11 September 2017

It's Time to Engage in Rank Speculation about the Papacy!

Happy Monday, everyone. With just about a month to go before the 100th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and with the situation in the Church continuing to melt down, I thought I would poll my readers to get a sense of your sense of things.  

There has been some speculation (reasonable at that) throughout the reign of Bergoglio, concerning whether he is pope or antipope. As he does his thing, and Benedict does his thing, the speculation increases.

So, not considering our mere opinions to be conclusive by any means, but really just to take the pulse of Catholics who love the Church, I have put two polls up at the sidebar. The first one gets your pulse on whether things are as they seem. The second gets to specifics if you believe they are not.

Benedict's actions, valid or not, do not place him in a good light, considering the disaster the Bergoglio rule has been and promises to be in the future. Unless, as I have allowed for in this space in the past, he is acting under a mysterious but direct order of Our Lord or His Mother.  If that were the case, then Benedict is the victim foreseen slanders. I make no call, but just want to see what you think.  

As I have approximately seven readers, I expect seven opinions. Please feel free to expound on your answers in the combox.


thetimman said...

I'll wait to throw my answers in until later so as not to skew the results.

Anonymous said...

"As I have approximately seven readers, I expect seven opinions." Well, that's a problem right there. I can give you probably four different opinions just off the top of my head.

I'm not sure how to answer either poll except like this:

1) I must assume Francis is pope until the Church declares otherwise.
2) If Francis were to die or resign tomorrow (and assuming no second coming/end-of-the-world scenario) then if the next pope is:
2a) Francis 2.0: we're screwed, pack it in.
2b) Pope Burke or Sarah or some such: I expect they would "clarify" or "rehabilitate" F's seeming heresies. In short, damage control.
3) If Francis continues his path of destruction for some time more, making things worse and worse and THEN dies or resigns and the next pope is:
3a) Francis 2.0: see 2a
3b) Pope Burke or Sarah or some such: I suspect if they'd reach a point of not being able to plausibly clarify his papacy, and they'd be left with no option but to declare him an antipope or invalidly elected or whatever would work.


Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if Pope Michael has consecrated Russia to Fatima yet?


Fr. Andrew said...

Not saying this is the case, but, with regard to Pope Benedict doing something under direct order of our Lord or our Lady and receiving foreseen slander, I'm reminded of a prayer in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius (no comment).

There, when praying the desire to follow our Lord in the standard of the Blessed Life He lived, we should ask to bear "insults, so long as they are not the result of another's sin." That's some humility right there.

James said...

I hope this horrible Pontificate ends soon.

Anonymous said...

To be a Pope you have to hold the Catholic faith and, thus, be a member of the mystical body of Christ. If you are a heretic you are separated from the Church and cannot hold any office; if you become a heretic you loose your office ipso facto and ipso jure, as you become separated from the mystical body of Christ. And if I may, once separated, you wilt and die...

Rory said...

I couldn't find the dang side bar.

I am aligned with those SSPX who say Francis appears to be the pope. But interestingly, St. Vincent Ferrer misidentified the pope in his day. That means that we can make a mistake about the pope, and thanks be to God, be a saint...Without aspiring to canonization, because it seems so presumptious, except for God's so great goodness and promises. (It seems faithless to not so aspire.) Anyway, if St. Vincent can occupy high places making such a mistake, it gives me hope for some place, even if I am wrong about Francis.

Anonymous said...

What anonymous said ^^^. People need to go back to what the Church actually teaches to find the Truth (Pius XII and before), and recognize the signs of the times. It goes back to the 1958 conclave. We've been duped and lied to. Beg God to be shown the Truth. Take heed: everything is at stake. Most apostasized from the Faith after Vatican II by going along with the changes at one time or another and so are actually outside the true Church. Only God can bring us back inside now, as there are serious procedures to follow in order to be readmitted after being a heretic that have also (for obvious reasons) been cast aside. It's the great apostasy and the abomination of desolation. The Church is in eclipse (LaSalette). 2 Thess Ch 2.

~Fiat Lux

thetimman said...

Post day 1 poll take: I am frankly surprised at how many people think Benedict is pope, roughly 50%. But I guess I'm even more surprised that approx. 20% appear to be sedevacantists. High, but the proviso for all responses must go out, that this poll indeed is unscientific and some (as I presume the "pope Michael" adherent) could just be goofing.

I cannot buy into the theory that the throne has been empty since 1958 or 1963. I think this is a very dangerous error, though I'm sure its adherents are acting in conscience in good faith. This is not the space to refute them, but to just put my two cents' warning to readers otherwise curious that that rabbit hole goes deep, and can easily lead to despair. God surely is allowing our chastisement, but He is also good, and never abandons us.

All of us believe that the Church is true, and that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to salvation. That is why this whole miserable business about who exactly is pope has any relevancy, and isn't just idle speculation, though I suppose it could be that, too.

Interesting times. May Our Mother lead us to truth and holiness.

TradDad said...

My own position is CGTOW: Catholics Going Their Own Way. Similar to MGTOW, where men decide that conditions are not conducive to traditional heterosexual relationships, CGTOW people do not see the necessary conditions to have a normal relationship with the Papacy at this time (in whatever guise the Pope may be at this time). In short, it's impossible to figure out what is going on. But we rely on our sensus catholicus to find the best solution for ourselves and our families: whether it's incardinating oneself under Bergoglio the best one can, or being a sedevacantist (and SSPX, ICX, FSSP and everything in between). There are no rules.

c matt said...

I guess God gave Israel kings, and not all of them were good (usually sent as punishment). But being a bad king did not make that king "not king." Until the Church system works it out, I will regard PF as still the Pope, sent as punishment. On the other hand, some of those arguing otherwise are not without good points.

c matt said...

All of us believe that the Church is true, and that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to salvation.

This observation raises an interesting point. There seem to be three basic options:

1) Francis is pope
2) Benedict is pope
3) The last pope was pre-Vat II.

If you are inclined to 1 or 2, what does submission entail? With 1, pretty straightforward - PF is pope, so submit to what Catholic teaching requires of you. With 2, BXVI is pope, but he has NOT instructed anyone as far as I know to NOT submit to Francis, so the path does not seem all that practically different to me - ignore Francis's silliness, which you could do under 1 anyway.

Anonymous said...

The blind leading the blind...this is the spiritual chastisement that we have been under to PROVE the Elect. Not one of the sects mentioned here possesses all 4 of the Marks of the Church. and so their members are outside of the true Church for the reason I mentioned above.

A Pope cannot be an heretic. This is the infallible teaching of the true Church. To say he can be is blasphemy. A Pope can be quite sinful in his personal life, but that doesn't make him an heretic.

What we have in Rome is the prophesied counter-Church of Satan. "Come out of her my people." (Apoc)

PRAY for the Light of Faith. Only God can remove blindness.

~Fiat Lux

Ademar said...


Popes are not ordained -- thus not indelibly marked with a sacrament like priests/bishops/deacons -- which suggests that their
papacy is a charism: a temporary grace given to someone for the spiritual benefit of others.

Now it stands to reason that the charism of the papacy, like any charism, can be refused initially, or given up later if accepted.
The two ways for a pope to give up his papal charism would be: death or resignation.

Death is simple.

Resignations have been rare, but they've all, until Benedict XVI, been consistent in that the resigning pope verbally/in writing gave notice and then followed through in actions by shedding his papal habit, title, name, residency in the Vatican, etc.

Benedict XVI resigned in writing, but then has not followed through by shedding his papal whites, name, title, Vatican residency, etc.

Sooo, Benedict XVI is still Pope, Jorge Bergoglio is not.

This covers the situation at a basic level and would not even need the other evidence for the invalidity of the Bergoglian "papacy" like the St. Gallen Mafia, Benedict being intimidated into resigning (which would invalidate his resignation per canon 188), Bergoglio's heresies, etc.

Domina Nostra de Fatima, ora pro nobis!!

Mark Docherty said...

The results as of 12 Sept 9pm Central seem to indicated a significant silent majority think Benedict is pope. Not that opinion determines reality, but I'm surprised and encouraged by that number. People are using reason and objectively searching for the truth. FYI, on the second poll I'm not able to view the results after voting.

Anthony Pagano said...

In all honesty Bergoglio isn't engaging in any behavior that isn't permitted under the Vatican II Constitutions. The three principle heresies found in the Vatican II constitutions have been the guiding magisterium for the Conciliar Popes since it was promulgated in 1964. Let's look at the three principle heresies of Vatican II:
(1) profession of a formally divided Church of Christ (that is, the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church but subsumes a larger set of churches or even cultures);
(2) profession of false ecumenism;
(3) profession of a right to religious liberty.

I can't see that these heresies prohibit anything. And Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio all had a hand in producing, promulgating, promoting, teaching and/or enforcing these heresies. As a result why would we necessarily single out Bergoglio (as an anti-pope or false pope) for behaving in accordance with these heresies when the others did the same. Are we all ignorant of what these other popes have done to the Church during their reins with the Vatican II heresies as their rod? That they may have had a greater decorum during their reins is little comfort to how they damaged the Church. They blazed the heretical path for Bergoglio to follow.

How is it possible to believe that Ratzinger is the Church's savior? Ratzinger's formal statement of resignation is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. There seems little credible evidence that Ratzinger was forced out unwillingly. Claims that Ratzinger is engaging in some sort of parallel Petrine ministry, likewise, seems devoid of credible evidence and would be anti-Catholic if he did.

Ratzinger has been an important part of the Conciliar revolution since its inception. A revolution----which combined with the destruction of the Paul V Holy Mass----has ravaged the actual Church of Christ. Ratzinger has never, for even a second, failed to defend the Conciliar heresies. In their negotiations with Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX) the "only" thing Ratzinger/JPII demanded was for Lefebvre to proclaim the validity of the Vatican II Constitutions (in toto, including its heresies) and the validity of the Novus Ordo mass. God bless him, Archbishop Lefebvre refused. Lest we forget that even the secular press in the United States raised an eyebrow of scepticism over Ratzinger's part in the release of the so-called Third Secret in 2000.

Unless or until a reining Pope renounces the heresy that is Vatican II we will not see a return of the Church of Christ to its glory. I see no reason to believe that Ratzinger will be that pope. His time holding the Keys is over.

Anonymous said...

This - https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2017/05/guest-post-invalid-abdication.html - rather sums the matter up precisely, no?

TF said...

I answered that Benedict is the pope, but only because I consider it a real possibility due to dubious statements in his abdication declaration. And surely someone could have sewed him a black cassock by now, no? This does not mean I think "Ratzinger is the Church's savior," and I doubt any one reading this would think that either.

thetimman said...

Mark, that is a problem on mobile devices, if you view on a computer, there is a slide margin which allows you to scroll to see results. Blogger is a troglodyte platform for troglodytes. Sorry! :-)

thetimman said...

My apologies to the person whose comment I meant to hit publish, but instead I hit delete. Oops!

The sense of it was that this person was worried that Benedict would die before Bergoglio, and then what follows would be serious indeed. I agree, though if the order of death were reversed it is equally serious.

We are in a bind only Our Lady can undo.

ATW said...

I voted that Francis is pope, however, I would have added "with reservations," if possible, because of the very serious issues regarding Benedict's resignation, Bergoglio's election, and his actions since his election.

In the second pole, I voted "some combination."

I agree with TradDad in that many faithful Catholics are acting as if there is no pope. Practical sedevacantists who are trying to maintain the true faith, and true worship, in the face of either a negligent pope (Benedict) or a destroyer pope (Francis).

Unknown said...

If Francis is not the Pope, we have got a far, far bigger problem on our hands. (Seriously: What happens when Benedict dies first? Are we then sedevacantists? If so, don't the 1958 sedes have the better argument?)

I deprecate the fact that he is pope; he's our modern day Honorius on steroids, with a few stiff belts of rampant corruption thrown in. But he is the Pope. And maybe the Pope the modern post-conciliar Church *deserves*, if not the one it needs.