6 thoughts on “The News that Benedict Renounced the Papacy Is Itself Canonically Invalid”
@Anonymous 8:49
Much is coming to light about Archbishop Gänswein over the past week, which would lead us to ask some very important questions about his role in Pope Benedict’s renunication and that speech he gave in 2016.
What follows is a conversation with Admin of the Catacombs. I desire to help all of them whom we have been associated with at our chapel, and most especially our leader, Father Hewko.
Also, I am doing my best to help anyone else who might need help to understand the unprecedented confusion of the true Pope Benedict XVI and the counterfeit pope jorge bergoglio.
I have no intention to offend anyone.
Dear Admin:
The reply button is missing.
Please post the below in:
1. CRISIS IN THE FAITH
A. SEDEVACANTISM
a. Questioning Benedict XVI’s Resignation? Habemus Papam
Thank you.
Nanmar
Complete English Text: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s ‘Expanded Petrine Office’ Speech
Benedict XVI’s personal secretary stresses there are not two popes, but “an active member and a contemplative member”
Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.
It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.
In his overview of the pontificate, Regoli clearly lays this all out as never before. Perhaps the most moving part of the reading for me was the place where, in a long quote, he recalls the last general audience of Pope Benedict XVI on February 27, 2013 when, under an unforgettable clear and brisk sky, the pope, who shortly thereafter would resign, summarized his pontificate as follows:
“It has been a portion of the Church’s journey which has had its moments of joy and light, but also moments which were not easy; I have felt like Saint Peter with the Apostles in the boat on the Sea of Galilee: The Lord has given us so many days of sun and of light winds, days when the catch was abundant; there were also moments when the waters were rough and the winds against us, as throughout the Church’s history, and the Lord seemed to be sleeping. But I have always known that the Lord is in that boat, and I have always known that the barque of the Church is not mine, it is not ours, but his. Nor does the Lord let it sink; it is he who guides it, surely also through the men whom he has chosen, because he so wished. This has been, and is, a certainty which nothing can obscure.”
I must admit that, rereading these words can still bring tears to my eyes, all the more so because I saw in person and up close how unconditional, for himself and for his ministry, was Pope Benedict’s adherence to St Benedict’s words, for whom “nothing is to be placed before the love of Christ,” nihil amori Christi praeponere, as stated in rule handed down to us by Pope Gregory the Great. I was a witness to this, but I still remain fascinated by the accuracy of that final analysis in St. Peter’s Square which sounded so poetic but was nothing less than prophetic. In fact, they are words to which today, too, Pope Francis would immediately and certainly subscribe. Not to the popes but to Christ, to the Lord Himself and to no one else belongs the barque of Peter, whipped by the waves of the stormy sea, when time and again we fear that the Lord is asleep and that our needs are not important to him, while just one word is enough for him to stop every storm; when instead, more than the high waves and the howling wind, it is our disbelief, our little faith and our impatience that make us continually fall into panic.
Thus, this book once again throws a consoling gaze on the peaceful imperturbability and serenity of Benedict XVI, at the helm of the barque of Peter in the dramatic years 2005-2013. At the same time, however, through this illuminating account, Regoli himself now also takes part in the munus Petri of which I spoke. Like Peter Seewald and others before him, Roberto Regoli — as a priest, professor and scholar — also thus enters into that enlarged Petrine ministry around the successors of the Apostle Peter; and for this today we offer him heartfelt thanks.
Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household
20 May 2016
Translated from the Italian by Diane Montagna of Aleteia’s English edition.
Thank you for sharing the article but no thank you – I do not wish to include it on The Catacombs.
No pope, particularly not the modernist Pope Benedict XVI (while he was still on the papal throne), has the authority to ‘enlarge the Petrine ministry.’ It is already perfectly instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And we all know Our Lord instituted a monarchy.
There is no such thing as a papal diarchy. Even if we were to assume that this idea of a diarchical papacy is exactly what Benedict intended as is implied by his secretary, Benedict has no authority to do so. He cannot re-create what Our Lord instituted.
All this article does is potentially cause confusion which is something we try very hard here not to do. I cannot see how this article helps this situation but rather, I see only how it could hurt it – by its glowing promotion of an entirely new and novel idea about the papacy.
Thank you again. I’m sure your intention was good.
God bless.
“So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church.”- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980
nanmar
New Member
Posts: 3
Member is Online
1 minute ago
Quote
Dear Admin,
“There is no such thing as a papal diarchy. Even if we were to assume that this idea of a diarchical papacy is exactly what Benedict intended as is implied by his secretary, Benedict has no authority to do so. He cannot re-create what Our Lord instituted.”
Your words above are exactly the point I was hoping to put before you and others.
This remains the crux or the matter. As you understand, Pope Benedict had no right to do this as our Lord Jesus Christ established His vicar of Christ on earth as one pope only, and therefore, it should be clear that Benedict is the pope because his modernist attempt to destroy the true papacy by dividing was never accepted by God and never could be. Benedict did not only imply this, he thinks he pulled it off very neatly, but NO WAY.
Think as follows: When two people are sacramentally married, this sacramental marriage is for life. Even if they obtain a secular/civil divorce, in the eyes of God, they are still married for life.
Jesus instituted the papacy and His Holy Catholic Church, His BRIDE, as a marriage.
Pope Benedict remains pope for his whole life according to the Will of its founder who is our LORD JESUS CHRIST! Regardless of the will of Pope Benedict, jorge bergoglio, the freemasons, and any other enemies of our Lord Jesus to split it into a “so called” shared office, it is impossible that this be accepted by God. Because this is impossible, Benedict remains the pope in the eyes of God for life [same as sacramental marriage] and no other man can be elected to be the shared vicar of Christ on earth.
The logical extension is that jorge bergoglio was uncanonically elected, and he is a counterfeit pope as the head of the counterfeit conciliar church.
Furthermore, the freemasons applauded the “nonresignation” of Pope Benedict XVI because they succeeded, so they think, in placing bergoglio upon the chair of Peter.
One last thing, one pope + one pope does not = one pope. Jesus has already established His Church as the Bride of Christ. No enemies have been able to destroy His Bride and never will be able to do so.
However, the minions throughout Church history keep trying, but maybe they will not ever be so clever as this
time in which the canonically elected Modernist Pope Benedict aided the takeover by the Modernist enemies of Christ by electing their man to the papacy who is THE DESTROYER JORGE BERGOGLIO.
I will continue to pray for you, Father Hewko, and all the others in the 54 day Rosary Novena; today is day 17.
God Bless Us All.
P.S. When you have Father Hewko read this, we want him to know that he is always in our prayers.
Much is coming to light about Archbishop Gänswein over the past week, which would lead us to ask some very important questions about his role in Pope Benedict’s renunciation and that speech he gave in 2016.
This article is a very interesting question saturated one regarding A. Ganswein. I am willing to think about the questions; however, generally speaking some or many or other such quantification may be beyond our finding the answers. This does not mean that we can not be thinking “arm chair theologians”. Remember as the term is many times used manipulatively and so applied and meant to stop us from thinking. There is NO WAY to not be diligently figuring out what is going on, and it would be a dereliction of duty as a Catholic to be intimidated by other Catholics to stop thinking because they believe they are in a self proclaimed higher status and more authoritative position as “arm chair theologians” who also have decided that everyone should/must succumb to their way of thinking.
I do want to say that the article is misnamed in regard to “minus Ganswein” because it is really significantly more than ever before about expanding thought regarding Ganswein.
Thank you so much, Charmaine, for presenting this article for Catholics who BY NECESSITY and in order to save our souls are today thinking “arm chair theologians”.
Also, pray your DAILY ROSARY and wear your BROWN SCAPULAR; it is our QUEEN OF QUEENS WHO IS MOTHER OF GOD and OUR MOTHER who will lead us to heaven in
every way possible. As one armchair theologian, I like to think of my nickname as ARMY as it pertains to being one soldier among others who are persevering toward the TRIUMPH OF HER IMMACUALATE HEART.
@Anonymous 8:49
Much is coming to light about Archbishop Gänswein over the past week, which would lead us to ask some very important questions about his role in Pope Benedict’s renunication and that speech he gave in 2016.
Please read the following by Br. Alexis Bugnolo:
WE NEED TO RE-EXAMINE THE RENUNCIATION MINUS GÄNSWEIN
https://fromrome.info/2020/01/17/we-need-to-re-examine-the-renunciation-minus-ganswein/
What follows is a conversation with Admin of the Catacombs. I desire to help all of them whom we have been associated with at our chapel, and most especially our leader, Father Hewko.
Also, I am doing my best to help anyone else who might need help to understand the unprecedented confusion of the true Pope Benedict XVI and the counterfeit pope jorge bergoglio.
I have no intention to offend anyone.
Dear Admin:
The reply button is missing.
Please post the below in:
1. CRISIS IN THE FAITH
A. SEDEVACANTISM
a. Questioning Benedict XVI’s Resignation? Habemus Papam
Thank you.
Nanmar
Complete English Text: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s ‘Expanded Petrine Office’ Speech
© Antoine Mekary / ALETEIA
Diane Montagna | May 30, 2016
Benedict XVI’s personal secretary stresses there are not two popes, but “an active member and a contemplative member”
Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.
It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.
In his overview of the pontificate, Regoli clearly lays this all out as never before. Perhaps the most moving part of the reading for me was the place where, in a long quote, he recalls the last general audience of Pope Benedict XVI on February 27, 2013 when, under an unforgettable clear and brisk sky, the pope, who shortly thereafter would resign, summarized his pontificate as follows:
“It has been a portion of the Church’s journey which has had its moments of joy and light, but also moments which were not easy; I have felt like Saint Peter with the Apostles in the boat on the Sea of Galilee: The Lord has given us so many days of sun and of light winds, days when the catch was abundant; there were also moments when the waters were rough and the winds against us, as throughout the Church’s history, and the Lord seemed to be sleeping. But I have always known that the Lord is in that boat, and I have always known that the barque of the Church is not mine, it is not ours, but his. Nor does the Lord let it sink; it is he who guides it, surely also through the men whom he has chosen, because he so wished. This has been, and is, a certainty which nothing can obscure.”
I must admit that, rereading these words can still bring tears to my eyes, all the more so because I saw in person and up close how unconditional, for himself and for his ministry, was Pope Benedict’s adherence to St Benedict’s words, for whom “nothing is to be placed before the love of Christ,” nihil amori Christi praeponere, as stated in rule handed down to us by Pope Gregory the Great. I was a witness to this, but I still remain fascinated by the accuracy of that final analysis in St. Peter’s Square which sounded so poetic but was nothing less than prophetic. In fact, they are words to which today, too, Pope Francis would immediately and certainly subscribe. Not to the popes but to Christ, to the Lord Himself and to no one else belongs the barque of Peter, whipped by the waves of the stormy sea, when time and again we fear that the Lord is asleep and that our needs are not important to him, while just one word is enough for him to stop every storm; when instead, more than the high waves and the howling wind, it is our disbelief, our little faith and our impatience that make us continually fall into panic.
Thus, this book once again throws a consoling gaze on the peaceful imperturbability and serenity of Benedict XVI, at the helm of the barque of Peter in the dramatic years 2005-2013. At the same time, however, through this illuminating account, Regoli himself now also takes part in the munus Petri of which I spoke. Like Peter Seewald and others before him, Roberto Regoli — as a priest, professor and scholar — also thus enters into that enlarged Petrine ministry around the successors of the Apostle Peter; and for this today we offer him heartfelt thanks.
Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household
20 May 2016
Translated from the Italian by Diane Montagna of Aleteia’s English edition.
Link: aleteia.org/2016/05/30/complete-english-text-archbishop-georg-gansweins-expanded-petrine-office-speech/3/
Admin
Senior Member
Posts: 3,824
19 hours ago
Quote
Dear Nanmar,
Thank you for sharing the article but no thank you – I do not wish to include it on The Catacombs.
No pope, particularly not the modernist Pope Benedict XVI (while he was still on the papal throne), has the authority to ‘enlarge the Petrine ministry.’ It is already perfectly instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And we all know Our Lord instituted a monarchy.
There is no such thing as a papal diarchy. Even if we were to assume that this idea of a diarchical papacy is exactly what Benedict intended as is implied by his secretary, Benedict has no authority to do so. He cannot re-create what Our Lord instituted.
All this article does is potentially cause confusion which is something we try very hard here not to do. I cannot see how this article helps this situation but rather, I see only how it could hurt it – by its glowing promotion of an entirely new and novel idea about the papacy.
Thank you again. I’m sure your intention was good.
God bless.
“So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church.”- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980
nanmar
New Member
Posts: 3
Member is Online
1 minute ago
Quote
Dear Admin,
“There is no such thing as a papal diarchy. Even if we were to assume that this idea of a diarchical papacy is exactly what Benedict intended as is implied by his secretary, Benedict has no authority to do so. He cannot re-create what Our Lord instituted.”
Your words above are exactly the point I was hoping to put before you and others.
This remains the crux or the matter. As you understand, Pope Benedict had no right to do this as our Lord Jesus Christ established His vicar of Christ on earth as one pope only, and therefore, it should be clear that Benedict is the pope because his modernist attempt to destroy the true papacy by dividing was never accepted by God and never could be. Benedict did not only imply this, he thinks he pulled it off very neatly, but NO WAY.
Think as follows: When two people are sacramentally married, this sacramental marriage is for life. Even if they obtain a secular/civil divorce, in the eyes of God, they are still married for life.
Jesus instituted the papacy and His Holy Catholic Church, His BRIDE, as a marriage.
Pope Benedict remains pope for his whole life according to the Will of its founder who is our LORD JESUS CHRIST! Regardless of the will of Pope Benedict, jorge bergoglio, the freemasons, and any other enemies of our Lord Jesus to split it into a “so called” shared office, it is impossible that this be accepted by God. Because this is impossible, Benedict remains the pope in the eyes of God for life [same as sacramental marriage] and no other man can be elected to be the shared vicar of Christ on earth.
The logical extension is that jorge bergoglio was uncanonically elected, and he is a counterfeit pope as the head of the counterfeit conciliar church.
Furthermore, the freemasons applauded the “nonresignation” of Pope Benedict XVI because they succeeded, so they think, in placing bergoglio upon the chair of Peter.
One last thing, one pope + one pope does not = one pope. Jesus has already established His Church as the Bride of Christ. No enemies have been able to destroy His Bride and never will be able to do so.
However, the minions throughout Church history keep trying, but maybe they will not ever be so clever as this
time in which the canonically elected Modernist Pope Benedict aided the takeover by the Modernist enemies of Christ by electing their man to the papacy who is THE DESTROYER JORGE BERGOGLIO.
I will continue to pray for you, Father Hewko, and all the others in the 54 day Rosary Novena; today is day 17.
God Bless Us All.
P.S. When you have Father Hewko read this, we want him to know that he is always in our prayers.
The Admin’s reply implicitly admits that Benedict XVI is still the pope. Why? Because Benedict XVI’s act was invalid. Therefore, he remains pope.
Our Father Who art in Heaven. Hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come.
THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. . .
AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM
Much is coming to light about Archbishop Gänswein over the past week, which would lead us to ask some very important questions about his role in Pope Benedict’s renunciation and that speech he gave in 2016.
Please read the following by Br. Alexis Bugnolo:
WE NEED TO RE-EXAMINE THE RENUNCIATION MINUS GÄNSWEIN
https://fromrome.info/2020/01/17/we-need-to-re-examine-the-renunciation-minus-ganswein/
This article is a very interesting question saturated one regarding A. Ganswein. I am willing to think about the questions; however, generally speaking some or many or other such quantification may be beyond our finding the answers. This does not mean that we can not be thinking “arm chair theologians”. Remember as the term is many times used manipulatively and so applied and meant to stop us from thinking. There is NO WAY to not be diligently figuring out what is going on, and it would be a dereliction of duty as a Catholic to be intimidated by other Catholics to stop thinking because they believe they are in a self proclaimed higher status and more authoritative position as “arm chair theologians” who also have decided that everyone should/must succumb to their way of thinking.
I do want to say that the article is misnamed in regard to “minus Ganswein” because it is really significantly more than ever before about expanding thought regarding Ganswein.
Thank you so much, Charmaine, for presenting this article for Catholics who BY NECESSITY and in order to save our souls are today thinking “arm chair theologians”.
Also, pray your DAILY ROSARY and wear your BROWN SCAPULAR; it is our QUEEN OF QUEENS WHO IS MOTHER OF GOD and OUR MOTHER who will lead us to heaven in
every way possible. As one armchair theologian, I like to think of my nickname as ARMY as it pertains to being one soldier among others who are persevering toward the TRIUMPH OF HER IMMACUALATE HEART.
AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM