img_1542

Merry Christmas, dear readers, and prayers for a blessed feast of St. John.  I brought seasonal party wine to Mass today for the traditional wine blessing on the feast of the Evangelist.  May the blessings flow as freely as the wine this Christmas season!

I just wanted to write a little piece today covering three blog posts about Jorge Mario Bergoglio, two by Ann Barnhardt and one by Louie Verrecchio.  Miss Barnhardt and Mr. Verrecchio are known to be a little crunchy at times, but they do make you think.

The first post over at Ann Barnhardt’s site rightly calls out the apostasy of Bergoglio’s Franciscardinals in participating in a “catechesis” of the demonic idol Pachamama.  Don’t look for any decrees of excommunication being issued against them; we all know the Pachamamization of the hierarchy and the poor souls they are paid to delude is a positive agenda item for Team Bergoglio.

Which leads pretty naturally to the other Barnhardt post, this one canvassing a news item that a community of hermits in Scotland has been excommunicated for severing communion with the Holy See.  Ann does a terrific job dissecting the problem with this community’s announcement of all the real issues surrounding the Bergoglio regime.  Which leads me to my one point of departure from her.

Miss Barnhardt takes the position that Pope Benedict’s attempted abdication was invalid due to substantial error.  Namely, that the attempt to bifurcate the papacy into an “active” and “passive” ministry– resigning the one and keeping the other, based upon Benedict’s mistaken belief he could resign part of the papacy, rendered the abdication void ab initio.  I won’t go into her entire argument, she lays it out well enough and in detail on her site.  But if she’s right then Benedict was and still is the Pope.  I don’t agree with her rationale– it doesn’t seem to me to fit with the Pope Benedict I know, neither his decency nor his intellect.  But am inclined to agree with her conclusion.

To me, the most likely (that is, to my mind, I don’t know with certainty and you are all free to disagree) reason the abdication is almost certainly invalid is because Pope Benedict intentionally refrained from resigning the office (munus) of the Papacy in order to protect the office and the magisterium from the very monsters who took over the apparatus.  I have opined on this before, so won’t belabor the point.  The reason for stating this here is that, assuming arguendo that Pope Benedict XVI is still in fact Pope, her analysis of the defects of the hermit community’s public statement is dead-on accurate.  You should read it in full.

Never, never, sever yourself from communion with the Holy See, with Peter, with the Vicar of Christ.  That way lies damnation.  You can resist an evil pope.  You can resist, ignore, block, punish or lots of other things an antipope.  This is why the questions about the putative abdication need to be IMMEDIATELY addressed by the College of Cardinals. The cardinals named by Benedict and earlier, obviously.  The repugnance of this community of hermits at the crimes of Bergoglio is understandable.  But we have brains we must use, and tools of canon law, philosophy, theology and Church teaching to help us use them.

Finally, Louie Verrecchio has  a very interesting point about the latest writings of the brave Cardinal Vigano.  He points out all of the ways that Vigano seems to be coming closer to moving beyond merely (and correctly, and courageously) identifying and condemning evil actions of Bergoglio, to proceeding to drawing some necessary conclusions about them and what caused them.  He also gives a bit of criticism of some of Vigano’s thinking, but in my book Vigano gets a HUUUUUUUUUGGE benefit of the doubt on nearly everything he says.  That’s how important his witness has been.

Enjoy, be back anon.