In a recent Ann Barnhardt podcast, she asserts that Chris Ferrara, the Fatima Center scholar and attorney, told her that he and many other faithful Catholic pundits secretly agree that Benedict XVI did not make a legal abdication of the papacy. The Catholic Monitor highlights her statement here.
In a note to Canon212, Ferrara responds to Ann:
I don’t know who “Chris Ferrera” is, but I, Chris Ferrara, never said anything of the kind. If I said anything it would be something like “You can certainly make that argument, but we have no competence to judge the matter.” As I said on Taylor Marshall’s show, a future Pope or Council might determine that the last conclave was invalid, but that is a matter for the Church, not any Tom, Dick or Ann to determine.
Furthermore, the only time I have ever spoken face-to-face with Ann Barnhardt, at least that I can remember, was at Lake Garda, and the entire conversation involved my objection to her claim that the “data set” shows Bergoglio is not the Pope. We have no competence to assemble “data sets” and declare that the Chair of Peter is vacant.
He is twisting her words; she never said the Chair of Peter is vacant. Au contraire – she said Benedict still occupies it. When will Chris FerrAra stop being Michael Matt’s lackey?
Good point. And good question.
Trad.Inc. is entitled to their opinion, just like EVERYONE ELSE IS, but in no way can Mr. Ferrara claim infallibility. So he needs to come down from his high horse and stop declaring truth for the Church. See, that is the WHOLE POINT of having a pope. And clearly the mayhem we see is from no one functioning in that role. We may not know the objective reality with certainty, but at least Ann’s theory doesn’t lead to apostasy, as the others do.
^ ^ ^This all day^ ^ ^
“We have no competence to assemble “data sets” and declare that the Chair of Peter is vacant.”
Hey Chris, what was happening in Matt 16:15? Because it sounds to me like Jesus was expecting us to have the competence to assemble “data sets” and declare that He is our Lord and Savior. “Jesus saith to them: “But whom do you say that I am?””
Now, is God Himself supplies the competence to discern the truth in a matter as grave as this, a matter on which our salvation depends, then how much greater must our competence be to discern who is true pope? Our lack of authority means we have no power to adjudicate the matter, but we can certainly lay bare the truth.
A correction for the scholar and attorney, Mr. Ferrara: the Benedict is Pope (BiP) theory is NOT sedevacantist. The Chair of Peter is NOT vacant….hence BiP.
Everyone one of you from Chris to BiP is with a heretic. You shall all be in big trouble come Judgment Day.
Note to the Fatima Center scholar and attorney, Mr. Ferrara: The Benedict is Pope (BiP) position is not that of sedevacantism and the Chair of Peter is not vacant, hence BiP.
Question, did not your mentor and friend Fr. Gruner, may he rest in peace, also hold the BiP position?
The mincing of Mr. Ferrara about the pronunciation of his name is no assurance that he did not give Ms. Barnhardt the impression that he shares her opinion. If anything, the pickiness of his reply, at least in this reader’s viewpoint, indicates a fear that he may have misspoken. Or at the very least been less than lawyerly.
Even so, agreeing with Ms. Barnhardt is not to make a formal, binding declaration.
Take a powder, Chris. You’re not Alan Dershowitz being shredded in the press. (Mea culpa for any misspellings ;^)
From a pew sitter, and common rube in life, a connection made between Jesus and myself occurs every time I receive communion. From John 10 verse 14, …” I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.”…, I draw discernment as to who is who, and in particular who specifically the Pope is. I feel it in my heart, the tug of truth! From Romans 16, verses 17 and 18, …”Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.”… I read that all by myself, and discerned what I need to do. The Gospels are filled with verse for us, No Stumbling Block here.
Have a pleasant day sir.
Do you think there might be a little reason why our Dear Lord didn’t make lawyers apostles?
Perhaps their superior standing and self praise might hinder the TRUTH; that is, the word of Jesus.
It is the humble pew sitter that sees the Truth—that is not encumbered with legal arguments—but comes from the Holy Spirit!
Once you lead off your response by whining about how your name was mispronounced, you’ve lost the argument…
Yes– let all those infiltrated in Masons/Communists/Satanists/homopredators in charge of the Vatican and “running” it decide these matters and shut up and put your money in the Donation basket! You can see the German Bishops have things well in hand…Cardinal Marx is running things and who could want more?
I don’t know anymore, we find our once most trusted sources and authorities have all let us down. It seems like these times are the time when the Good Lord is saying to have faith in Him alone, and so I shall. But He did leave us what He said, and what Scripture says, and there is much in there to comfort us. So it all goes to pot, nobody gets along with anybody, but regardless, we have God’s promises, we’ll be alright.
My personal opinion is, Benedict is pope. I doubt his abdication, and looking at Bergoglio, the man is not even a Christian, he is a pagan, he can’t be pope. He doesn’t even like Catholicism or faithful Catholics, and he’s done nothing but work to undermine Catholicism. His papacy seems more diabolical than anything else. Not a true pope.
I don’t need anyone to tell me that. As Catholics we were given discernment.
I agree with you, Evangeline.
If the Church declares multiple paths to heaven; Baals a worthy god to venerate; sodomites allowed to Communion – they have exceeded their authority “to decide”.
If the Church calls a Conclave while the Pope has retained his Munus – that is also beyond their authority “to decide”.
God’s law does not change with “management”. The Church serves God and God’s Law, not the reverse. We … I … are (am) responsible to God’s Law and Sacred Tradition which cannot change. Anyone who accepts retired POPES has departed from the will, Word, Law of God.
One Faith, one Truth.
One God.
God is holy – protect Holy Eucharist
One Pope.
No man on earth gets to contradict God.
I understand that Cardinal Marx, flush with big $$$ from taxing/simony which funds the German Church otherwise in great decline, is hand in glove with Pope F — he, and the other German Bishops (heretics), was behind the recent Amazon Synod from which “base” we hear “married” “Priests” will be hatched on all — seems all things from Cardinal Marx and the German Bishops are focused on destroying whatever of the Traditional Catholic Church they can in order to obtain their goal of “normalizing” homosexuality– all of this are “fruits” of Vatican 2 where the infiltrated in Masonic Cardinals brought in the “reforms” from Hell, which are still being rolled out today, steamrolled under Pope F — this is their vision of the “mass” of the Catholic Church–as they conduct it even now and wish to inflict on all with their globohomo agenda? Someone tell me how this is remotely “Catholic”?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=Pmbu541EOq4&feature=emb_logo
Ferrara trots out a favorite trope of the Bergoglians: “You don’t get
to decide…” This trope gives the appearance of an appeal to a
principle. But the principle doesn’t exist. [Variant: “That’s not how
it works…”]
Ferrara pretends to be citing some “principle” that says that a
putative pope cannot be declared an anti-pope until he is dead. But
many anti-popes have been ejected from the “papacy” while still alive
and “reigning.”
Ferrara similarly pretends to be citing some principle that prohibits
“assembling a data set.” There is nothing in the moral law or canon
law prohibiting Tom, Dick, Harry, Ann, or anyone else from assembling
a “data-set”–otherwise known as “evidence” and “facts.”
The Church’s Magisterium does not “teach” the name of the pope. The
Conclave does not “teach” the name of the pope. The election of a pope
is an administrative act, not an act of Magisterium. The conclave
teaches NOTHING. The name of the pope is not a dogma.
Ferrara is claiming that the “Church of 2025” will have the authority
to determine whether Bergoglio WAS pope, whereas the “Church of 2020”
has no such capability. From whence does this “authority” spring? From
Bergoglio’s death?
But: What if the Bergoglian Machine still has the power to intimidate
after Bergoglio’s death? Why, then, the Ferraras, Skojecs, and Burkes
will discover that we STILL have to wait for some unspecified future
in which “the Church” will magically acquire a power she does not have
at the moment.
The abuse of the term “Church” [As in: “The Church says Bergoglio is
pope.”] is just an especially pernicious bit of question-begging. It
is not “the Church” that says Bergoglio is pope. I.e., it is not the
Magisterium. As in the 40-some previous instances of an anti-pope, it
is nothing but a mob that says Bergoglio is pope. The claim of the mob
stands or falls on the basis of the evidence–the “data set.”
The REAL “principle” operative in the Church today is to be found
explicated in the fable “Belling the Cat.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_Cat
Mr. Ferrara has made several statements which are wrong or not true https://fromrome.info/2020/02/03/where-chris-ferrara-goes-bonkers/
Dear Brother. You are putting him n his place, huh?
You have no idea how silly you sound…
Dear Brother. Bullets Barnhardt said that if you are opposed to usury you are antisemitic.
O, and name anyone living who hasn’t made a statement susceptible to criticism
If one is going to quote another one ought at least know how to pronounce their name.
The gentleman is correct as regards who has competency to judge – it is The Catholic Church – not a lay woman who has never taken a degree in Canon Law or has ever practiced Canon Law.
Canon Lawyer, Dr. Peters, has at least two posts about the matter on his blog, and in one of them he describes as absurd the ideas promoted by Bullets Barnhardt and her adepts.
Dear Amateur Brain Surgeon: I will not allow any man (“or even an angel from heaven”) to preach a different Gospel than that revealed by Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
In other words, I am not willing to go to hell just because Canonist Peters says something is true (or merely acceptable) that is against Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Nope. Not going to happen to me and mine.
Dear Aqua. Nor does ABS but there is not one thing Bergolio has ordered me to do or believe that is binding.
Even if Bergolio were an arm of the devil he would have authority over ABS and thee.
ABS: You cannot be Catholic and say what you just said. It is not possible.
The Devil has no authority over me. Not one molecule of him, much less an arm. And if an arm, then the whole person. That’s not for me, thanks.
What you said above is stunning in its implications. Might want to think that through.
Dear Aqua. Ok, ABS was being provocative to make a point.
Our Pope and Our Cross, Franciscus, does have authority over ABS and You and you can not escape that fact by pointing to his progressive prose and praxis.
The Council of Florence condemned this thesis of Wycliffe.
If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor.
Our Pope and Our Cross is Francis.
Dear Aqua. You think BIP, right?
In his trilogy Pope Benedict XVI claimed that St Matthew erred in 27:25
His blood be upon us and our children
So. the Pope of Bullets and her pose thanks Holy Scripture contains error.
Hmmmmm, what other errors does her Pope thinks are in Hoy Writ?
The only error that matters is the renunciation of the Ministerium to another, while holding fast to the Munus.
The Munus is the Pope. The Ministerium is what he does. Pope Benedict XVI remains the former. Someone else is performing the latter.
And that simply cannot be, according to Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
Amateur Brain Surgeon,
Your nick is perfect, though you may not realize it.
Dear Romanus. Thank you. That was the intent…
As far as I know, Mr. Ferrara has not said anything about recent scientifically proven evidence that there was a fake Sister Lucy introduced by Paul Vi in the 60s. God only knows what happened to the real Sister Lucy. Smiley Sister Lucy II changed the warnings of Our Lady of Fatima into a “nice” nothing-to-worry-about-here message.
Given that Mr. Ferrara is silent on this, I’ll stick with Ann and pray for Pope Benedict, the one and only true Pope.
This idea that we have no authority to believe and declare that a man is not pope is simply false.
There is no need to be a canonical pedant or geek either.
Sound reason tells us in an immediate way – without the need for any social authority – that if someone who claims to be pope is damaging our chances of salvation, then it follows immediately that we can resist precisely because it affects us. If we can resist, it further follows that we have access as to why we should resist because we are rational beings. If the basis is that the pope is a heretic, it follows that is knowable, and by right accessibly knowable, to any individual. If the basis is that a the claimant to the papacy is not actually pope, it follows this is accessibly knowable to any individual. Again an individual has the natural right to this knowledge precisely because it affects them.
You have the authority to personally believe it, you do NOT have the authority to declare it. There is a difference. Learn it.
Kathleen: Our duty is to Jesus Christ, Sacred Scripture and Tradition. When anyone departs from that, we not only *can* declare the deviation, we must.
All Catholics are required to know, believe, declare *and* defend Sacred Scripture and Tradition and to hold to all the Dogmatic truths of the Catholic Faith. When there is a deviation we have a duty to respond. If that were not so, then Dogma would be rendered meaningless.
By “declare” I obviously mean “declare with authority”, as Barnhardt is attempting to do. Barnhardt dares to publicly and explicitly brand people as faithless when they remain unpersuaded by her You Tube videos. At the same time, apparently in order to stay relevant, she is attempting to morph her original argument of “Ratzinger’s bad resignation = Francis is not Pope” into “Francis is a heretic = Francis is not Pope” — two completely different positions, neither of which are slam dunks. Even if you somehow prove to me that her argument du jour is airtight (and you can’t), as a genuine Catholic, I’m not going to decide who is Pope based on a *You Tube video* by some erstwhile futures broker with the unpleasantly shrill persona of a perpetual “head girl”. I can think of better cult leaders than Barnhardt, but whatever floats your boat.
Kathleen: The tone of your response is what amazes me the most. Ann Barnhardt is a fellow Catholic. She is loved by Jesus and is part of the Body of Christ. I think it is crucial to love one another in the Body of Christ, respect, at the same time we may disagree with other members. Even if we get all the answers figured out correctly, while others are wrong, if we don’t love one another in practical, visible ways, it doesn’t really matter. Disagree, fine. State your case. Insult, not fine.
As to my “proofs”, it is as simple as a sentence – a mere word – in Pope Benedict’s resignation. What did he resign? What did he retain? *That ends the debate right there*. Nothing more can be added to that.
And as to what floats my boat, the answer to that question is as crucial as deciding heaven or hell. It is a very, big deal. The answer determines our Faith and our destiny. Choose Bergoglio and accept his election premises and that will have eternal consequences; as will insisting on Benedict XVI. No fence sitting on this one.
Cardinals do not get to redefine what the Pope said in his resignation letter. He said what he said and the lowest, most uneducated, least powerful Catholic in the world can read that and know the objective truth. No Cardinal, or “angel from heaven” can contradict that.
God gave us one Pope at a time. That is De Fide. The Pope is the occupant of the Munus, Office. He must leave that Munus before a Conclave can be called to elect a new Peter: Death (99%), or resignation from Munus (1%). He retained the Munus, quite clearly. He gave away the Ministerium, quite clearly. Game over.
That truth does not belong to Ann Barnhardt. It simply is objective reality, not subject to opinion or re-definition by powerful Cardinals. It is God’s to decide and he gave us one Peter, through every generation, until the end of time.
Choosing Bergoglio, *and accepting his authority over us without the Munus*, means choosing an antipope Freemason who ascended to the Office by fraud and all the resulting heresy that emanates from such a man. It is just a matter of time until that choice erodes, then destroys the faith of every Catholic who so chooses. Our Faith is built on the Rock of St. Peter. It must be that way.
Folks, you are misunderstanding what Ferrara means by “not having competence.” He is not talking about anybody’s mental faculties. He means we do not have the authority to declare definitively, in a way that binds our fellow Catholics, who is the true Pope. And he is right. This is the job of the hierarchy. We are not Protestants, who rely on their own private judgment and consider themselves to be their own Magisterium. We are Catholics, and we respect authority.
I’ll go with Fr. Gruner, thanks though.
Anita: It is not private judgement that we can have but one Pope at a time. That is the constant teaching of the Church.
It is not private judgement to read the plain resignation text and know what it says and does not say.
It is not private judgement to assert a Conclave cannot be called while the living, reigning Pope still lives in possession of the Papal Munus. That is illegal.
It *IS* private judgement to declare something is Catholic truth that is *NOT* supported by Sacred Scripture or Tradition. Direct me to another example of “Emeritus” at any point in 2,000 years. Show me another renunciation of Ministerium *separate* from retained Munus (always and forever). Provide an example of another Pope who renounced and remained. Upon what grounds, this Petrine Office ”forever altered and new”?
It is *private judgement* that accepts these facts at our Catholic core with *zero* (0.0%) support in Scripture or Tradition.
It is faithfulness that insists no man on earth has authority to alter Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
The Pope belongs to Christ, first. He also belongs to every Catholic, low to high … even (especially) the least among us. He is one man. If he wishes to renounce his Office, he must renounce the *Office*. Until then, he is Peter until death. And we have every right *and duty* to insist on that TRUTH.
@ChrisFerrara (“scholar & attorney”) – What is the phrase that children like to scream at each other whenever they think the other (ie you Chris) is lying? Give up? OK. Liar Liar Pants On Fire!
“DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting … a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
Of course, denial of this Dogmatic Fact means that the Charismatic leader of The Occult Cult, Bullets Barnhardt, and the other men in the Cult are objective heretics.
That fact is a simple truth that will be reflexively gainsaid by men of a certain type who are bullied by Barnhardt and who allow her to led them around by the nose
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma – Ludwig Ott (ch 8)
“Christ chose the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally conferred upon him the primacy of jurisdiction”. (De fide).
“The invisible Head of the Church is the risen Christ. St. Peter represents the position of Christ in the external government of the militant Church, and is to this extent “the Vicar of Christ” on earth”.
“He builds the Church on one person”. (St. Cyprian)
“But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death, consequently *HIS OFFICE* must be transmitted to others”.
“If any one shall say that the Roman Pontiff has *THE OFFICE* merely of inspection and direction and not a full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals …. also discipline and government … merely the principal part and not all the fullness and this supreme power … let him be anathema”.
“The primatial power is an ordinary power, that is, connected with *THE OFFICE*, by virtue of divine ordinance …”
Catechism of the Council of Trent (Article IX)
“ …. so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His Vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefor the Savior appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful”.
Etc.
The Papacy is the *Office* and it is of Divine origin.
The Papacy is unitary. It cannot be shared with another.
The Papacy is for life, unless *the Office* is given to another.
One man. One Peter.
No retired Peters.
No Emeritus Peters.
No forever remaining within the enclosure of St. Peter without EVERYTHING that goes with it.
What has been done has never been done before and has no support in Sacred Scripture or Tradition – and is, in fact, anathema (see above).
ABS: Here is a helpful link that contains all the essential information, including the *Latin original text* resignation statement in which Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges his Munus … but … *resigns his “Ministerium”.
https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/
Also links to Canon Law, explaining why this is the central and only point that matters.
The Conclave was illegal on its face, because we already had a valid Pope in Munus whose resignation was not valid before God and His entire Church. Conclave’s work and subsequent Pope and all his judgements … invalid, illegal.
The Munus was retained. End of story.