
the previous citations.
So, all of the people who are on the wrong side of this.
This is why I'm making this video.
These people are on thin ice.
and ice.
If it is sinful to even ask questions about the validity of a putative pope, how are the
dozens of previous anti-vapacies resolved?
There's nothing we can do.
What are you talking about?
On the low end, it's estimated that there have been at least three dozen anti-papices.
And the high end, I believe, has Bergoglio as the 45th anti-Pope in the 2000-year history of the Church.
Do we honestly believe that Christ will damn us to hell for all eternity for just
questioning, questioning,
whomever seizes raw power.
This is a Maoist
philosophy. All power comes from the barrel of a gun. That is an axiom of
matter.
Whoever is the biggest thug, whoever seizes raw power by whatever illegal, violent, coercive, non-canonical methods, hey, if he's got the power, you can't even ask the question.
or you're gonna go to hell.
What this this is madness I and I believe like Michael vorice is
One of the main proponents of this this is this
This is abject insanity.
This irrational, evil position cannot be reconciled with the Good Shepherd discourse, which we've
already talked about, or even the natural law.
unity that is not in the fullness of truth is human respect at best and
conspiracy at worst.
Unity, unity, unity, unity in what?
It has to be in the fullness of truth, not partial truth.
truth, the fullness of truth, that is the only unity that is desirable.
I don't want to be in union with partial truth or error or lies or anything like that.
in unity with the fullness of the truth. That's why I converted to Catholicism.
Where have we heard all of this, all this agitprop about unity, unity, unity for unity's sake?
Well, look at the motto.
the French Revolution, liberté, égalité, fraternité, fraternity, unity. And what's the
often left-off final clause of that of that motto of the French Revolution?
Liberty, equality, fraternity, ou la mour, or death.
Human fraternity is a dog whistle for Freemasonry.
I mean, it's not even a secret to call it a dog whistle,
isn't even entirely accurate in this context.
Freemasonry openly refers to itself as human fraternity.
Freemasonry is Luciferianism.
They suck people in with this silent song. Oh, we're just gonna be brothers
And once you get up to the top levels of it, it's oh by the way
We don't worship ourselves
It's pretty obvious that we're not we're not a deity
We worship the light-brainer, Lucifer.
Remember our Lord's words which our friend Mark Daugherty has in fact named
his blog after. Nonveni pacem miteri, se gladum. I come not to bring peace but a
sword. I don't want to be in unity with anything that is false and I certainly
don't want to be in unity with an anti-pope or an anti-church.
And it's being demanded that that's what we do.
This is madness.
Unity for unity's sake?
Denying dogma is mortal sin.
A lot of people don't like to talk about that, especially anymore.
The Dogma of Papal Infallibility was declared in 1870 in the Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor
Eternus, which was approved at the Infallible Ecumenical Council of Vatican I.
To deny any declared dogma of the Church is mortal sin directly against the faith and
have publicly professed.
automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership in the church.
Trad Inc. people are
openly, openly, talking about the fact of writing books.
about the fact that the dogma of papal infallibility and Vatican I
owe it all wrong. It's all wrong. We don't believe that. Now, every one of these people would have
defended the dogma of papal infallibility and Vatican I to the death
ten years ago today.
But they had been scandalized by holding the false-based premise that Bergoglio is the Pope,
and now look at what it says, to deny any declared dogma of the Church's mortal sin
directly against the faith, and if publicly professed automatic excommunication and forfeiture
of membership in the Church.
That's why I'm making this video.
can't live with myself. I like and even love a lot of these people. And look, look
what it says. It's mortal sin, publicly professed, automatic excommunication, and
forfeiture of membership of the church.
We can't just look away from this. We can't be indifferent to other people and
just
Say, oh well.
You make your decisions, not my problem. I at least have to try to do something. And this is what I can do.
So, if your insistence that Francis is Pope demands that you commit the mortal sin of denial of dogma to reconcile Bergoglio to the papacy, which is all these people are doing now, trad, Catholic, talking heads, pundits, priests, theologians, cardinals, whatever, whatever.
The mortal sin of the denial of dogma.
Don't you think you might be operating from a false-based premise?
Don't you think?
Pump your brakes. Sit down.
say maybe something's wrong here. Did anything odd happen in February, March of
2013? Did anything strange happen?
How can this not be obvious? What is going on here?
Even the elect will be deceived.
The dogma of papal infallibility is one of the greatest acts of loving kindness and provision that our Lord has showered upon His Holy Church.
The dogma of papal infallibility allows us to know for an absolute certainty that Bergoglio isn't the Pope and never was.
That's why it happened. That's why the divine providence did this.
denial of the divinity of Christ, open public demon worship.
These are all things that Bergoglio has done.
Declaring the great commission,
proselytism, to be solemn nonsense and even sinful.
denial of the Immaculate Conception, professing soul annihilation, repeatedly, declaring that God wills religious pluralism, a.k.a. apostasy, therefore denying extra-ecclesia nullus allus, outside of the Church there is no salvation.
He's constantly denying that.
The sacrament of baptism, therefore, is not necessary.
God wills a plurality of religions and the denial of original sin, declaring that God
wills mortal sin through the ratification of adultery and sacramental communion, desecration
of the Eucharist for unrepentant adulterers.
A blessing of sodomy.
Like what? What is it going to take?
We're sitting here, this stupid, anti-church, sin-
God just opened, everybody knows what they're going to do.
And we're both has already said, well, it's up to individual priests, whether or not they
want to give blessings to sodomite couples blessing sodomy.
What is it going to take?
Not a rhetorical question. What is it going to take? Oh, there have been bad popes before, this has all happened before, that is a lie.
Nothing, nothing like this has ever happened of all these previous dozens of anti-popes.
All of them were Catholic. All of them!
This is the first time there's ever been a non-Catholic, anti-Pope who is at war with
and actively trying to destroy, destroy the church militant.
This has happened before, no it hasn't.
Not even remotely close.
There have been bad hopes before.
Nothing like this.
Nothing.
Call that lie out when you see people making it. It's pernicious, it's false, it's scandalous.
Freemasonry was so threatened and enraged by the possibility of the dogmatic declaration of papal infallibility that they threatened to invade the Vatican
overthrow the Pope and take over Italy if the solemn definition was made.
And you know what? That's exactly what they did.
The solemn definition was made in Pastor Eternus,
and the Freemasons immediately invaded,
deposed the Pope, threw him out of Rome, he's off in exile.
The Freemasons take over the Italian Peninsula.
Big War, level 9. And you say, why, why would the Freemasons even care?
Well, who are the Freemasons? And what is their agenda? We've already talked about
this. They're Luciferians. And what is Lucifer's agenda?
Well, Pope Lee the 13th heard the conversation between Lucifer and our Lord in a miraculous
locution.
Lucifer's agenda is to destroy the church, and our Lord said, go ahead and try.
So, what is their endgame?
Folks, we're living it.
What is the endgame of Freemasonry?
We're living it.
Take over the Vatican,
usurp the papacy,
install an anti-Pope,
and destroy the church militant from the inside out.
We are in the endgame, the Freemasonic endgame, the Luciferian endgame. We're living it.
If your position lines up exactly with that of Freemasonry, don't you think you might be operating from a false-based firmness?
How do you destroy the Church? You destroy the papacy.
Okay, so now you've got Freemasonry doing it, and you also have traditional faithful Catholics
operating from the false-based premise that Bergoglio is or ever was the Pope.
And the Francis' Pope partisans are now agitating for the de facto
evanessing into nothingness of the papacy.
Oh, the papacy's been a disaster.
Vatican I was wrong.
The papacy is the problem, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
This is traditional Catholics saying this.
If your agenda is exactly the same as Freemasonry,
don't you think you should pump your brakes?
Check your base premise, you think?
But I want to be careful with that.
The dogma, papal infallibility, and belief in the words of our Lord in the Holy Gospels is not papolatry.
Constantly, they're constantly using this word.
And it has got to stop. Enough. Like the title of this presentation.
Popolatry is a portmanteau of papacy and idolatry, you see, making an idol of the
Pope. Idolatry is mortal sin against the first
commandment, not the sixth, not the fifth.
The first, to believe in the petrion promise and the dogma of papal infallibility is obligatory.
It is not a mortal sin, which is what the accusation of papaltry is implying.
Bergoglio's own supporters only back him, let's be honest, I'm the person who
says the things that everyone else is too terrified to say. Bergoglio's own
supporters only back him because he ratifies their sins, often sins against
the sixth commandment. That's that's the easiest one to go after.
That's the only reason that they back him. They're not. They have no loyalty to the papacy.
They have loyalty to Jorge Bergoglio because he ratifies their sins. That's it.
If the saintly Pope were elected tomorrow,
and preached on sin, especially sins against the sixth commandment,
Berboglio's supporters, who are defending him tooth and nail, would laugh, completely disregard
a true and holy pope, and then use Trad Inc.'s own words against the papacy and their papaltry trope
to justify their disobedience. Trad Inc. is handing
Handing the enemies of Jesus Christ and his holy church and the papacy is handing them their talking points, handing them their propaganda.
Enough.
How can we not see this?
Satan has trad ink running his playbook for him.
writing his propaganda.
The abject hubris of thinking that the Church has been wrong about the papacy for 1,990 years.
I cannot understand what these people are thinking.
And not just wrong, but that every saint, every doctor of the Church, and every single
one of the faithful were in mortal sin against the first commandment for believing the gospel.
Oh, but just within the past decade, a handful of people whose livelihood is contingent upon
publicly saying Francis' Pope.
suddenly are the first true Catholics because remember everybody for 1990
years before now has been completely wrong. All Catholics have been wrong.
Everybody.
These people who they're living off of the church off the institutional church
Let's call it. Let's call it
They're the first true Catholics.
Everyone else up until now has been mortally sinful idolaters, because they believed the
words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Gospels and the Petrine Promise.
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will
not prevail against it.
What is going on here?
I already said, Peter Krasniewski is a good guy.
John Henry Weston is a good man, good family man.
Mike Matt, same thing, good guy, good family man.
What is going on here?
I just alluded to it, and it has to be called out.
These men are dependent upon the institutional church and being in
the good graces of the institutional church,
and in order to be in the good graces of the institutional church,
you have to say, for instance, as Pope.
That's it!
Let's talk about the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction states that a
thing cannot be both itself and its negation simultaneously. A thing cannot be simultaneously
a and not a.
Contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
I cannot be both in this room and not in this room at the same time.
That is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
This is intuitive natural law, baseline human rational intellect stuff, but not anymore.
The law of non-contradiction is likewise related to the principle of explosion, which we talked about at the beginning of the presentation.
Ex contradictione, sequitur, follows, quote libet, from contradiction, anything follows.
So, if your base premise is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, then, just like...
you know, the logical, the logical fallacy that we, that we described before.
Anything goes. You can get any results out of that logical truth table.
From contradiction, anything follows.
Any logical truth table based upon a premise that violates the law of non-contradiction,
like Berbolia's the Vicar of Christ on Earth,
will yield false truths.
So, some obvious violations of the law of non-contradiction.
See this all the time?
People, you need to start calling this out.
Pray for the conversion of Pope Francis.
You see this all the time.
John Henry Weston was the latest one that I saw.
Pray for the conversion.
of Pope Francis. Conversion from what?
Well, how can a non-Catholic be Pope?
How can a man be simultaneously Catholic and not Catholic?
Do you see this?
You can't be a thing, and it's negation, simultaneously.
How is this not obvious?
What is going on here?
even the elect will be deceived. Pope Francis is in schism.
How could if you believe he's the Pope?
And the Pope is the principle of unity and standard of schism in his person.
How could the Pope, the standard itself, possibly be in schism?
Do you think about what you are saying?
This is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Or, Pope Francis is in schism from the papacy, this is just barfel-gabble, this is nonsense,
this is just babbling at this point.
Bergoglio himself said
several years ago.
Perhaps I will go down in history as the one who schisms the church.
is admitting it.
Lucifer
admitting who his boy is publicly. Nobody bats an eyelash.
If Bergoglio were the Pope, how could he schism the Church?
Because he, himself, is the principle of unity and the standard of schism.
That makes no sense.
Where Peter is, there is the church. There's an absolutely disgusting blog that is called Where Peter Is.
And it just, if anything, Bergoglio does.
Oh!
the holy father's so wonderful and of course he can do that and you just need to be open to the
spirit and oh you don't you are in schism if you don't go along with the blessing of sodomy and
amoris latitzia and all of the rest of it it's a disgusting evil website
Perhaps I will go down in history as the one who schisms the church. Bergoglio himself said that.
More obvious violations of the law of non-contradiction.
Pope Francis is not Catholic,
but you must be in union with and submission to him.
In order to be Catholic,
you must not be Catholic.
That's the crux of it right there.
It's clearly not Catholic, clearly.
But you have to be in union with him in his non-Catholicism.
and in submission to one.
in order to be Catholic.
So, in order to be Catholic,
you must not be Catholic.
Do you think about what you're saying?
How can the principle of unity and the standard of schism simultaneously be a vector of schism?
The obvious violation of the law of non-contradiction points to the presence of a false-faced premise,
namely that Bergoglio is or ever was the Pope.
Believing that our Lord Jesus Christ could ever or would ever put any person
in a catch-22 like that, you have to be not Catholic to be Catholic, damned if
you do, damned if you die, belies a serious lack of faith rooted in a lack of a
personal relationship with Him.
The problem isn't with him or his spotless and indefectable, not bridge starter, that's a typo, bride, the church.
The problem is people who are operating on a false face premise and refuse to correct themselves.
The problem isn't with our Lord. The problem is with people holding a false face premise.
Obvious.
The truth is not a democracy, however, I want to show dear Frank Walker, who is the owner
editor of the wonderful traditional Catholic English language news aggregator called Canon212.com.
It's absolutely fantastic. Frank, just a few weeks ago, had a stroke, and a lot of people were in Rome and all over the world were very, very worried because the job that Frank does in assembling
All of the relevant news stories, links, interesting blog posts, etc., etc., about what's going on.
Without him doing that, the ability to get information out is severely compromised.
And people were horrified, first of all, because Frank had had a stroke, and we love Frank. He's a great guy.
Also because here this anti-church sin nod is getting ready to start, how are we gonna get this information out?
So we all started immediately praying and lifting Frank and his family up in prayer.
And Frank, thanks be to God.
has recovered from a pretty scary
severe stroke so fast that he's already back up and running and doing and just
working like a mule to get Canon 212 updated every day and get all the fresh
and important news stories out. So, God bless Frank. In June of 2013, Frank ran a
whole. This is completely non-scientific.
fully admit that but it was just you know he was just saying I want to see
now that Pope Benedict has been dead for six months I just want to kind of see
what the lay of the land is and where average, pew-sitting, traditional
Catholics in the English-speaking world and it's not exclusively the English
speaking world because if English is the lingua franca and so there's people all
over the world that read English news and reportage but um
by and large, what is the lay of the land in terms of what people are thinking about what the situation is.
I did not push this. None of the people that I know linked to it. We did a hands-off posture.
Because if I had linked to it, it certainly would have skewed things. So, we all just left it alone.
and
Just try to get as organic as possible a sense of what's going on. Here's the results.
Option number one, with 59%, the C has been vacant since Pope Benedict died.
Correct.
In second place with 36%, Francis Bergoglio was the Pope and has been for 10 years, unfortunately.
Option that came in in third place with 4%.
The sea has been vacant since Pius XII died, so those are the 1958 set of equinities.
3% came in saying, ''I don't know.'' And 1% came in saying, ''Bergoglio became Pope when Pope Benedict died.'' Hardly anybody is foolish enough to believe that.
And in the last place.
with 1%. The papacy no longer exists if it ever did. Vatican I was a false
counsel. The gates of hell prevailed. Oh yeah, there's traditional Catholics who
are beating that drum.
So, why do I post this?
The truth is not a democracy. It doesn't matter how many people believe rightly, wrongly.
That doesn't matter. But I do want you to know that you're not alone.
You're being gaslit and browbeaten into thinking that you're alone.
That you're a crazy fringe, whack job conspiracy theorist.
If you go to a traditional Latin Mass in the Anglosphere,
chances are that like 60% or more of the people around you
Believe the truth, that Bergoglio is an anti-Pope and that the sea has been vacant since Pope Benedict died.
You're not alone. Don't fall for that, okay?
What about Jorge?
Oh, he'll be dead soon. We just need to wait for him to die.
The notion that anyone is beyond redemption and should be given up on, as that implies,
is totally antithetical to the Gospel.
Even Bergoglio's sins are a drop in the infinite ocean.
the power of the blood of the lamb.
Regolia just needs to make a good confession.
Every previous antipapacy, except Anacletus II, sadly, was resolved while the antipope
yet lived.
First, for love of the Church, need to get this fixed.
Need to rectify the scandalous situation.
But also don't forget...
for the love of the man himself, the antipope himself,
you can't just leave a man.
in that magnitude of sin,
and just say, oh well, whatever.
The fact that people are making this utterly un-Christian argument rooted in indifference.
Nah, wait for him to die.
a total rejection of the Gospels and is proof in and of itself that their position is wrong.
Once again, conciliates.
What about Jorge?
That's why, in my fourfold Matthew 1720 intention, intention number three is that Bergoglio repent, revert to Catholicism, die in the state of grace in the fullness of time, and someday achieve the beatific vision.
We're not rooting at all this talk about, well, let's hope he dies soon. Let's hope he dies soon.
No! Let's get this corrected so he can repent and do penance for this as much as possible before he does die.
It is completely antithetical to the Gospels to either give up on him or root for the hastening
of his death.
Completely.
And in the history of the church, the church has never ever engaged in anti-pope on those terms.
It's always been, let's get this fixed right now for the church and for him.
That's why the case of Anna Cletus II is so unique. He died after eight years,
where I think all but one cardinal
backed him falsely.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux was the one who fixed it, and he fixed it by going down to Rome and just, you know, going around and cycling up to people and said,
hey, you looked at this question of, you know, who's the Pope and who isn't, what's going on here, and he talked to people.
And slowly, slowly, he convinced, he finally convinced Rome that this situation, anacly just a second, was in fact an anti-Pope.
Now, Anna Kaleidus II died in his bed, tragically, and then immediately, because remember, things
happened very fast, the College of Cardinals was pretty small, and so they instantly elected
a successor anti-Pope to Anna Kaleidus II.
Do you know how long, and his name was anti-Pope, Victor IV Conti, last name's C-O-N-T-I.
How long do you think Victor IV Conti, the anti-Pope?
Lasting, less than 48 hours.
Less than 48 hours Bernard of Clairvaux got to him and said,
you can't do this.
No, Anacly just a second was an anti-pope.
You are now an anti-pope.
You have to go, I have the true Pope over here.
He's at St. John Lateran.
You and I are going to the laddering right now and you are going to crawl up
The aisle of the nave you're he's sitting in the papal throne in st
John ladder and if you ever been to Rome, you've probably seen that exact throne
The true pope is sitting in that throne
you are going to take off the papal tiara and you are going to kiss his foot and do obeisance and submission to him and
Victor the fourth Conti did it
Which in and of itself proved that Anacletus the second was also an anti-biological extension
Lasted two days
But poor Anacletus the second died in his error
I remember these were all political questions. This wasn't, Anacletus the second wasn't trying to you know, have
Sodomites marry each other or or any of this other garbage. This, these were political
political questions, political jockeying.
Every previous anti-papacy, except Anacletus II, was resolved while the anti-pope yet lived
for the love of the church and for the love of the man himself, the fact that people are making this utterly un-Christian argument
and un-historical.
There's nothing anyone can do and we just have to wait for him to die. There's no way for the church to adjudicate this or fix the situation of an anti-base.
It's completely wrong. The fact that people are making this utterly unchristian argument rooted in indifference and a total rejection of the gospel is proof that their position is wrong.
kicking the can down the road, peak narcissism, sloth, and effeminacy.
I'm just going to run the clock, I'm an old man, I'm going to let future generations fix this.
This is a new phenomenon, basically in human history.
This complete dearth of masculinity and virility, there's a famous quote,
and it is, if there is to be war, let it be in my day, that my children might be spared.
Up until, you know, our lifetime, this generation.
Men.
wanted to take care of problems themselves in order to spare their
children. Today it's completely inverted. The whole the whole church paradigm, the
whole secular paradigm, everything is built upon the notion of kicking the
can down the road, run the clock out, and I'll be dead.
And then I won't have to deal with this.
Future generations can clean this up. I'm just gonna run the clock. It's despicable.
It's morally depraved.
It is a complete dearth of rillity and abdication of masculinity to not take care of problems
and instead push them off on future generations, and everybody who is engaging in this, in
the institutional church, should hang their head in shame.
Everyone.
The path forward, step one. Just say it.
He's not the Pope. Benedict never resigned.
The truth is like a lion turn it loose and it will take care of itself because remember the truth is our Lord Himself
The truth is the second person of the Triune Godhead
Just say it
Nothing good will happen until the base premise is corrected and openly declared
It's why there's no progress made nothing. It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse and worse
All it takes to stop this is for someone in a position of authority.
There are a few Catholic Cardinals left.
Step up and say, for example,
significant canonical irregularities have been identified with regards to
the punitive resignation proffered by Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013.
Pending further investigation,
I hereby declare a state of emergency suspense.
and then follow through, follow through.
Pope Benedict never validly resigned, therefore Bergoglio is, and always has been, an anti-Pope.
the fullness of truth.
Failure to do this will result in Pope Francis' magisterium continuing to destroy the Church and souls after Bergoglio is dead.
If you don't heal this at the root 100%, the death of Bergoglio is...
Not terribly important, because all of the garbage that the flaming sodomite Argentinian, Tucho Fernandez, the guy who writes groomer homo erotica
for children.
Tucho Fernandez has
Roamore Slatizia, Tuccio Fernandez has now been named the head of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith.
Tuccio Fernandez is the one who's responding to these Dubia that were just submitted by
the five Dubia particles.
Tuccio Fernandez, that's how much of a farce this is.
And in writing Tuccio Fernandez's response to the Dubia, because Bergoli was far too stupid to do anything like that.
He's an absolute imbecile. He has to have a ghostwriter.
Tuccio Fernandez was citing Amoris Laetitia, which he himself wrote.
This is how much of a clown show this whole thing is.
Tucho Fernandez is being put forth as the Magisterium of the Church, and he is citing himself as Magisterium.
Magisterium.
Do you think Bergoglio dying without getting this rectified is going to end this?
No.
All that crap is going to continue to be cited while Pope Francis said, while Pope Francis
said, while Pope Francis said, there is no Pope Francis.
None of these documents.
or even realities in terms of the church.
None of it. Solves nothing.
Um, a clasius soublet.
Let's talk about that a clasius suplet means the church supplies supplies what jurisdiction?
jurisdiction
in times of
emergency, which this clearly is. And it has been since since February of 2013.
So, the question is, are the Cardinals that Bergoglio has created,
Are they actually Cardinals?
It's interesting, this gets hairy.
Historical precedent says that a clasius souplet
has provided jurisdiction when anti-popes appointed cardinals
and they got grandfathered in
because the church herself supplies jurisdiction.
Remember, previous anti-popes were all Catholic.
They weren't trying to destroy the Church.
Here's the precision.
The principle of a clasius suplet can never ever be used to sanate evil, malicious acts.
Many of Bergoglio's appointments have been acts of pure evil and malice, such as to
Joe Fernandez, obviously.
Pure evil.
So, all of that is adult, virile.
People, hopefully men, hopefully clerics and prelates are going to have to sit down and sort all of this out.
So, possible path forward.
Remaining Catholic Cardinals start issuing ex-communications and anathematizing heretics.
Why has this not already been going on? There's a long, proud tradition of both excommunications, bishops excommunicating each other, and the anathema of heretics.
Why is this not going on?
Do you realize anybody in the history of the church, before the 20th century, if they rolled into this situation and saw what was going on?
on, the first question they would ask is, where is your army and when are you invading? And I'm not
kidding. I'm not kidding. The fact that nobody's even excommunicating or anathematizing the likes of
James Martin, the sodomite Jesuit, why has this guy not been excommunicated? Why has he not
been anathematized. This is inexcusable. Tuccio Fernandez does the same thing. There's a long
list. A lot of this stuff is publicly visible. These people, these these heretics and fiends
are putting their acts and their sins and their scandals
on the internet. Again, visibility, so everyone can see it. What possible excuse is there?
Why is this not being done?
So.
ex-communicate, anathema-tize, even if there's just a handful of Catholic cardinals left,
validly elect a Catholic Pope.
Catholic Pope immediately dissolves the College of Cardinals and reboots with 12 men.
I mean, I'm just spitballing here.
This is just off the top of my head.
Remember, Council?
The ability to accurately size up a situation
so that you can then formulate responses, plans, tactics.
If an unlettered, lay-nothing, harpy spinster
can just spitball right off the top of my head and say,
okay, well, maybe we could do this.
I mean, I could probably come up
with half a dozen more options.
What excuse do these people have this inaction isn't a thing we can do
things you can do. You just need to, you need to start from a false, from a true
base premise.
and say it publicly.
and start acting.
Do it feel promotions. Um, I think you you dissolve the College of Cardinals you reboot it with 12 men
None of whom none of whom are pre-existing Cardinals
I think anybody in the College of Cardinals who has any integrity would agree that their
complete failure in this situation, even if we're talking about the faithful Catholic
Cardinals, their failure in this decade to do anything about this, to allow this to drag
out.
I think it's fair to ask for them to go, to resign. Field promotions. You can elevate anybody to the cardinality. In fact, there even used to be lay cardinals. I'm not sure if I think we need to do that.
But are you telling me that there are not twelve fairies?
faithful Catholic priests or monks in the world today.
We can't find 12 men and reboot the thing.
And again, 12, I'm just spitballing there
because 12 apostles and you know,
seems like a good number.
We can't find 12 men, and just boop, boop, boop, Bishop, here's your hat, Cardinal.
Do something, for the love of God, literally for the love of God, do something.
Quietism is a heresy.
Now, yes, God is in control, but he doesn't expect you to lean on a shovel
pray for a whole. And that is that is a perfect description of what is going on
in the Vatican in the institutional church right now. It's a bunch of people standing around.
They've got the shovel. They've got canon law. They've got everything. They've got all the
evidence. They have everything that they need. They have the authority. Great. Standing around
with the shovel, leaning on it, and praying for a whole to miraculously appear.
Do something. That's not how this works. The saints begged God to be able to fight the fight that divine providence has chosen us to fight.
Yeah, I wake up every morning and I just cannot believe the blessing of being able to live in the world in the 2023 and be able to fight this fight.
You say, Lord, are you sure that maybe it wouldn't have been better if you had done this earlier when there were much, much, much, much holier people?
And apparently not, apparently not. The Divine Providence, which is perfect, has chosen this time.
that we're in.
We are blessed beyond measure because we have the opportunity to do things which are amazing and unprecedented in the 2000-year history of the Church.
Don't squander this.
Refuse this gift at your own peril. I beg you.
And I'm talking from Cardinals all the way down to laypeople.
Do not squander this opportunity. Do something. Everybody can do something.
certainly prayer absolutely absolutely but also unlettered lay-nothings we can
clearly do things too
why won't anyone speak up? It's laid out.
Fear of earthly loss. Fear.
What does our Lord say over and over and over and over in the Gospels?
Say, be nice? Nope.
over and over and over. Be not afraid.
Do the right thing, and God will provide.
Have faith. Don't be afraid.
But, across the board, people will not speak up, and people have confessed this to my face.
I can't say anything, I can't do anything, because I am the Soul Bread winner of my family, and I will never be able to work in my field ever again.
I would be finished, I would be done. I can't say anything.
Fear. Fear of earthly loss. Loss of money.
Why do you think our Lord is talking about the rich young man?
who went away sorrowful because he had many possessions and camels passing
through the eyes of needles and things like that. It's all right there in the
gospel. Loss of money?
loss of career, both in for clerics and krullits and for lay people.
Lots of people work in our career dependent on the institutional church.
Prestige, salary, pension.
Insurance. Health insurance. There are people who literally will not say anything against Bergoglio because they're terrified of losing their health insurance.
That's how much of a clown show this is.
donation revenue.
social connections, not being invited to parties and social gatherings if you say,
Francis isn't the Pope.
Having people say mean things about you on social media.
Again, talk about a clown show.
Just human respect.
That kind of covers most of it, I think. There's also the fear of being sneered as an implied 1958
set of the cantis.
This is the SSBX.
terrified of being accused of being set up at Kansas. So, commemorating Francis
and the Tayas, you're, don't you dare say that Francis isn't the Pope, SSPX.
It's a textbook of feminism. And what is a feminism? It is a failure or a refusal to do the virtuous good because it could possibly reduce your own personal comfort.
convenience or pleasure in life. That's what a feminacy is. The sister to a
feminacy is sloth. Sloth is a refusal to do a virtuous good because it's
difficult, genuinely difficult. A feminacy is refusing to do something because it
might reduce your personal pleasure in life.
What did our Lord say? Take up your cross.
He didn't mean that literally. Yeah, he did. Yeah, he did. Take up your cross.
I am now going to conclude with reading excerpts from the letter that St. Catherine of Siena wrote to the Cardinals and in the sense of trying to get the anti-papacy that she was trying to rectify.
rectified, and exhorting these cardinals to do the right thing. This is going to be, this is the conclusion, and I'm just going to read this, and that'll be it.
So, before I start, thank you very much for your very kind attention.
Dearest brothers and fathers in Christ, sweet Jesus, I, Catherine, servant and slave of
the servants of Jesus Christ, write to you in his precious blood, with desire to see
you turn back to the true and most perfect light, leaving the deep shadows of blindness
into which you are fallen.
Since man is created through love, he cannot live without love.
Either he loves God, or he loves himself, and the world with the love that kills.
Fastening the eye of his mind, darkened by self-love
on these transitory things that pass like the wind.
In this state, he can recognize no truth nor goodness.
He recognizes not but falsehood, because he has not light.
For truly, he had the light.
He would recognize it from such a love as this, not can result the pain and eternal death.
It gives him a foretaste of hell in this life.
For he who immoderately loves himself, and the things of this world, becomes unendurable to himself.
O wretched man!
darkness of self-love does not let thee know this truth. For dits thou know it, thou wouldst choose
any pain rather than guide thy life in this way. Thou wouldst give thee to loving and desiring him
who is. Thou wouldst enjoy his truth in firmness, and wouldst not move about like a leaf in the wind.
Thou wouldst serve the creator, and wouldst love
everything in him and apart from him nothing.
Oh how will this blindness be reproved at the last moment in every rational
being and much the more in those whom God has
taken from the filth of the world and assigned to the greatest
excellence that can be having made the ministers
of the blood of the humble and spotless lamb.
Now you have turned your backs, like poor mean nights.
Your shadow has made you afraid.
You have divided you from the truth which strengthens us and drawn close to falsehood,
which weakens soul and body, depriving you of temporal and spiritual grace.
What made you do this?
The poison of self-love, which has infected the world.
That is what has made you pillars lighter than straw.
Flowers you who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek.
No lights you placed in a candlestick that you might spread the faith,
but having hidden your light under the bushel of pride
and become not extenders but contaminators of the faith,
you shed darkness over you.
yourselves and others. You should have been angels on earth,
placed to release us from the devils of hell
and performing the office of angels by bringing back the sheep
into the obedience of holy church and you have taken
the office of devils. That evil which you have in yourselves
you wish to infect us with, withdrawing us from obedience to
Christ on earth and leading us into obedience to Antichrist, a member of the devil, as you are too
so long as you shall abide in this heresy. Ah foolish men, worthy of a thousand deaths.
As blind you do not see your own wrong and have fallen into such confusion that you make
of your own selves, liars and idolaters.
Therefore I tell you that you did wrong with the anti-phobe.
And I may say that he was chosen a member of the devil, for he had been, for had he
been a member of Christ, he would have chosen death rather than consent to so great an evil.
For he wellness.
the truth, and cannot excuse himself through ignorance.
Now you have committed all these faults in regard to this devil, that is to confess him
as pope, which he surely is not, and to show reverence to whom you should not.
You have deserted the light and gone into darkness, the truth, and joined you to a lie.
On what side soever I find nothing but lies.
You are worthy of torture.
which I tell you in truth and unburden my conscience thereof, unless you return to obedience with true humility, will fall upon you.
O me, no more thus for the love of God. Take refuge in humbling you beneath the mighty hand of God, in obedience to his vicar.
while you have time, for when the time is past there will be no more help for us.
Recognize your faults that you may be humble and know the infinite goodness of God who has
not commanded the earth to swallow you up nor be stood devour you. Nay, but has given you time
that you may correct your soul. But if you shall not recognize this, what he has given you
as a grace shall turn to your great judgment.
I beg.
that you delay no more. Nor kick against the prick of conscience that I know is perpetually
stabbing you. And let not the confusion of mind over the evil that you have wrought so overcome you
that you abandon your salvation in weariness and despair.
as seeming unable to find help.
Not so must you do, but in living faith hold firm hope in your Creator and return humbly to your yoke,
for the last sin of obstinacy and despair would be the worst and most hateful to God and the world.
Arise then into the light, for without light you would walk in darkness as you have done up to now.
My soul, considering this, that we can neither know nor love the truth without light,
I said and say that I desire intensely to see you arisen from darkness and one with the light.
This desire reaches out to all rational beings, but much more to you,
concerning whom I have had the greatest sorrow and marvel more at your fault than at all the others who have shared it.
For did all desert their father? You should have been. Such sons as strengthened the father, showing the truth.
Let it not seem hard to you if I pierce you with the words which the love of your salvation has made me write.
Rather would I pierce you with my living voice. Did God permit me?
His will be done, and yet you deserve rather deeds than words.
I come to an end and say no more.
For did I follow my will, I should not yet pause, So full is my soul, of grief and sorrow,
To see such blindness in those who were placed for a light.
No lambs they who feed on the food of the honor of God and the salvation of souls and the reform of holy church, but as thieves they steal the honor which they ought to give God and give it to themselves, and as wolves they devour the sheep, so that I have great bitterness.
I beg you, by love of that precious blood, shed with such fiery love for you, that you give refreshment to my soul, which seeks your salvation.
I say no more to you.
Remain in the holy and sweet grace of God.
Bathe you in the blood of the spotless Lamb,
where you shall lose all servile fear,
and, enlightened, you shall abide in holy fear.
Sweet Jesus.
Jesus.