Folks, this is what holding a false premise leads to.  Every time.

---

“I don’t care what that means for papal infallibility.”

“I don’t care what that means for papal infallibility.”

“I DON’T CARE WHAT THAT MEANS for papal infallibility.”

Which harkens back to this:

---

Here is the entirety of Chapter 4 of Session 4 of Vatican 1.  It’s a short, clear and worth three minutes of your time to read.  Emphases mine.

Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
“The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.” [58]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in public session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of Our Pontificate.

---

“I don’t care what that means for papal infallibility.”

“I don’t care what that means for papal infallibility.”

“I DON’T CARE WHAT THAT MEANS for papal infallibility.”

---

Pray for Pope Benedict XVI the one and only living Pope, and for all who have been and are being scandalized and led into error and apostasy by the Bergoglian Antipapacy.

Okay, folks.  It is your mission, should you choose to accept it, to get these translations distributed.  I’m especially keen to get this info into China, as the Chinese Catholics are being ground to dust under the jackboot of the Freemasonic-Bergoglian antichurch regime.

The Bergoglian Antipapacy menu page has been updated.

All my Germans (the Germans are going to go over and clean up the algorithmic version), you know what to do.

All my Spaniards and Latinos, you know what to do.

All my Frenchies, you know what to do.

All my Brazilians and Portuguese, you know what to do.

All my Italians, you know what to do.

All my Chinese, you know what to do.

Six years of this garbage is six years too long.

(Severe chopped onion warning, here, folks.)

 

First, God bless the transcriptionist, who did an amazing job.  Please say an Ave for her. Eighteen thousand eight hundred forty-four words!

Now that the full transcript is up, with timestamps at the beginning of every paragraph, the entire page containing the transcript itself can be put into a translation algorithm, but I will try to get permanent dedicated pages up in Italian, Spanish, French and Mandarin.

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE TRANSCRIPT.

WHICH IS ALSO NOW AT THE TOP OF THE “Bergoglian Antipapacy” PAGE IN THE TOP MENU ABOVE.

And here is the video itself, with remastered audio, and in high definition, which SuperNerd uploaded just a few weeks ago, and is publicly listed on my YouTube Channel, AnnBarnhardt .  (The original release in November was the data-compressed version.)

But remember, folks, there’s nothing we can do!  Wink. 😉

Ah, yet another super-flattering Ann Barnhardt freeze-frame.  It’s a gift.

So Antipope Bergoglio just declared that:

“god” wills the existence of mutually exclusive religions (which) implies that Francis’ “god” equally wills the truth and the denial of it and therefore is, like the devil, a principle of contradictions.

That is well said. The document stating this was co-signed by a musloid imam who is on the record quite recently as affirming that apostates from the islamic political system should be executed. Mahounds Paradise has the coverage on that.

I gotta tell you, folks, I honestly at this point can not comprehend how anyone can look at Antipope Bergoglio and not instantly see that he enjoys ZERO grace of state guaranteed by the Petrine Promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and as clearly recorded in the Gospels. I’m pretty good at empathy and putting myself in other people’s shoes and thinking through what they might be thinking or what mistakes or confusion they might be experiencing. This is why I am a really good teacher. But I simply can not understand what anyone could possibly be thinking about Bergoglio other than, “There is absolutely no possible way this man can be the Pope. There is absolutely no way this man can even be called Catholic.”

I simply do not comprehend how one can hold in one’s mind that Bergoglio is the Pope without denying the Divinity of Christ.

God is perfect, infinite good. That means that He cannot deceive nor be deceived, and that He is totally, completely, perpetually faithful to His promises.

The image that just haunts my mind is that of Christ, on the Cross, looking down, one by one, at the “Elect” and saying, “How could you have possibly, possibly thought that I would do that to you? How could you possibly think so little of Me? How could you have possibly thought that I would send such an obvious monster and criminal to you as my Vicar? I made you a promise. How could you have thought Me capable of breaking it? Did you never really believe Who I Am, and did you never really believe that I love you?”

Pray for Pope Benedict, pray for Antipope Bergoglio, and pray that if objective evidence isn’t enough, that the light of love radiating from the Sacred Heart of Jesus will illuminate the Truth for the “Elect”.

Well, folks, it’s a day that ends in “y” so that means it’s time for another post on Cardinal Walter Kasper’s life’s work of trying to dissolve the Papacy.

Once again, the German readers are coming through.  May God reward them for their time and effort.

So, you might remember the “Thermonuclear…” post wherein Ratzinger’s opening section of his ARSH 1978 paper in the compendium “Dienst an Der Einheit”, “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes” which is in English, “The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God” considers the hypothesis of a Papacy containing three members, because God is a Trinity, and thus a monarchical papacy is an intrinsically “Arian” structure.  This comes from a theologian of the early 20th century, Erik Peterson.

Well, guess who else is talking about this hypothesis in the very same book?  Yep.  Walter Kasper. As in the Cardinal Walter Kasper who is the head of the Sankt Gallen Mafia that pressured Pope Benedict to resign and installed his boy Jorge Bergoglio as Antipope, and is Antipope Bergoglio’s puppet master.  Except Kasper is MUCH friendlier to it. Imagine that.  I’m going to turn it over to the German readers now….

Dear Ann,

You will recall that Ratzinger on page 167 of the book “Dienst an der Einheit” referred to Erik Peterson’s obscure 1935 work “Monotheism as a political problem”, wherein Peterson surmised that the favour shown to Arianism by the emepror was due to the monotheistic model being a convenient theological corollary of the emperor’s political status. And also how Ratzinger mentioned that this idea was taken further by some, even as far as proposing a trinitarian model of the papacy (as in Solovyev’s writings), in contradistinction to an Arian “Monotheist” model. But it was still unclear why Ratzinger would have mentioned such an obscure work in the first place.

Guess who cites this exact same obscure work by Peterson, 64 pages earlier in “Dienst an der Einheit”, on page 103? Walter Kasper.

And Kasper has his own trinitarian model dreamt up. For Kasper, it is the Church, the Petrine Ministry and the Spirit that make up this “trinity”, even using the term “perichoresis” to describe this interaction.

Dienst an der Einheit, pages 103-4:

“Mir scheint, den Ausführungen über die Begründung des Petrusamtes, über seinen Dienst an der Einheit und seinen Dienst an Glauben liegt eine einheitliche Grundstruktur zugrunde. Es geht nicht mehr um die starre Einheit, von der die antike Metaphysik ausging: ein Gott – ein Reich – ein Kaiser. Diese unitarische Sicht wurde durch das christliche Trinitätsdogma aufgesprengt zugunsten einer Einheit in der Vielheit und einer Einheit durch gegenseitige Durchdringung (Perichorese) Diese trinitarische Logik und Grammatik liegt allem bisher Gesagten zugrunde. Sie begründet eine Einheit der Kirche in der Vielfalt von Kirchen, die durch die communio des eines Glaubens, der gemeinsamen Eucharistie und des brüderlichen Dienstes verbunden sind.”

“It seems to me that the explanation of the grounds of the Petrine ministry, its service to unity and its service to faith is based on a common basic structure. It is no longer about the rigid unity that gave rise to ancient metaphysics: one god – one kingdom – one emperor. This unitarian view was thrown open by the Christian Dogma of the Trinity in favor of unity in multiplicity and unity through mutual permeation (perichoresis). This trinitarian logic and grammar underlies everything that has been said so far. It establishes a unity of the Church in the diversity of churches connected by the communio of one faith, the common Eucharist and fraternal service.”

Perichoresis, as you no doubt know, is the term for the divine indwelling of each Divine Person in the other two.

Kaspar continues:

“Im einzeln bedeutet diese trinitarische Sicht: Kirche und Petrusamt sind zunächst pneumatologisch zu verstehen als Wirklichkeiten, die sich im Geist geschichtlich herausgebildet haben, nur im Geist Gottes verstanden werden können und im Geist auch immer wieder neu in charismatischer Weise verwirklicht werden müssen.”

“In detail, this trinitarian point of view means that the Church and the Petrine ministry are to be understood pneumatologically as realities that have developed historically in the spirit, can only be understood in the spirit of God, and must always be realized in the Spirit in a charismatic way.”

Earlier in the text Kasper takes pains to deny that the monarchial nature of the Petrine Office is ius divinum, and also seeking to deny the jurisdictional nature of the papacy, instead claiming it has more to do with Roman Law than with the Gospel.

---

Tying things together, I immediately went to the J. Michael Miller dissertation, which is titled, remember, “The Divine Right (ius divinum) of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology”, to see if anything was said about this business of the Papacy being monarchical not because Christ instituted it that way (ius divinum), but trying to say the Papacy was based on Roman Law and the fact that Rome happened to be the imperial capitol, and then whether or not the Roman Primacy was affected when the imperial capitol moved from “Old Rome” to Constantinople (“New Rome”).  Folks, the entire first chapter is a discussion of this.  And, of course, every Pope affirmed that the Pope was the Bishop of Rome and held exclusive Primacy because Christ established it thus (ius divinum), quite to the chagrin of the Byzantine Court.  You can hear Miller’s teeth grinding at this, and in fact the rest of his dissertation has as its point the “need” for the Church to evolve away from the notion of the Petrine Office as “ius divinum”.  Remember, in his conclusion, Miller explicitly states on page 285, “First, ecumenical dialogue might well gain in clarity if the term “ius divinum” is abandoned in the future.”

This is important because Kasper recently referred to his puppet, Antipope Bergoglio, as “the first post-Constantinian pope”.  Back to the Germans….

Dear Ann,

I came across this interview with Kasper on the kath.net website from 21 Feb, 2018 . The relevant parts are translated below. In it, he implicitly denies papal jurisdiction, compares Bergoglio to Christ, and effectively denies both the priesthood and the Eucharistic sacrifice.

http://www.kath.net/news/mobile/62841

“Francis was the first ‘post-Constantinian Pope’ because he came not from the area of the ancient Roman Empire, but from the southern hemisphere. In doing so, he ushers in a new era for the Church: a church, ‘in missionary departure, a poor church for the poor.'”

What Kasper means here is the jettisonning of the idea of the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, something which he has in his other writings associated with Roman Law, not with Divine relevation. You also have to wonder what on earth Kasper would know about a poor Church.

“Like all prophets and Jesus himself, the Pope (sic) causes offense and is misjudged. His reforms of the Curia and other institutions are not his main concern,” Kasper said. “That is often misunderstood.”

“The Pope’s (sic) administration is a ‘pontificate of great prophetic perspectives’ that Francis himself will not be able to complete. Kasper, who already met the Pope as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, hopes ‘that his impulses will be effective beyond this pontificate’. ‘I am grateful for this pontificate,’ said the cardinal.”
..

[On ecumenism]

“According to the step-by-step principle of Pope Francis (sic), the churches should now ‘take the steps that are possible,’ said the cardinal. In his view, there is ‘theologically more possible than we are currently doing’. With the Evangelical Lutheran church, for example, he says that ‘in the Eucharistic and official doctrine it is not entirely unanimous, but it is very, very close.‘”

---

Now, let’s jump back again to Kasper in “Dienst an Der Einheit”, which Ratzinger edited, remember, talking about Roman primacy and the monarchical nature of the Papacy:

Dienst an der Einheit, pages 89-90

Die eigentliche Diskussion nach dem Konzil betraf nicht primär die Frage einer angemesseneren Verteilung der Jurisdiktion zwischen Papst und Bischöfen. Die nachkonziliare Diskussion frage viel grundsätzlicher, als das Konzil es getan hatte, nach dem theologischen Sinn und der theologischen Berechtigung von Jurisdiktion überhaupt. Sie stellte den Jurisdiktionsprimat nicht erst in seiner konkreten Ausübung, sondern in seiner tiefsten Wurzel in Frage.

Beim Jurisdiktionsprimat des Papstes verknoten sich die allerverschiedensten Probleme:

“The actual discussion after the [Second Vatican] Council did not primarily concern the question of a more appropriate distribution of jurisdiction between Pope and bishops. The post-conciliar discussion questioned much more fundamentally than the Council had done, regarding the theological meaning and the theological justification of jurisdiction in general. It questioned the primacy of jurisdiction not only in its concrete exercise, but in its deepest root.

The pope’s jurisprudential primacy ties together the most diverse problems:

Der Terminus Jurisdiktion ist ursprünglich im römischen Recht zu Hause; im kanonischen Recht wurde er nicht etwa abgeschwächt, sondern viel mehr erweitert. Aus bloßer Gerictsgewalt wurde eine hoheitliche Gewalt, die Gesetzgebung, Rechtsprechung und Verwaltung einschließt. Kann ein solcher Begriff, so fragte man, geeignet sein, die brüderliche Grundstruktur der Kirche und den Dienstcharakter, der allen kirchlichen Ämtern nach dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil eigen ist, auszudrücken? Kommt ein Jurisdiktionsprimat, wie er vom Ersten Vatikanischen Konzil definiert wurde, nicht von vornherein einem Angriff gegen die christliche Freiheit gleich?

“The term jurisdiction is originally at home in Roman law; In canon law, it was not weakened, but much more expanded. A mere court power became a sovereign power, including legislation, jurisdiction, and administration. Can such a concept, it was asked, be appropriate to express the fraternal structure of the Church and the ministry characteristic of all ecclesiastical ministries after the Second Vatican Council? Is not a primacy of jurisdiction, as defined by the First Vatican Council, equal to an a priori attack on Christian freedom?”

Dazu kommt ein Zweites: Das Mehr an Jurisdiktion bein Papst ist nicht durch ein Mehr an sakramentaler Ordination begründet. Sakramental betrachtet, ist der Papst Bischöf wie jeden andere Bischöf auch. Der Jurisdiktionsprimat des Papstes setzt also die Unterscheidung von Rechtswirklichkeit und sakramentaler Lebenswirklichkeit voraus – eien Unterscheidung, die sich in dieser Deutlichkeit erst in der lateinischen Kirche des 2. Jahrtausends herausgebildet hat und die bis heute nicht in einer befriedigenden Weise theologische geklärt ist…

“In addition, there is a second: The excess of jurisdiction in the Pope is not due to an excess of sacramental ordination. Sacramentally, the Pope is bishop like any other bishop. The primacy of the pope’s jurisdiction thus presupposes the distinction between legal reality and the sacramental reality of life – a distinction which has emerged in this clearness only in the Latin church of the second millennium and which has not yet been resolved in a satisfyingly theological way.”

Schließlich verbanden sich mit dem kirchenrechtlichen Begriff der Jurisdiktion im Lauf der Geschichte immer wieder Vorstellungen von der Monarchie als der vollkommensten Staatsform; im Vorfeld und im Umkreis des Ersten Vatikanums verband sich damit, wie die Forschungen vom H.L. Pottmeyer und E. Weinzierl aufgezeigt haben, eine ausgesprochen antineuzeitliche und antidemokratische Authoritäts- und Gehorsamsphilosophie. Man wollte dem, wie man meinte, alles auflösenden nihilistischen Prinzip der neuzeitlichen Autonomie das katholisches Prinzip der Authorität und des Gehorsams entgegenstellen. Gerade dieser letzte Gesichtspunkt macht verständlich, weshald die allgemeine Amts- und Autoritätskrise der letzten beiden Jahrzehnten in der Krise des Petrusamtes ihre letzte Zuspitzung fand. Eine Neubesinnung auf den theologischen Sinn von Jurisdiktion und damit auch des Jurisdiktionsprimats ist deshalb unumgänglich.

“In the end, ideas about the monarchy as the most perfect form of government were repeatedly associated with the canonical concept of jurisdiction throughout history; in the run-up to and around the First Vatican Council, as the researches of H.L. Pottmeyer and E. Weinzierl have shown, these ideas were joined to a decidedly anti-modern and anti-democratic authority and obedience philosophy. It was intended to oppose, as it was thought, the destructive nihilistic principle of modern autonomy to the Catholic principle of authority and obedience. It is precisely this last point that makes it understandable why the general bureaucratic and authority crisis of the last two decades found its culmination in the crisis of the Petrine ministry. A new way of thinking about the theological meaning of jurisdiction and thus also of the primacy of jurisdiction is therefore inevitable.”

---

But remember, there’s nothing to see here, folks, and you are stupid, insane and a schismatic if you think that there is.  Also, if you think there is anything anyone can do about this, you are a bad person who doesn’t pray and doesn’t trust God and is lacking in humility.  Or something.

Yooooooooooubetcha.

The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple: The Antidote to Narcissism, Elitism and Oligarchy and the Bergoglian Antipapacy

Today, February 2nd, is the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple.  This is the Fourth Joyful Mystery of the Rosary, and the fruit of the mystery is OBEDIENCE and LOVE OF THE LAW.

Witnessing what we all have over the past decade, the total collapse of The Rule of Law in the private sector, the government and now The Church under the Bergoglian Antipapacy, the Feast of the Presentation is especially rich with meaning.

On the 40th day after His birth, Joseph and Mary, in perfect obedience to the Levitical Law, took Jesus to the Temple to be “redeemed”:

And every firstborn of men thou shalt redeem with a price. And when thy son shall ask thee tomorrow, saying: What is this? thou shalt answer him: With a strong hand did the Lord bring us forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. For when Pharao was hardened, and would not let us go, the Lord slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of man to the firstborn of beasts: therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the womb of the male sex, and all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.
Exodus 13: 13-15

Now, stop and think about the reflexive nature of this.  Jesus Christ IS HIMSELF GOD.  Jesus IS HIMSELF the God that brought Israel out of bondage in Egypt.  Jesus Christ IS HIMSELF GOD who commanded that all “that openeth the womb of the male sex” be sacrificed and redeemed. Jesus Christ IS HIMSELF the Author of The Law because HE HIMSELF IS THE LAW.

So, why did Mary and Joseph, and ultimately Christ Himself, an infant of 40 days of age, go to the Temple and perform this action?  Furthermore, why did Mary also at the same time undergo the ritual of Purification, the rite performed on women who had just given birth?

Shouldn’t Mary, Joseph, and ultimately Christ Himself have dispensed themselves from these ritual precepts given the fact that Jesus is God Incarnate, and Mary was preserved in immaculate purity, including her virginity, and thus had absolutely no need of any rite of Purification?

Why did they comply with these Levitical precepts when they were all so clearly above them?

Because love of The Law and obedience to it is love of God and obedience to Him.

Can you imagine the Blessed Virgin, striding haughtily into the Temple, St. Joseph, nose in the air, looking down his nose at the priests, and declaring, “My Son will NOT be redeemed, because He is the Son of the Living God, The Messiah, and thus The Law does not apply to Him because He is its Author!” And then the Blessed Virgin saying, “And I, having conceived Him by the Holy Ghost, carried Him and borne Him, am The Mother of God, and thus will not submit to the Ritual of Purification, because I am perfectly pure!”

All of the above statements are true, but yet we can hear how narcissistic, elitist, and devoid of TRUE HUMILITY and charity they would have been.  No, Jesus, Mary and Joseph all submitted to and obeyed The Law because to do so is to set a good example, namely by completely rejecting the spirit of elitism, narcissism and oligarchy that utterly permeates our culture. In submitting to The Law at not just the Presentation and Purification 40 days after Our Lord’s birth, but also eight days after His birth when He was circumcised, His Most Precious Blood being shed for the first time – a Proto-Passion, which, in and of itself COULD have been enough to redeem the whole world, because even ONE DROP of Our Lord’s Blood, contains in Itself an infinity of His Mercy – in these acts of GENUINE humility, Jesus, Mary and Joseph provided the most profound witness to the Rule of Law, and a total rejection of the spirit of narcissistic elitism.

What do we see today?  We see an Antipope, falsely installed after an invalid attempted abdication, literally telling people that to obey all of the Ten Commandments is harmful to the Christian life. We see the same Antipope attempting to convince every human being that THEIR CONSCIENCE, their FEELINGS are higher than God Himself, and thus trump The Law, and that man, not God, is the final arbiter of truth and judge of sin.  And, as is always the case in paradigms in which The Rule of Law is destroyed, we see the Rule of Man, that is, a paradigm in which the biggest thug wins, a paradigm in which blackmail, coercion, threats, and eventually physical violence are the only rule, the only “law”, a paradigm in which there is no right to petiton for the redress of grievances, a paradigm in which the jackboot of the biggest thug stomps the human face forever.

Think of every tin-pot dictator. Think of every bureaucrat hanger-on, slavishly defending their criminal overlords.  Think of every financial executive, stealing millions if not billions with zero consequence.  Think of every mafia and racketeering organization. Think of the faggots committing their acts of sacreligious, desacratory sodomy inside the Vatican, and throughout the world. All of it, ultimately, to prove to themselves that they are an elite caste, above the law, accountable only to themselves and their perverse passions.

Think of ourselves, and how many times we have convinced ourselves, in things both big and small, that “The Rules Don’t Apply To Me.”

The example set by Our Lord, Our Lady, and St. Joseph, which we celebrate today on The Feast of the Presentation, is the antidote to elitism, narcissism, and shines a spotlight on The Rule of Law and its criticality.

I hope you never pray the Fourth Joyful Mystery the same ever again.

Happy Feast of The Rule of Law!

Cardinal Walter Kasper is sweating like a crocodile in a purse factory, folks.  He should be.  The Bergoglian Antipapacy, a Walter Kasper Production, is hurtling towards its end.

Did you see Maike Hickson’s reportage at LifeSiteNews that Kasper is now saying that a “forced resignation” of Bergoglio would be invalid?  The unmitigated gall of these people….

I’m telling you, folks, things are happening.

First, to review, Antipope Bergoglio holds no juridical office to resign from.  As we have discussed many times before in this space, “Antipope” is NOT an office, it is a CRIMINAL STATUS.  Antipope Bergoglio can’t “resign” the Antipapacy any more than O.J. can resign from being a murderer.

Second, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that Pope Benedict was under pressure to “quit”.  The Sankt Gallen Mafia, led by Cardinal Carlo Martini, told Pope Benedict in ARSH 2012 that his “time was up”.  Martini died on August 31, ARSH 2012 and Walter Kasper became the head of the Sankt Gallen Group.  Not long after on December 31, the Vatican was cut off from processing credit card transactions, a block which was **miraculously** lifted on February 12, the day after Pope Benedict announced his attempted partial faux-resignation.

The question of “forced resignation” has exactly ZERO to do with Jorge Bergoglio, because Jorge Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope. Jorge Bergoglio is as much the Pope as I am.  You can’t resign an office that you never held.  The sentence, “Jorge Bergoglio resigned the papacy” is EVERY BIT AS NONSENSICAL as the sentence, “Kim Kardashian resigned the papacy.”  Jorge Bergoglio only needs to be PHYSICALLY REMOVED.  That’s it.  No trials, no resignations, nothing.  Just give him a change of clothes, and send him packing back to Argentina.

Back to Cardinal Walter Kasper, across the transom came this little jewel, Kasper’s book on the glories and wonders of Luther.  Folks, you don’t even need to read the book.  Just read the blurb on the back cover:

There are few historical figures in memory even after 500 years, friend or foe, who were as influential as Martin Luther. In the course of 500 years Martin Luther was viewed in many different ways: Luther as a reformer, Luther as a church father of Protestantism, Luther as a champion of reason and freedom, Luther as a brave German national hero, and many other images assigned to Luther. For Catholics, Luther has long been one of the heretics par excellence, and responsible for the split of the Western Church and its consequences-at least up until today. This thinking is now over. The Catholic Luther research in the twentieth century brought a significant shift in understanding Luther. Luther is now recognized for his insights and there is a more equitable judgment on the schism. There is now more of an understanding and ecumenical spirit. Cardinal Walter Kasper carefully presents these themes in his latest work, explores his understanding of Martin Luther and his contributions that could not be imagined 500 years ago, but are now in the forefront of a new ecumenical spirit. Various chapters in this book speak of the end of the confessional age, Luther in the spirit on modern times, ecumenical discovery of catholicity, and an ecumenism of charity.

Antipope Bergoglio sounds like a Lutheran because he is parroting what his puppetmaster, Kasper, tells him to say.  Kasper is a Lutheran.  If you read J. Michael Miller’s dissertation, you will understand what the agenda is and has been for over 50 years among the Germans: dissolve the Papacy by “fundamentally transforming” the papacy into a “collegial, synodal shared Petrine ministry”, Lutheranize everything. And as a bonus, get a cut of that sweet, sweet Lutheran Kirchensteuer money.  The Freemasons giggle with glee, and satan squeals with delight.

Just for fun and review, here is a small collection of quotes from Luther.  The man was a psychopath demoniac pervert.  Full stop.

———————-

I look upon God no better than a scoundrel”
(ref. Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963).
–**–
“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”
(ref. Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.)
–**–
“I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ”
(ref. Table Talk, 2397b).
–**–
“It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters”
(ref. Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126).
–**–
“[The commandments] only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself”
(ref: Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364).
–**–
“We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart”
(ref. De Wette 4, 188)
–**–
“If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies”
(ref. Comm. ad Galat, p.310).
–**–
“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.”
(ref. Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol. VI., p. 160).
–**–
“Good works are bad and are sin like the rest.”
(ref. Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. III, pg. 47).
–**–
“There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation.”
(ref. Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 128).
–**–
“…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.”
(ref. From the essay, ‘Bondage of the Will,’ ‘Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190).
–**–
“Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider… Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate.”
(ref. ‘De Servo Arbitrio’, 7, 113 seq., quoted by O’Hare, in ‘The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, pp. 266-267).
–**–
“His (Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world.”
(ref. De servo Arbitrio, against man’s free will).
–**–
“No good work happens as the result of one’s own wisdom; but everything must happen in a stupor . . . Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith.”
(ref. Trischreden, Weimer VI, 143, 25-35).
–**–
“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
(ref. ‘Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. – Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404))
–**–
“Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.”
(ref. J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248).
–**–
“Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.”
(ref. Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294).
–**–
“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned.Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”
(ref. Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294).
–**–
“Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check.”
(ref. Erlangen Vol 15, Pg. 276).
–**–
“If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.”
(ref. Of Married Life).
–**–
“Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to give herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.”
(ref. On Marriage).
–**–
“It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.”
(ref. De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459).
–**–
“The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.”
(ref. On Married Life).
–**–
“In spite of all the good I say of married life, I will not grant so much to nature as to admit that there is no sin in it. .. no conjugal due is ever rendered without sin. The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin.”
(ref. Weimar, Vol 8. Pg. 654. In other words for Luther the matrimonial act is “a sin differing in nothing from adultery and fornication.” ibid. What then is the purpose of marriage for Luther you may ask? Luther affirms that it’s simply to satisfy one’s sexual cravings “The body asks for a women and must have it” or again “To marry is a remedy for fornication” – Grisar, “Luther”, vol. iv, pg. 145).
–**–
“What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?”
(ref. Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 373).
–**–
“To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse – such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself”
(ref. Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 375).
–**–
“St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.”
(ref. Erlangen, Vol. 61, pg. 422).
“What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it”
(ref. Weimar, Vol. 18, Pg. 401).

 

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.”

-Fulton Sheen