When Benedict XVI resigned the papacy, it was quite a shock to almost every Catholic. This "resignation" thing had only happened five times in Church history. Some argue that it was nine times, but that's 9 times in 2,000 years. Not often.
Ratzinger/Benedict claimed that his health was not sufficient for the struggle he faced to 'clean up' the Church. He took the decision after receiving a 300-page report laying out the situation--and naming names. Which names? Well.....we don't know.....yet.
Fast forward.
Church Militant reports here that the appointment of McCarrick to a Cardinalature in D.C. was probably engineered by JPII's closest personal assistant: Mgr. (now Cardinal) Stan Dziwicz, and that Dziwicz was extremely appreciative of monetary gifts, so much so that it was known that if you wanted to visit with the Pope, the price was $3 Large, payable to Dziwicz. Dziwicz said that the money was going to a hospital he was building in Poland.
Remember that JPII was in noticeably declining health due to Parkinson's. As a result, Dziwicz played Eleanor to JPII's Franklin. Also understand that McCarrick was well-known in Rome for dispensing large amounts of cash to various Vatican figures, going back as far as 1991. Dziwicz was the one who called the Nuncio to the US and instructed him to appoint McCarrick the Archbishop of D.C. Hmmmm. (There's more, but you have to watch the You Tube linked above).
At the same time, the ultra-powerful Secretary of State, Cdl. Sodano, apparently did not mention to the US Nuncio whether any disciplines were levied on McCarrick. Also noteworthy: both Sodano and Dziwicz were very active in protecting Maciel of the Legionnaires.
Further, Church Militant reports that the Vatican's "special report" on the McCarrick promotions will place all the blame on St. John Paul II, who (it's certain) will not deny nor refute the story.
Now, then. B-16 was an academic, a theologian, and a mystic. He advised JPII on matters of doctrine and liturgy and--eventually--on the bombs going off in the US having to do with homosexual predator-priests. That's when B-16 began to see, up close, the rot and filth in the Church.
When he was elected Pope, he thought he could get a handle on it, working with trusted associates--and then he got that 300-page report.
I suspect that he learned only then that he was trusting the wrong guys--and that the network had control of lots of the Church--and that he had been betrayed and hornswoggled by many, many, men, as had JPII.
That's when he resigned--and I suspect that's WHY he resigned, too. He resigned due to a broken heart and that's what will kill him.
5 times, huh?
ReplyDeleteAnd only 1 time did a resignee retain the title "Pope" (emeritus), "Holiness", His Papal name Benedict XVI, wear white, remain with the Vatican walls, insisting on a life prayer in the retained Papal spiritual munus.
No, there has only been 1 resignation like this one. All others returned to their prior state, name, forsaking all pastt privileges.
And the overwhelming evidence of the aftermath of this debacle in His Church is that God is not pleased. Not at all pleased. Take sides. The time is short. This wreckage is going to be judged, big time.
JMJ
DeleteI will simply add this:
1.) Because popes are not ordained -- and thus permanently changed -- their papacy is very likely a charism, i.e. a temporary gift of the Holy Ghost for the benefit of others. This charism can be let go of by either death or resignation.
2.) Because Our Lord meant the Papacy to be one man, that charism can only rest upond one man at a time.
3.) And resignation, to be valid, needs to be both word AND deed, and done freely.
Pope Benedict XVI resigned only in word, not deed (still in white, bearing papal name,etc.), and he appears to have resigned under duress.
SO, Benedict XVI is still Pope.
PS If Benedict is still Pope, we've had horrific fakery going on in the Vatican, aided and/or abetted by a complicit and/or cowardly hietarchy. They should all be quaking in their shoes at the prospect of tbe Divine judgment that they have been provoking!!
DeletePS If Benedict is still Pope, we've had horrific fakery going on in the Vatican these past years, aided and/or abetted by a complicit and/or cowardly hierarchy. They should all be quaking in their shoes at the prospect of the Divine judgment that they have been provoking!!
DeleteWasn't there an Italian website that was going to post the dossier that Pope Benedict gave Pope Francis at the beginning of his papacy? Still waiting for that...
ReplyDeleteWhat follows is my SUMMARY of a fact-based, detailed thesis that I volunteered to proof read for the author.
ReplyDeleteBenedict did not lie; he did not deceive.
For the Common Good, it is likely he dissimulated. He told us plainly his three intentions in LATIN: he was retaining the Petrine Office and hence its Three Powers while at the same time officially declining to use two of those powers AND thus indicating that no Conclave would be needed. Having once accepted the Papal Office in 2005, he accepted the power inherent in that office; since this power is not inherent in the person who occupies the office, in order to safeguard the Church and the Papal Office it was necessary for him to retain the office itself. After twenty-five plus years in the CDF and eight years as Pope (with Ganswein at his side for most if not all those years), Pope Benedict was likely well aware of the extensive network of rot but probably NOT all of the individual players. Even with the 300-page dossier, how could he know each player? A diabolical network has ways to connect and identify without alerting non-members.
In formally declining the use of two of the Papal Powers, he simply made official the reality of his position, namely, that due to the diabolical network–the “wolves”–he was stymied, checked, hindered, resisted, opposed, etc…at EVERY turn to use rightly, that is “rightly administer” (as he himself said), the Petrine Powers of teaching and governing as Christ would have them used. His right to choose NOT to use those powers does NOT make them available for someone else to use to “make a mess”; even if that someone happens to have been "elected" through an unnecessary Conclave. As the one and only Pope, Benedict alone can use or NOT use the Papal Office as has occurred in history with Pope Caius (hiding) as well as a couple others who were either in prison or exiled. Benedict merely and officially announced to the world his lived reality in regards to being unable to actively and rightly teach and govern.
Yes, there was fear BUT he acted out of love for Christ’s Mystical Body and all of Its members. He acted for the Common Good. Benedict is NOT a coward, a weakling, or an idiot. He is a hero akin to Frodo Baggins but more importantly akin to Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Others in the hierarchy ARE cowards and weaklings and idiots and thus impugn those faults to Benedict which has helped to keep his dissimulation under cover.
He knew what he was doing; he announced to us what he was doing. And because we still weren’t getting it, over three years later on May 20, 2016 he had Ganswein remind us and even more plainly tell us in Italian what he did. He did not try a modernist splitting of the Petrine Office, rather (as he told us) he made a difficult, painful even triumphal decision to disguise an “abdication” from the use of two powers in such a way so as to make the enemies of the Church think they are in charge, but in reality he has heroically maintained the Papacy and at the same time rendered the liberals ineffective thereby protecting Holy Mother Church’s indefectibility and the infallibility of the Petrine Office all the while ALL of them ARROGANTLY REVEAL THEMSELVES FOR US TO SEE. And our individual choice as sheep is made crystal clear: Life or death; blessing or curse?
Because we still are not getting it he (or Divine Providence?) recently had Branmuller’s letters leaked from November of 2017 to give us even MORE direct clues: his Papal signature WITHOUT the covert “Emeritus” addendum AND his Apostolic blessing.
Benedict never stopped being our Holy Father. He is not “the bishop in white” that the Third Secret of Fatima mentions.