Resignationism 2.0: Enter “Cardinal” Scola

A “Siri Thesis” for Ratzinger Fans…

Resignationism 2.0:
Enter “Cardinal” Scola

© Superbass / CC-BY-SA-4.0 (via Wikimedia Commons)

Things are topsy-turvy in Novus Ordo Land. Now they even have their very own “Siri Thesis.”

After the initial appearance in late 2013 of the position we have termed “Resignationism” — the idea that Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid and therefore he is still Pope, and Francis a usurper — there followed a few rounds of additional theorizing by adherents of the thesis, especially after Ratzinger explicitly affirmed to a journalist that his resignation was valid indeed. At the time, we predicted that Benedict’s affirmation would still not put an end to the speculations, and we were proven right when Antonio Socci wrote his follow-up article “The Plot Thickens.” We ended our own commentary on Socci’s take with the words: “Stay tuned, everyone. It looks like Resignationism may just be getting started….”

Apparently we were right again, because Resignationism has now returned once more, though this time with an added twist (we may want to call this “Resignationism 2.0”): Not only, so the claim goes, was Francis’ election invalid because Benedict never validly abdicated, it was also invalid for yet another reason, and that is that the “cardinals” gathered in conclave actually elected Mr. Angelo Scola, the “Cardinal Archbishop” of Milan (pictured left) before Jorge Bergoglio ever stepped out on the balcony over St. Peter’s on March 13, 2013. Somehow they forced Scola to resign, and of course a resignation obtained by force is invalid, hence Bergoglio could not possibly be Pope.

This at least is the latest from the prominent Resignationist Rev. Paul Kramer, formerly affiliated with Rev. Nicholas Gruner’s Fatima Center in Canada. On his Facebook page, the “recognize-and-resist” traditionalist Kramer writes:

BERGOGLIO INVALIDLY ELECTED

The source is confidential — a prominent figure in Rome:

“There was an agreement when card. Ratzinger was elected Pope, as there was a stalemate: 70 to 40.

Bergoglio had enough votes to block the election of Cardinal Ratzinger. So a group of about 12 mainly German and US cardinals changed their vote in favour in exchange for an illicit pact: that card. Ratzinger wouldn’t last more than a given period and thereafter, if he had not died before, he would have had to step down and let card Bergoglio become Pope. Once Pope however Benedict tried to have it his own way, see for instance the Motu Proprio and his remarks on Fatima being a reference not to past events but to future ones. From thereon he was besieged and shelled from all sides: the various gay and paedophilic scandals and the abuses in the Vatican finances with hints that the Vatican bank, the IOR, would be a tool of money laundering, mafia connections and you name it.

“Pope Benedict was therefore reminded of the (illicit) pact and threatened of worse to come.

He felt therefore compelled to resign. This is one of the reason why I consider illegitimate the election of Father Bergoglio.”

These mainly American and German cardinals were of the same group that coerced the newly elected (Cardinal Angelo Scola) to resign in last year’s conclave — even before his election could be announced from the balcony of St. Peter’s. Bergoglio’s election is null & void — canonically irregular.

(Paul Kramer, Facebook, May 20, 2014; snapshot here)

This really reads like a Siri Thesis designed specifically for those attached to the Modernist church. If you recall, according to the Siri Thesis, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected Pope Gregory XVII in the 1958 conclave, but invalidly forced to resign in order to make room for Angelo Roncalli, “Pope” John XXIII — this would explain why there was lots of white smoke pouring from the conclave chimney two days before the election of John XXIII was announced, and why Vatican Radio said two days before Roncalli, “There can be absolutely no doubt: A Pope has been elected.” (More here.)

Now, we do not endorse the Siri Thesis, because it is but an unproven theory based on circumstantial evidence, and there is lots of evidence against it; however, it correctly points to the 1958 conclave as the source of all the trouble and advances the probably factual idea that some cardinal was elected before Roncalli, accepted the papacy, and then was forced to step aside by the Freemasonic forces inside the conclave (sound too fantastic for you? Go here for a reality check). Other names besides Siri that have been tossed around as the “real Pope” after Pius XII include Cardinals Gregoire-Pierre Agagianian and Federico Tedeschini.

In any case, the point here is only to demonstrate how closely the new “Scola Theory” resembles the Siri Thesis. And while there is nothing to be said against theorizing likewise that either the Ratzinger resignation was obtained by force or that some other “cardinal” was elected before Bergoglio, what’s so puzzling here is why some are trying to explain the obvious Non-Pontificate of the apostate Bergoglio by dreaming up another Non-Pontificate of another apostate Modernist.

The only difference between Bergoglio, Scola, and Ratzinger is perhaps one of degree but certainly not one of kind; Bergoglio is more open and outspoken regarding his Modernism than Scola and Ratzinger are regarding theirs — but none of these men is actually a Catholic. Besides, if Ratzinger’s resignation was invalid because obtained by force, and he was therefore still “Pope”, then obviously Scola’s election was likewise invalid since you cannot have two validly reigning Popes at the same time. So what good does it do to start believing that Scola was really Ratzinger’s successor, if at the same time you believe that Ratzinger is still reigning?

In any case, what sort of hard evidence is there that Angelo Scola was in fact elected before Jorge Bergoglio? Well, none of course, strictly speaking; but here are some articles that some might use to lend credence to the Scola Thesis:

• “Italian bishops mistakenly hail Cardinal Angelo Scola as new pope”
• “Italy sighs as unholy alliance scuppers the home favourite for pope, Angelo Scola”
• “Scola betrayed by the Italians from the very first vote”

Plus, a new set of articles discussing the Ratzinger Resignation and the chaotic “Two Popes” scenario in the Novus Ordo Church just appeared a few days ago:

Writing for Corriere della Sera, Italian journalist Vittorio Messori conributed his take on a Vatican with “two Popes”, to which Antonio Socci responded by rightly pointing out that Messori was simply piggybacking on his own (Socci’s) earlier treatment of the question, for which he had first gotten ridiculed:

• “Two Popes: Has the Papacy become a Diarchy?”
  (This link includes both Vittorio Messori’s article, “Ratzinger did not withdraw to a private life; Here is why we truly have two Popes”, and Antonio Socci’s reply, “Now even the ‘Corriere’ and Messori have discovered that there are two Popes”, of May 28 and May 29, 2014, respectively)

No matter which way you look at it, Benedict XVI’s resignation has thrown the Modernist Novus Ordo Sect into total disarray. Nothing but turmoil and confusion have been seen since February 11, 2013, when Fr. Ratzinger announced his “retirement” from his putative papal office. Indeed, lightning struck St. Peter’s that very night, as seen in the image at the top of this post.

Admittedly, Benedict’s resignation is odd indeed, because instead of a “clean” and straightforward resignation, where the claimed office is clearly and irrevocably abandoned, it was more of a “semi-resignation”, in which, though renouncing the “active ministry” of his invalidly-held office, Ratzinger nevertheless still wishes to appear as a Pope Emeritus, one who “prays and suffers”, retains the papal cassock, the coat of arms, the residence in the Vatican, etc., and is considered by many as sort of a “vice Pope” or “little Pope” in the background — verbal protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

We also see great irony here. In Novus Ordo Land, people are discussing whether we have one Pope or two Popes, when in reality, we have none.

And who benefits from this confusion? Cui bono? Clearly, this whole Resignationist business is greatly aiding the destructive mission of the Vatican II Church, because it gives people yet another reason to cling to the Modernist sect rather than discover real Catholicism the way it was exclusively known before Vatican II. It is another useful distraction to keep you focused on things other than the manifest subversion of the Catholic Church by false teachings and disciplines condemned prior to the Council.

Distractions like this have worked well for the Modernists in the past, and they are part of the overall game plan. As long as they have you accepting one of their Modernists as Pope, they really don’t care if you believe Francis is Pope or Benedict. If that’s what it takes to keep you in their church, they don’t mind you believing that this Modernist over here is really Pope, rather than that other Modernist over there. It is simply one more way to keep people from realizing that all the papal claimaints since the death of Pius XII have been usurpers — and it provides a convenient way out for people who realize that Francis cannot possibly be Pope, yet still do not wish to accept the Sedevacantist position.

These Resignationist episodes illustrate rather well how important it is for us to adhere to Catholic principle over emotion. The Resignationist theses, with or without “Cardinal” Scola, only confuse or impress those who go by emotion rather than Catholic theology, for those who go by real theology know that Ratzinger was never a valid Pope in the first place, and the whole Modernist cult in the Vatican is a gigantic farce perpetrated by the Catholic Church’s enemies. Alas, too many people, swayed by emotion and a display of externals rather than Catholic teaching, have persuaded themselves that Ratzinger was this great pitbull of Catholic Tradition and orthodoxy, when in fact he was nothing of the sort.

Whatever it takes, apparently, for people to find a way around Sedevacantism. This is what happens when a desired predetermined conclusion dictates what you believe, rather than the objective evidence. At some point, people will have to man up and face reality, always remembering that God’s grace assists us no matter what the circumstances we find ourselves in: “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn 8:32).

If you are genuinely concerned about an invalid papal election, we suggest you focus your energies on investigating the conclave of 1958, which for the first time replaced a Catholic Pope with a Modernist — rather than that of 2013, which simply swapped one Modernist for another.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons (Superbass; cropped)
License: CC BY-SA 4.0