Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

Death plot was being orchestrated by high ranking cardinals in the Vatican who since 2005 have colluded with globalists, population control experts in a concerted effort to place on the Chair of Peter what is known today as the Political Pope

Benedict’s Papality Continues


By —— Bio and Archives--December 22, 2017

Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Benedict's Papality Continues
With all the controversy that surrounded the election of Pope Francis upon the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013, it seems that Catholics may have lost sight of a key element in this episode, namely, that Benedict XVI never resigned his papal office, but only the active exercise thereof.

On the eve of his resignation, he said: “Anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church… “The ‘always’ is also a “forever”—there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” (General Audience, February 27, 2013)

From these words it is evident that there has been no revocation of Benedict XVI’s office. According to Church law, a pope must give up “his office” for his resignation to be valid. (Canon 332) Benedict XVI chose to retain his office “forever,” which means he is still pope, which means that Francis cannot be pope, since there cannot be two popes. If Francis is the pope, then Benedict’s office is revoked, but Benedict insists it was not revoked. https://vimeo.com/228833627

Some argue that Benedict XVI simply meant to say that his affections for the Church are not revoked by his resignation, however, “revoke” has a juridical meaning, as in a revoked license, and is generally never used to reference affections. Every indication is that Benedict consented to “resign the active exercise of the ministry,” while continuing to occupy a prayerful dimension of that ministry—something that EWTN Rome correspondent Paul Badde has covered.

This matches the explanation of Archbishop Georg Gänswein who serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household. Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University on May 20, 2016, he told the press that Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century, but rather sought to continue his Petrine office in a way that better accommodated his frailty.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” adding that the renunciation of his office would have been “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

Gänswein said that Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement of February 11, 2013 marked the introduction of a new institution into the Catholic Church: “a de facto enlarged ministry, with both an active and a contemplative member.” He said we now have “two living successors of Peter among us” that “are not in competition with each other,” i.e. Benedict and Francis.

The Archbishop said that the introduction of a “shared papacy” was the reason Benedict did not renounce his papal name or give up his white cassock as did Celestine V. “This is the reason why the correct appellation for him is ‘Your Holiness.’ This is finally the reason why he did not retire to an isolated monastery, but within the Vatican walls, as if to simply take a step aside to make space for his successor and for a new step in the history of the papacy.”

Gänswein’s revelation is telling, because if Benedict presently occupies the “contemplative dimension” of the papal office, then there is no dimension of that office that he doesn’t occupy, i.e. he still has his powers. The fact that he left the active sector doesn’t nullify this, evidenced by his words, “My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.”

His stepping down then is a voluntary concession which does not abrogate any powers or enact any ruling to which he is bound. Benedict agreed to be pushed out of the cockpit as it were, but he still retains his powers in the active dimension, i.e. he can bless as a pope, write an encyclical, or reveal the Third Secret of Fatima if he so wishes. There is no one on earth he must answer to because he is Peter.

No Shared Papacy

However, he cannot share his papacy with another, since it was to Simon alone that Jesus said, “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church.” (Matthew 16:18) He didn’t say this to Simon and John, but to Simon only, thereby establishing this Petrine rule from the beginning and confirming it with 2000 years of unbroken practice. A pope cannot change this, and any decision to continue his munus nullifies any decision to resign it.

That the Petrine office has an active and contemplative dimension is nothing new, but only one Petrine representative can occupy the munus Petrinum. The idea that two dimensions of the Petrine office can be cubbyholed into separate departments, each with its own capacity and each occupied by a separate Petrine representative, is heresy. Gänswein no doubt realizes this, but his explanation to the press apparently was the best he could do to cover for a very embarrassing situation that caused the man he honored to be dethroned.¬†It was an anguished attempt to explain away the papal chimera that was born of the historic 2013 conclave.

Benedict Ousted

What it boils down to is that Benedict XVI was driven from his post, but this was done under the guise of a resignation to not split the Barque asunder with controversy. Credible reports from 2015 indicate that Benedict XVI was coerced into stepping down, which was providentially foreshadowed in his inaugural speech of April 24, 2005, when he said: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

We know from Cardinal Danneels of Brussels that he was part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. Danneels, known for his support of abortion, LGBT rights, and gay-marriage, said in a taped interview in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of this “mafia” club that was calling for drastic changes in the Church, to make it “much more modern,” and that the plan was to have Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio head it.  This infamous clique—which is documented in Austen Ivereigh’s book the Great Reformer—comprised key members of the Vatican “gay lobby” that had clamored for Pope Benedict’s resignation, the same members who stirred up so much chaos at the October 2014-15 Synods on the Family.

On that note, we should point out briefly that it was this same clique that was engaged in a fierce battle in 2005 to try to prevent the election of Benedict XVI and to place Cardinal Bergoglio on the Chair of Peter, but providence had it that their canvassing wouldn’t succeed. We might see the 2005 conclave as a trial balloon for their renewed efforts in 2013 that would succeed in placing their preferred man on the Throne.

Ivereigh’s book brings to light the intense lobbying campaign that was spearheaded by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. Up to 30 cardinals were involved. According to Ivereigh, “they first secured Bergoglio’s assent” and then “they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man.” This was confirmed, in the case of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal O’Malley, in the Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013. As the conclave neared, they held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker, thereby proving that Bergoglio was colluding in this plan.

 

Continued below...

Clearly, there was intense politics and vote canvassing at work around the time of the conclave, which directly violated Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which lays down the rules for conducting conclaves. Therein he makes it clear that canvassing among cardinal electors is strictly forbidden, and that it renders the election “null and void.” (76)

But too, a papal election cannot be valid if a pope continues to occupy any dimension of the papal office. Gänswein has never recanted his claim that Benedict continues his papacy today, and veteran journalist Paul Badde—author of Benedict Up Close: The Inside Story of Eight Dramatic Years—affirmed on Dec. 15 that Gänswein “hasn’t denied” any of his discourse from his May 2016 address at Gregorian University, adding that “there was no reason for such a step.”

THE OBVIOUS QUESTION REMAINS: if Benedict XVI remains pope, why doesn’t he alert the Church to the nullity of Francis’ election? And why did he consent to the 2013 conclave if he already knew his continued papacy would invalidate the election?

Perhaps the late Fr. Malachi Martin answered this in summer 1998. In an interview on the Art Bell Show, Malachi stated that he read the Third Secret of Fatima in February 1960. Bound by oath not to reveal the text of the Secret, he commented on the basic gist of the Secret, i.e. its prediction of apostasy in the church, while refuting various apocryphal versions that callers were quoting to him on the program.

However, in response to an alleged quotation from the Third Secret about a pope who would be “under the control of satan,” Malachi replied, “Yes, it sounds as if they were reading the text of the Third Secret.”

According to Fatima experts, including the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner, the mention of a pope under Satan’s “control” would mean that he is innocently bound and kept under control. Benedict won’t speak the truth about Rome’s present collusion with Antichrist, because he is bound by fears and kept under surveillance by an iron-clad Vatican bureaucracy, if in fact they haven’t threatened him at gunpoint. There could be more to Danneels’ “mafia club” than meets the eye.


This is credible, when we consider that on February 10, 2012, almost one year to the day before Benedict XVI announced his resignation, it was reported that the pope was given only one year to live if he didn’t resign. The Telegraph UK reported that Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, said this to a group of people in Beijing toward the end of 2011, and that the certainty of his remarks led his listeners to believe “that an attack on the Pope’s life was being planned.”

The extraordinary comments were written up in a top-secret report, dated Dec. 30, 2011, and delivered to the Pope by a senior cardinal, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in January 2012. The report was written in German, to limit the number of people within the Vatican who would understand it if inadvertently leaked. It warned of a “Mordkomplott”—death plot—against Benedict.

Unfortunately, this death plot was being orchestrated by high ranking cardinals in the Vatican who since 2005 have colluded with globalists and population control experts in a concerted effort to place on the Chair of Peter what is known today as the “political pope.”

Clearly, Benedict XVI does not “share” in Francis’ political papacy, as seen this past summer when he said that the Church “is on the verge of capsizing.” (July 15, 2017)

When we consider all the above, it begins to shed light on the mystery as to why St. Faustina, known for her role in establishing the devotion to the Divine Mercy, penned an unusual entry into her diary on December 17, 1936. Entry 823 is as follows.

“I have offered this day for priests. I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fighting alone, supported by His arm, against all the difficulties that face me like unassailable walls. But I trust in the power of His name and I fear nothing.”Diary of St. Faustina, 823

 

Continued below...

It is noteworthy that St. Faustina on that day was making reparation for priests, an offering that brought upon her the worst suffering she had ever endured, and perhaps the worst she would ever endure. But too, on that bitter day of December 17, 1936, was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who would later reign as Pope Francis, the 266th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

Could it be that on that day St. Faustina was atoning for the many priests, bishops, and cardinals of the future that would be misled by Francis? But too, could it be that her mysterious torment that day signaled the arrival of a future anti-pope who would operate in the name of “mercy?”

Before his death in 1226, St. Francis of Assisi called together the friars of his Order and detailed this prophecy of what was to come in the latter days concerning a future pope. The following is an excerpt taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham.

“At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”


David Martin -- Bio and Archives | Comments

David Martin is the former moderator for St. Michaels Radio which is the one radio program of our time specializing in Catholic prophecy. He has also authored numerous articles on the Church and the Papacy which have appeared on various blogs and websites.

David presently resides in Los Angeles, California where for thirty years he has coordinated a Catholic ministry. He is a daily communicant in his parish church and strongly supports Benedict XVI’s aspiration to see the Traditional Latin Mass returned to every Catholic parish of the world.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: