Since the great St. Vincent Ferrar incorrectly recognized an antipope as a legitimate one, arguably it is forgivable if SSPX folk & others, for a time, make a comparable error in our own era.
Nonetheless according not to any ‘authority’ of Ann Barnhardt, but rather to the overwhelming & indeed QED evidence – in particular Benedict XVI’s own words on the matter – it remains that recognizing Jorge Bergoglio as other than an antipope is an error, & a manifest one.
Nonetheless according not to any ‘authority’ of Ann Barnhardt, but rather to the overwhelming & indeed QED evidence – in particular Benedict XVI’s own words on the matter – it remains that recognizing Jorge Bergoglio as other than an antipope is an error, & a manifest one.
For contrary to assertions against that evidence, Pope Benedict did not ‘properly, licitly’ resign or abandon the papacy, but has instead publicly asserted he sought only to resign an aspect of it, while maintaining the Papal office itself.
Since – unless one holds there can be two or ten or even millions of living & reigning Pontiffs – he was not in fact free to bifurcate the Papacy, his abdication was thus invalid ‘by the law itself’ due to this ‘substantial error’ - though one hardly needs Canon Law to establish that if a Pope doesn’t fully resign his office, he doesn’t resign at all.
He accordingly, however inactive, remains the sole reigning Pontiff of the Catholic Faith, & Her Church.
Necessarily Jorge Bergoglio was thus not ‘properly, licitly and with all due process elected to the Papacy as Christ's Vicar on Earth,’ but is instead but another – according to the Encyclopedia Britannica there have been 37 notable ones – destructive antipope.
The obvious should nonetheless first be stated clearly, that the public testimony of His Holiness’s close friend & personal secretary (still, & since before Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to the Papacy), & at no less a venue than the Gregorian, is itself conclusive.
Despite the risible pretense we are obliged to ignore & dismiss that testimony & thus hold Archbishop Ganswein invented it whole cloth sans the obvious acquiescence from his friend, we are also expected not to notice – a full year now – Benedict’s failure to repudiate either the testimony or its theses. Not sure if we also have to believe this failure is due to Ratzinger being hidden in Veronica Lueken’s basement, but short of that, the Bergoglioisti are in a quandary: for His Holiness is acutely aware of the philosophical principle that silence implies consent.
Ganswein’s testimony explicitly states, & I quote, that Benedict ‘has not abandoned the Office of Peter.’
But we didn’t need Ganswein to tell us this, because Pope Benedict had already made it clear in the announcement of 11 February 2013 & in his last General Audience – so far - on 27 February that year.
Of themselves, these distinctions don’t necessarily propose a diarchy; but they did in Benedict’s last Papal audience on 27 February. There he states that from the moment he accepted the Papacy – its munus, Peter’s Office, he belonged ‘always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church,’ & ‘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.’
The Pontiff then immediately & portentously adds, that: ‘The "always" is also a "forever,”’ & thus accordingly ‘My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this,’ for though ‘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 (‘Non porto piu la potesta’ dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiere resto, per cosi dire, nel resto di San Pietro.’).’‘
The Pontiff then immediately & portentously adds, that: ‘The "always" is also a "forever,”’ & thus accordingly ‘My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this,’ for though ‘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 (‘Non porto piu la potesta’ dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiere resto, per cosi dire, nel resto di San Pietro.’).’‘
Alas, Ann Barnhardt wasn’t alone – wasn’t even the first – to have noticed the oddity. In fact one Stefano Violi, Professor of Canon Law at no less than the Faculty of Theology at Bologno et Lugano, in 2014 published his study with a detailed examination of Pope Benedict’s Latin abdication texts: & concluded what Ganswein would later proclaim: that His Holiness ‘did not intend to completely renounce the Papal office [munus], but only the active exercise [ministerium] thereof.’
The evidence Benedict ‘did not abandon the Petrine ministry,’ & intended a diarchy is more than sufficient for moral certitude. So is the evidence that there can only be one living Pontiff, not more. And so, not least, is the evidence conspicuously revealing that Jorge Bergoglio but an antipope, & Benedict XVI, however inactive, remains the sole reigning Pontiff of the Catholic Faith, & the Church Christ bequeathed.
If society understood the reality of collectivism instead of the promise of collectivism then their support for collectivism would vanish. The elite globalist leaders selling collectivism know this to be true and so they have had to rebrand collectivism as Globalism. Songs are written about globalism - John Lennon’s classic song “Imagine” is the globalist anthem. The successful marketing of collectivism requires the names to change from already rejected Communism and faltering Socialism (think Venezuela) to the promise of a New World Order renamed GLOBALISM that disingenuously pledges social justice and income equality.
Globalism is the new word for the old lie about collectivism - that surrendering individual rights and national sovereignty will deliver social justice and income equality.
Philosopher Ayn Rand understood the sinister nature of collectivism and and wrote extensively about socialism/communism and how it persuades the individual to stop being an individual:
“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”
The Islamization of Europe and the West demonstrates how mass social indoctrination toward collectivism leads to cultural suicide and the death of the individual.
“When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.”
Europe’s surrender of its national sovereignty began after WWII with the 1957 Treaty of Rome that created the European Economic Committee (EEC) which eventually became the European Union(EU) of today. Internationalizing Europe’s sovereign nation states into the EU left the United States as the single greatest obstacle to one-world government.
Macron’s victory in France is a victory for collectivism at the expense of French sovereignty and French individualism represented by Marine Le Pen. It is a surrender to postmodern moral relativism, and historical revisionism designed to destroy democracy and its incomparable individual rights and freedoms. The question is WHO benefits from Macron’s victory?? The globalist elite of course. Socialism (total government control) is the death of democracy and is the prerequisite for internationalizing nation states and the imposition of one-world government Globalism. The greatest single obstacle to one-world government is the nation state. National sovereignty is to a country what individual sovereignty is to a human being.
Ayn Rand warns us:
“Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs.”
American education, our elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and universities, are a specific target and field of practice. The anarchists, socialists, and hippies of the 60s have become the teachers and professors now indoctrinating their students toward collectivism. The problem, of course, is that these narcissistic intellectuals have never lived under collectivist tyranny - they are armchair pundits living in subjective reality. Anyone interested in the objective reality of collectivism should be listening to those who have escaped from its tyrannical rule.
One-world government is the big lie of the 21st century. It promises redistribution of wealth and social justice. What it delivers is unapologetically described in chilling detail by globalist elite English aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society.
The left-wing liberal lemmings in Europe and in America should take a break from marching and “resisting” and start reading Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society written in 1952. They will learn that their script was written 65 years ago by the globalist elites who dreamed of one-world government - a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves.
The globalist elite’s New World Order was their self-serving answer to the Malthusian problem of the earth not having enough resources to sustain the population growth. Tavistock Institute was exported to America with the purpose of indoctrinating Americans via education and the media - particularly television - the greatest vehicle for mass social engineering ever invented. The Hollywood glitterati and the protesting hoards should take a pause and understand there is no place for them in the New World Order - they are simply useful idiots who will be destroyed.
The aristocratic Lord Bertrand Russell and the late David Rockefeller had no moral problem with eliminating the useless eaters any more than Hitler with exterminating Jews, Islamists with exterminating infidels, or the Chinese Emperors with burying their concubines alive to service them in the afterlife. The point is elitism is supremacist - there is no egalitarian respect for human life only the pretense of humanitarian considerations. The Left and the Islamists have common cause in trying to destroy America from within - but it is the globalist elites who finance and disingenuously facilitate both groups because the social chaos they each engender is a prerequisite for imposing globalist one-world government. For the globalist elite whether in Europe or in America, the Left and the Islamists are BOTH useful idiots.
Socialism will never provide social justice - it will only provide the pathway to one-world government where no individual rights or self-determination exist. Socialism strips the individual of his selfness and transforms that individual into property of the state. The individual who willingly forfeits his selfness for socialism has been successfully persuaded to stop being an individual. Socialism is not a free ride it is slavery.
On May 12th, the World Health Organization declared an Ebola epidemic in the Congo. (source) It looks like it could be time to prep for Ebola 2.0.
The WHO had already warned a new outbreak could happen at any time because the virus lurks in the eyes, central nervous system, and bodily fluids of survivors.
Dr. Peter Salama, the executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies program, told the press to “never, ever underestimate Ebola” and to “make sure we have a no-regrets approach to this outbreak.” (source)
The fact that this epidemic is currently in a remote part of the North East Congo should set your mind at ease, although not so much that you don’t keep on eye on the situation. With the availability of rapid air travel and unchecked immigration into Europe, these types of things can spread incredibly quickly.
It is both good and bad news that the area is extremely remote. It’s good because it lessens the possibility for exposure to other areas. Not many people travel in and out of Likati because there are no paved roads. But this also causes concern because it makes it far more difficult to monitor the area, and it’s spreading fast.
The risk from the outbreak is “high at the national level,” the WHO said, because the disease was so severe and was spreading in a remote area in north-eastern Congo with “suboptimal surveillance” and limited access to health care.
“Risk at the regional level is moderate due to the proximity of international borders and the recent influx of refugees from Central African Republic,” the organisation said, but it nonetheless described the global risk as low because the area is so remote.
About a week ago, in addition to the nine suspected cases, 125 patients who had come into close contact with the disease were being monitored. Now about 400 patients are being followed, even as nine new cases were reported on Thursday, according to the WHO. (source)
Former Democratic National Committee interim chairwoman Donna Brazile is the high-ranking DNC representative who allegedly called police and the family of murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich and demanded to know why a private investigator was “snooping” into Rich’s death, the private eye revealed to WND Monday.
“The high-ranking DNC official that called the police after I inquired about Rich’s case was Donna Brazile,” veteran homicide detective Rod Wheeler told WND. “Why shouldn’t I reveal who it was?”
Brazile, who was also a CNN contributor and a Hillary for America donor at the time, was caught providing Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton with questions that would later be asked of Clinton at a televised CNN town hall. In an interview with Fox News before the election, Brazile denied leaking the questions to Clinton. But in a March 17, 2017, column for Time magazine, she finally admitted doing so, saying it was a “mistake I will forever regret.”
A spokesman for the Rich family has repeatedly criticized detective Wheeler, who was hired by Rich’s family in March to find the DNC staffer’s murderer, for not ruling out the possibility that Rich may have leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks. The Rich family recently sent Wheeler a “cease and desist” order to stop his investigation into the murder.
Wheeler told Hannity: “There were some problems that Seth was having on his job at the DNC right before he was killed. And the person that called the father after I called the police to get information (Brazile), that’s the person that Seth was having problems with at the DNC. So connect the dots, here; it’s starting to all come together.”
“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” CNN spokesperson Lauren Pratapas said in October.
Trump blasted Brazile on the campaign trail for using her position at the cable news network to collude with Clinton.
“Speaking of draining the swamp, Donna Brazile did it again,” Trump said just weeks before the election. “WikiLeaks today, she gave the questions to a debate to Hillary Clinton. And that was a couple of weeks ago. Happened again, but this time far worse. She gave the questions to a debate to Hillary Clinton.”
Concerning the Ebola , google MARK CHEN VACCINES , this is part of the new world order depopulation programme ( agenda 21) - Georgia guidestones ! Do not take the vaccines
ReplyDelete