0:00:00 Hello, I’m Ann Barnhardt, and, yes, breaking a promise. I said that I would never make another video, and here I am, making a video. In fact, I went through this whole rant on one of the Barnhardt podcasts just a couple episodes ago. “No, no more videos.” And then, of course, I’m sitting at Mass, and I am absolutely moved, after seeing all of the people who are so confused, so scandalized, losing their faith, leaving the Church because of the Bergoglian Antipapacy. I said, alright. I’ll make one more video. One more video to explain this in the hopes that it will do just one person some good, and maybe even in the hopes that it will help some priests as events are escalating. And we’ll get into that.
0:00:57 This is being recorded on the 16th of November, 2008, to give you some perspective. 2018, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Videographer. 2018, to give you some perspective as to where we are in time and current events and so forth. So things are happening, things are escalating quickly, and especially priests are going to need to understand these dynamics, because I’m afraid that even the Mass is going to be quickly coming under attack.
0:01:27 First, credits. I’d like to thank SuperNerd, as always, for all of his support; my videographer, who’s here helping me; and my friend, Phil, who is letting me use his place to record this.
0:01:38 Let’s get right into it. The Bergoglian Antipapacy. Who am I? I am Ann Barnhardt. I am the person who says the things that everyone else is too terrified to say. Apparently, that is my lot in life. I’m good at it, so I’ll keep doing it. I have a degree in Animal Husbandry. I am an absolute no one. I am retired out of the financial industry. As many people have pointed out, I have no degree in theology, I am not a canon lawyer. You can see how terribly upset I am by this. Other people aren’t willing to speak out. That’s fine. I will.
0:02:15 Why am I making this video presentation? We just went over that. Because I look at the comment threads every day on the internet. I look at people pouring their hearts out, trying to reconcile the notion that Jorge Bergoglio is, in fact, the Vicar of Christ on earth, and losing their faith. Well, of course they are, because it’s a false premise, and you cannot hold a false premise without just going bonkers. Something has to give. And a lot of these people are, in fact, losing their faith, and I’m talking about super-faithful, trad Catholics, who are so scandalized that they are losing their faith. Someone has to do something. Someone has to speak up, explain this clearly, bluntly. I think I can do that. Please God, if I can help anyone, let me help, let me explain this.
0:03:18 If over the course of this presentation…you all do me a favor…if I say anything that seems to you illogical, irrational, detached from reality, that does not conform to objective, observable reality, or just even seems, I don’t know, what word can I use? Dippy. Write it down, take notes, send me an email, let me know. Let me know if anything I say is illogical, irrational, or detached from reality, please. Please do that.
0:03:58 Like I said, people are being scandalized. Good people. I cannot sit here in silence. I mean, this theme of silence is at the forefront of all of our consciences right now because we’re watching the bishops in silence, being told to be silent about the homosexual infiltration of the Church, and the fact that homosexuals predate upon young men and lads. And this is an absolute endemic scourge in the Church right now, and silence, silence, silence. As St. Catherine of Siena said, “Enough silence. Let us cry out with a hundred thousand voices.” Let us cry out with a hundred MILLION voices. Let us cry out with a BILLION voices. There’s 1.3 billion Catholics on this planet. Let us cry out. Enough of this silence.
0:04:51 The reason people are confused and scandalized is because they are trying to reconcile reality to an objectively false premise. What is that false premise? It is nothing less than this: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the Pope. No, see, that’s wrong. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not now, and never has been, the Pope. And this isn’t some whack-a-doodle conspiracy theory. I’m going to talk for the next two hours explaining this, in lurid detail. Objective reality. All kinds of evidence. Clear, objective evidence. He’s not the Pope. He never has been the Pope. If you take a false premise, namely, that this man who is not Peter, and you try to look at life and parse reality through the prism of that false premise, you’re going to lose your faith, you’re going to go bonkers, something is going to have to give; because you cannot hold a false premise like this, and expect anything else but a chaotic series of corollaries off of that logical truth table when your base premise is false. We have to get this right, we have to correct it, and we have to correct it now. Now. This has gone on for five and a half years, and you all can see that events are escalating, and it is only going to get worse, and it is going to get worse on an exponential curve. We have to get this corrected. Corrected at the root, at the true base premise, and do it now, because if we don’t, it is going to be abject chaos. Abject chaos. And we have the ability to do it, and it’s so simple. It is so, so simple. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not now the Pope, and never has been.
0:06:48 Why? Why isn’t he the Pope? What happened? Here’s what happened, in a nutshell: Pope Benedict XVI attempted to partially abdicate the papacy, and we’ll talk about why he tried to do that and so on and so forth. In his attempt to only partially abdicate the papacy, that rendered his entire attempted resignation invalid, per canon law, which we will tear apart here in a few minutes. OK? You’re either the Pope, or you’re not. You either resign, or you don’t. You’re either occupying the See, or you’re not occupying the See. Period. This business of fundamentally transforming it, bifurcating it, turning it into a collegial, synodal office…no, no, no, no, no. No. This is substantially erroneous, and that renders his attempt at abdicating wholly invalid, which means that he never actually abdicated, and he is still the one and only living Pope, whether he likes it, you like it, I like it, anyone likes it. That has nothing to do with it. What we want is not germane. What matters is the ontological reality, and we’ll go through the proof of this.
0:08:15 When a juridical act is invalid according to the law itself, what happens is that the situation reverts to the status quo. This is a foundational concept of jurisprudence. Think about it this way: Most of you out there have probably done some sort of a real estate transaction in your life. What did you have to do? You have to go to a title company and you have to get an abstract, right? You have to get a history of the chain of ownership and custody of that piece of real estate all the way back to, where I’m from, in the central U.S., you go back to the Indians. Whether it was seized, whether it was purchased, whatever it is, you’re tracing things back to the Indians. In some parts of the world it’s back to the Spanish, back to the French, you know, whatever it is, but you have to produce a document that shows a chain of ownership and custody, that’s all squared away, until you can close on a real estate deal, right? Why? Why do you need to know who owned the piece of land that your house that you’re looking to buy is sitting on a hundred years ago? Why do you need to know that? Because if some defect, if some legal defect, is found in some transaction, or juridical act, that happened in the last hundred years, everybody needs to be able to look at that title abstract and find out, where did the situation go haywire, and who owned it. What was the situation, one second before the situation went haywire?
0:10:01 Why do we need to know what the situation was, what the status quo was, one second before things went haywire? Because the law says, and common sense says, the legal status reverts to the status quo immediately before the defect happened. You don’t have a defect happen in some sort of juridical action and then the law says well, yeah, we’re just going to let the consequences of this keep going and going and going. What is that? What’s a word for that? Chaos. It’s chaos. And chaos is of the devil. Order is of God, and it’s of common sense. It’s in the Natural Law. It makes sense to us. Revert to the status quo. OK?
0:10:53 So, Pope Benedict XVI attempts this business of only partially abdicating the Papacy, thinking he can split it and transform this office that was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. Not even the Pope can change it. But he tried. This renders the resignation invalid, so then what does the situation revert to? It reverts to whatever the situation was one second before Pope Benedict tried this, which means Pope Benedict is the Pope, the See is occupied, that’s it. Whether anybody likes it or not, including Pope Benedict, himself. This is a very important concept, and we’ll talk about it more later.
0:11:37 What exactly does the law say? The Canon that we need to be looking at in the Church’s code of law is Canon one eight eight, Canon 188. It’s very simple, it’s very short, clear, straight forward. It consists of three criteria. It’s addressing directly resignations of a Pope. The attempted resignation of a Pope. Canon 188: A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, criterion number one, substantial error, criterion number two, or simony, criterion number three.
0:12:22 What is simony? Simony actually doesn’t apply in this case. It would be like back in the Middle Ages if someone had taken one of these, say for example, Medici, or something like that, one of these Popes, and said we’ll pay you. We’ll pay you and your family the equivalent of x million or x billion dollars for you to abdicate, buying him off, essentially. Buying him off, personally, PERSONALLY. That’s clearly not in play here. I think we can all agree to that. What ARE in play are the other two criteria
0:12:59 So, finishing off, rereading the Canon, 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. This is clear. This is straightforward. OK? This is easy to understand. There is nothing nebulous or ambiguous about this at all. Our number one criterion…we have two in play here, I mean how good is the Divine Providence? It isn’t just that we have one of these criteria in play, we have two. But the big one, our base criterion that we’re launching everything else off from, is substantial error. The notion that Pope Benedict could fundamentally transform, bifurcate, and only partially abdicate the Papacy. This is substantially erroneous. He can’t do that. Not even the Pope can alter and transform this juridical office of the Papacy that Jesus Christ, Himself, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, established Himself. He can’t do it.
0:14:13 Criterion number two that is a confirming set, and that it also in play here, and it’s becoming clearer and clearer and clearer, is fear; this grave fear inflicted unjustly or out of malice. And it’s both. We now know that there is this cabal, there is this mafia of Freemasons, but what’s coming to the fore now…and the Venn diagrams on these cabals overlap severely…is sodomites. They hate him. Malice. Malice. Oh, oh, do they hate him. And so, can we look at this situation and say, was Pope Benedict coerced? Was he in grave fear? Oh, yes, and we have his own words to prove this. And now we have the circumstantial evidence of other things that are going on, and other people who have had to literally flee in fear of their lives and go underground and into hiding. Archbishop Viganò cannot walk the streets of Rome for fear of his life. He is God-knows-where on this earth, in hiding, for fear of his life. Why? For exposing the sodomite mafia inside the Vatican. Don’t tell me that this grave fear inflicted unjustly or out of malice is not in play with regards to Pope Benedict’s actions. Of course it’s in play. It requires the willful suspense of disbelief to say that it isn’t. Of course it is.
0:15:50 But, like I said, God is good, the Divine Providence is good. First and foremost is substantial error. Oh, we’ve got that. We’ve got that nailed down, we’ve got it dead to rights, the fear is just a confirming set. So, we’re absolutely sure about this.
0:16:09 Lawyers, theologians, and others might argue that a layperson simply cannot comprehend the Law. This is false. All valid codices of law are publicly promulgated and published precisely because the plain sense of the words of the law are the last line of defense between the society under said law and the tyrants that would usurp it. If the law is incomprehensible, incomprehensible to the people living under it, what that means is that the law can mean whatever the biggest group of thug tyrants who can claim control of the society, say it means. Look at the history of the 20th century. Look at the history of Marxism. The law means what I say it means. These are the words of a tyrant. A civilized society, going all the way back to the Old Testament where the Old Covenant, the old law was found, and what did they do? The brought it out, and they read it to the people, and the people wept, realizing how they had been breaking the law, and then rejoiced that they had found it and now they had the law. But they came and they brought it out and they read it to the people. Why? Because the plain sense of the words of the law ARE comprehensible. Don’t tell me that Canon 188 is incomprehensible. That only a theologian, or a canon lawyer, or even a civil lawyer, only they are capable of understanding what this means. Nonsense. That is abject nonsense. Don’t fall for it.
0:18:03 So again, substantial error. This is the key criterion of invalidity with regards to this situation; the false attempted, partial abdication of Pope Benedict, which was invalid, and the subsequent Bergoglian Antipapacy that came as a corollary of that. The key criterion though, everything, everything, everything has to do with Ratzinger. Everything is Ratzinger, Pope Benedict’s actions in February of 2013. That is the core of this.
0:18:38 We’re going to get in…and it’s probably going to be like an hour from now before we actually start talking about Antipope Bergoglio. Why? Because believe it or not, and again, this is such a blessing, and it’s a testament to the Divine Providence, he isn’t even really the core issue. He’s just a pimple, and he could be taken care of like this. The solution to all of this is extremely simple. He doesn’t have to be tried as a heretic, nothing. He’s a criminal. That’s all he is. He’s a criminal. All that needs to happen is that’s publicly declared and he’s physically removed. And then after that he should be laicized, but we’ll get into that. That’s all you have to do. There’s none of this engagement in debating about whether or not a Pope can be judged, deposed, tried…none of that matters because Bergoglio isn’t the Pope and never has been. What we need to focus on is Ratzinger and Ratzinger’s substantial error, primarily. This is the key criterion of invalidity in this case.
0:19:53 Font is small here. Don’t sweat it, we’re going to PDF this slideshow presentation and make it available as a link to you all, if you would like these notes. But I will read them off and maybe you can see it there on the screen.
0:20:07 These are Pope Benedict’s words, himself, from…I’ll just read the quote. “Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005,” which is the date of Ratzinger’s elevation to the papacy. “The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him;” Indeed. “that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.”
0:21:21 Now, here’s what’s important here, and we’re going to get into a little bit of the nuance of this, about whether or not a Pope can resign. And, in fact, the answer is yes, a Pope absolutely can resign. What this is speaking to is the mind of Ratzinger. He says here repeatedly that he believes that the Papacy is forever. He views himself as the Pope, always and forever, and he says it repeatedly here. Ok? So this is incredibly informative. And again, he’s saying this in 2013.
0:22:00 Continuing this quote: “The ‘always’ is also a ‘for-ever’ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere.” Listen to this. This is the mind of the Pope. “The ‘always’ is also a ‘for ever’ – 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. 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. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger, 27 February, 2013, his final, “final,” Papal Audience.
0:23:24 Here’s the precision that is absolutely critical that you get straight in your minds; and I’m telling you there are academics, PhD’s, people emailing me all the time, who do not get this precision. Pope Benedict, his mind, is not the arbiter of reality. His dazzling Bavarian intellect does not create reality and it’s not the arbiter of reality. Again, what is the criterion that we just said in canon law is what we’re dealing with here? Substantial error. He is just shooting out error here with regards to the nature of the Petrine office. He’s saying that he thinks that he can half quit. He’s still going to be in the enclosure of Saint Peter. He’s still going to be participating in the Papacy, in the Petrine Ministry. But what he thinks he’s doing, in his mind, is that he’s transforming the Papacy, and now he’s going to be the contemplative, inactive, prayerful Pope, but then his successor can be elected and his successor will be the active Pope who’s in charge of the governance of the Church. This is substantial error. Just because Pope Benedict says these things, and presumably believes them, it doesn’t make them true. It doesn’t create some sort of a new ontological reality. He’s in substantial error. You cannot do this. There is no splitting the Papacy. This is nonsense.
0:25:09 But he did it anyway. And he said these things, and now look at the mess we’re in. We have an Antipope and all the corollaries that come out of it. But you have to get this precision straight. Just because he said it, it doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t make it real. Look at the Canon Law. He more than anyone, as the Vicar of Christ, is subject to the law. Ok? It’s his job to uphold it. It’s his job to give it integrity. Not to shred it. Not to do this. This is wrong. This is substantial error. And we know that the Pope can potentially commit substantial error with regards to trying to resign because Canon Law addresses it. It’s precisely because it’s there in Canon Law that we know that this is possible.
0:26:01 And furthermore, not only is it possible, but even if the Pope makes a mistake, a substantial error this enormous and this big, guess what? He still fully retains the Papacy. How do we know? Because Canon Law says so. Canon Law says his attempted resignation will be invalid by the law, itself. Which means what? It’s a failed attempt. He’s still the Pope. He’s still the Pope 100%. The only question is, do we recognize this? Does he recognize this? Do we recognize this? A few of us do. I don’t know if he does or not, but I think someone needs to go tell him. Not ask him. Tell him. He needs to have this explained to him because this situation is intolerable. It cannot persist, and we can’t just sit here. We can’t all just sit here.
0:26:52 You know, maybe nothing will come of this video. Maybe absolutely nothing will come of this video, but you know what? At least I will have tried. At least I will have tried. At least I will have said something. Done something. Tried to do something. Unlike these bishops who can’t even turn in boy rapists because they’re so impotent; because they’re so lacking in virility.
0:27:16 Now, it gets even better. Archbishop Ganswein. Who is Archbishop Ganswein? I think I have a picture of him over here. Well…it’s somewhere. Archbishop Ganswein is also a German and he was Pope Benedict’s personal secretary while he was (actively) the Pope, and, what’s really weird, is that he’s now still Pope Benedict’s personal secretary, but he’s also personal secretary to Bergoglio. If you look on the internet, you will see Ganswein in almost every photograph of every public event that happens with either one of them; with either Pope Benedict or with Antipope Bergoglio. Ganswein is always right there, and I mean RIGHT there. Ganswein is up to this to his eyebrows. And my opinion of him goes down with each passing day because, like I said, he’s in this up to his eyebrows.
0:28:25 Ok, so here’s what happens. May, I believe May 20, 2016, Archbishop Ganswein goes to the Greg, the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and gives an address where he lays out the mind of Ratzinger with regard to Ratzinger’s attempted abdication in February of 2013. Now, I have a little bit of inside baseball here. What I was told, by contacts in Rome who are in and have contacts in what’s called the Ratzingerian Circle; this circle of people, academics, clerics, prelates, in Rome, who have been in an academic sense, in an intellectual sense close to Pope Benedict, spend time with him, get together with him…you know this is still going on. People still go visit him, he still receives people, so on and so forth. I was told by people in that circle that Ganswein had the text of the speech he was going to give at the Greg. He gave it to the Holy Father, he gave it to Pope Benedict. Pope Benedict read it, handed it back to him and said, in Italian, because they often speak to each other in Italian, “Complimenti,” which means, “Complements.” Meaning, well done, I approve, you have my blessing, go ahead. I was told that Pope Benedict gave Archbishop Ganswein his blessing to deliver this address at the Greg. Given that, we can put credence in this. Ok? So here we go.
0:30:04 Archbishop Ganswein said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes, quote, “in competition,” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.” Quote, “Therefore, from 11 February 2013,” this is Ganswein speaking, “the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.” He said that, quote, “before and after his resignation,” unquote, Benedict has viewed his task as, quote, “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry.’” Note that. Before and after his resignation. A participation in such a Petrine ministry. And, you know, inserted note, not in its “Office,” the governance of the Church in the world, but in its “essentially spiritual nature,” through prayer and suffering. Back to Ganswein in black: “He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Ganswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance” …ahh, look at that…”irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”
0:31:44 But see, the Papacy is revocable. It’s a juridical office. You can resign. Do you see how this echoes Benedict’s erroneous idea of the papal coronation being an irreversible event, (this is commentary now), creating an indelible/irrevocable mark on the recipient forever? It’s exactly the same idea Benedict put forth in his final general audience. The quote that we just read, ok? The Papacy is a completely unique office in all the world. It is a juridical office, but it is a juridical office that enjoys supernatural protection. But because it’s a juridical office, and it’s not an anointed, indelible office…what are the anointed, indelible offices in the Church? Priesthood and episcopacy. You’re anointed when you’re ordained a priest and you’re anointed with oil when you are consecrated a bishop. The Pope is crowned. The Pope is crowned. It’s a juridical office, which means you can resign. And history bears this out. This is obvious. There have been numerous popes who have resigned, including Celestine V, who we’ll get to in a minute.
0:32:54 Continuing with Ganswein at the bottom: “Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation, but stays within the Vatican – as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”
0:33:19 Nope. Sorry. He’s incredibly intelligent. Nobody, nobody worth their salt, nobody serious, is going to debate the fact that Joseph Ratzinger is intellectually, IQ-wise, a genius. But I think he’s one of those geniuses who is just a little bit too smart for his own good. This is impossible. You cannot fundamentally transform the papacy. You cannot turn it into a collegial, synodal office. You cannot bifurcate it. Nope. This is an office established by Christ. Established by Christ. It cannot be changed. This is substantial error. This is what Canon 188 foresaw.
Now I don’t think anybody foresaw this. I mean, I’m sure people looked at…’well, what does that substantial error clause in Canon 188, what could that possibly mean?’…before this all happened. Does it mean a pope who thinks he reaches 85 years of age and he’s legally obliged to resign? Is that what it means? You couldn’t make this up. Only a German. Only a German intellectual could make this up. But this is where we are. So, these words of Ganswein are crystal clear, crystal clear, as I was told they have the approval of Pope Benedict.
0:34:41 The Papacy is a juridical office established by Christ Himself, and it cannot be “fundamentally transformed” even by the Pope himself. The pope cannot “partially” resign. The Papacy cannot be “expanded.” This is substantial error. Here we are. Ok? See, this isn’t terribly complex. This is really easy to understand.
0:35:03 There cannot be a “Pope Emeritus.” This is a fiction. JPII said as much. JPII, dying of Parkinson’s disease. Do you think that dying of Parkinson’s disease, paralyzed basically, at the end, and knowing how Parkinson’s was going to develop and how he was eventually going to end up, and knowing some of the swine that were present inside the Curia…do you think JPII didn’t stop and think about this? And what did JPII say? No. This is impossible. He’s exactly right. It is impossible. You’re either the Pope, or you’re not. And JPII rightly realized that you stay in office. You don’t abandon the flock, and, if anything, your suffering, (which this did happen), his suffering became a beautiful testimony and witness to love of the Lord, serving the flock, etc., etc., and strength in weakness. Nobody can deny that. Some of these images of Pope John Paul II consecrating the Eucharist and having to have two men come on either side of him, physically holding him up, and then lowering him down to genuflect, and then raising him back up at the very end; it’s incredibly moving and some of those videos are, in fact, available on the internet.
0:36:28 The Papacy is NOT an indelible, anointed office. It is a juridical office, albeit with the singular privilege of supernatural protection. Popes can resign. That is why the validity of papal resignations is addressed in Canon Law. I get this all the time. I get people coming at me and attacking me. And they say it both ways. There are some people who say, ‘well, a Pope can’t resign.’ Well, yeah, actually the Pope can resign, and we know because it’s in Canon Law. Why would Canon Law address something that was legally impossible? Der. People have a hard time thinking things through.
0:37:10 Then other people come at me, and I guess they’ve not read my arguments, and they say, ‘well, Ann, Popes can too resign.’ Well I’m not arguing that. The issue with Pope Benedict is not whether he COULD resign. The issue is the validity of the partial, flawed, substantially erroneous resignation that he attempted. That’s the issue. So, don’t let anybody twist you around and confuse you on this.
0:37:44 Here’s the picture of Ganswein. Who is this guy? I mean, he’s personal secretary to both of them? He’s playing both sides all the time. I mean, he goes to a funeral in Germany and, gives the eulogy of the Cardinal, and basically says that the Barque of Peter is getting ready to capsize, and then 24 hours later he’s back in Rome, just right there at the side of Antipope Bergoglio at all times, introducing sex perverts and all kinds of horrible people, to who he’s publicly holding out to be the Holy Father. He’s playing both sides of this and I don’t believe he’s to be trusted.
0:38:35 Who’s Ganswein? Are both Pope Benedict and Ganswein sub-verbal, and do they not understand what they are saying? This is an argument that is made to me, and it’s actually edifying to me, because it shows me just how profoundly weak the arguments of people who are trying to disagree with me on this entire question are. Literally, I have had people say to me, people with advanced degrees in theology, say to me, ‘Ratzinger and Ganswein, both of them, are so stupid that they do not understand the simple, plain sense of the words that they are using.’ That is obviously not true. That is how weak the opposition’s argument is. Just dismissing people. ‘Oh, they’re so stupid they don’t even understand language. They don’t even understand what they’re saying.’ Umm, yeah, they understand exactly what they’re saying and they’re not imbeciles. Pope Benedict is, IQ-wise, a genius. Ganswein is of above average intelligence, certainly. I know people who are around him and know him say he’s incredibly charming. Extremely good manners, as many Germans tend to have extremely good manners. He’s not an idiot. He’s not an imbecile. Of course he understands the plain sense of the words that he’s using. So, if you ever hear people coming at you with that, ‘Oh they just don’t even understand the words that they’re using, cause they’re that stupid.’ That’s how weak the other side’s argument is.
0:40:10 Pope Benedict is an intellectual genius. Ganswein is no dummy. Remember: the most intelligent minds make the biggest mistakes. The more intelligent a person is, the bigger the error has the potential to be, and, to wit, Lucifer and one third of the angels. Massive, massive intellects, with Lucifer being probably the largest, greatest, created rational intellect. And look at the error that the massive, massive rational intellects of Lucifer and a third of the angels made. We can’t even begin to comprehend this. This error of Pope Benedict’s is the biggest papal error since Pentecost. Look at what’s happening. Look at what has come out of this. This is the biggest error that any Pope has made. Hands down. It isn’t even debatable.
0:41:13 Secondary Confirmation: The second criterion from Canon 188: fear. Canon 188 says: A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice. Well it’s both. The sodomites, the Freemasons, the satanists, those Venn diagrams all overlap very, very, heavily. They hate Pope Ratzinger. They hate him. Now, Pope Ratzinger has problems, and we’ll get into that. His metaphysics are warped. He’s said and done things. Obviously, a lot of you are going to point out the fact, and I’m right there with you, that he was an extremely influential person at Vatican II, and we’ll talk about Vatican II at the end. But they hate him because at least he’s Catholic, and he was taking active steps to try to clean up…I mean, how many hundred… hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of deposed bishops, laicizations, etc., etc. He was genuinely trying to at least do something to go after what he himself referred to, publicly, as the filth of sodomites inside the ranks of the Church. They hated him for that, and they hated him because he’s Catholic. I mean, they hate all of us. They hate Catholicism. They’re trying to take over and destroy the Church and eliminate it from the face of the planet, and he was an obstacle to them in that quest, in that Freemasonic and satanic quest.
0:42:58 So, we have the issue of just versus unjust fear. Well, just fear is fear of the Lord. If a truly horrible, terrible person…let’s say, for example, let’s take someone like Alexander VI Borgia, whose private moral life was an absolute disgrace. He threatened one of his mistresses with excommunication if she didn’t conform to going along with their affair. What did he tell her to do, leave her husband or something? It was Giulia Farnese. He threatened her with excommunication if she didn’t go along with this sexual affair that they were having. This is terrible. He wasn’t a heretic. He was too busy being personally evil to ever really do anything heretical, and the truth is that Alexander VI was not the worst administrative Pope. He did get things done administratively. But his moral life was an absolute shambles. What if he had been struck with fear of the Lord, and snapped-to and said, ‘I can’t be the Pope. I can’t do this anymore. I have to repent. I have to go spend the rest of my life in a monastery on my knees in seclusion, fasting, and begging God to have mercy on my monstrosity,’? What if that had happened, just hypothetically? Well, that would be resigning out of just fear, fear of the Lord. Ok? What we’re talking about here is unjust fear with Pope Benedict. This malicious fear, inflicted from outside, because enemies of Jesus Christ and His Holy Church wanted him out of there. The Sankt Gallen mafia, the sodomites, all of them, they all hated him. Like I said, what we’re dealing with here is grave fear inflicted out of malice. They hate him. They hated him and they hate him, and the anecdote is that when Jorge Bergoglio, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, down in Buenos Aires, who’s a member of the Sankt Gallen mafia, when he got the news on February 11, 2013, that Pope Benedict had made this announcement about this partial resignation, that Bergoglio was absolutely giddy. Absolutely giddy. Why? Because they hated him and they wanted him gone.
0:45:26 Sodomite Mafia. You know, a lot of us tend to, still even, think of sodomites as being limp-wristed weak men who are soft and are no real threat. You have to get over this. Sodomites are some of the most spectacularly vicious and violent, especially men, (but also the women), but men, sodomite men, are some of the most spectacularly vicious and violent and murderous people on the surface of this planet. They have no empathy. They have no empathy. They have all the male testosterone, and all of that, zero empathy, diabolical narcissists, many of them psychopaths…they will stop at nothing. Look at the history of Nazi Germany and the SS. Read “The Pink Swastika.” All of the upper echelon of the Nazi Party, those guys were all sex perverts. All of them. Those are some of the most dangerous human beings walking the earth, are sodomites. Don’t forget it.
0:46:30 And yes, there are absolutely Satanists inside the Vatican. The practice of Satanism, the nexus of it today, is inside the Vatican, and it has been that way for decades. It was just revealed that the gay orgy, the cocaine-fueled gay orgy broken up in the palace of the Holy Office, which sits literally right next to St. Peter’s, that it was supposed to be the apartment of Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, who is a secretary working in the Holy Office. Turns out that, in fact, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, who is one of the closest Cardinals to Bergoglio, known sodomite, and was Copozzi’s patron inside the Vatican, not only was he there, but the exact word that was used to describe his role in this homosexual orgy that was going on in the palace of the Holy Office, was that he was “presiding” over it. Presiding. “Orgy” tends to imply chaos, no organization. Cardnial Coccopalmerio was presiding over this. That, I am convinced, is…read between the lines…this was probably some sort of a satanic liturgy. It was probably a satanic liturgy. That’s what was going on in there.
0:48:00 Freemasons. They’ve been present in the Vatican for over a hundred years now, and they’ve got power, and they too…you know the Venn diagram of satanism and sodomy and Freemasonry, that has a huge overlap in it, and again these are violent people. When they get power and they’re close to power, or they feel that power is slipping away from them, it is nothing for these people to slip into physical violence, absolutely nothing. They have no empathy, many of them have no consciences…they’re psychopaths. They are psychopaths.
Archbishop Viganò, as we’ve already discussed, has gone into hiding for fear of his life. Don’t you tell me that fear is not on the table with regards to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, and all of these events.
0:49:01 The Southern Italian Mafia has a huge presence and has allied with the Freemasons, sodomites, and satanists inside the Vatican. You say, ‘are these sodomite Cardinals going to be the ones who are going to pull the trigger on somebody or kidnap somebody? Are you going to find somebody hanging off one of the bridges in Rome because these Cardinals have gotten together and physically done it themselves?’ No. What they’re going to do is they’re going to contract it out to the Southern Italian Mafia, who don’t care as long as the money comes. They will do whatever. They’re psychopaths as well. And there’s a lot of pagan/satanists/satanic dynamic swirling around in that whole Neapolitan mafia culture anyway. Not unlike, Americans related probably better to the kind of Satanic, pagan rituals that we’re seeing resurge in Mexico and so forth, when you see that the drug cartels and these pagan Satanic cults are coming together and are overlapping. It’s like that in Italy from Naples south in southern Italy with the mafia and Satanism and paganism and so forth. So, yeah, the Cardinals would just contract out, to the Southern Italian Mafia, presumably, to do something like this.
0:50:26 Then, also don’t forget, blackmail, the fear of blackmail, and it isn’t even necessarily blackmail for things that have actually happened. What is starting to come out now in this #CatholicMeToo movement is that there are lots and lots of priests and prelates in the English-speaking world, who are now coming out and saying…well, not lots and lots coming out and saying, but they’re starting to come out and say…’look, we fear blackmail if we cross a Donald Wuerl or somebody like that, not because we’ve done anything wrong. We fear blackmail because we know that these guys would not hesitate to get one of their male prostitutes to make up a story and blackmail us with that.’ All of these sodomites, they have connections to prostitutes. Many of them use prostitutes. Hey, you give some street-hustler in New Jersey or Washington D.C., out of the gay bar scene there, you say, ‘look, I will give you a quarter of a million dollars, and I’ll let you live in my luxury condo on the beach, if you will say that this-and-such priest or this-and-such bishop did X, Y, and Z. And it’s going to be your word against his. His reputation will be destroyed. It’s going to be a complete fabrication, but I’ll give you a quarter mil and let you live in my beach condo…’ Well, of course a male prostitute would totally do that. That’s what a lot of priests and some bishops are living in fear of; the blackmail of paid false witnesses. Do you think that isn’t potentially in play with Pope Benedict? Do you think it’s possible that maybe the Sankt Gallen mafia and some of these people went to him and said, ‘look, we’re prepared to produce people who will say that you, maybe your brother, Georg Ratzinger…we’re prepared to release all kinds of false stories about you and potentially even your brother, and we will destroy the institutional Church? We will destroy the institutional Church unless you do what we say. So, remember, it isn’t even the blackmail of the guilty. What’s in play here also is the fear of being blackmailed, by the innocent.
0:53:03 Pope Benedict XVI in his own words on Sunday the 24th of April, 2005, one of his first Masses in which the pallium was imposed, and the Papal fisherman’s ring was conferred upon him. So, it’s one of these installation Masses when he was very first elected, but he’s already the Pope now when he said this. Pope Benedict the XVI said, quote: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” He’s no dummy. He’d been in Rome for decades. He’d been the head of the CDF. He had been the man who had seen these dossiers and seen these charges, and he knew, he knew. Maybe he didn’t know how bad it was, oh, but he knew. And he knew how malicious these people were and he knew that they were going to come after him, and look. Flee? Flee? And that’s exactly what he ended up doing. Are we going to just say that this is some sort of a big coincidence, and that we can’t even talk about fear with regards to Canon Law? Come on. Come on. It’s right here. It’s right in front of you.
0:54:22 Common tropes. Quote, “The fact that Pope Benedict resigned is proof that he wasn’t coerced!” I’ve heard this one. This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard in my life. Coercion is doing something that one would not have done without exterior fear and/or pressure being exerted. By the argument above, the entire concept of coercion is self-annihilating and coercion of any kind would be logically impossible, because remember, the trope is, “The fact that Pope Benedict resigned is proof that he wasn’t coerced.” The fact that he did the thing that he was coerced into doing is proof that he wasn’t coerced. That’s the strength of your argument. An interiorly self-annihilating, self-contradictory argument. Also, let’s not forget, coercion almost always persists long after the coerced act is completed. Sometimes for years or decades. So, it’s not as if someone is coerced into doing something, and then as soon as they do it, boom, all the pressure is off, they are at complete liberty to say, ‘hey, I was just coerced!” No, of course not. The coercion almost always persists. Almost always. I’m not kidding you, this is the level of argument that I get from intellectuals and thought leaders on the right, on the trad right, who are trying to argue this.
0:55:57 Visual evidence. Pope Benedict continues to wear the Papal White and his Papal Ring. Pope Benedict was asked, ‘why do you still wear,’ after he had faux-abdicated and run off, ‘why do you continue to wear the Papal White?’ And the answer he gave was such a massive, bald-faced lie that the first thing that occurred to me was this has got to be a coded cry for help. Again, you don’t want to be a conspiracy theorist and all that, absolutely, but listen to what he said. He said there weren’t any black cassocks for him to wear. You announce your intention to abdicate three weeks before the effective date, so he announces on 11 February and the effective date is 8:00 pm on the 28th of February, so you’ve got basically three weeks here, and you live in Rome, a city that has more black cassocks than any city on the face of the earth. And you’re the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. You can’t pick up the phone and call one of the clerical outfitters, or whoever your personal tailor is, and say, look, I need a black cassock, presumably with red piping, or just a black cassock? It’s such a bald-faced lie that, in charity, one has to assume that he’s trying to signal. That he’s desperately trying to signal something. I’m wearing the Papal White because there weren’t any black cassocks for me to wear. He’s made this decision. This is his free choice. He could have gotten a full new wardrobe anytime he wanted in the past five and a half years, and yet every day he gets on and he puts on the Papal White. He gets up and he puts on the Papal White. And he continues to wear his Papal Ring.
0:58:11 Pope Benedict retains his Papal name, Pope Benedict. This is breaking all previous precedent and also the wearing of the Papal White. That also breaks all previous precedent. In previous precedent, whenever a Pope would resign, he gave up every physical indication of the Papacy. He reverted to black, he dropped, of course, the Papal name, he reverted to being Cardinal so-and-so, or Bishop so-and-so, or Abbot so-and-so, whatever it was, so that there would be absolutely no confusion about anything. And then he went very far away. So, Pope Benedict retains his Papal name, he’s called Pope Benedict, and his Papal Style. The Papal Style is the courtesy title that someone is given and in the case of the Pope it’s Your Holiness/His Holiness/Holiness. He is still called, all day every day, His Holiness Pope Benedict, or His Holiness Pope Emeritus, but as we’ve talked about, the whole notion of a Pope Emeritus is completely false. Non-existent. It’s a fiction. He’s chosen this. He could have said get me a black cassock and go back to calling me Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Ratzinger, whatever he wanted. He could’ve reverted to that. Did he do that? Does he do that? No. Every day he gets up and he retains these visible signs of the Petrine Office.
0:59:46 Pope Benedict continues to reside in the Vatican, completely unprecedented. All resigned Popes, they would either go away completely voluntarily, never to be seen again. They would go check into a monastery somewhere, and they would never be seen publicly again, or they were chased out. A lot of times these were completely contentious situations, and the Pope would be chased out, and sometimes he was even imprisoned. Pope Benedict could’ve gone anywhere. In fact, he was on the record before all of this happened in February of 2013, as saying that all he wanted to do before he was elected Pope in 2005, his big, grand plan was he wanted to go back to Bavaria. He wanted to live in a little house with his brother, Georg Ratzinger, and their sister, who was alive at the time, and his cat, and play the piano, and write, and live out the rest of his life like that. Why didn’t he do that? He could have. Why didn’t he do it? Why is he still living inside the Vatican and making public appearances as the Pope? We have this incredible visual evidence. It’s right in front of us. And again, as I said at the beginning, if I say anything that is illogical, irrational, does not conform to objective, observable reality, you let me know. You let me know.
1:01:20 Let’s go back to Ganswein again. This is a quote from Ganswein. Quote, “From the election of his successor, Pope Francis – on 13 March 2013 – there are not then two Popes, but de facto an enlarged ministry with an active and a contemplative member.” How do you get any clearer? “For this reason, Benedict has not renounced either his name or his white cassock. For this reason, the correct title with which we must refer to him is still “Holiness.” Furthermore, he has not retired to an isolated monastery, but has retired within the Vatican, as if he had simply stepped aside to make space for his Successor, and for a new stage in the history of the Papacy, which he, with that step, has enriched with the centrality of prayer and of compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.” Who’s detached from reality? Who’s making arguments that do not comport with the observable world? I really don’t think it’s me. I really, really don’t think it’s me. This is clear as day.
1:02:45 Let’s very quickly…I’m just going to buzz thru these and we’ll put links up and I will let you read and peruse these yourself. The point of this is, but it will be here in the pdf of the slide show, apostasy from the top has been prophesied by a lot of people. Here’s the St. Francis of Assisi famous prophesy. Admittedly, in terms of scholarly, historical critical research on this, we’re not 100% sure. I include it because it is so stunningly accurate to what’s going on today. So, I’ll let you read that, I don’t want to spend the time here in the video doing that because you all can read. Here’s Cardinal Manning’s. This is Cardinal Manning’s prophecy about, again, apostasy starting from the top.
1:03:48 The Blessed Virgin. I will read this. This is Fatima. Our Lady at Fatima said to the visionaries, “Satan rules even the highest positions and determines the direction of things. He will succeed in worming his way even into the highest summits of the Church.” “But this will be a time of great trials for the Church. Cardinals will oppose cardinals. Bishops will oppose bishops.” We’re living that right now in real time. “Satan will walk in their ranks. In Rome, there will be great changes. What is rotten will fall and what will fall will never rise again.” Let that day come soon. “Darkness will envelop the Church and the world will be thrown into a panic.” Tell me that’s not what’s happening right now.
1:04:37 Anne Catherine Emmerich. Again, we’ll put links up. Her visions are too extensive to parse here, but they are detailed, specific and accurate to a degree that they cannot be written off and they absolutely merit reading. Again, these things, these prophecies, these visions, and so forth…you’re not obliged, you’re never obliged to assent to these in the same way we assent to the truth and magisterium of the Church, but they’re informative. They’re very, very informative, and we are supposed to judiciously take in this sort of information and use it to inform our decisions and our judgements.
1:05:17 Pope Benedict XVI. Yes, worst Pope ever. Worst Pope ever. Just so that I can never be accused of papalotry or anything like that. Joseph Ratzinger has a history of quitting. He lacks potency and the ability to follow through. He’s a bad war-time leader. He’s incredibly intelligent, but he’s a bad war-time leader. He commissioned a dossier to be produced on the sodomite mafia and their infiltration of the Roman Curia. It was presented to him. There is information now, Voris and Church Militant are reporting that they have multiple credible sources in Rome who have told them that what is also actually included in this dossier, that was presented to Pope Benedict on, I believe it was the 11th or the 12th of December of 2012, 300 page dossier, not only was it a testimony to how pervasive the sodomite infiltration was in the Curia, and we’re all now beginning to see that. We’re all beginning to see just how ubiquitous sodomy is in Rome. What that dossier, Voris and Church Militant, they have sources and information that says the dossier discussed the practice of satanism within the Vatican. Windswept House. All of that. This isn’t a shock to anyone, but the fact that the practice of Satanism was probably included in that dossier, which basically compelled, it seems compelled Pope Benedict to try to quit; that is absolutely worth knowing and putting into the data set so we can make a good judgment.
1:07:16 Erroneously thinking that his dazzling Bavarian intellect and warped metaphysics could transform what the papacy meant and thus allow him to partially resign. What do I mean by his warped metaphysics? He’s notorious for the notion that it doesn’t matter what something is. What do I have? Let me find something here. Here’s my little bust of St. Philip Neri. So, I hold this in my hand and Pope Benedict in his warped metaphysics would say ‘it doesn’t matter what this is. All that matters is what this means.’ So his metaphysics revolves not around being, but around meaning. This is warped. This is absolutely warped. And so then what happens is that he maps that onto the Papacy. It doesn’t matter what the Papacy is, who is the Pope, who isn’t the Pope. All that matters is what the Papacy means. That’s what I’m talking about when I say his dazzling Bavarian intellect and his warped metaphysics led him to this substantially erroneous action.
1:08:27 His visits to the tomb of Celestine V clearly show that he had been formulating this error in his mind for years. He went to the tomb of Celestine V, who resigned, validly resigned, twice. Visited his tomb twice. And, I believe the second time, left his Papal stole on the tomb. So we know he was thinking about resigning in a very positive way, and we also know that he was almost certainly doing this to send a signal to the Sankt Gallen mafia, the sodomite mafia who we talked about earlier, were almost certainly involved in fear, coercion, etc., etc. Bad people, of which Jorge Bergoglio was a member.
1:09:10 Pope Benedict’s mind is not the arbiter of reality. He does not, excuse me, there’s a typo here and I’ll correct it. He does not need to be asked if he is the Pope, he needs to be told that he is the one and only Pope and that it is his responsibility to undo his massive error. That’s a bold statement. No, we’re not going to go crawling, groveling on our hands and knees, asking him. He needs to be told. And there’s historical precedence for this. It’s Catherine of Siena. Catherine of Siena has gone and says, ‘You. You’re the Pope. Go back to Rome. You fix this.’ Not asking, telling.
1:09:56 Pope Benedict’s errors, failures and cowardice, as well as any heresies he may hold, make him a valid yet illicit Pope. This is a big point of confusion for a lot of people. They say ‘well if he’s got this warped metaphysics, if he was involved in all this stuff in Vatican II that was terrible, and if he’s done this, he’s done this action, then isn’t he a heretic and then that means that he’s lost…?’ No. No, no, no. What it means is that he’s a valid Pope, but he’s an illicit Pope, and I will put a link in the posting of this video, the show notes, the website, everything, to an extremely good, and very short paper written in 2000. So, long before any of this was even a glimmer in anyone’s imagination. Written by Father Brian Harrison, a Dominican (actually, O.S., Oblates of Wisdom), that clearly, clearly explains this. Valid, yet illicit. And so that also explains things like JPII kissing the Koran, and JPII’s errors in Theology of the Body, and his phenomenology. It explains Paul VI, etc., etc., etc. Valid, yet illicit. So, I’ll put the link to that paper in the show notes.
1:11:10 The ontological reality of who the Pope is has nothing to do with whether or not we want him or want him back. The is no wanting him back; he never went anywhere, so even using that language is erroneous. It’s not a question of whether we want him “back,” he never went anywhere. He’s been the Pope all along, but more to the point, whether or not we want him back, you want him back, whether or not he himself wants to be back…not germane. Absolutely not germane. And it’s a narcissistic argument to think, well this all revolves around what I want. No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t revolve around what you want. Ontological realities are not a function of what you, I, or anyone else wants, so you need to stow that. He never ceased being the Pope. What you, I, or anyone wants is irrelevant to the ontological reality of who the Pope is. The whims, desires, and childish temper tantrums have zero bearing on the ontological reality of who the Pope is. Beware thought leaders who attempt to map their abandonment and abuse pathologies and issues onto the Papacy, because when they map it onto the Papacy and say ‘well I don’t want Pope Benedict back because he abandoned me.’ Well because your parents abandoned you. You know what? Get it line. Grow up. Who cares? Save that. Save your navel-gazing, pity party, narcissistic crap for something else because it has no place here, in this conversation. None. Because when you do this, you’re mapping your abandonment issues onto the Papacy. What you’re doing ultimately, with one more logical step, one corollary removed from this, is you’re mapping it onto Our Lord. You’re mapping it onto Our Lord and that is unacceptable. Nobody cares what you want. What you want doesn’t matter. Either he is the pope or he isn’t. It’s binary. It’s a binary, objective reality. Don’t talk anymore – I don’t want to hear any more about what anybody wants.
1:13:33 Now, having said all that, charity for our fellow man, and especially charity toward the Holy Father should immediately cause us to ask what coercion and especially fear Pope Benedict experienced, especially since he asked us specifically to pray for him that he not flee for fear of the wolves. Lashing out at Pope Benedict or declaring retaliatory indifference to him is a function of childish narcissism. Everything is charity. Everything is charity. Love of God first, love of our fellow man second. Love of the Holy Father. Holy Father, what did they do to you? What did they do to you? That should instantly pop into your mind. Not this ‘oh he abandoned us. I don’t want him back. I don’t care. I don’t care about him.’ I care about him. I care about him because he’s a human being, and I care about him because he’s the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. I care about him. What happened? What did they do? Let us help you. Let us support you. Just tell us what happened. Charity. Don’t fall for these thought leaders with their narcissistic indifference towards him.
1:14:51 What if Pope Benedict resigned validly, meaning today? Today. What if someone went to him and said, ‘enough is enough of this. You are the Pope. What you did in February of 2013 is invalid.’ And he said, ‘alright, I’ll draft up a resignation. The language will be clear and precise. I will go away, I’ll revert to a black cassock, I will revert to my baptismal name, Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, I’ll go lock myself in a monastery and write and pray and you’ll never see or hear from me ever again.’ In other words, he’ll do a valid resignation. What if? Alright. Because this comes up a lot I’ll go thru this thought exercise with you. If Pope Benedict XVI were to resign validly today, you realize what that would do, right? It would confirm that the February 2013 resignation attempt was invalid, and thus it would confirm that Bergoglio is not and never was the Pope. The truth always leads to the same terminus, because there is only one truth, whereas lies, errors, and falsehoods are countless, and can yield a chaos of countless false answers. This goes back to logic. There is one answer when your base premise is true. When your base premise is false there can be myriad false answers that all appear to be true. So, isn’t it interesting that if you think it through logically, if he were to validly resign today, (which he could because Popes can resign, we’ve already covered that), it would confirm and prove that the first one was invalid and that Bergoglio is an anti-Pope. You know, the truth is a constitutive quality of God, God is the truth, “I am the Way the Truth and the Life.” Everything goes back, and circles back, and is called back to the truth and to Him. Logic. Logic.
1:17:00 Common tropes: ‘We can’t know who the Pope is and it doesn’t matter anyway.’ You hear this from trad thought leaders. If the identity of the Pope is unknowable and/or irrelevant, then the Papacy would be by definition itself meaningless…if you can’t know who it is and it doesn’t matter anyway…and the Church would be by definition invisible at its earthly head. And we know that that is false. We know that one of the marks of the Church is visibility. Look at the visibility. I mean, I think about the visibility of all of this, all the evidence that we’ve gone through, and there’s more to come. And what strikes me about it is the visibility of it. As weird and as screwed up and as bizarre, and no one could anticipate any of this, it blows my mind at how visible everything is. It’s the Divine Providence, because one of the marks of the Church is visibility, including the head of the Church.
1:18:08 Why are so-called thought leaders so unwilling and so hostile to this discussion of Pope Benedict’s failed attempted abdication? Effeminacy is the overarching answer. Every other criterion here below is a function, is derivative of, effeminacy. Fear of losing a job or career or pension. Job is people who are working for the Church, lay people who are working for the Church, anything like that. They are terrified that if they come out and they say ‘look, I don’t think that Bergoglio is the Pope’, that they will instantly be fired. And the truth is, they probably would. They probably would lose their job. Oh, but see, what is the definition of effeminacy? Effeminacy is unwillingness to do something that could potentially reduce your personal pleasure, or ease of life, or comfort. Like doing something that would get you fired from your job, even though it’s the right thing to do. Even though it’s the right thing to do. So fear of losing a job. Career. Career speaks to both lay people and clerics who are on the path, who don’t want to get exiled to a rural parish, who don’t want to get sent away from their sexy, fabulous teaching position in Rome, living the good life, whatever it is. Pension. People who are already retired, who are receiving a pension and are terrified that they would be cut off if they came out and said, ‘I don’t think that Pope Benedict’s resignation was valid, and I don’t think Bergoglio is the Pope.’ They’re terrified. Effeminacy. Afraid of doing the right thing for fear that it will reduce their own personal pleasure or comfort in life.
1:19:59 Fear of losing donation revenues. Oh, that Paypal ‘donate here’ button, she is a cruel mistress for all those bloggers out there. Terrified. They are terrified that if they come out and take this position, and there are some prominent trad bloggers who have told me that they’re close. They’re close, they’re thinking about it, they’re discerning about it, whatever. I can tell you what it is and what it’s been all along. Terrified that their monthly donation revenues are going to tank if they come out and profess this position. You’re talking to the wrong person about that. My personal motto has been, “Do the right thing and God will provide,” and it has proven to be absolutely nothing but true. Do the right thing and God will provide. Wouldn’t have it any other way.
1:20:54 Fear of being expelled from a social circle or clique, or just browbeaten. Again, people are effeminate and they’re afraid of doing anything that will reduce their personal pleasure. Socializing, hanging out with the “cool kids’ club”, etc., etc., or just being browbeaten by somebody and told that they’re stupid, and la-da-da-da-da. It’s effeminacy.
1:21:17 Luxuriating in being abandoned and abused. We’ve already talked about that in the previous section. This is a function of Gen X narcissism, ‘Oh, everything’s about me,’ everything’s about navel gazing, perpetual victimhood. It’s effeminacy.
1:21:33 Pride. I can’t say “I was mistaken.” Believe it or not, for me, being able to say, “I was mistaken about things,” has never been much of a difficulty in my life. I converted to Catholicism; for those of you who know me in terms of my previous career in the cattle industry, I did a massive, “I was wrong,” thing, and turned around and went from being a macroeconomic forecaster to a microeconomist arbitrageur, and trust me when I tell you that is turning an aircraft carrier around in a bathtub, and I did it over the course of one weekend. That’s never been much of a problem for me. And then in early June of 2016, when Ganswein had given a speech at the Greg in late May, and then Canon 188 was put in front of me. It was no problem for me to look at that and say ‘ok I clearly see what has happened here. I’ve been wrong. I’ve been calling the wrong guy the Pope. Bergoglio, “Francis” is not the Pope.’ Boomp. Did it right there. The only qualm and question that I had was that the place I was living at the time, the first thing that I did was I went and asked one of the priests there, I said, ‘look.” I didn’t ask him, I told him, “I’m morally certain that Bergoglio is not the Pope, that he’s the Antipope and Ratzinger is the Pope. You guys, at Mass, are commemorating Francis at the Te Igitur. Is it correct; is it morally ok for me, believing that you all are mistaken, knowing that you are commemorating the wrong man at the Mass, at the Te Igitur, is it ok for me to receive Holy Communion at that Mass?” And he said “absolutely, of course; oh yeah, absolutely, of course.” And it was interesting that he didn’t even flinch as I was explaining all of this. It was just, ‘oh yeah, no problem.’ Alright. That’s all I need to know. And so now every day, every time I go to Mass, when “Francis” is commemorated at any point during the Mass, and at the Te Igitur, I correct it under my breath. Nobody can hear me, but I say it. I say, “He’s not the Pope. Benedict.” That’s it. They are mistaken. Maybe some of them will see this and they won’t be mistaken, and people will start commemorating Pope Benedict again. But it’s ok. It’s ok. I understand, and just because they’re mistaken, I believe they’re mistaken, it doesn’t mean that the Mass is invalid or anything like that, and I can communicate at that Mass, too. It’s not a problem.
1:24:23 Fear of having to face the disastrous effects. This came in an email to me, from a priest, who concluded his big long-winded argument about things that we’ve already covered, that were very easy to shoot down, and he concluded it by saying ‘we need to find a solution to this, an answer to this, such that there aren’t these disastrous effects.’ What? What? Because this situation isn’t disastrous enough? And we’re going to decide what’s true and what’s not true based upon how easy it is to deal with. Effeminacy. This also could fall under the category of sloth. Sloth is reluctance to do something because it’s difficult. But it’s also effeminacy. You can argue it both ways.
1:25:28 And fear of being called a sedevacantist. This is huge. I get this all the time. Guys, it’s water off of a duck’s back. I mean, a sedevacantist, what are you talking about? The entire point of my argument is that the See is occupied and has been all along. The sedevacantism red herring. Anyone who wields the canard of sedevacantism can and should be immediately dismissed as either completely unserious, or totally dishonest. Completely unserious or totally dishonest. Why are we talking about the See being vacant when there he sits and that’s the entire crux of the issue? The entire situation revolves around the fact that the See has remained occupied by Pope Benedict XVI. I can tell you in a nutshell. We don’t have to spend ten minutes on this. I’ll tell you what it is right now. This is 100% an attempt to smear people’s reputations by trying to associate them with Holocaust deniers and schizophrenic conspiracy theorists. Period. Full stop. Just hurl that mud at anyone that you disagree with. “You’re a sedevacantist.” Hurl that mud, even if it makes absolutely no sense at all. Just to try to character assassinate people and get them lumped in with this bad problem that these schismatic sects, Society of St. Pius V, and then they have a fight and then there’s a Society of St. Pius two and a half, and then they have a fight and there’s a Society of St. Pius one and a quarter, etc., etc. It’s Protestantism, it’s just over in the other ditch. Protestantism went off the road on one side, these people go off on the other side. Among these people there is a massive problem, there’s no denying it, with anti-Semitism, ‘we don’t want to convert the Jews, we want to kill them all,’ ‘everything would be fine if we could just get rid of the Jews.’ Oh believe me, my email box fills up with this all day every day. Holocaust denial. And a lot of them are also into schizophrenic conspiracy theories. Flat earthers. I mean, it just gets cuckoo-pants really, really fast when you go into schism from Holy Mother Church. That’s what this is about. People calling me, because of my position, a sedevacantist? It’s all about this. Just try to lump me in with those people. That’s all they’re trying to do.
1:28:01 Ironically, it’s precisely these smear-merchants who are now publicly making statements to the effect that the See is vacant due to Bergoglio’s heresy, and even that Vatican I was in error. There are people on the trad right, thought leaders, who are now saying, ‘you know, I think Francis has lost his office due to heresy.’ Well, doesn’t that mean that you’re a sedevacantist? Isn’t that what that means? Again, logical inconsistency, not able to think things through. I’ve also seen people, these thought leaders on the trad right, call into question Vatican I. ‘Maybe we all need to maybe just consider the fact that maybe Vatican I was wrong and Papal Infallibility was a mistake from the very beginning.’ Oh, now Vatican I is wrong, huh? An infallible ecumenical council, which declared dogma. Oh, it’s wrong now, huh? So you can hold onto your position that Bergoglio is the Pope, the abuser Pope, and Ratzinger is the abandoner. So that you can continue to wallow in that instead of just facing the truth. Sedevacantism is a binary objective reality. Either the See is occupied, or it is not. It has nothing to do with any political footballs, conspiracy theories, or anything else. It is a binary objective reality. Is the See occupied, or is the See not occupied? Period. Either there’s a living Pope, or there is not. Right now, there is: Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger.
1:29:59 ‘But what if Ratzinger dies? Then you’ll be a sedevacantist!’ Yep. You know why? Because the issue of sedevacantism is a binary, objective reality. He’s the Pope. If he dies in his soup tomorrow, the Pope, the one and only living Pope, will have died, therefore, the See will be vacant. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust or the Society of St. Pius 2 ½, or anything else, any other political football. Nothing. It is a binary objective reality, and the fact that you think that that’s a gotcha that you would get me with only betrays how incapable of logical reasoned thought that side of the argument is. That’s all you got? Yes, I believe in objective, binary, ontological realities. If he dies, there won’t be a living Pope. The See will be vacant. Yep. Absolutely. Let’s hope that he doesn’t die before this gets resolved. But what if Ratzinger dies? Since sedevacantism is a binary objective reality, if Pope Benedict dies, the See will then be vacant because there will then be no living Pope. Bergoglio is completely irrelevant to the question. He has nothing to do with it. Anyone who attempts to link this binary objective reality to Holocaust denial or any other political football is either terminally stupid or fundamentally dishonest.
1:31:56 What if Bergoglio predeceases or goes away…resigns (you can’t resign something you never had), is frog-marched away in handcuffs, is removed as a heretic, something like that…before Pope Benedict dies? Since the Venn Diagram of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, there’s his circle, and the Papacy, here’s the Papacy’s circle, since these two circles, Jorge Bergoglio and the Papacy, have zero overlap…you see that? Zero overlap…any conclave called while Pope Benedict is still alive and occupying the See of Peter will also be invalid by logical definition. If the Bergoglian Antipapacy is not publicly acknowledged and ended before Pope Benedict dies, the next Antipope will almost certainly be decades younger, and far more intelligent. Sit in stillness with that terrifying thought. Think about a man who has forty, fifty more IQ points than Jorge Bergoglio, and is 65 years old. Or younger. We have to get this right. We have to get this right.
1:33:28 We have to get this right, or else even after getting rid of Bergoglio, the situation will get worse and worse. Only the acknowledgement of the Bergoglian Antipapacy for the right reason cancels out any notion of a Bergoglian Papacy or Magisterium, and witnesses to the truth of the authority of the Papacy and the indefectibility of the Church Herself. I am reminded of the parable of, you know, you sweep the house, you get rid of the one devil, and then seven worse ones move in. That’s exactly what we’re staring down here. If we don’t get this right, and if Bergoglio is somehow removed, but for the wrong reason, and the full truth of the fact that he never was the Pope is not fully acknowledged, like I just said, you’re gonna get seven demons in that are even worse than Bergoglio. You’re gonna get an Antipope Pietro Parolin. You’re gonna get an Antipope, what’s a Filipino’s name? Tagle. God only knows. God only knows what monstrosity would be coming up behind Bergoglio. No supernatural protection because he wouldn’t be the Pope, he’d be another Antipope as long as Pope Benedict is still alive. So we have to get this right, and the order of things right.
1:34:58 Now here we are. How far into this are we? We’re just now getting to Bergoglio, ok, but actually we’re way more than half through the presentation. There he is. Now I have a little secret to admit to. On whatever day that was, the 13th of March, 2013, I was there. I was in Rome. I was in the Piazza. I’m no mystic, but I can tell you that when the white smoke came out, standing there in the cold and the dark and kind of mistiness, the feeling of abject dread was palpable. And again, I’m not claiming to be a mystic. The sensation of dread was palpable. When he walked out onto the loggia, and you could see on the big screen this dead-eyed psycho standing there, staring and staring and studying the crowd, I knew immediately, immediately, we are in trouble. And then within a matter of seconds people around me were getting messages and emails from people in Argentina saying this is the worst thing that could have happened. He is nuts. He’s nuts, and he’s a heretic. So, yeah, there it is.
1:36:30 Electioneering and the Sankt Gallen Mafia. There is an absolutely dear, dear retired bishop down in Texas, down around Galveston, I think. Bishop Gracida. Just a dear of a man. But Bishop Gracida is pushing the idea that we need to be pursuing this whole notion of the March 2013 “conclave” being invalid because there was electioneering by the Sankt Gallen Mafia. God Bless Bishop Gracida. Love him to death. He’s just a prince of a man. This is wrong. Why is it wrong? You should be able to answer this by now. The reason this whole tack is wrong is because there was no conclave in March 2013. None of this is germane; none of it applies. Everything has to do with Ratzinger; the whole swirl of events surrounding Ratzinger’s resignation, that’s what’s germane. You don’t need to be pursuing anything with regards to the validity of the 2013 “conclave” because there wasn’t a conclave in 2013. There was a faux conclave. So these dynamics do not matter. Remember, Jorge Bergoglio and the Papacy, those Venn diagram circles do not overlap at all. There was no valid conclave in March 2013, therefore the electioneering actions of the Sankt Gallen Mafia and Sodomite mafia are not germane. What they did,…and again, this is the Divine Providence, and how cool this is and the visibility of all this…what they did do is they served to expose the corruption and criminality amongst the College of Cardinals. So in the Divine Providence, even though it’s not germane to the question of any of this, here’s all this evil bubbling up out of the mud, and now it’s visible and now we see and now we know. That’s the purpose that served. But to pursue this in terms of getting rid of Bergoglio, no. He was never the Pope, there was no conclave, none of this matters. It’s not germane.
1:38:48 Heresy. The fact that Jorge Bergoglio is an arch-heresiarch, and I think at this point it’s pretty easy to make the statement that he’s not Catholic in any meaningful sense, is not germane to the fact that he is an Antipope. Believe it or not. Believe it or not. I mean, it’s informative, and it’s a teaching moment, and it’s a massive confirming data set. But it’s not germane to whether or not he’s the Pope. Pope Benedict’s failed attempted partial abdication predated Bergoglio’s faux-election by two weeks. The two things have nothing to do with each other. Nothing. This is a blessing. All Antipope Bergoglio’s heresy does is serve as a confirmation, and it’s teaching us a lesson. This is what happens when you have a man running around, masquerading as the Pope, being called Peter by the vast majority of the planet, falsely wielding the authority of the Church, but he’s not the Pope and he doesn’t have the protection of the Petrine Promise. What does that look like, especially in fifty, sixty years after the failed Second Vatican Council? What would that look like? It looks like this. It looks exactly like this. But again, Bergoglio’s heresy is not germane to the question, and here’s my joke. It’s not germane (Jermaine). It’s not Marlon, it’s not Tito, it’s not even La Toya, my friends. These things are not germane.
1:40:35 Here’s another one you hear. “There have been heretical Popes before! This is not unique!” First, false premise alert. You guys can pick it out. Bergoglio isn’t the Pope, so we’ve got a problem right off the bat. However, the trope that Antipope Bergoglio’s arch-heresies are just like the heresies of Honorius and John XXII, and this has all happened before throughout history. That’s patently absurd and it’s truly detached from reality. There has been nothing even remotely, remotely close to any of this. Ever. In the history of the Church. Not even close. A lot of you out there, like me, are adult converts. And amongst the set of adult converts there’s basically two types. There’s people for whom the last hurdle to cross before you made the decision to enter the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, is the Blessed Virgin Mary. The other group of people is people for whom the Papacy and Peter was the last hurdle to clear. I’m definitely in the Peter camp. For those of us who, while we were converting, were sitting and thinking about this, and studying, and looking at the Papacy, and looking at these claims about the Papacy and the history of the Church, what it actually did is it became one of the strongest confirming proof-sets to the truth of the Church, was in fact Peter and the Papacy. And the fact that you have an institution that is 2,000 years old, and in all of that time you’ve never had a man at the top of it who was so messed up that he derailed the whole thing. I mean, that’s stunning. If you have any experience of working in the business world, working with people in any sort of a sense, you understand that there is a supernatural dynamic at play here. And you go and you look at the morally bad; at the Alexander VI’s and all the other ones that were fornicators and so on and so forth. They were too busy fornicating to ever do anything like deny the existence of hell, or say that God willed people to commit mortal sin, or that the Decalogue is just a series of ideals and nobody really expects you to actually be able to live up to that. Things that Bergoglio does on a near-daily basis. There’s just something new every day. There’s so much. There’s nothing even remotely close to this.
1:43:16 Would that it were that Bergoglio sat around debating the nature of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the Beatific Vision…would that it were. Would that it were. This is a man who denies the existence of hell. Who says that the Blessed Virgin Mary called God a liar, standing at the foot of the Cross. It goes on and on and on. Says that the Persons of the Triune God-head, the three Persons of the Trinity, fight behind closed doors. That the Sixth Commandment is in conflict with the Fifth Commandment. Would that it were that Bergoglio was sitting in the Apostolic Palace right now, debating with someone, whether or not the faithful departed received the Beatific Vision before the General Judgment or whether they have to wait until after the General Judgment. That’s John XXII. That’s John XXII. Would that it were. Would that it were that one percent of Catholic clergy and prelates today had that kind of faith. Had the faith of John XXII. Would that it were. I’m sick of this argument.
1:44:36 St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez and pretty much everyone up until just a few short years ago believed that The Petrine Promise precluded the possibility of a Pope losing the Catholic faith, and of being an arch-heretic. Bellarmine wrote briefly on the contingency of a heretic Pope trying to destroy the Church only as a rhetorical concession, but stated repeatedly that he believed that the premise itself was false. So, there are people that make the argument that, ‘well, you know, it’s totally possible for Bergoglio to be the Pope because look, here’s St. Robert Bellarmine writing about here’s what you do if there’s a heretic Pope.’ If you actually read Bellarmine and you actually read Suarez, what they say over and over and over again, is that they do not believe that it is possible for an arch-heretic, like Bergoglio, to be the Pope. They keep saying it. It’s not possible. Pretrine Promise, Petrine Promise, Petrine Promise. Supernatural protection of the Holy Ghost. It’s not possible. What they did, and especially Bellarmine did, was just as a concession, and you shouldn’t do this. This proves why you should never argue from a false premise. Error has no rights. He conceded and he said, ‘alright, I’ll write a short little blurb of a paragraph here saying, ‘alright, assuming that there were a heretic Pope, which, by the way, I don’t believe is possible, because the promise of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, but if it were, here’s the contingency, blah, blah, blah.’ It’s dishonest to cite these men in that way because they kept saying over and over and over again, we don’t believe it’s possible. And it isn’t.
1:46:28 Today, belief in Our Lord’s promises and in the infallibly defined dogma of Papal Infallibility is savagely attacked as papolatry, papal positivism, ultra-hyper-uberultramontanism, and as indicative of affective immaturity and a detachment from reality by so-called conservative and Traditional Catholics. Attacking the Papacy itself is the only way for these people to continue to hold the false premise that Bergoglio is or ever has been the Pope. These people are holding it in their mind, this false premise. The only way that they can get out of it is it to attack the Papacy itself and to attack people who believe in the words of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Who believe in His promises and believe that He would never, ever and never will, break His promise. Well we’re immature, we’re babies, we’re detached from reality, we’re dippy, we’re papolaters. Papolaters? Do you remember the slide I had about an hour ago that said Pope Benedict XVI is the worst Pope ever for what he’s done? Do you call that papolatry? The fact that this is all revolving around the fact that he’s made a substantial error, the biggest error made in the 2,000-year history of the Church since Pentecost? That’s papolatry? No. What these people are attacking is faith. They’re attacking love of God, and what proceeds out of that love of God is faith. Faith in Him that His promises are rock solid and cannot be broken. You start from that base premise, everything becomes clear.
1:48:17 Papolatry, ultramontanism, have nothing to do with it. This is about tribalism. All these people out here; there’s people on the far left, the Rosicas, the James Martins, all the sodomites. What’s all coming out, (no pun intended) What are their tropes now? ‘You have to do what Pope Francis says. What he says goes. What he says goes.’ These people, five years ago, laughed at the notion of the authority of Pope Benedict, and they laughed at the notion of the authority of JPII, and so on and so forth. This has nothing, with these people, to do with papolatry, ultramontanism. It’s tribalism. The world today has zero loyalty to or love of the Petrine See. Let me say that again. The world today has zero loyalty to or love of the Petrine See. The only reason Antipope Bergoglio is defended is because he ratifies people in their sins. He tells them their sins aren’t sins, and there is nothing in this fallen world that is more attractive to concupiscent man, than a person who comes, a person who comes projecting authority, much less projecting the authority of the Papacy, and saying, ‘your sins aren’t sins.’ ‘No, it’s fine that you contracepted for your entire marriage.’ ‘It’s fine that all of your kids are divorced and remarried and divorced and remarried.’ ‘It’s fine that your grandson is a sodomite.’ ‘It’s fine that you don’t go to Mass but a few times a year.’ ‘It’s fine. Your sins aren’t sins.’ It’s tribalism, it’s not papolatry. How do we know this? Because if Pope Leo XIV…if both Bergoglio and Ratzinger die simultaneously in their soup, a valid conclave is called, and Pope Leo XIV, which means really, really uber-ultraorthodox…fabulous…if Leo XIV is elected, do you honestly believe that these people, who are saying, ‘you have to do what Francis says. You have to do what Pope Francis says. You have to submit to his every word.’ Do you think that when Pope Leo XIV, who’s a real Pope, comes out and says, ‘sodomy is a mortal sin. Divorce and remarriage is a fiction. It’s adultery. It’s mortal sin. You have to stop the marital embrace immediately. Contraception is mortal sin.’ Do you think that these people are going to be saying, ‘well, he’s the Pope so we have to do…’? Of course not. They will hate him as much as they hate the current Pope. All that matters is the ratification of the sins, and it’s tribalism. We see this in the secular world too. Democrats commit one sin like running up tremendous debt and the right is screaming and yelling. Then a Republican gets in, the Republican runs up tremendous debt. Suddenly all the Republicans are just fine with that and the Democrats are raising hell because the Republican is running up the debt. You see, it’s completely false. It’s completely disingenuous. And in this case it has nothing to do with papolatry. Come on. Spare me.
1:52:08 The false prophet forerunner of the Antichrist is the Anti-John the Baptist. How would the false prophet forerunner of the Antichrist look and act any different from Antipope Bergoglio? Let me just put that question out there. Antipope Bergoglio is sowing chaos. John the Baptist came to straighten the way of the Lord in preparation for His coming. Antipope Bergoglio does exactly the opposite. He’s sowing chaos and he’s making the road almost impossible to traverse. Denying sin and the need for repentance. What did John the Baptist say? Repent, repent, repent, repent, repent. Attacking marriage. Why was John the Baptist executed? For defending marriage. Holding himself out as more merciful than Christ. That’s what Antipope Bergoglio is doing. What did John the Baptist say? “He who I am not worthy to loosen the latch of His shoe.” But Antipope Bergoglio would have you believe that he is more merciful than Christ because he’ll let you get divorced and remarried, no problem. Because “mercy.” Preparing the way for the Antichurch and Antichrist. It’s hard to not have this thought occur to you.
1:53:31 Other visible confirmations. I just find this interesting. None of them by themselves is enough to make you say, “Aha,” but you assemble the totality of these data and it becomes very compelling. Antipope Bergoglio only referred to himself, remember 13th March 2013 when he came out on the loggia and did his little wavey-wavey and “Buona sera.” “Good evening.” Not, “Praised be Jesus Christ.” That’s not how he greeted the crowd, and he never, ever does. His greeting is always, “Buongiorno,” or, “buona sera.” Good day or good evening. Never referred to himself as the Pope. Only referred to himself as the Bishop of Rome.
1:54:17 Refused to wear the Papal garb. Came out and a lot of people said they were absolutely gobsmacked and they knew we were in trouble when he walked out on the loggia, “naked.” The story, and we can’t know if it’s 100% true or not, but in retrospect it probably is at least partially true. He was obviously offered the mozetta, which is the red thing that the Pope wears, and he refused it and the apocryphal, perhaps, portion of the story is what he said when he was refusing it. “No. The carnival’s over.” But he refused the Papal garb.
1:54:58 Refuses to live in the Apostolic Palace or in the Papal residence down in Castel Gandolfo. Isn’t that interesting? Refuses to live in there. Now we know why. He wanted to go over and live in that luxury hotel for nefarious reasons, but refuses to live in the Papal apartment.
1:55:16 Did not change his name on his Argentine passport. Did you know that? Went to renew his passport. It says Jorge Mario Bergoglio. There’s no indication whatsoever, except for his picture where he’s wearing the white cassock. It’s the only thing that would indicate anything to do with the Papacy.
1:55:36 Antipope Bergoglio waves. He doesn’t bless. I don’t know if a lot of people are aware of this or not, but when he’s going out in public, all the time, he’s doing this. He’s waving at people. This is unprecedented. Absolutely unprecedented. Popes, cardinals, bishops…if you ever get the chance to be around Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Burke does not wave at anybody. Cardinal Burke, as he enters and exits a Church, is blessing people. Pope Benedict was always, at all the audiences, blessing people. Bergoglio doesn’t bless anyone. He waves. And Bergoglio has, on multiple occasions, refused to give the Apostolic Blessing, which is the Papal blessing. He did it just a few weeks ago to a group of youth.
1:56:29 And interestingly enough, Antipope Bergoglio almost always seeks Pope Benedict’s blessings. Consistories, naming new Cardinals. The new Cardinals are always taken over to the Holy Father, and they genuflect to him, and he blesses them. Isn’t it interesting that the Holy Father declined to attend the canonization of Paul VI? And the word was that the Bergoglian Curia was mighty miffed by this. Isn’t that interesting? Again, these things just taken all together are informative.
1:57:08 “Papal Infallibility only applies to those things the Pope says that are true.” This is one of my favorites, and it is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life. “Papal infallibility only applies to those things the Pope says that are true.” By this staggeringly moronic definition, every human being is also infallible. That means I’m completely infallible, you’re infallible. Everything that I have ever said that is true is infallible. Think about it logically. Ok, everything that I have ever said that is true is infallible. Yes. And the same goes for you and every other human being on the surface of the earth. You hear this all the time. This is how weak the argument on the other side is.
1:58:05 Papal authority. Barring supernatural intervention, it is precisely the authority of the Pope that will be needed to fix this mess. This is a huge point. The very authority that satan has tricked faithful, orthodox Catholics into attacking relentlessly via the false premise that Antipope Bergoglio is or ever has been the Pope. Don’t you understand that, in order to fix this, barring supernatural intervention, the only person who has the authority on earth to do what needs to be done to fix all this, is the Pope? And every single day conservative, trad Catholic thought leaders are going on the internet and attacking the authority of the Pope because they have to do that in order to hold the false base premise that Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope.
Only the Pope can do what needs to be done. And what will need to be done? Abrogate the Novus Ordo. Only the Pope can do that. Declare Vatican II a failed council. Only the Pope can do that. Suppress the Jesuits and the Legionaries of Christ, for a start. Only the Pope can do that. Put the German and Low Country churches under interdict, for a start. Only the Pope can do that. Consecrate Russia. Only the Pope can do that. Depose and laicize bishops by the hundreds. Only the Pope can do that. Reboot the College of Cardinals. Only the Pope can do that. I think one thing that probably should happen at this point is precisely that. The College of Cardinals should be rebooted. Start with 12. Can you find 12 men on the surface of this planet that could be elevated, made princes of the Church, and we just start over? Something to think about, but only the Pope can do that.
2:00:12 Popular acclamation and acceptance: Because the Petrine See was never vacated, the concept of popular acceptance is not germane. The Mob is neither the creator nor arbiter of reality. The voice of the Mob cannot alter or override the ontological state of being of the Pope. The Mob can not depose a sitting Pope. Popular acclamation as a concept only applies if the See is vacant, and then it’s extremely rare, and it’s not in play here. But what they’re saying is, ‘everybody in Rome, all the cardinals, all the bishops, everybody; the 1.3 billion Catholics, almost all of them, 99 point some odd percent of them; they all say that Bergoglio is the Pope, therefore, Bergoglio is the Pope.’ Nope. Absolutely not. I don’t care if it’s unanimous. I don’t care if it’s completely unanimous. If everybody is holding an error, if the entire world is proclaiming something that is false, it does not make that falsehood true. “Vox populi vox Dei”, the voice of the people is the voice of God. No. That is BS. Nope. Everyone could be wrong. Unanimity in error. Changes nothing. The truth is the truth. You cannot get a mob together, get a sufficient percentage of Catholics in the world together, say ‘ok, he’s not the Pope anymore, that guy is, and there’s 90 some odd percent of us who say this, therefore the ontological reality of who the Pope is has changed.’ Nope. Nope, nope, nope. Wrong.
2:02:13 “You can’t judge the Pope! Ann, you can’t judge the Pope,” meaning Bergoglio. Can you answer this? We’re almost at the end, can you answer this? I’m not judging the Pope, I’m judging the Antipope, and not only can I judge the Antipope, I better judge the Antipope. Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope. I’m not judging the Pope, I’m judging the Antipope, and not only can I judge the Antipope, I’d better judge the Antipope. Look at the Good Shepherd discourse. Every one of us will stand before Christ at our Particular Judgments, naked and alone, and there will be absolutely no finger-pointing, ‘but, but, but.’ Nope. What does the Good Shepherd discourse say? The sheep must discern the voice of the Shepherd. Faithless hirelings, wolves there. But the sheep, the sheep have to discern the voice of the Shepherd.
2:03:16 “We have to wait for the College of Cardinals to tell us what we believe!” This is interesting because the very thought leaders who deploy this trope publicly state on a near-daily basis that they believe that Novus Ordoism is a different religion. Talk about logical inconsistency. Talk about irrationality. Therefore, what they’re saying is that faithful Catholics are and must be subjugated to men who are not Catholic, and that the authority that we must subject ourselves to are non-Catholics, and that we must wait for non-Catholic men, (because, presumably, all bishops and cardinals are Novus Ordo, the only bishops you could say are not Novus Ordo are the SSPX. Those are the only ones you could even make the argument. All of the rest of them are Novus Ordo). So, in one breath you’re saying Novus Ordoism is a different religion, and in the next breath, literally the next breath, you’re saying that Catholics have to sit around and wait for men who are not Catholics, who subscribe to a different religion. We have to submit to their authority. And you can make absolutely no determination about this, whatsoever, independently. Logically inconsistent. That doesn’t work.
2:04:41 I always, as a kid reading scripture, was mystified by the verse about how even the elect would be deceived. If Our Lord did not cut those days short, even the elect would be deceived. I would sit and think about how would that be possible? How could faithful, practicing Catholics, (Christians at the time, because I hadn’t converted yet), people who love the Lord? How could they possibly be deceived by the false prophet forerunner of the Antichrist, the Antichrist? How is that possible? Folks, we’re living it. We are living it. That’s what’s happening right now. Faithful Catholics, trad Catholics, absolutely deceived by this because they’re holding a false base premise that Bergoglio is the Pope when, in fact, Pope Ratzinger is the only Pope. And again, what Our Lord says, ‘will I find any faith on earth?’ “The charity of men will grow cold…” Is He talking about this? Is that what He’s talking about? “Will I find faith on earth?” Does anybody have any faith in His promises that He made about Peter; to Peter about the Petrine See. Does anybody have any faith in this? “The charity of men will grow cold.” Love. Love of God. ‘Ok, I love God, I know God loves me. I love other people for the sake of God.’ Where is that in all of this? In order to hold the false base premise that Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope, you pretty much also have to hold, as a corollary or as an antecedent, that, no, God does not love us. And He’s willing to abuse us and turn us over to monsters and demoniacs.
2:06:47 If holding the base premise that Jorge Bergoglio is now or ever has been the Pope requires you to: tear down and deny the authority of the papacy, check; deny the dogma of the indefectibility of The Church, check; deny Papal Infallibility, that is Vatican I, and thus believe that Christ has broken His promise, and thus deny Christ’s divinity, check; go against every saint and Church father, check; deny visible, objective reality as we’ve covered in this presentation, check; violate the Law of Non-contradiction, check; and change your own position 180 degrees. All these people on the conservative and trad right, six years ago today, when Pope Benedict was living in the Apostolic Palace and plotting his faux resignation, every one of these people would have defended the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, I mean it was just a common thing. You believed it. Now these people have turned 180 degrees and are on a daily basis attacking the Papacy. 180-degree turn, with all of these criteria here above. Denying dogma. Holding positions that necessarily lead almost immediately to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Come on. How could you not begin from the assumption that the error must be with your base premise and not with God, His Holy Church, and His saints? How could you sit here and it not instantly occur to you that you must be the one that’s wrong? “I must be holding a false base premise. There must be something wrong with my assumption that Bergoglio is the Pope. Not with the Papacy, not with the Church, not with the saints, not with anything else.” The narcissism. I am hard pressed to think of a group that has been a bigger failure over the past century than theologians and canon lawyers. And yet. And yet…we’re all supposed to bow and scrape to them? You can’t even think this through? It hasn’t even occurred to you that maybe the problem isn’t God, His Church, and all the saints. Maybe, maybe, the problem is with your base premise. A group of people who have done nothing but fail for almost a century now. That is, theologians and canon lawyers.
2:09:32 The greatest act of violence that can be done against the Papacy is calling a man who is not Peter, “Peter.” Repeat that over and over again until it sinks in. Sit in stillness with that. The greatest act of violence that can be done against the Papacy is calling a man who is not Peter, “Peter.” It’s more violent than denying that there’s a Papacy at all, because by calling a man who isn’t Peter, “Peter,” you’re handing him the authority of Peter and then he is free to do exactly what Bergoglio has done, is doing, and will continue to do, unless he is stopped.
2:10:11 Bergoglio has no real authority or power. What will you do if Antipope Bergoglio attempts to abrogate the Mass? Ok, I made this slide about twelve hours ago, and about four hours ago I open my email and lo’ and behold, what is sitting there? The Italian bishops conference had publicly made the call that Antipope Bergoglio should abrogate the old Mass, and the headline was, “Abrogate the Old Mass. Pope Ratzinger Was Wrong.” And I saw that, and, you know, your initial response is, “Here we go,” but then I realized boy, Divine Providence, what timing, huh? One of the primary reasons I’m making this video was the anticipation, and we all knew it was coming, we all know it’s coming. They’re coming after the Mass. Satan is not going to leave the Mass alone; the Mass of the Ages. They’re coming after us, it’s just a matter of when. What are you going to do when that happens? One of the things you can do is show this video to your priest and say, ‘listen, he’s not the Pope. He doesn’t have the authority to do this. No Pope has the authority to do it. No Pope can abrogate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The venerable and august rite of Pius V, of Gregory the Great. No Pope can do that. Bergoglio isn’t even the Pope. Not only do you not have to obey him, you must not obey him. Maybe this video will help. Maybe. If it helps one priest realize, ‘Oh. You can’t do that. I’m going to continue offering the Holy Sacrifice. I’m not going to obey an Antipope who’s clearly an enemy of God and His Holy Church.” Talk about Divine Providence. To the day.
2:12:22 So, what to do? Speak up. Man up. Defend the Pope. Priests, you can stop commemorating Francis and commemorate Benedict our Pope at the Te Igitur in the Canon. Other priests are already doing this, especially in the Trad Mass, because the Canon is silent. This is a problem with the Novus Ordo. The Canon is not silent in the Novus Ordo, so if you’re offering the Novus Ordo Mass, when you commemorate Benedict instead of Francis, anticipate. You’re gonna get squealed on and a ton of bricks is gonna drop on you. Don’t be effeminate. Man up. Do the right thing and God will provide.
2:13:00 Fast and pray. The Matthew 17:20 initiative, which I’ve been doing for over a year now. Full fast, zero food, only water, two days a week. That’s what I’m doing. The daily prayer is this: That Bergoglio be publicly recognized and removed as Antipope; that Pope Benedict be publicly acknowledged as having been the one and only living Pope, uninterrupted, since April of 2005; that Bergoglio repent, revert to Catholicism, die in a state of grace, and someday achieve the Beatific Vision; and that Pope Benedict repent of what he has done, die in a state of grace, and someday achieve the Beatific Vision. Nothing less than that. Nothing less than that is acceptable. And we have faith, and we hand this over to Our Lady Undoer of Knots.
2:13:45 The other thing that you must do is deepen your personal relationship with Jesus Christ. One thing I was told to do a while back that has proven to be extremely fruitful, extremely fruitful and makes a lot of things clear, and which I am convinced will do a lot of people a lot of good: go into a Church, kneel in front of the tabernacle, and say to Our Lord reposed in the tabernacle, ten times, slowly and mindfully, “Jesus, I know that you love me.” And mean it. And then think about what that means. “Jesus, I know that you love me. I know that you’re not my abusive parent. I know you’re not the person who sexually abused me when I was a little kid. I know that you are not going to abandon me; never have and never will. I know that you are not a jerk who gets off on seeing people drug into hell and scandalized.” Just keep saying that, “Jesus, I know that you love me,” and so many things will become very, very clear.
2:14:57 If one person is kept from being scandalized by this video, it will have all been worth it. Please copy, mirror, and upload this video. Copyright and anything like that, is the farthest thing from my mind. I don’t care how many views show up on this on YouTube; that’s all fake. I don’t care. I don’t care. But how we protect ourselves from censorship and suppression, the hedge against that, is disseminating it. Get it copied, get it mirrored, get it uploaded on different platforms. Reupload it as a mirror on YouTube. What are the other platforms? Vimeo, Gloria TV, just absolutely anything. And be assured that SuperNerd will also have multiple copies of this all over the place, too. But you guys do the same thing as well. The more copies there are of it, the better it is.
2:15:46 Thank you for your kind and patient attention and for your support and munificence over the years. Let us pray, and I ended the diabolical narcissism video with a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. Let’s just end simply with a Hail Mary to Our Lady Undoer of Knots. In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen. St. Gertrude, pray for us. St Catherine of Siena, pray for us. St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us. St. Peter Damien, pray for us. St. Peter the Apostle, pray for us. St. Joseph, pray for us. Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.