By David Martin——Previous Articles—October 21, 2017
On the eve of his resignation, he said: “Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church… “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.” (General Audience, February 27, 2013)
According to these words, Benedict XVI remains pope, with no revocation of his office having occurred. According to Church law, a pope must give up “his office” for his resignation to be valid. (Canon 332) Pope Benedict clearly chose to retain his office “forever,” which means he is still pope, which means that Francis cannot be pope, since there cannot be two popes. The late Fatima expert Fr. Nicholas Gruner points this out in a rare video on Benedict XVI’s resignation. If Francis is the pope, then Benedict’s office is revoked, but Benedict insists it was not revoked.
To explain away the papal chimera that was born of the historic 2013 conclave, Archbishop Georg Gänswein who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household told the pressthat Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement on Feb. 11, 2013, marked the introduction of a new institution into the Catholic Church: “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member.” He said the Petrine office is now a “common papacy” comprising more than one member, i.e. Benedict and Francis.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a “shared papacy,” and Gänswein no doubt realizes that this is an argument used by heretics to undermine the Primacy of Peter, but his explanation to the press apparently was the best he could do to cover for a very embarrassing situation that caused the man he honored to be dethroned.
What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating
What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was forced into abdicating, i.e. to give up the “active ministry,” but this was done under the guise of a resignation to not split the Barque asunder with controversy. Credible reports from 2015 indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into stepping down, which was providentially foreshadowed in Pope Benedict’s inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”
We know from Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it.
This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict’s resignation, the same members who stirred up so much chaos at the October 2014-15 Synods on the Family.
Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved.
According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” This was confirmed, in the case of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal O’Malley, in the Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013. As the conclave neared, they then held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker
Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work around the time of the conclave, which directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which lays down the rules for conducting conclaves. Therein he makes it clear that vote canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it 1renders the election “null and void.” Key passages are as follows:
81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition…
82. I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.
76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected. Universi Dominici Gregis (February 22, 1996) | John Paul II
Bearing this in mind, let us consider now the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a future pope. This is found in the Opuscula or Works of St. Francis, which was published by the preeminent Franciscan historian Fr. Luke Wadding in 1621.
Shortly before his death in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the friars of his Order and detailed this prophecy of what was to come upon the Church in the latter days. The following is an excerpt taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham.
“At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”
The clearest evidence of “an uncanonically elected pope” would be his success in drawing “many into error,” something that has become rampant since Francis was elected. We see many in the Church talking down dogma, praising Luther, and even dignifying adultery, courtesy of Amoris Laetitia which teaches that we can now break the commandments if conscience dictates. (303) And whereas some argue that this is material and not formal heresy, how do they explain the apparent formal heresy contained in paragraph 297 of Amoris Laetita?
“No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.” (AL 297)
This clearly denies the Church’s dogmatic teaching that hell is eternal. In an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is presently a member of the Apostolic Signatura, said that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.” Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.”
There is also the issue of Francis’ ongoing collusion with U.N. globalists. Freemasons the world over praise Francis and see him as a hero for the way he has turned the Vatican into a bully-pulpit for the advancement of left-wing political causes like population-control, open borders, and a communistic one-world government.
THE BIG AND OBVIOUS QUESTION that remains is, if Benedict XVI in fact remains pope, why doesn’t he alert the Church to the nullity of Francis’ election? And why did he even consent to the 2013 conclave if he already knew his continued papacy would invalidate the election?
Perhaps the late Fr. Malachi Martin provided the answer to this in summer 1998. In an interview on the Art Bell show, Father Malachi stated that he read the Third Secret of Fatima in February 1960. Bound by oath not to reveal the text of the Secret, he commented on the basic gist of the Secret, i.e. its prediction of apostasy in the church, while refuting the various apocryphal versions that callers were quoting to him on the program.
However, in response to an alleged quotation from the Third Secret about a pope who would be “under the control of satan,” Fr. Malachi replied, “Yes, it sounds as if they were reading the text of the Third Secret.”
According to Fatima experts, including the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner, this mention of a pope under Satan’s “control” would mean that he is innocently bound and kept under control. Benedict won’t speak the truth about Rome’s present collusion with Antichrist, because he is bound by fears and kept under surveillance by an iron-clad Vatican bureaucracy, if in fact they haven’t threatened him at gunpoint. There could be more to Danneels’ “mafia club” than meets the eye.
This is credible, when we consider that on February 10, 2012, almost one year to the day before Benedict XVI announced his resignation, it was reported that the pope was given only one year to live if he didn’t resign. The Telegraph UK reported that Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, said these things to a group of people in Beijing toward the end of 2011.
“His remarks were expressed with such certainty and resolution that the people he was speaking to thought, with a sense of alarm, that an attack on the Pope’s life was being planned,” the report said.
The extraordinary comments were written up in a top-secret report, dated Dec 30, 2011, and delivered to the Pope by a senior cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in January 2012. The report was written in German, apparently to limit the number of people within the Vatican who would understand it if it was inadvertently leaked. It warned of a “Mordkomplott”—death plot—against Benedict.
Hence Pope Benedict XVI, in an emotional farewell speech at St. Peter’s on February 25, 2013, told a crowd of 100,000that God had called him to step down and devote himself to prayer, and ‘to scale the mountain.’
This suggests that Benedict XVI is “the Holy Father” in Lucy’s vision who scales the mountain, while Francis is the “bishop dressed in white.” In conjunction with the Third Secret message, Sr. Lucy of Fatima received this symbolic vision, which she penned on January 3, 1944. The following is an excerpt of the vision which was published by the Vatican on June 26, 2000.
“We saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”
In her vision, Lucy sees two popes as it were. The first is a mirrored image of what appears to be the pope, but is actually “a bishop dressed in white” who gives the “impression” he is the pope. The true pope and his followers scale the mountain amidst peril and danger, praying for the spiritually dead along the way, before which they pass through a city half in ruins, representing the Church in shambles. At the end of their journey they are martyred for their allegiance to Jesus Crucified. It is a symbolic picture of the Church being put to death.
It should be emphasized that a reflection in the mirror is not a reality, but only an appearance, an impression. Lucy makes the point that this appearance is “a bishop dressed in white.” Given what we know, it is safe to say that the bishop dressed in white is not Benedict XVI or any previous pope, but Pope Francis.
When we consider all the above, it begins to shed light on the mystery as to why St. Faustina, known for her role in establishing the devotion to the Divine Mercy, penned an unusual entry into her diary on December 17, 1936. Entry 823 is as follows.
“I have offered this day for priests. I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fighting alone, supported by His arm, against all the difficulties that face me like unassailable walls. But I trust in the power of His name and I fear nothing.”—Diary of St. Faustina, 823
It is significant to note that St. Faustina on that day was making reparation for priests, an offering that brought upon her the worst suffering she had ever endured, and perhaps the worst she would ever endure. But too, on that bitter day of December 17, 1936, was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who would later reign as Pope Francis, the 266th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.
Could it be that on that day St. Faustina was atoning for the many priests, bishops, and cardinals of the future that would be misled by Francis? But too, could it be that her mysterious torment that day signaled the arrival of a future anti-pope?
1. Only in cases of collusion involving simony does the pope lift the nullity in order that the election may remain valid (78).