After comments critical of Francis…
Novus Ordo Canon Lawyer: Benedict XVI is being brought into position as Antipope to Francis
It’s a clever ruse because… they’re both Antipopes!
[UPDATE 18-JUL-2017 15:53 UTC: Ganswein denies Benedict meant to criticize Francis]
The fallout from “Pope Emeritus” Benedict XVI’s remarks at the funeral of “Cardinal” Joachim Meisner continues. If the initial reports were enough to makes waves, what is being reported now has the potential to turn into a tsunami.
A German Novus Ordo canon lawyer has gone on record accusing Benedict XVI’s private secretary, “Abp.” Georg Gänswein, of bringing the so-called “Pope Emeritus” into position as Antipope vis-à-vis Francis. His name is Thomas Schüller, and he isn’t a nobody. From 1993 to 2009 he was the chief canon lawyer for the diocese of Limburg, and from 1997 to 2001, he was theological advisor to “Bishop” Franz Kamphaus. Currently he teaches canon law at the University of Münster.
That Schuller’s assessment of Benedict’s tribute to “Cardinal” Meisner, read by Ganswein at the funeral, is being taken seriously in the Novus Ordo Sect is evident from the fact that the “Archdiocese” of Cologne has published a report about it on the web site of its radio station. We have translated the most important parts:
In the opinion of Catholic canon lawyer Thomas Schüller, former Pope Benedict XVI is being taken advantage of by critics of [Pope] Francis. His private secretary Georg Gänswein and others in his close surroundings “are using the former Pope to bring him into position as an Antipope to Francis”, the University of Münster professor told the Evangelischer Pressedienst (epd) [Lutheran Press Agency]. The clearly evident criticism [of Francis] contained in the message which Ganswein read on behalf of Joseph Ratzinger at the funeral of Cardinal Joachim Meisner in Cologne on Saturday, is “in bad taste and a matter of church politics”, Schuller said.
“Frustrated and Disappointed People”
It is “frustrated and disappointed people who are convinced that the current Pope is betraying the doctrine of the Church” who are behind this, the director of the Institute for Canon Law at the Catholic-Theological Faculty of the University of Munster said. He does not believe that the former Pope is himself the driving force but that he does play along. During Benedict’s pontificate between 2005 and 2013 it was already evident, Schuller maintained, that the Pope was rather hapless in his selection of advisors and often unaware of how people were using him in public.
Campaign against Francis?
At his resignation Benedict announced that in the future he would exclusively pray for the Church in silence, Schuller said. But what has been happening is the exact opposite: “One cannot position oneself any more publicly than the way he just did in the Cathedral of Cologne.” And even though the former Pope never issues any official comments, again and again his followers make use of excerpts from [his] letters or circulate quotations in order to use them against Pope Francis, Schuller maintained.
For Schuller, this is part of a campaign against Francis. Thus Ganswein recently said [in a lecture given] at the Pontifical Gregorian University [in Rome] that there are currently two Popes: an active Pope and a contemplative, praying, retired Pope.
“Dogmatically and canonically, this is nonsense. Pope Benedict resigned, and the official title of ‘Pope Emeritus’ that he invented for himself, does not exist”, Schuller emphasized. Pope Benedict XVI became the retired bishop of Rome or perhaps Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger [again]. For Ratzinger to continue to wear the white papal garments, is a break with Tradition, according to Schuller.
(Wiebke Rannenberg, “Kampagne gegen Franziskus?”, domradio.de, July 17, 2017; our translation.)
When reading this, one cannot help but remember what German Vaticanist Andreas English said shortly after the release of the disastrous “papal” document Amoris Laetitia last year. He said that a split in the church with Benedict XVI as Antipope could not be ruled out:
Approximately a year and a half prior, we had posed the question: “How long until schism?”; and Kazakhstan’s most famous Novus Ordo bishop, Mr. Athanasius Schneider, has even claimed that “a certain kind of schism already exists” in his church.
Yes, it certainly looks like the Vatican II Sect is on the brink of a big split. However, as we have pointed out several times on this site, that would not necessarily be a good thing. Certainly, it would be good insofar as it would finally make it impossible for Novus Ordo apologists to point to their institution and claim it has unity; and this fact alone would surely help to finally bring this pseudo-Catholic monstrosity to an end. At the same time, however, there would also be a very grave danger that could blind people for decades to come: Those who flock to the “conservative” Benedict XVI will be under the illusion of having escaped the Modernist deception, which they will see only in Francis’ sect, whereas the truth is that the deception began long before Francis, namely, in 1958 with the election of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli as the first false pope (“John XXIII”).
We must pray that those who are starting to see the truth about the Vatican II Church will not be diverted into yet another false option, that of a “Novus Ordo Lite” with a Benedict XVI Reloaded.
Image sources: shutterstock.com / internet meme (modified)
Licenses: paid / fair use
It’s delusional to believe that “Pope Emeritus” Benedict XVI is the unwitting dupe of “Pope” Francis’ enemies within the Novus Ordo sect. Ratzinger has always been a skilled manipulator. There are numerous quotes that are directly attributed to him by the people relating them and he’s never once issued a denial.
Further, Ratzinger’s own understanding of the papacy is likely heretical, so it’s entirely possible that he considers himself a “co-pope” in some form or other.
What’s clear is that the differences between Ratzinger and Bergoglio are of strategy and style rather than of Catholicism vs apostasy. Beware ALL wolves in sheeps clothing, not just the more obvious ones.
In 2015, Francis said that he expects his “term” to last five years. What will happen if Benedict is still living when Francis “resigns?” Maybe the Novus Ordo church will have one current pope and two “pope
If that happens, the Novus Ordo church will have 3 ‘popes.’
Maybe the next one will be a “moderate,” taking positions between “conservative” Benedict and “liberal” Francis, so everyone in the Novus Ordo can follow a pope he likes.
Cafeteria style doctrines, cafeteria style “popes”.
It is visible. It’s wherever the faithful are. We still have true Catholic Bishops keeping the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith alive and well and offering the true Mass. The fact that it is but a remnant compared to what it was in the 50s is sad. When Israel was fighting the Midianites, Gideon had assembled an army of thousands, but God only allowed 300 to fight and defeat the 135,000 strong Midianites. The point being that with God it is about quality, not quantity – God’s glory doesn’t need numbers to shine. Also, fast on the heals of Constantine ending the persecution of the Church, Arius rose up and took almost the entire Church with him into heresy. Back then, again, only an exiled handful remained in the Faith.
Sonia, you appropriately remind us of the Four Marks & I thank you for that. The Four Marks of the Catholic Church: One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic. These Four Marks, and the reality that they cannot be found within the VII Sectarian religion emerging from Vatican II, was a fact reiterated at the very beginning of Tradition by the then Fathers Kelly, Sanborn, Fr. Jenkins & others.
I’ll add that over the decades Fr. Cekada & Bishop Sanborn have both written & spoken on the matter of visibility often. It’s one of the most frequent issues coming up in a Q & A formats too. In a True Restoration call-in program entitled “The Resignation of BXVI,” a caller presents this visibility question to His Excellency & Father. I recommend this show which can be found on the site’s archives.
That said (and of course It’s better to read & hear Fr. Cekada & His Excellency visit this issue directly,) – here I’ll paraphrase. Father says that the matter of visibility must indeed be seen within the context of its very purpose-to lead one to Truth. He’s stated that a pile of dung is quite visible but has zero to do with Truth.
Yep. Hold your noses folks!
Much is readily visible. Truth is visible if we don’t consign ourselves to be ‘blind.’
This would be a good topic for a NOW blog post: what is meant by the “visibility of the Catholic Church”. Is it visible because it has buildings, vestments, a publicly recognized hierarchy? Or is it visible because we can know who is a Catholic: one who is baptized and professes the Catholic faith? This is in contrast with the Protestant notion of the “invisible church”–we can’t know who is “a true Christian” because only God knows whose faith is genuine. While that is true, only God knows who is a true believer and who is an apostate, a true CATHOLIC professes the faith, and God will handle the occult heretics (though they may have been professing Catholics and thereby members of the Catholic Church) at the Judgment. Was the Church not visible at the time of the Roman persecutions, when there were no buildings and no vestments? No, because there were professing Catholics.
The book Sede Vacante, but Griff tackles this topic. I think the hierarchy is not so visible now. A bishop here and there. Its mostly the faithful, with a few priests and a bishop. But no organization. My layman’s guess during a crisis…
the cartoon at the bottom is dead on. ITs vatican ii not Burke and benedict and schneider….
yes, we are on the periphery, hehe…
Around 1378 the Church had three popes all claiming legitimacy at the same time. Each pope also had his own College of Cardinals. It was called “The Great Western Schism.” Finally settled by the Council of Constance, it lasted 40 years. And by the way, does the 40 years number evoke a different biblical memory? Perhaps of a 40 year tribulation?
And later, a memory of 40 days and 40 nights?
St. Catherine of Sienna helped the conflicting popes in the Middle Ages come to their senses. The Church always survives through the grace of God. And with the same Divine assistance, will do so again.
Those who don’t know history, are bound to repeat it.
The likes of George Santayana, Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, and Harry S. Truman all are attributed to annunciating this theory. Shakespeare claimed thst there is nothing new under the sun. And even he was paraphrasing Ecclesiastes, Chptr 1
.It would appear that even reporting this quote by that many notables at different times in history lends credence to the notion that history tends to repeat itself.
Sedevacantism is Protestantism in Traditional Catholic vestments.
VII and Novus Ordo are Protestantism in LBGT vestments. Please repent your error and come to the One True Faith. Your soul and the souls of those around you depend on it. Sedevacantists only embrace the One True Faith without which there is no salvation.
But then they would have to give up their nice buildings and their full social life…
A schism has existed in the church since 33 AD. City of God versus City of Man. Enough said.
“Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i. e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.” The Catholic Encyclopedia.
By the above definition, schisms/schismatics exist outside of the Church of Christ.
You sound angry. Are you from the Novus Ordo and waking up to the reality of the Great Apostasy? If so, there’s a few things that the true sheep knows of the voice of the true shepherds/Shepherd:
“I profess that Vatican II and the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical reforms which have proceeded from it are substantial alterations of the Catholic Faith.”
These words contain the fundamental truth of the whole traditional movement. The central question for every Catholic since Vatican II is this: Is the religion which has come out of Vatican II and its changes the same religion as before Vatican II?
If the answer is “Yes, it is the same religion,” then there is no need to reject it or condemn it. It would be schismatic and even heretical to reject it. If, on the other hand, the answer to the question is “No, it is not the same religion,” then Catholics must uncompromisingly reject it, in the same way that the Church rejected and condemned all heresies in the past. Just as there is no middle ground between yes and no, so there is no middle ground between accepting the Vatican II reforms as the Catholic Faith or rejecting them as non-Catholic.
Consequently, nothing else in this Theological Directory, or in the Liturgical and Pastoral Directories, would make any sense unless it is true that the Vatican II reforms constitute a new religion which substantially alters the Catholic Faith in doctrine, discipline, and liturgy.
“I profess that these heretical, evil, and blasphemous reforms can in no way proceed from the Roman Catholic Church, since she is infallible in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship.”
This passage is a profession of faith in the infallibility and indefectibility of the Catholic Church. The very essence of the Catholic Church consists in the assistance which Christ, her Invisible Head, gives to her, all days even to the consummation of the world, as He said before He ascended.
Any true Catholic reading this will hear the voice of the True Shepherd.