Quote# 120151

On 11 February, ARSH 2013, Pope Benedict XVI announced that he would resign the papacy effective 28 February ARSH 2013 at 8:00pm Rome time. After his “resignation”, Ratzinger still wore the papal white cassock, still referred to himself as “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI”, and continued to live in the Vatican.

On 20 May, ARSH 2016, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s personal secretary and confidant Archbishop Georg Gänswein delivered a speech at the Gregorian University in Rome in which he described in detail Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s views on his status as pope. Gänswein stated openly that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger considers himself still to be a participant in the Petrine Ministry, which by his “resignation” he “expanded”, with his role being “contemplative”, while his successor’s role is “active”. He further stated that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger believes that his resignation was “quite different” to that of Pope Celestine V, and that it is specifically for this reason that Pope Benedict XVI did NOT revert to his given name and continues to wear the papal white cassock while living inside the Vatican Walls.

They key here lies in Canon Law, specifically Canon 188.

Canon 188
A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.


They key here is the up-until-now almost incomprehensible and ignored provision for “substantial error”. What could that possibly mean? Up until now, it was speculated that if a pope were to resign thinking erroneously, for example, that he were OBLIGED to resign at a certain age, or some such, that this was what was being referenced. But to think that a pope could be so ignorant is ridiculous, indeed. No. We now know what “substantial error” is. Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger made a “substantial error” in believing that the papacy could be “expanded” – in this case, bifurcated into a diarchy. Pope Benedict XVI submitted an invalid resignation not because he was coerced, but because he mistakenly believed and continues to believe that he could at once resign, thus allowing for the election of a successor, and yet still remain a Pope – note the use not of the definite article “the”, but of the indefinite article “a”. This is SUBSTANTIAL ERROR if ever, ever there were so, and thus, according to Canon 188, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s resignation of 28 February ARSH 2013 was “invalid by the law itself”, and thus, he remains the one and only Roman Pontiff, whether or not he believes it or likes it.

As a corollary to this, it might be argued that since Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger has publicly acknowledged Bergoglio as Pope, that Ratzinger has himself promulgated schism by acknowledging a man he knows to be an antipope as pope. My response to this is that Ratzinger truly believes his SUBSTANTIAL ERROR. Ratzinger truly believes – wrongly – that BOTH he and Bergoglio are “participants in the Petrine ministry”, and thus that he does NOT think that he is schisming the Church.

At this point, let me make it clear that I am in no way trying to paint Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger as blameless or “the good guy” in all of this – his error and his actions have been catastrophic and have led directly to countless souls being scandalized unto damnation by Antipope Bergoglio. Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s ontology is CLEARLY warped, and in retrospect, we should not be altogether shocked by this given his activities and associations during the mid-20th century, specifically during the failed Second Vatican Council, and his lifelong defense of that clearly failed council. However, he was validly elected Pope, and, according to Canon 188, having submitted a resignation made out of “substantial error”, still is the one and only Roman Pontiff, and I do not believe that it was his malicious, malevolent intention to schism the Church, or to consciously promulgate an antipope. I think that Joseph Ratzinger simply made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the Church. And he will answer for it.

I further anticipate that in the days and weeks following the publishing of this piece, that I will be called a “sedevacantist”. If and when you see this, take it as certain proof that the person in question either did not read this essay, or is dishonest. I clearly do NOT believe the See of Peter is vacant. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is still the Roman Pontiff, and will be until he either dies, or VALIDLY resigns.

The “Election” of Bergoglio


The trail of breadcrumbs continues as we look at the conclave and “election” of Bergoglio in March of ARSH 2013. In September of ARSH 2015, Cardinal Daneels, a notorious Belgian pro-sodomite and protector of incestuous pedophiles, who is one of Bergoglio’s top lieutenants, openly, proudly revealed the existence of a “mafia” – his term – which calls itself the St. Gallen Mafia. It is a group of Cardinals whose agenda was the opposition of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. Daneels happily admitted that this St. Gallen Mafia openly electioneered and campaigned outside of the conclave for Jorge Bergoglio to be installed as “pope”, and that once installed that Bergoglio would then radically and permanently transform the Church.

This is an excommunicable offense, according to none other than Pope John Paul II’s document Universi Dominici Gregis. While this alone does not appear to invalidate an election, in combination with the other evidence streams, it adds to the overall dataset indicating that something is terribly, terribly wrong, and that a satanic corruption is present at the very, very highest levels of the Vatican, and is especially concentrated around the very person of Jorge Bergoglio.

Ann Barnhardt, Barnhardt.biz 14 Comments [6/30/2016 3:16:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Raspberry

Totally not a man-made institution. No-siree-bob.

Jesus wept lol'd.

6/30/2016 4:35:30 AM

Doubting Thomas

What does ARSH mean?

6/30/2016 5:28:16 AM



(Raspberry)

@Doubting Thomas

According to abbreviation.com it is an acronym for Anno Reparatae Salutis Humanae.

The top result in a search for that phrase is a link to the FAQ page on Ann's own website.

2. What does ARSH mean on your date stamps?

It is the abbreviation for the Latin, “Anno Reparatae Salutis Humanae” which means, “In the Year of the Reparation of Human Salvation.” Why? Because “Anno Domini” just isn’t quite hardcore enough for me.


I guess the more latiny you sound the more jesusy you are. *eyeroll*


6/30/2016 5:49:11 AM

SpukiKitty

ACCORDING TO GOOFBALL HERE: "A legit Pope is a guy who tells everyone to be LESS Christlike."

Go shove a Bishop's crook up yer keister, Annie!

6/30/2016 7:57:00 AM

breakerslion

How does this jive with the alleged inerrantcy of the Pope???

If Ratz made a substantial error, he's not fit to be Pope, but canon 188 says he's still the pope because of it, but then he's not inerrant and can't be the Pope .... Help me Norman! Help me!

6/30/2016 9:04:06 AM

Kanna

"And he forgot to dot the I, so the whole thing is invalid!"
———Ann is the quibbler-in-chief, in charge of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

"...his actions have been catastrophic and have led directly to countless souls being scandalized unto damnation ..."
———This is thrown in here just in case the rest of this nonsense fails to rise to Ann's usual level of hyperbole and hysteria.

6/30/2016 9:27:36 AM

godlessbastard

@breakerslion

Technically, the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra about an issue relating to faith and morals. And even that has only been official since 1870. He could totally be wrong about a matter of Church politics.

6/30/2016 9:42:50 AM

TudorGothicSerpent

@Raspberry:

As much as the RCC is definitely a human institution (and while they would even admit that most of their structure is of entirely human design), the majority of this is just batshit. There have been controversial papal successions before, but the 2013 conclave wasn't involved with one of them.

6/30/2016 10:01:03 AM

Alencon

So you know better than Benedict himself and the College of Cardinals? Why do I doubt that?

6/30/2016 10:04:49 AM

breakerslion

@ godlessbastard

Sounds like a loophole to keep him from being ousted if he looks down when you say, "Your shoe's untied." ... Loafers, you know. :-)

6/30/2016 10:25:20 AM

Hasan Prishtina

I believe that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is still the Roman Pontiff, and will be until he either dies, or VALIDLY resigns.

So you want to make a sick old man resign again, just to make you feel happy. Clue: it's not all about you.

@ breakerslion

Schrödinger's Papacy?

6/30/2016 5:08:58 PM

Anon-e-moose

@Doubting Thomas

"What does ARSH mean?"

It's the word Father Jack uses between 'DRINK! FECK!' and 'GIRLS!'. But in the case of Ann BarnARSE! here, he'd say 'WHAT?!' and 'WOMEN'S KNICKERS!'.

Also, 'HAIRY JAPANESE BASTARDS!' X3

6/30/2016 6:24:59 PM

DarkPhoenix

Ann wants an excuse to consider Pope Francis a fraud, because he's not obsessed with telling Catholics they're better than everyone else and everyone else is going to hell, like Ann herself is (along with a ton of frummies).

6/30/2016 9:55:28 PM



You don't like Francisco. Just say it

7/1/2016 9:28:37 AM

1 | top: comments page