The Battle of the Two Popes

One of the things I find most perplexing in the Church today is the mystery of the Pope Emeritus. I look back on the Papacy of Benedict XVI as an incredibly happy time for the Church. I hung off every word. Looked forward to every encyclical, everything made sense, everything fitted with Catholicism, there was comfort, unity, learning, growth, confidence.

Now that seems all ashes, though I have heard it said that Benedict XVI is and was a Pope who will be read and pondered for a hundred years and Francis I will be immediately forgotten.

Benedict XVI famously prayed that he "would not flee from the wolves" at his inauguration Mass, then, it seemed he fled. And now we well and truly have wolves.

And as if to add insult to injury, there have been punctuated Benedictine interventions offering support for Pope Francis, even though many have questioned their veracity.

In fact, the Vatican has clear form in fabricating the Pope Emeritus' opinion of Pope Francis, going as far as selectively editing a letter from Benedict to make it appear favourable, when it was actually a criticism. In typical Pope Francis fashion, Dario Edoardo Viganò, Prefect of the newly established Secretariat for Communications and therefore the man directly responsible for the misrepresentation, resigned as prefect on 21 March 2018 following extensive media discussion of these misrepresentations....And then Pope Francis named him assessor of the Secretariat, a newly created and undefined post.

Earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI reportedly told a crop of newly appointed Cardinals "to be faithful to the pope".


Why would he say that? Does he need to say that?? Is he speaking more generically about loyalty to the Pope? He is saying that Jorge Bergoglio is not the real Pope and Cardinals should be loyal to the true Pope? Is he saying we should be loyal to Pachamama worship and liberation theology?

Forgive my cynicism, but we don't actually hear the Pope Emeritus say these words, it's just reported that's what he said. Still...

Why would I be surprised at this comment? Well, largely because anyone with even a smattering of theology who has been watching this papacy unfurl can see that it is a rolling back of the Ratzingarian defence of Catholicism against destruction from within, a battle he fought his whole life.

In this article, the veteran Vaticanista Marco Tossati looks at the evidence:

"It was Ratzinger and John Paul II who identified the Marxist Catholicism of Latin America as one of the cancers of Catholicism. And they called Gutierrez, Boff, Casaldáliga and Gerbara to return to the true faith. This is most interesting in light of certain facts: Among the main papal electors of Bergoglio was Brazilian Cdl. Claudio Hummes, who in his youth was publicly associated with liberation theology. And now today Bergoglio has convoked a Synod on the Amazon, which is mostly located in Brazil, and he has chosen Cdl. Hummes as the Relator General of the Synod.

Is Latin American liberation theology, or more precisely Brazilian liberation theology, having its revenge? In the last few years Bergoglio has blatantly rehabilitated all of the theologians formerly condemned by Ratzinger."

I look at what is going on, and I look at the privileged men who are breeding confusing, contradicting the Catholic teaching I thought could not be called into question, especially by men in such high ranking positions in the Church, and I wonder what they have put on the line?

I've bet my family, my career, my life on the faith. I have lost friends and family and work opportunities because of what I hold sacred. What have these men lost?

Having bet so much on my faith, do they think they can convince me to give it up for something else without even any cogent argument as to why they are right and 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition, of Popes, of Bishops, of Saints and Martyrs and Doctors of the Church are wrong and they are right?

I am supposed to turn away from Christ, His Mother and the Church and embrace a syncretic semi-pagan ecological/Marxist cult? Really?

Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI is wise to counsel loyalty to the Pope. There's no doubt in my mind that Jorge Bergoglio and his cronies are wrecking 2,000 years of Catholic history. But until there's a formal declaration that Bergoglio is a heretic, Benedict and whoever has the good of the Church at heart cannot make rushed judgements. Loyalty is a good thing especially when you are a Cardinal and the Father of the family is sick and under attack.


  1. Perhaps Benedict is just trying to prevent a schism in the belief that God will not, in the end, desert His church.

  2. @Anonymous: It is Pope Benedict and faithful Catholics who trust that Jesus keeps His promises. This camp does not necessarily include those affected by Ratzinger/Benedict Derangement Syndrome (R/BDS) which causes a visceral and uncontrollable emotional drive to embrace Francis as Pope despite what "eyes see and ears hear".

    You might agree that there is and has been a schism which is very visible now. The barque of Francis is NOT the Barque of Peter because Pope Benedict--the last duly elected pope--renounced administering the Petrine Munus and NOT the munus itself.

    A request for an examination of the evidence of 'Ground Zero', February 11, 2013, needs to be forcefully and unceasingly made by the laity. Especially by those who are spiritually blinded by the best of intentions, namely, Recognizers and Resisters who, to be honest, seem to me to be practical Sedevacantists. Ask yourself, as a Catholic, can one really have an heretical pope? If one embraces that premise, it sounds to me like one embraces a Jesus Who is unable to keep His promises.

    Put simply: If Francis is Pope (FiP), then Jesus lied. BUT if Benedict is Pope (BiP), then Jesus has used a weak creature to keep His own promises to His Bride and to us. For myself, I choose BiP, and request an examination of 'Ground Zero' like Bp Gracida and Msgr Bux have.

  3. “In conscience one has the right to make such a judgment (of manifest formal heresy) because it is a legitimate matter of conscience, and can be known with certitude. All the canons and teachings against privately judging superiors and prelates do not refer to judgments of conscience, such as the judgment concerning the manifest heresy of one’s superior, when it can be known with certitude; but rather, they prohibit judgments that require jurisdiction; and explain that private individuals do not possess the requisite jurisdiction for rendering an official judgment, and therefore they may not presume to judge their superiors juridically, and depose them with force of law. However, the right of conscience to judge privately as a matter of conscience in such cases as that of manifest heresy pertains to divine law, since such judgments of conscience are sometimes necessary for salvation; and such a right is acknowledged in Canon Law: ‘Can. 748 § 1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.’ Indeed, the Salza/ Siscoe objection that the making such a judgment is forbidden to the private individual who must wait for the public judgment of the Church, and that asserting this right it is an exercise of the Protestant principle of Private Judgment, is not only false, but it effectively nullifies the Rule of Faith which safeguards the conscience of the individual.”

    Kramer, Paul. To Deceive the Elect: The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope (Kindle Locations 736-747). Kindle Edition.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Real Life Catholics on BBC TV defend Church Teaching on Contraception.

A Cardinal writes: “Roma loquitur. Confusio augetur.”

Cardinal Müller: Fr James Martin's Teaching is Heresy