Frustrated? Feeling Low? Deal!

Not to get all “mommy” on you but sometimes I feel like I’m dealing with the endless amount of dirty laundry and every time I feel like I might see the end of the pile, the washer or dryer breaks. Except it’s not really laundry right now. It’s the crud in the Church. It just never ends and we can’t seem to catch a break, right?  This is where I was this weekend with the death of Bishop Morlino right on the heels of the disastrous USCCB meeting.

Thankfully, I got the one two punch I needed to keep my chin up and move on. First of all, I hit confession. I admitted feeling a weeeeeeeee bit of frustration after hearing about Bishop Morlino’s death. I mean, really??? We have how many bishops and God chose to take him. Of course, my priest told me what I really already knew. He’s an even greater advocate for us now. My priest also reminded me not to be part of the problem. I also get that. It’s not like the Holy Father doesn’t score a small point when he mentions gossip even though my guess is he says it because he’d just like a little silence. “My side” has a problem with that sometimes, too.

Then it seems I got right out of the confessional and got a homily on speaking the truth. Yep! There’s definitely a balance there that those in the blogosphere have to get right. I’m sure I fall short on some days, but I’m still trying. And there’s also a message about not giving up on the truth and St. Paul and all that good stuff. Around this time of year, it’s mighty tempting just to take a super long vacation. I mean, I’m not getting paid to do this so crawling back into my Catholic cave is appealing. That said, I have a sneaking suspicion this is the devil trying to sideline me. This is not the time for any of us to let up.

Now let’s go back to my warning from the confessional and things about which I think we all need to be careful. I’m sure this isn’t going to be popular to hear for many and this blog post might not even see the light of day, but here goes.

Let me contend with the whole theory that the Pope isn’t the pope. I’m not going to say the assumption is wrong, although I suspect it is. It’s like people don’t remember we’ve had less than stellar popes that were still actually popes, just bad ones. But let me tell you why I think questioning whether Pope Francis is really the pope or calling him “Bergoglio” is a colossal waste of time and damages “the cause.” IT’S NOT OUR CALL!  Seriously, until Pope Benedict XVI rises up and says “Just kidding!” which is not going to happen, the only other person who can make that judgment is the next holy father. Now, he may in fact do so, but we’re wasting time on this one.  So much more energy could go elsewhere. Please note, saying the Holy Father is ambiguous or has a poor management style, etc., etc., etc., is not something out of our scope. I’m not even close to saying we have to sit on our hands and shut up.

Now, is there some way through canon law he could cease to be pope or be declared as such? People have been mulling this over for centuries and, who knows, there might just be a loophole there somewhere, but good luck with that.  And, really, can you imagine if someone tried to make this move?  I can’t even imagine the split in the Church then. Canon Law even says that the Pope can be judged if he deviates from the Faith and he can retire, but it never mentions who would be the judge when it says no one can judge the pope. It’s all so easy to wish this away with the “He can’t possibly be the REAL pope!” wish.  Get over it. All we have is this, which is why I’m sticking with my “We’re stuck waiting to see how that shakes out until the next pope comes along.”
And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, [12] and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, [13] and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. [14] Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.”

So, again, why are we wasting time on this?  We’ll know at some point in the nearish future.  Just call him by his title and move on to more concrete and valid points. It’s a distraction from some really valuable points.

We also really need to stop throwing out accusations where we have no proof.  For example, I completely think that Fr. Martin is probably suffering from same-sex attraction, but I really have zero proof.  Same goes for a few other priests, bishops and cardinals.  We do, however, have enough to be upset about with all the damaging FACTS of heresy, malfeasance, weird tweets.  Now, if you’re an investigative reporter, follow the leads, but until you get to the proof, focus on where you have proof.  I don’t have to sit around and wonder if Fr. Martin is SSA.  I do have irrefutable proof, though, that he’s not discouraging people and is even encouraging people to live active homosexual lifestyles and sooooo many other things (go ahead and search my blog). I mean, he’s stated tangible heresy and immorality.  I don’t need to know his attractions.  I need to show that he runs counter to the Church and why.  And, I can easily show that HIS way doesn’t work via his lifelong friend in a “gay marriage” who he’s never managed to get out of the active homosexual lifestyle.  So much for the bridge.  It’s ending exactly where we said it would.

There’s a few other areas where we need to reform and to focus like a laser on the truth that we can show with facts. We need to make sure we are acting in our purview and we need not usurp the authority we do not have.  Even if we are right in our suspicions, we will hang ourselves.  Investigate at will.  I encourage it, because uncovering facts are never a bad thing, even if the facts may show evil.  Just don’t get antsy to spill the goods.

I’ve seen many of you downtrodden over the state of the Church.  Personally, I think I’m living in an awesome time because, as history shows us, the hard times are how saints are made!  I think, for the first time in my life (I’m not that old so we’re not talking about the entire history of the Church by any means), people are paying attention. They aren’t asleep anymore.  It’s total and complete proof that God can take a bad situation and still bring about good.  I see it on the blogs, on Twitter, in the fasting and prayer, with statements some bishops and cardinals have made, etc.  People are making a stand for the Faith and are doing SOMETHING!  Seriously!  When have you seen many bishops asking us to fast, abstain and make reparations (much to Fr. James Martin, SJ’s chagrin)??? (And, yes, he did express anger that people would be asked to make reparation. It’s not a hunch!) So, don’t be disheartened!  Be thrilled to live in a time where the Church in our country has a pulse!

Let’s all follow Bishop Molino’s most excellent example and persevere to the end!  I’m a mom.  If I can stare laundry in the face day in and day out for decades, we can all do this together!  With God all things are possible!  Carry on!



122 thoughts on “Frustrated? Feeling Low? Deal!

  1. Exactly, we have to deal with our frustrations and low feelings. I realized years ago that I was gonna have to do laundry all the time because I wanted all my family to put on clear underwear every day. So, I decided to fall in love with the process. Now laundry is my hobby. I am feeling the same way about being Catholic. Not my hobby, but I am in love with all things liturgical and with praying and meditation and all the good and beautiful things about being Catholic. I even like the things I find difficult, like Confession.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Being Catholic is not about feelings but embracing suffering. The fact that people don’t want to come to grips with the realization that we are in the Great Apostasy and the duty to fight against it, is not an excuse to over look the facts on Canon 188. There are now two theologians/canon lawyers saying that this should be looked into and also Bishop Gracida. However it was a lay person that called it a long time ago. As Bishop Sheen said about the Church, it will be the laity that saves it not the clergy. When there were anti-popes in the past or problems of heresy who called the councils to fix it……Emperors. Constantine called it to combat Arianism, King Sigmund put the pressure on to have a council called and the result was the Council of Constance called to end the Great Western Schism.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Monsignor Bux, former consultor to the C.D.F. is one theologian of excellent reputation.

          Cardinal Brandmüller has a problem w the whole concept of Pope Emeritus. Roberto DeMattei as well. Socci just published a new book questioning the validity and scope and effect of the resignation.

          I’d say as in the case of the Clerical Homosexual Network Strangling the Church, things are accelerating at an exponential rate.

          I agree with the other commentators’ remarks that (a) souls are at stake; (b) Francis is demolishing the Church—it’s his raison d’etre; and (c) the truth matters.

          Had you not heard of apostasy in the Church at the highest levels and the Fatima prophecy of a false pope leading crowds into Hell. Which doesn’t exist by the way according to Francis. But let’s just say he is that false pope—Wouldn’t he then deny the existence of Hell, lying all the way there?


  2. “Why are we ‘wasting time’ on this?” ??

    You may currently be feeling “low”, but your faith is quite strong. You should be very, very thankful for that. You also should be ever mindful of it, and not let that lens of faith blur the plight of the average pewsitter. Souls are at risk. Souls are being lost. Heresy is being preached from the top of the Church, and many people, solid Catholics, are losing their faith.

    Thank you very much for your blog, by the way. I can’t recall having ever disagreed with anything else you’ve written. But what you are saying here amounts to, “Shut up, the truth doesn’t matter.”

    I suppose taking the blue pill would be okay, if the eternal destiny of souls were not at stake.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I tried replying by phone but it seems to have disappeared.

      Let’s discuss. (And BTW, I have no problem with people telling me I’m wrong but I like an explanation.) Let’s start with the question of who is the canonical judge of who is pope and who is not?

      People seem to be missing the fact that, while I think Pope Francis is likely Pope Francis, my argument is that even if he is not, there’s only one person who can judge this and that is Peter (whether it be Pope Benedict XVI or the next pope.) So, yeah, again, I find it a colossal waste of time and a distraction from where we do have jurisdiction. Usurping authority we don’t have always ends up the same way.


      1. I wasn’t saying you are wrong about who is pope (although I do think that). I was saying you are wrong for saying it’s pointless or even harmful to be discussing it. The point of my comment was that souls are at risk because of what is happening. Your post seems to shrug your shoulders and say, “So what? Who am I to judge?” That just strikes me as so uncharitable when the stakes are so high.

        When I wrote my declaration of Moral Certitude regrading the Bergoglian Antipapacy at nonvenipacem, I made sure to include an explanation of what exactly moral certitude involves, and what it requires of us. Specifically, that the level of certitude necessary to require a moral action is inversely related to the gravity of the given situation. An example was given of catching a child under the kitchen sink, raising an opened bottle of something to her lips. You don’t need more information about that household, you don’t need scientific tests on the liquid, you don’t even need permission from the child’s parents. You act. You rush toward the child and intervene.

        The situation we are dealing with involves who is the actual Vicar of Christ on earth. It is most certainly grave matter. Faithful souls are falling away, and unfaithful souls are being ratified in their sin. More and more people are discovering that the weight of the evidence pointing toward Benedict’s failed partial abdication significantly exceeds the threshold of moral certainty, and thus requires action.

        Echoing some others here in the combox, I highly recommend watching the entire two hours of Ann’s video. If there are specific points you can refute, then refute them. At least that would eliminate the accusation of “Intellectual Sloth”.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. “The point of my comment was that souls are at risk because of what is happening.” Souls aren’t being saved by having debates about the validity of Benedict’s resignation or Francis’s election.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. In fact, some who want to make the declaration that Francis isn’t pope could very well be putting themselves in more spiritual danger than some of the people we all complain about if they are wrong. Nobody ever thinks about this. This is something you have to have absolute moral certitude about or you might just have made THE biggest blunder of your life. Again, wondering, calling for an investigation, etc. are all fine but, again, in my opinion since we still have no Dubia answer a WASTE OF TIME!


  3. Yes – been struggling with this myself. I find myself wasting time on the Internet hoping to find the definitive article that shows the Church is heading in the right direction, that the Pope has moved a few good men into the Curia, a few less good ones out, opened files and admitted mistakes – sincerely. Or I am hoping to read that the Popemobile rolled over, left the Pope blind for 3 days till he was miraculously healed and has a new perspective. Sometimes I think I am looking for a breaking news story of a mysterious earthquake that rolled through the Vatican leaving some Archbishops and Cardinals missing. There is probably something sinful in that, but I take some comfort that even Paul said, “Alexander the coppersmith did me a great deal of harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.” (2Tim 4:14). It would be so much easier for God to step directly in and take care of the whole mess – maybe He will, but he left a Church and we are part of it. How to fix it? When is my anger righteous, when has it crossed a line?

    I am lazy and impatient. I want a solution now and an end to my wretchedness over the state of my church. At the same time I recognize the awesomeness of the era – but somewhat fearfully as the prophesies of a number of Marian apparitions seem to fit our time all too well. I remember thinking that my parent’s generation must have thought WWI followed so closely by WWII might mean the end of all things – then it didn’t. But God’s time is not ours. Maybe it was part of the end, but not quickly, like I imagined it would be. How we have destroyed so much when with all the luxuries we have today (running water to do all that laundry) life could be simple and good, but we make it frightful. How much more will we mess it up? The bright spot – when I see good men stand up for the truth even when they will be publicly derided for it. This week I am blessing Cardinal Muller. This time in church history will show who the real heroes are.


  4. Only one problem with your premise . You are assuming the resignation of Pope Benedict is valid , if it was invalid , any future election of a pope while he is still alive will result in a worse antipope than Bergolio . I recommend Ann Barnhardt’s video . It is 100% logical . No Pope can decide to partiallly resign ( which is what “expanded papacy “ means ) . He himself is not the arbiter of objective reality which is that the papacy is a juridical office for ONE person . Therefore it IS an urgent matter that needs to be rectified now before it is too late or the next “papacy” will be 10x worse .

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So Ann Barnhardt is the canonical authority to judge who is and who is not pope? Does she has some super JCL degree I haven’t heard about?

      There may be a problem with my premise but you’ve failed to show it. I believe, if you read, that I said the “Bergoglio” people may or may not be right in their assumption. The problem is, nobody has the authority to make that determination because, besides Canon Law, Pastor Aeternus. So they’re all wasting time and spinning their wheels. Negating the Francis papacy would have little bearing on who we get next go around. Remember, most of the people who put him there are still there even if you remove the entire slate of cardinals he appointed. I’m simply not for wasting time.


      1. Thanks, Mom. I’m right there with you. Ann Barnhardt has no special insight. Catholic intellectuals are not at this minute devouring her video and proclaiming, “How did we all miss this?”

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I have found Taylor Marshall’s videos to be a great source of understanding / education and the need to hang in there.


        1. You can tell the kooks because they always say “souls are at risk” This is their all purpose justification for doing any crazy thing they want. They are not saving any souls. They are most likely putting souls in hell by spending all their day spinning conspiracy theories about the Pope not being the Pope because THeY HaVE a CoNSPiRaCY THeoRY. I am so sick of these nuts that infest every Catholic web site. These are the kooks that no one pays any attention to, and now the internet gives them a platform to ruin everyone else’s life by shouting all day long. I spent some time listening to Barhhardt and she is a kook, pure and simple who could not tie her shoelaces when it comes to figuring this stuff out.


          1. Strange how everyone you disagree with is a “kook”. Who are you to judge? Perhaps you would benefit from a somewhat deeper analysis of the situation. Venom is rarely conducive to understanding.


          1. It seems Tosatti is backing Sotti’s claim that Benedict only intended a partial abdication. But they also both seem to think that he accomplished it, which is an ontological impossibility.


          2. Yeah, that’s where the Barnhardt thesis falls flat for me. Pope Benedict XVI is hardly a dumb guy. Yeah, he could have just made an honest error but he always dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s. And, if Barnhardt is right, Pope Benedict is still pope and he would be the one with the power to loose and bind and there’s no indication he rules this to be so. Like I said, the jursidiction would likely have to be him or a future pope to sort out the mess.


          3. It seems the jurisdiction would have to be Benedict himself, yes. And you’re also right about him not being dumb. But God was hind enough to show us that the greatest intellects can fall into the gravest error. In fact, the creature with the greatest intellect ever created made the biggest error in the history of the universe, and a third of the angels followed him.


          4. OH, I totally agree with you on that. I’m just don’t consider myself in that realm of smart. I think Benedict had a hope and it turned into this. Not sure where it all fits into “the plan” whatever that is. LOL!


          5. dox and OMM: I’d go so far as to say that the language of Benedict’s “abdication” if the English is correct, clearly, yes, very clearly, indicates an intent to divide the papacy and to retain a portion of it. Thus, for me, the language being what it is, there is little question this is what was intended.

            Where I part with Barnhardt and dox, is that I must wait for a future Pope to fully conclude the proposition that Bergoglio is an anti-Pope.

            Those two are certain they have the answer, and frankly, it is pretty hard for me to argue with them as I simply do not have the background to do so. I’m not 100% convinced about the ontological impossibility dox refers to. And obviously, I lack AUTHORITY to judge juridically. Thus I am w/ OMM in that sense.

            Having said THAT, I am in a position to read and make sense of documents and if documents of the Magesterium were to be presented to me that clarified for me the position dox takes, I could concur, and at that point would be in a position to state that facts conclusively prove the anti-papacy of Bergoglio IN THE SAME LIMITED SENSE that one may be in possession of absolutely conclusive evidence that, say, a murder has been committed and know absolutely who did it yet still be unable to LEGALLY declare that perpetrator to be a “murderer” until the perpetrator has been found guilty in a court of law.

            Is there then no value in knowing the truth of the matter? Oh, yes, there is. For in knowing the truth, we are then equipped and able to make the decisions we will need to make as these events unfold, for looking back on history, it is demonstrable that in other times of chaos, faithful needed to be prepared to believe and act when the times demanded it and in the future, we may need to discern who is who from among arguing and divided prelates or, dare I say it, from between two men who both assert they are Pope! There may indeed come a time when we would be forced to choose between two sides, neither of which are in 100% possession of the trappings of the Church which normally assist in making decisions of this kind easy. As St Athanasius said “They have the buildings, we have the faith”. Normally, possession of the buildings helps one make a conclusion. In the future that may not be so…

            I did not convert to the Catholic faith in order to check my brain at the door, but neither did I convert to ascribe to myself authority I do not possess. I have been there before. I won’t go back. I trust God to grant me the patience to WAIT on Him to bring forth the truth and proof in His good timing.

            And to OMM, thank you for heading up this discussion.


          6. I think we agree far more than we disagree and I have no problem with people thinking one theory is right and the other wrong but once we place it into a judgment, BAM, you lost me.

            I do have to chuckle that people think I’m taking this too lightly or sitting down and giving up. I’m praying for people to die. LOL! Conversion first, of course. Glad we regained the great discussion.


      2. I totally agree with you. I flee from Anne B for one reason and it is that the hideous insults that she flings at Pope Francis are so beyond our need for reason and charity and meekness. Meekness does not mean that we are walked all over but that we imitate the Master. This is how I know that she is taking many down a wrong road that is not pleasing to God. We, who love the church are somewhat like PTSD patients going through anger, denial, depression, bargaining with God, and acceptance. These are also what the dying go through in stages.
        In one sense, we are mourning the ‘death’ or abdication of Benedict but when I am in the Adoration chapel I am filled with Christ’s peace. This magnificent feast that we just celebrated of Christ the King and all the readings from the Book of Revelations should make us pause in awe of who God is and how He is in control of what seems to be spinning out of control. We know from scripture that we haven’t even gotten to the worst of what is to come and in one sense we have to adopt a holy indifference to all that is going on in the world unless we can assist others if possible. We must speak out when necessary but we must also remember that prayer and living a holy life ourselves is the best we can do to build up the kingdom of God in the present moment. As St. Teresa of Avila said…”God is in the pots and pans.” We cannot underestimate the importance of the smallest things we do if offered up for our beloved church. If we are to assist others as the times grow darker Christ needs us to remain calm so that we can direct those who are anxious to the confessional or to baptism and most importantly to HOPE in Christ’s unfathomable mercy to the repentant soul. God bless you!

        Liked by 2 people

      3. No one has authority to recognize truth?
        I beg you to reconsider that position. It seems to me that all the angry women weighing in on their blogs are providing more heat than light. One thing that is crystal clear, however, is that we MUST trust in God to enlighten our intellects and that means discerning an obvious imposter who is filled with malice for Our Lord.


    2. I agree with you. OMM is WAY off base here. This question goes to the heart of our faith in the goodness and providence of God. Those “faithful” who are so devoted to honoring a pretender to Peter’s throne, while he wrecks and abuses the Bride of Christ, are seriously lacking in charity and courage.


  5. One Mad Mom has declared fear, effeminacy, and intellectual sloth to be virtues. Another victory for the criminal Bergoglio gang.

    Benedict never resigned the office of the papacy. It’s right there, in the Latin of his “resignation.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “One Mad Mom has declared fear, effeminacy, and intellectual sloth to be virtues. Another victory for the criminal Bergoglio gang”

      OK, I expected to take a hit on this from the Barnhardt fans but really? This is kind of slander, callumny and detraction all rolled into one big lie. But, go ahead, lay out the argument. It ought to be fun.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. And with your first sentence you have crowned yourself the prince of fools.

      Ann Barnhardt is the Catholic blogger equivalent of Michael Avenatti.


      1. It’s telling that insults, invective, and contempt are all flowing from those who would defend a position which guarantees the demise of the visible Church. Please consider whence comes your inspiration for so much antagonism. If you love Christ and His Church, ought you not rather to try to reason and explain than attack those whom you believe are in error?


        1. Please, people. Can we stop whining about name calling. It’s been done now. Name calling is bad unless, of course, it’s Fr. Martin and he deserves it? Arthur isn’t a kook because of his beliefs on Ann Barnhardt. He’s a cook because he actually said this about me.”One Mad Mom has declared fear, effeminacy, and intellectual sloth to be virtues.” I mean, that’s whacked. But seriously, people, get over the hurt feelings because 100 comments on “You’re so mean!” “You’re not Catholic!” “You don’t love Christ is annoying.” I’m starting to see why Fr. Z shuts off the combox and Roderick and I are were having a perfectly lovely conversation so I’d rather leave it on. Ad hominems have no place in a good discussion. Back up your accusations, people! BTW, noticed I did that with Arthur and I wasn’t even the one who actually called him a kook in the first place. Let’s not all get so full of ourselves we can’t have a discussion.

          One last thing…Please read what people wrote before you reply. I’m seeing all sorts of things attributed to me that I did not say.

          To be clear, I never said Ann was wrong about Pope Francis not being the pope. In fact, I said she might just be right. What I talked about was canonical jurisdiction and she doesn’t have it so, again, she just did something that could be very tragic.

          Next, I hear Edward Pentin and Bishop Gracida (not Garcia) have called for an inquiry. I haven’t seen either. I have no problem with people wanting to sort it out. My premise is not and has always been that it will be sorted out but there are other things in our wheelhouse we need to tend to. Do I wish some sort of canonical jurisdiction would step in and say Francis isn’t the real Pope? Uh, yeah. It would make it soooooooooooo much easier for ME. Geez! I’m actively praying that God opens their eyes or he closes them which, yes, means I’m praying for their conversion of heart and mind or that God simply takes them to their eternal reward wherever that may be.


          1. The discussion isn’t advanced with insults, which is my point. Hurt feelings have nothing to do with it. I would think any rebukes should be saved for those who have nothing but name-calling to contribute.


          2. But you’re good with people lying about people? Geez. I wouldn’t have even called out Arthur except I found it over the top funny. I can’t count the endless amount of names I’ve been called. Who really cares? I don’t recommend it because you lose any chance of having a decent conversation and I love those. But, hey, I’m sure I’ve called Fr. Martin and idiot on more than one occasion. He’s made it clear he can’t handle a decent conversation so I’m just going to go with reality but I always back it up with fact. Love you, Pearl. Isn’t it nice we don’t always have to agree in the Body of Christ?


    1. Dear Arthur. You are nuts. Get used to it. Failure to accept reality means you are nuts. Pope Benedict resigned effectively. You are nuts. Now, go start a “we are nutty Catholics” web site. We are sick of you nuts. I notice that you decided to smear One Mad Mom because she told you the truth. This is the thing about you guys. You are barely Christian, you are fanatics with vicious little souls.


    2. Another thing about the nuts. She took two hours to make her case that the Pope is not the Pope. They always need two hours to explain something that should be able to be explained in five minutes. When there is no serious case to be made, you need to sling a lot of bull to get people to believe you. When they do it in writing, these nuts always take ten pages to explain it. So sick of these kooks infesting every Catholic site with their insanity.


      1. I watched some of the vid. I agree the position should take no more than about 15 minutes to present. In fact, one could make the case for the need for an investigation into the validity of B16’s resignation in less than that. Took Msgr Bux only a sentence or two.


      2. I have been reading/watching Ann Barnhardt for quite a while. I’m not saying I agree with her on this. I do want to note that just because she takes two hours to lay it all out doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done in five minutes. Ann’s podcasts are all long. She is a person who takes a lot of time to say something. 🙂


  6. Strictly speaking, I am pretty sure the Pope only has jurisdiction over the Church Militant. And each Pope is deposed in turn by the One Who will judge him.


  7. Would some explain to me why does the church even waste time writing Cannon Law, or laws regulating the resignation of popes, or of Papal Conclaves? Why have them, when no one seems to care, and no one seems to be in charge to make sure things go as Cannon Law dictates? Just throw them all away. No can even say, who the heck is in charge to make sure everything is conducted properly. The bishops don’t have the guts to question anything. Everyone just goes along with the flow. Sort of like with the sex abuse crisis. Why have any rules, laws, or anything? You don’t care, no body cares. And you really expect the next pope is going to fix this when we have men who maybe violated the law the last time, (and received a automatic excommunication by the way if they did) are suddenly going to follow the law the next time, and elect a “good” pope next time? How is that going to work when all the cardinals being appointed are way out there. Seriously, look at these new cardinals. They are the goofiest bunch of characters you have ever seen! They are going to elect a good pope? Are you kidding me? JPII and Benedict put some real characters in as cardinal’s, just think about the new ones since. It’s enough to give you nightmares! Oh, and if Francis violated the rules of the last conclave, and received an automatic excommunication, how does that work? Are cardinal’s he appoints really cardinals? No, Msgr. Baux is right, someone needs to examine the entire thing that occurred in 2013 from beginning to end. Too many red flags are going up with what happened.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Prayer and fasting, taad. Don’t discount it. Like I’ve said, it’s really rather simple. We will have a future pope who will say that he is or is not a pope. Until then, I plod on. And “too many red flags” is kind of an overstatement. It’s just something a few have sunk their teeth in and there are sooooo many other things to be done. Like I’ve said before, the simple prayer of “May God open their eyes or close them.” does far more than going in circles on this one. Prayers for conversion which should always be first and protection if that is not to be.

      Have any of the Barnhardt fans stopped to think for a minute that the vast majority of the brilliant Catholic minds with and without a JCL aren’t towing the “Bergoglio” line? Not Burke, Vigano, the canon lawyer club, Caffara, Brandmueller, Meisner, and a whole host of others ever questioned whether or not he was the pope. Suddenly Ann Barnhardt is the one who’s going to make us take a second look? yeah, no. When the remaining people on the list above start telling me something needs to be done, I might start to think on it more. Otherwise, I’m going to wait for deaths to happen and new pope’s to come to resolve the whole issue. I’ve got more battles to fight than those I have no jurisdiction over.


      1. Monsignor Nicola Bux, a respected theologian and former consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during Benedict XVI’s pontificate himself, no small figure, has stated the need for an examination of the validity of Benedict’s resignation. I think this is sound reasoning.

        I doubt anything will happen regarding PF’s election for many years after he is dead and gone. Thus my practical agreement with your position. I suspect we could be in for another 20-30 years of this crisis till the current generation of leaders is gone.

        That is time enough for an investigation.


        1. Here’s hoping it doesn’t take that long. I’d like to see a better Church for my kids and grandkids becaue that makes for a better world. While I think it’s an incredible time to be a Catholic and many saints may be forged in the next few years, I would love to have my kids and grandkids be surrounded by good Catholicism. I’ve never had that. I’ve always had to think twice about walking into a local Church. It would be nice to see that again in our world even though I’ve never really seen in for myself.


          1. I totally understand your concern. But reality is reality and the generation that rules the Church isn’t likely to either simply disappear or convert en masse. Thus estimates using match as a guide are helpful. Remember what must have been a strain for Joshua and Caleb waiting 40 years for what they KNEW could be had “today” were it not for the cowardice and lack of faith of the majority. Indeed, the historical references you cited expose the reality that the Church has faced incredible chaos before, and something as difficult to grasp as a “partial abdication” if such a thing occurred is hardly out of step with the level of chaos that has existed at times before. History, the Fathers and Denzinger all help put today’s confusion into perspective.

            I personally have a much more positive experience than it sounds you have. We have found a wonderful, simply Catholic parish. It is FSSP. I cannot emphasize enough the thankfulness I have that this parish exists in our area, even tho we must drive about 1 1/2 hours to get there. It is worth it.

            Yes, the Church is in crisis, and just as you have said on your blog, we are not in a position to pass judgement at least in any eternal or juridical sense on events only those holding the specific authority to do so can. However, we can READ. And right now, simply READING is enough to cause pause for concern, draw us to the Lord in faith, and prime us to ask for patience in waiting. The knowledge that comes from the study of the Word, the doctrines of the faith AND the news cycle can all work together to equip us for the spiritual war we are facing. In short, we must be honest with ourselves and others and not live in a pretend world where all is rosy nor all is for naught.

            Thanks for discussing this topic. It is a topic not going away any time soon…


          2. You misread. I have my glorious bunker Church. I just can’t walk into any Church in my area and get orthodoxy. Thankfully my commute is only 40 minutes to the other side of the diocese.


          3. Here is what Msgr Bux, formally of the CDF under Ratzinger had to say. This was the statement that has caused the big dust up in the past two weeks:

            “Perhaps – and I say this from a practical point of view – it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, i.e. whether it is full or partial (“halfway”), as someone has said, or doubtful, since the idea of ​​a sort of collegiate papacy seems to me decidedly against the Gospel dictate. Jesus did not say, in fact,tibi dabo claves … “turning to Peter and Andrew”, but he only told Peter! That’s why I say that perhaps a thorough study of renunciation could be more useful and profitable, as well as helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.”



          4. And yet, Msgr. Bux did not do what Barnhardt did. Nobody seems to get this. Asking questions isn’t a problem. The declaration of “Jorge Bergoglio is the anti-pope” is. I think I might just do another blog post you guys can pick apart.


          5. I think you’re still missing the distinction of Moral Certitude. It’s not the same think as declaring something is certifiably true, like a math equation. There is a lower standard for moral certitude, which is most definitely not absolute certitude.


          6. OOOH! Nope. I have it perfectly.


            Confident assent concerning human conduct based on people’s normal and predictable responses to certain needs, abilities, and motivations.


            Moral certitude is that with which judgments are formed concerning human character and conduct; for the laws of human nature are not quite universal, but subject to occasional exceptions. It is moral certitude which we generally attain in the conduct of life, concerning, for example, the friendship of others, the fidelity of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or the occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant Reformation or the French Revolution. Though almost any detail in these events may be made a subject of dispute, especially when we enter the region of motives and try to trace cause and effect, and though almost any one of the witnesses may be shown to have made some mistake or misrepresentation, yet the occurrence of the events, taken in the mass, is certain.

            Right or wrong, you certainly better be absolutely confident/certain in the choice YOU make. Even after all of the explanation by Barnhardt, I am no where near saying I have the moral certitude that there is just a Bergoglio. I hope for Ann’s sake she’s picked the right “team” because, if she has not, she’s leading a lot of people astray as well as putting herself in schism (and breathe people, I’m not saying she has) and who knows the culpability. As some have rightly pointed out, St. Vincent was still St. Vincent, miracles and all. Here’s hoping she’s like him or she’s right! There’s no ill will toward her. In fact, just the opposite.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Excellent questions. The Church has many laws. I personally consider the laws of the Church to be holy and good. But how many are assertively enforced?


  8. I’ve basically taken the same tack you have. Problem is, Pope Benedict didn’t seem to agree with what you have quoted here:

    “If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.”

    By his own words in his, what to call it, “partial abdication” {??} he gave up only a portion of the ministry. If that is the case, then he violated the very words of the anathema you quoted.

    For practical purposes, this doesn’t really change my view, as functionally Bergoglio is still Pope, but it does point to an interesting set of future eventualities and this problem seems to be gaining some legitimacy at least vis a vis the call to look deeper as Mgsr Bux has made clear.


    1. That’s Ann Barnhardt’s take on it but where’s the quote from BXVI saying he only intended on parital abdication? She’s looking to Ganswein’s comments for that. He is not Pope Benedict.


      1. It’s in the declaration, in Latin. Benedict does NOT say he is resigning the papacy.

        As long as you keep pretending that no one has laid out the evidence, you are displaying intellectual sloth. Ann Barnhardt lays it out in her video.


      2. “The “always” is also a “forever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the ACTIVE exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” – Pope Benedict


    2. You are totally nuts. Benedict did not partially abdicate. The nuts made that up. No one in the world, except the nuts, are talking about this, because the nuts have nothing to do all day except invent things to get themselves noticed, because they need attention. But they are still nuts


      1. See, I gave even give them the benefit of the doubt. I think it all possible, even though not probable, because strange things have happened over the centuries) but the really important thing is we have no authority in the matter soooooo….


        1. I agree about the authority and my academic background is history, political science, and theology.

          That’s why I am curious about the statement Mgsr Bux made not long ago.


      2. I won’t call you names, but I will encourage you to READ the Pope’s statement.

        As for what it means, in the end, I’ll await the interpretation of greater minds than mine.

        But in the meantime, I can read…


    3. Right, at least you have directly engaged with Ann Barnhardt’s argument which is founded on the “substantial error” clause of Canon 833. .If someone has an argument that debunks hers, I would like hear it rather than Ad hominem assertions about who she is or what her qualifications are, which just amounts to a logical fallacy.

      It is interesting isn’t that it has hit a nerve in the blogosphere. The Church is moving headlong into the abyss–I don’t see anything worse happening if this idea gets traction. Besides the moral, sexual, financial, and spiritual corruption running rampant with the assistance of Bergoglio and his grooming gang, there is now a movement to abrogate the traditional mass..

      The hierarchy of the Church is already now in Schism. Barnhardt herself says that Benedict is the only one who can rectify this situation. And if he dies,, the Church would need enough Cardinals and Bishops with huevos who haven’t been corrupted–a tall order. .So I empathize with Mom’s point about how to get from A to B. In the long run, however, the Truth cannot harm the Church, it can only restore it.


      1. I posted a whole string of rebuttals I feel nails her errors (the last one is a fisking) but I will happily post them again.

        – Taylor Marshall
        – Steve Skojec
        – Sammons written thesis
        – And these two seem to be endorsed by a whole lot of SSPX people but they don’t even agree with Ann and have done a nice fisking of her arguments.

        I would like to point out, once again, I’m not calling Ann to be right or wrong although I have my opinion. My point is it doesn’t matter because it’s out of our jurisdiction.


        1. “I would like to point out, once again, I’m not calling Ann to be right or wrong although I have my opinion. My point is it doesn’t matter because it’s out of our jurisdiction.”

          We must never forget our state in life.

          Blog Owner, I like your style.

          Very well, and indeed, very well indeed.

          But picture yourself a peasant lifting beets with a wooden hoe in the middle of this following bruhaha.

          The “Jealous God” is teaching us that He and ONLY He is the one to be worshiped.

          Jesus is teaching us that tho He gave authority of the Church to St Peter, He retained the power to create and…destroy.

          Can’t be any worse today than it was then…


  9. Fr James Martin is part of the homosexual Jesuit 5th column that along with the Marxist Jews, have worked to corrupt both the Church and our Christian culture. Bergoglio is just the natural outcome of these revolutionaries. Hey, if you feel down or distracted by speculation over whether the pope is a heretic or an anti-pope, just tune it out. Nobody’s putting a gun to your head. But I’d say between PBXVI being forced out, the St Gallen gay mafia working to get Bergoglio elected, and his repeated heretical statements, this jebbie clown is clearly not the pope. While it’s true not much can be done until he croaks, standing up to him and fighting back as the Church Militant, will make a difference in the long run, imo.


    1. Another nutty lie. No one forced Benedict out. You just lie and invent things. Why? Because you do not like the Pope, therefore you – a simple little mixed up layman, – decide he is not the Pope. But a bad Pope does not automatically NOT become the Pope because you don’t like what he is doing. This BS is the worlds biggest waste of time. You don’t want him to be the Pope, therefore he is not the Pope. That is you thinking. Or, you think that because he does bad things he cant possibly be the Pope. This just means you do not understand anything about Catholicism



    -Bishop Rene Garcia

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is why this issue is so important *now*. Not three generations from now by our great, grandchildren. Us. Now.

      What was done was a significant departure from Tradition located in the nature of the Papacy, Christ’s guarantor of orthodoxy. To let this go and wait for some miraculous intervention by someone else, some other generation decades, centuries hence – perhaps never- just seems to me counter to what it means to be part of the Church Militant.

      If one is convinced in conscience that this act was not in accord with Tradition, then one inwardly orders themselves accordingly and outwardly presses for action by those in authority. As Bishop Gracida says: “time is of the essence. This situation is bad and must be corrected now, while all are living, not later”, (paraphrase).

      But to say it does not matter; that it is for others and of no meaning to ourselves as lowly, powerless laymen seems like such an untenable postition to me once it is applied to all the eventualities of what might grow out of this crisis. Which is still just beginning, after all. It is coming personally for us all, soon. We will all be forced to take sides on this and what grows out of it.


      1. Oy. I never said it didn’t matter. I’m saying we all have a part to play and the canonical judgment of this isn’t our part. I think it’s a distraction from our part and a perfect way to keep us from doing our jobs.

        And, really, have you EVER seen me say the laity is helpless???

        Also, I notice a lot talk of the “we need to do something now” but what is it that WE need to do. NOBODY KNOWS!

        I suspect and have a predicted this all ends in schism for one reason or another. We likely are going to have to pick our sides and I think highly of you that you will dutifully do so and in good conscience. Some of us are going to be St. Vincents and some are going to pick the right side. I don’t think we need to preemptively pick (which is what I think Ann did) when there is so much more to do together.


        1. I don’t look at it that way – preemptively picking sides in a future schism.

          I look at it as a lowly layman trying to make sense of objective reality so he can stay on the straight, narrow path that leads to heaven, guided by the light of Sacred Tradition. Not for the sake of the future. For right now.

          Who is my Pope? That is of supreme importance, and right now I see two. In the eyes of God, then, who? If it is Pope Benedict XVI, then he needs prayers from us all. So I need to personally know. Who do I pray for?

          This is a matter of importance for the Church as a whole, not just some future day for some elite level of Cardinals and Bishops. Sacred Tradition and Canon Law is for us all, no less than the Bible itself. It is not restricted to elites. We can judge for ourselves what a full and free valid resignation is, even though we cannot render canonical judgement on our conclusion.


  11. In reference to your “It’s not our call”.

    Assume this premise is true: not our call. Add to that premise the condition that *we* are the generation in which the antipope emerges and reigns on St. Peter’s Throne. And to both of those premises add also the overall assumption that antipope cannot emerge and rule absent universal support from the College of Cardinals and the worldwide assemblage of Bishops.

    Do you assert as a matter of “premise” we lay folk cannot ever “make that call” – antipope? The Cardinals elect antipope. The Bishops support antipope. We must then accept antipope until told otherwise?

    I don’t agree. Who in the world will act? What resisting army stands in his way? Only Cardinals can ever act? What does that mean for me and my eternal soul as I assent, as told, to antipope?

    Pope Francis may or may not be antipope (I vote yes). But if I do live to see the day of antipope, I would like to think I would be among those who turn their backs on the evil man produced, by definition, by the Devil himself and support the small remnants of those faithful to true Pope and God’s Holy Church.

    On a practical level: in those days of antipope (perhaps now) the assembled Bishops will spread the heresy of antipope to the personal, lowliest level of Layman and woman. The faithful will be required to assent to him who occupies the Throne. By nature this will be true. I see what is happening to Chinese and Middle East Catholics, orthodox Religious and I see the sodomite ideology carefully placed into our Catholic praxis and I am convinced this will get personal for us all wherever we may be, (written statements of assent etc). Our unfortunate Chinese brethren are the canaries in the coal mine.

    We must first internally acknowledge and assent to the truth of what has now occurred, at the source of the deviation, before we can judge rightly in the persecution to come. If Bergoglio is true Pope, treat him as such. If Bergolio is antipope, consider what that means in practical terms.

    I believe it is always *our call*. That is why we have a conscience. There are few matters more serious for our conscience today than judging who is currently on the Throne of St. Peter, the locus of our earthly Faith. The effect of antipope is deadly and spreading.


    1. You’re suggesting a premise that i am not which is to do nothing. Ann Barnhardt took the swan dive off the cliff and made a judgment that she has no Canonical jurisdiction to make. Most of us, however, spend our time using the teaching of the Church to oppose error which well within our canonical jurisdiction in canon 212. Like you said, you don’t know you only think. Has anyone stopped to think that dear Ann may have just actually removed herself from submission to the actual hf? Oy. I have always given allowance that she may be right. The problem is that if we usurp authority we don’t have, we are no different than the Fr. Martin’s and protestants.


      1. She doesn’t have to submit to the hf when he’s preaching heresy, and non-stop gibberish on a daily basis. He lost his office long ago, if he ever had it to begin with. Nobody is protesting the teachings of the Church here.


        1. Aqua! First of all, did you read this? “So much more energy could go elsewhere. Please note, saying the Holy Father is ambiguous or has a poor management style, etc., etc., etc., is not something out of our scope. I’m not even close to saying we have to sit on our hands and shut up.”

          It’s a simple question. Do you think you have jurisdiction over everything in the Church? Can you, say, make a schismatic declaration? Can you make a declaration of excommunication?


          1. Is that a rhetorical question?

            No. I do not think I have jurisdiction over everything in the Church.

            No. I cannot make a declaration of excommunication.

            No. I cannot make a schismatic declaration.

            No. I am not trying to do any of those things.

            Yes. I can see with my own eyes, read and understand words.

            Yes. I do believe I am required to form an assessment of objective reality.

            Yes. Unlike Fr. Martin, I try to stay on the straight line of Sacred Tradition.

            Yes. I find this deeply objectionable:

            Where is there precedent in Sacred Tradition for this? I do not need a Tribunal to tell me there is none.


      2. A false premise: Ann Barnhardt has no authority to make the judgment that Benedict’s act of resignation was defective, or that Bergoglio is not pope.

        Ann Barnhardt is a baptized, confirmed Catholic. She has the authority as a human being with an intellect to make any judgment she believes is grounded in evidence. She has laid out the evidence. She has cited/provided supporting documents. She is not usurping any function that does not belong to the laity.

        What is wrong with this post by OMM is the declaration that the subject is “off limits,” or a “waste of time.” This is a precise analog of those who say that Obama’s crudely forged “draft registration,” his crudely forged “birth certificate,” or his four Social Security numbers, or the obviously preposterous official version of of 9/11 (which posits that a low-temperature kerosene fire caused all that destruction, including 1,400 melted automobiles 1/4 of a mile away) are simply forbidden subjects.

        I haven’t seen you condemning the Boston Globe or SNAP or other non-bishops for making judgments that the hierarchy is too corrupt and fearful to make.

        History is loaded with cases where the “authorities” were too corrupt or fearful to do their duty. Is OMM going to go to the mat for the proposition that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is NOT CORRUPT?

        This is precisely why Fulton Sheen said that it would be the laity, not the clergy and hierarchy, who would “save the Church.” There is a reason that bishops have no power to force the laity to shut up. The same reason the Constitution forbids Congress to make any law restricting freedom of speech or the press.

        Ann Barnhardt is a whistleblower. Submit her arguments to examination. But ANYONE whose argument is “shut up” (which is what OMM is saying) is wrong right out of the box.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I missed where Ann had canonical jurisdiction. “Because she says it is so” is not a presentation. I know she hates it and calls people stupid tropes for bringing it up but it’s kind of a reality.


          1. I think you missed Arthur McGowan’s point, his point summarized by referencing Fulton Sheen (full quote):

            “Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops. Not our Priests and Religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your Priests act like Priests, your Bishops like Bishops, your Religious like Religious”.

            Canonical jurisdiction is not what Bishop Sheen foretold was going to solve future crisis. Faithful Catholics filling the pews will do this. It will be laypeople, not canonists, Bishops and Cardinals, who save our Church; not by personally conducting canonical trials (straw man) but by *demanding* canonical accountability and explanations.

            And this is now suggested by Msgr. Bux.

            That is what we can do. Defend the Faith, according to our own station in life, using “our minds, eyes, ears”. Demand accountability and satisfactory explanations. This we can do.


          2. Fulton Sheen didn’t say that usurping canonical authority was the answer either. While I find his final battle prophecies between the Christ and the Antichrist terrifying, you cannot bring about good by doing evil.

            Something else that popped into my head today is the the Western Schism really isn’t a good analogy. We do not have dueling popes. We have one who says he is and one who says he’s given up the Petrine Ministry. Thus far, Pope Benedict isn’t ordering anyone to follow him. In fact, he’s saying the opposite.


          3. OMM says: “Something else that popped into my head today is the the Western Schism really isn’t a good analogy.”

            Actually it is a perfect analogy applied correctly. What is analogous isn’t the claims of the Popes, but the confusion of the faithful. In the GWS, competing interests left questions and confusion in the minds of Catholics throughout Europe. The same promises to occur and indeed, already has occurred at least for some today. I suspect that as this argument expands and folks with the stature of Bux publicly question the validity of the abdication, more and more will become convinced PF isn’t Pope and confusion will spread among those who simply question but can’t take a stand either way.

            i almost get the feeling that God allows one of these messes to crop up every now and then to prevent the Popes from gaining too much in the hearts and minds of the faithful. sort of like He acted to knock folks down a peg at Babel, He may be knocking Popes down a peg with events like this. As the Scripture’s remind us, God is a jealous God!


          4. I think it could be where we end up (I’ve said various parties have been marching us toward and all out schism) but I don’t think we’re quite there yet. I’m just talking the actually situation of the Western Schism papal situation and this one.


      3. I haven’t seen Ann Barnhardt issuing any “canonical judgments.” She blogs. She makes videos. Do you have copies of forged decrees from the Apostolic Signatura, to which Barnhardt has affixed her signature?

        Ann Barnhardt, as a possessor of a human intellect, it totally, perfectly within her rights to look at evidence, and make statements about where that evidence leads her. That is all she has done.

        There is NOTHING in the teaching of the Church or canon law that authorizes anyone to point at Ann Barnhardt and say “shut up.” Which you do repeatedly.


  12. There is an interesting section in the Catechism as well:

    675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

    676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.

    677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.


    1. Yeah, I’m kind of surprised people are going with anti-pope vs. AntiChrist. So many generations thought they were in end times. I’m pretty sure we actually will know when the final tribulation is here. I often ponder whether I want to live through the final upheaval and get to bypass purgatory or if I’d like to do an untold amount of purgatory. I’m one of those who figures I’m going to be there awhile. If I could just get a time frame for the final upheaval. LOL! Sigh.


  13. The entire 24th chapter of Matthew is also recommended, but especially:

    The Abomination of Desolation

    Cf (Mark 13:14-23; Luke 21:20-24)

    15When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. 16Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: 17And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. 19And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. 20But pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath. 21For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. 22And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. 23Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. 24For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. 25Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.


  14. Not to get off track, but this article comparing the similarities of Pope Boniface VIII to the actions of Pope Francis, is almost too eerie. Remember, Dante accused Boniface of forcing Celestine V’s abdication, and of not taking actions to resolve the sodomy crisis, and then exiling Dante. So Dante placed him upside down in hell in the Inferno. Whoa! Maybe we’re all just trying to follow in his footsteps.


    1. This is the type of material that causes me to refuse to jump on board with the camp that considers all this settled and his abdication bogus.

      Having said that, this is also the type of material that would be examined in any investigation of the LEGALITY and thus validity of his abdication.

      If his abdication is contingent only upon the document he produced and signed officially, then I absolutely can see the reasons for doubting its validity. However, if some further material is produced indicating his intentions, then that material might serve as clarification and thus validate that selfsame abdication.

      The point I’m making here is that I am not a canon lawyer and I have no clue what is required under canon law to institute a valid abdication. In fact, I am not even certain regular canon law provides for such a thing. Is an abdication of a reigning Pope an extra-legal event whereby each instance thereof forms its own body of law? I don’t know.

      Thus I do not as Barnhardt does simply read the document he signed and grab the obvious takeaways and declare the issue finished and clear. I side wholly with Bux on this issue; it warrants investigation. At this point that’s about as strong a statement I can make, tho the REASON it warrants investigation is the language of the abdication document pretty clearly says he intended only to give up some salsa, not the whole enchilada. I’ve been involved in enough legal actions to know that what appears to the uninformed as a very simple process may not be.

      As if to really muck up the works, I’ll just add that B16 COULD be simply wrong in the statements you linked here. It is possible the document is the authoritative source and any statement B16 may make AFTER signing the document may have no bearing on the INvalidity of his abdication. AGAIN, the law applies, and I just don’t know what law that is.


      1. You have completely misrepresented what Barnhardt has said. She has NOT cited just ONE document (the declaration). She has cited multiple documents in which Benedict makes explicit that he NOT intend to remove himself from the papal OFFICE. It is Benedict, not Barnhardt, who first distinguished shaply the “ministry” he was resigning, and office, which he emphatically, explicitly, was not resigning.


        1. My point should have been clear. It is simply that a person; you, me, Ann Barnhardt, Nicola Bux, OMM, Chevy Chase or Jerry Seinfeld, can accurately assess a problem such as the one at hand and still it matters not to the legal structures within the Catholic Church. For change to take place there, a future Pope must or accept the findings of some appointed and duly authorized group or individual. This of course isn’t the earthshaking observation of a juridical genius, it is simple common sense applied to what is on one hand an issue of truth and on the other an issue of legality.

          The example of personally knowing a murder has taken place and personally knowing who did it vs being able to legally refer to the known killer as a “murderer” applies. One may come to know a fact exists without being able to assert it in such a way that it has any binding legal implications. Ditto what is going on here.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. By the way, OMM…

      The first sentence in that link is only fuel on the fire…

      ““There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry””

      Nobody is arguing that he didn’t resign from the active “MINISTRY”! LOL!!!

      And then he quits with the wood and goes straight to the gasoline:

      ““My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. 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 in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter,” he said.”

      “Active exercise of the ministry”

      No longer involved in the “governance” of the Church but remains in the “service of prayer”……………………”in the enclosure of Saint Peter”!!!

      Hey, Joe, could you make it any LESS clear?????



        1. Here it is:

          “For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

          Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.

          And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff.

          With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.”


          1. Within this linked article, the operative section that causes my doubt over his resignation being proper.

            At his final General Audience on 27 February 2013, Benedict XVI told a packed and sunny St. Peter’s Square that: “ ……. He added that his decision to withdraw from the public spot light “hidden from the world”, did not mean a return to private life.

            “My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. 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 in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord.

            I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter,” he said.

            If this were a complete resignation would mean:

            1: A willing return to private life, travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, so on.
            2: Acknowledgement that he is abandoning the cross, leaving the side of the crucified Lord.
            3: Leaving completely, forever the enclosure of St. Peter. No further service for him is possible there.

            I also note, with interest, at the bottom of this article private communication in letter on this topic between Pope Benedict XVI and declared and banned heretic Hans Küng.


  15. Curious what your take is on this.

    Newly consecrated Cardinals with the two Popes who consecrated them.

    This has never been seen before. I can’t reconcile this with “fully and freely” resigned from the Office of Pope. That is the bottom line for me. Catholics live in Sacred Tradition when living the Faith properly. This stands outside of that.


          1. I looked him up to see what he’s been up to since I haven’t seen much from him in the last 15 years or so. Looks like he’s still suspended for starting his own private chapel but he left all that and lives under suspecion out of obedience. He writes for AKA Catholic now.

            His theory is intersting. He believes that Benedict did all this to bring the enemies of the Church out of the woodwork so the faithful could see them for who they are and then Benedict would lead the charge again. He has the same Barnhardt bent that he didn’t really resign from the whole job. While intriguing I’d think we’d have to say that Benedict is lying to trap the enemy because he’s said and done things indicating that he did indeed resign it all (of course we’ll all quibble on that again) but I don’t think he would do that. Plus, he’d better get onto part two before he’s dead! LOL!


  16. OMM: Thanks for the info. I agree with your take on the link Arthur produced.

    In the end, in summary regarding a “partial abdication”, I guess we are left with essentially three choices. This is my take and it will pretty much close my comments I think. it’s been a very interesting discussion and I thank the host for opening it up. Regarding the choices, each individual can pick one, or, as it appears, pick one and then change one’s mind at a later date as it appears many have or are in the process of doing. Before someone jumps on any single detail, read the whole tome.

    I THINK this covers it…

    So here goes:

    One; a it was done by mistake and was merely an error on the part of B16. Obviously, such an unintentional act would face scrutiny by later canonists, Cardinals and most importantly a subsequently-elected Pope One can readily see in this case that an obstacle to making the abdication “stick” might be the subsequent words and actions of the self-described EX-B16. error seems to be a stretch, knowing the mental capacity of the man of course and to-boot, he has indicated he has not made an error by not clarifying what he did. To add, I am unaware of any body of law regarding abdications and my own feeling is they fall under the more or less extra-legal framework of the simple will of the Pope who is the highest and final authority on law and except for subjects involving dogmas of the faith covered by the limitations described in the Dogma of Infallibility {for that dogma DOES describe the limits of papal authority}, all other disciplinary subjects fall under his direct fiat, including the processes and technical details of abdications. If this is correct, the exact language of an abdication DOCUMENT might have no impact on the abdication IF his intent was to “abdicate”. Before anyone blows a vein in one’s head, I’ll admit that OBVIOUSLY this line of reasoning will conjure up herds of canonists {real and internet-self-appointed…} to discuss and…”judge” and in theory, could be open to the real and unassailable judgement of a future Pope as well.

    Two: it was INTENTIONAL and done as some sort of bigger plan to hoodwink the devil as Belland suggests or, to borrow a technical legal term from the lexicon of the Current Occupant of the Vatican digs, simply to “make a mess” so that future Cardinals and a future Pope could fix it all by erasing the pontificate of Bergoglio/Francis off the map of history thus saving the integrity of the Church for all time. Yes, both of these options seem…a reach…but who knows. We live in “interesting times”. This could then be seen as either a masterful coup of juridical genius-ness or the ignominious bumbling of a despicable and mealy-mouthed coward depending on how one sees Father Joe Ratzinger/B16/ex-B16/Pope-Emeritus B. I think it is safe to say opinions on Ratzinger are divided.

    Or three: he meant to abdicate, the document he signed is sufficient to effect that desire and in any case is subject to no technical legal construct informing the exact words of an abdication statement/document, and is no longer B16, whatever his residence or apparel suggest.

    Now, the concept of a “partial abdication is being reviewed and I am not certain it has been thoroughly reviewed. Meaning, and I say this because I work with legal language all the time, the actual details matter, and I await a full assessment by competent authorities to decide if there is ANY leeway that might allow such a thing to exist…IF IT EXISTS AT ALL. We all seem to agree there isn’t but then, none of us are competent canonical authorities. and after all, the document he signed may prove to suffice to canonists and the Church as in instrument decisively completing the intentions of then-B16 to completely and once-for-all time abdicate from the Seat of Peter. Yes, whatever the actual language of the document, competent authorities could rule that way.

    Obviously number Three has been accepted to-date by the entire, repeat, ENTIRE apparatus of the Catholic Church so far. There has been utterly no indication of any actual action taken by any member of the hierarchy reflecting acceptance of #’s One or Two {or any other denial of abdication not covered} above. Closest we have come is Bp Gracida who has SAID things but has not to my knowledge ever ACTED on what he says he believes. Now, what would an ACT demonstrating one’s belief that Bergoglio is an anti-pope look like? Easy, it would be demonstrated in a public and notorious, direct refusal to obey a dictate of Pope Francis, thus treating him as if he has no authority to give orders. I do not think one single prelate as so acted yet, not even Gracida. So what Gracida says is just that, words. Until he or another prelate or number of prelates ACT upon a belief Bergoglio is not Pope, the entire Church hierarchy and apparatus is FUNCTIONALLY in complete agreement; Jorge Bergoglio IS Pope Francis. this IS where we stand at present. Not even the SSPX has taken a stand otherwise, and indeed, they have made statements clearly indicating their complete acceptance of PF as PF.

    HOWEVER……………..there………………….ARE now some among the laity and {drumroll, please}…a couple among the prelature…who are asking questions about # Three or in the case of the laity-only at this point, already have formed opinions in direct opposition to # Three above.

    And thus, I guess we stay tuned…


  17. Individual Catholics need to know their true place in the Church. Vatican II has spelled it out nicely.
    Lumen Gentium 12 says: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) [cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27] cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) [Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 17] they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth.”
    This is quite a statement coming from the magisterium. Our own personal discernment contributes the whole of Church infallibility. If we have the Holy Spirit, we all have a stake in the infallibility of the Church according to V2, both clergy and laity.
    We can all contribute to tradition. There is an interesting quote from Dei Verbum 8 which states: “This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s