Is Benedict’s act of renunciation  ““victorious, triumphant, and heroic”?

AM+DG

The following article, written by Fr. Belland, is reblogged from Bp. Gracida’s website”.  See –  https://abyssum.org/

++++++++++++++++++

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT SITUATION OF THE CHURCH

 Your Excellency,

First, there is a plethora of people who speak out of both sides of their mouths:  on one side they seem to admit that Francis is Pope by the fact that he must be removed by some magic process that determines he is a heretic; out of the other side comes at least the possibility that Benedict is the true Pope.  Well, it’s time to make up one’s mind and not sitting on a fence with one foot in one guy’s yard and the other one in another guy’s yard, claiming, as it were, both to be his property.  But in the case of Benedict and Francis it all depends on that which seems more credible to the guy sitting the fence, he takes the side of Benedict when those who say he is Pope appear accurate and the other side when those who argue that Bergoglio must be gotten rid of gives a better impression.  But many times he takes both sides simultaneously!

 Furthermore, if one is determined to hold that Francis is not Pope because Benedict is Pope, then there’s no sense in discussing any effort to get rid of him, since it is impossible to declare that a Pope has lost the Petrine Office, through heresy or whatever, when he isn’t even Pope, right from the beginning. Nor is there any reason to argue for an examination of the Conclave fiasco that “elected” him.  So why not take one side or the other?

Secondly, as I have argued in various places, one CANNOT look to the past for a solution to the totally unprecedented situation we have today, a situation which has not only been prophesied by Our Lady (Fatima and Akita) but also the solution has been given and the consequences have been provided—the consequences following upon the non-fulfillment of the given solutions!!!!!!!!!!!!  The only solution for today is one that Almighty God has chosen, as revealed in the Fatima apparition, and our mind MUST conform to the reality that God provides, not something from the past, by doing which in fact indicates that people consider their solutions are better than God’s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thirdly, here’s another clue that might, just might, help people to decide about who is truly Pope and what do to about it. This comes from the Treatise I wrote on the Renunciation of Benedict:

At this point it would be well to provide a little known hint about the contents of the Third Secret of Fatima. This comes from one Father Schweigl, “an Austrian Jesuit (1894-1964), professor at the Gregorian University and the Russicum [Seminary].”17  A very spiritual priest and concerned about the Russian situation at the time, he was much occupied by the Fatima Message and especially anxious for the Consecration of Russia.

On 7 July 1952 Pope Pius XII, with due solemnity lacking and without the accompaniment of all the Bishops of the world, consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This Consecration was quite a disappointment for Fr. Schweigl; there seemed to be some confusion as to why the Holy Father did not comply with the requests of Our Lady.

However, Fr. Schweigl, at the time of that Consecration, was laying plans to pay a visit to Sr. Lucia. By some arrangement, whether of his own initiative or with the prompting of Pius XII is not clear, “on March 27 1952, he had received permission from Pius XII to speak with Sister Lucy of Fatima «about 31 questions concerning the conversion of Russia.»”18 The interrogation actually took place on 2 September 1952.

Regarding those “31 questions concerning the conversion of Russia,” Fr. Schweigl admits in a text he had distributed to the [Vatican II] Council Fathers that subsequent to his visit with Sr. Lucia he was ordered by the Archbishop of Coimbra “that the replies given by Sister Lucy not be published without authorization of the Holy Office; up to the present this authorization has not been given.”19  Nevertheless, although he was unable to divulge the contents of the answers to his questions, having returned to the Russicum after his visit with Sr. Lucia, “Father Schweigl confided this to one of his colleagues who questioned him on the Secret: “«I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope. The other, logically – although I must say nothing – would have to be the continuation of the words: In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved. »”20

Getting to the point of the little known hint about the Third Secret, Frére Michel states that “Father Schweigl, [who] was perfectly well informed about everything having to do with the consecration of Russia, stresses that the great Secret ‘seems to suppose a victorious,triumphant, but difficult and heroic decision’ of the Holy Father.’ He continues, ‘In fact on July7, 1952, the Holy Father Consecrated the peoples of Russia in a special way to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, although many circles were against the opportuneness of such a consecration’ (Fatima e la conversione della Russia, p. 15. Pontificio Collegio Russico, 1956.)”21

This quote concerning an implied action of a Pope in the Third Secret is most interesting. Now although Fr. Schweigl spoke of the suggested action as possibly having to do with the Consecration of Russia by Pope Pius XII on 7 July 1952, it certainly must be questioned whether that Consecration was truly a “victorious, triumphant . . . and heroic” decision of Pope Pius XII.  Certainly, there have been no obvious “victorious” and “triumphant” effects, from that Consecration, though it perhaps could be said to have been, in a sense, “heroic” due to political circumstances of the time. And I doubt that anyone would be able to identify any Papal deed as “victorious, triumphant, and heroic” from Pius XII until Benedict’s act of renunciation. 

Furthermore, it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the Consecration of Russia as requested by Our Lady, which hasn’t been done to this day, is going to be made by this current Pontificate–Francis. Indeed, the chances, barring some type of Divine intervention, of electing a traditional or even conservative Pope at a Conclave following the death of Francis is just too much to expect from God. Not that He is unable, being Almighty, to provide in such a way. But, given that His Providence could be said to have already begun arranging matters, it cannot be expected that He would deviate from what He has already begun—of course, I refer to another individual in the Vatican calling himself Pope.

Finally, what if Benedict’s renunciation affected only a resignation from the “exercise” of the Petrine Office, as the wording of his resignation infer, amidst perhaps even threats to resign from the Office, Benedict’s “fear of fleeing the wolves,” and an “apostasy that begins AT THE TOP? By resigning from the “exercise” of the Petrine Office while keeping that Office out of the hands of one not worthy to be Pope, could it truly be denied that his “decision” was in fact“ victorious, triumphant, but difficult and heroic?” His action would have to be regarded as a fearless challenge to the St. Gallen Mafia and a way of providing for a proper Consecration of Russia either by himself or by his successor, the next true Pope. I encourage the reader to keep this idea in mind as we now progress to the analysis of Benedict’s Renunciation.

(17 The Whole Truth about Fatima, Vol. III, The Third Secret 1942-1960, Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinité, p. 337. 18 The Whole Truth about Fatima, Vol. III, The Third Secret 1942-1960, Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinité, p. 337.  19 The Whole Truth about Fatima, Vol. III, The Third Secret 1942-1960, Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinité, p. 338.  20 The Whole Truth about Fatima, Vol. III, The Third Secret 1942-1960, Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinité, p. 709.  21 The Whole Truth about Fatima, Vol. III, The Third Secret 1942-1960, Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinité, Footnote 39 p. 352.)

One last comment.  Since the prophesied solutions from Our Lord and Our Lady have not been heeded, the ONLY things that can be expected are the very consequences that They have warned us about.  AMONG OTHER THINGS, ONE CHASTISEMENT CONSISTS IN “FIRE FROM THE SKY.”  THIS HAS BEEN SPOKEN OF BY OUR LADY AT AKITA AS WELL AS BEING A PART OF THE MESSAGE TO SR. AIELLO IN ITALY!  BUT AS I HAVE ALSO SHOWN IN MY ARTICLE ON THE NEUES EUROPA “FATIMA SECRET”, OUR LADY, THAT CONSEQUENCE OF FIRE IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA, WHICH IS ALSO SUGGESTED BY BENEDICT IN HIS COMMENTARY ON THE THIRD SECRET VISION.  FURTHERMORE, I HAVE SHOWN THAT THAT SAME CHASTISEMENT WAS MENTIONED BY OUR LORD TO BRUNO CORNACCHIOLA AMONG WHAT ARE KNOWN AS THE TRE FONATANE  APPARATIONS, THOUGH NOT FORMALLY APPROVED!

I suggest that people “get down to brass tacks,” for as someone said “Those who get down to brass tacks usually rise very swiftly.”  Either one honors the messages of Our Lord and Our Lady, or they try to play God, thinking they have all the solutions.  Let’s call on the authorities of Holy Mother Church to look into the renunciation of Benedict to verify that Benedict is indeed Pope.  Only when that has been determined can proper action take place.  In the meantime one had better be ready for ‘fire from the sky.”

Sincerely in the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts,

Father Belland

IS IT LOGICAL THAT A MAN WHO OCCUPIES THE CHAIR OF PETER CAN BE BOTH A HERETIC AND THE POPE?

AM+DG

Reblog from Bp. Gracia’s website. See reblogged article below the Comment.

(Comment by admin/editor of RemnantDiscciples JtM):

The article by Fr. Belland expresses what all true Catholic faithful feel is true, and must be so – yet they cannot see that this exactly means that the obvious answer staring them in the face, is that Benedict is the true pope. If they investigated all the intricacies of canon law, they would see this. (How about just reading Bro Alexis Bugnolo’s examination of this question?)  In fact if they read the prophecies from saints – it would be clear as a bell.

God would not want us to be confounded, but knowing the minds of men, have sent us prophets, as in the Old Testament and New Testament when His people were in trouble. Granted, people to not always listen to prophets and they were always despised and struggled to to be heard, but this is not so today. We have people who have been proclaimed saintswho would doubt them? If there was any doubt about anything a saint said or did, do you think that they would be canonized?

Would you doubt St Francis of Assisi? He told us 800 years ago that there would be 2 popes – one would not be a true pope, but a destroyer! Well, guess who fits the bill?! Why don’t all priests and bishops proclaim this fact? Don’t they believe that God would sent saints?

What about Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich? She told us a lot about the Pope who “lives in a palace other than before” and who is suffering in Rome, and about the “Little Black Man” . In case you don’t know, Jesuits wear black, and the head of the Jesuits (which Bergoglio once was), has always traditionally been referred to as “the black pope”. She also mentions that “He has his agents in the NEW Black Church also” and many other things about him.

What about Our Lady – would they believe her? Way back in 1846, at La Salette, she said that “one will not know which is the true pope”. She also told us that “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist”. This of course was confirmed at Fatima, but they were all too fearful to obey and pronounce the Third Secret in 1960, and the complete message is still under wrap.

What about St Paul? In his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians (2: 1-12), he speaks of the antichrist, then he says (vs.6-7) : “And now you know what has been restraining him (from being revealed), that he may be revealed in his time.only he who now restrains  does so, until he is taken out of the way“.

It seems to me that this fits perfectly to what Fr Belland says in article below. Pope Benedict is the solution. When he is taken out of Rome  (see Bl. A.C. Emmerich), the Antichrist will be revealed.. Benedict is the one who restrains, (see St Paul 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12).

 

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IS IT LOGICAL THAT A MAN WHO OCCUPIES THE CHAIR OF PETER CAN BE BOTH A HERETIC AND THE POPE?

Father David R. Belland writes to Abyssum out of his deep felt concern and love for the Church.

He suggests that If Our Lord promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” His Bride, He means it.  Yet, what if a man who claims to be a pope becomes a heretic or seemingly teaches heresy?  That question has been pondered down the ages, and to this day no absolute answer has really been provided.  In fact, for all the hypothetical scenarios concerning heresy, the possible solutions proposed by the learned theologians are just that: possible, but not in any way certain.  Michael Davies in his book, I Am with You Always: The Divine Constitution and Indefectibility of the Catholic Church, says the following:

 Saint Robert was (in De Romano Pontifice Vol. II, chap. 30, p. 720), of course, discussing a theoretical possibility, and believed that a pope could not become an heretic and thus could not be deposed, but he also acknowledged that the more common opinion was that the pope could become an heretic, and he was thus willing to discuss what would need to be done if, per impossible, this should happen: ‘This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended. . . . Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic’ [De Romano Pontifice, Vol. II, chap.30, p.418].  The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617) was also sure that God’s ‘sweet providence’ would never allow the one who could not teach error to fall into error, and that this was guaranteed by the promise Ego autem rogavi pro te… (Luke 22:32).  But, like Bellarmine, Suarez was willing to consider the possibility of an heretical pope as an hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact, he claimed, that several ‘general councils had admitted the hypothesis in question’ [De legibus, vol. IV, chap. 7, no. 10, p 361].  Saint Alphonsus Ligouri (1696-1787) did not believe that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult (secret) heretic, even as a private person:  ‘We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declared, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, become a public heretic or an occult heretic’ [Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, Vol. VIII, p. 720].”[1] 

 [1] Michael Davies, I Am With You Always: The Divine Constitution and Indefectibility of the Catholic Church, New rev. ed. 1997, The Neumann Press, Long Prairie, Minnesota, 1997, pp. 44 – 4 )

 Certainly, God would not allow his Church to be left in the dust of doubt either with regard to Faith or with regard to Morals. Considering the reality of the situation in the Church today, therefore, one that is absolutely unparalleled, indeed exceptional, can one really look to the past for a solution, which no one has actually demonstrated to be absolutely workable for past crises, or to merely theoretical scenarios envisioned for the future?  Yet, those theoretical problems discussed in the past in no way even remotely approach the unprecedented reality here and now.  

The mind of Father David R. Belland resolutely balks at the idea. He asks: “Does it not seem more likely that the unprecedented reality of today demands an unprecedented concrete solution?  And can you guess what’s coming; yes, you’re right, Benedict is that unprecedented, yet concrete, solution that if looked into can be seen as that unquestionable protection of God.”

Perhaps a better way of stating the QUESTION is this.

A man who occupies the Chair of Peter is called the Pope.

A man who occupies the Chair of Peter seems to be a public heretic or occult heretic, yet it is not reasonable that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult (secret) heretic, even as a private person: 

Ergo, such a man who occupies the Chair of Peter is not the Pope.