A
Response to Ann Barnhardt
By Paul F.
Introduction
Popular blogger Ann
Barnhardt made some waves last summer when she declared to the world that the
man elected to the papacy by the Catholic Church, whom the entire Church and
the world at large recognizes as the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, is,
in fact, an antipope.[1] “It is now clear to me,”
she begins, “and I feel it morally incumbent upon me given my position to
publicly state that I believe Jorge Bergoglio, ‘Francis’ to be an Antipope,
never having been canonically elected, and that Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict
XVI is still the Roman Pontiff.”[2]
More recently, even some
well-known, mainstream traditionalist publications have given some sort of
lukewarm defense (though certainly no endorsement) of Ms. Barnhardt’s position.
This article will
attempt to demonstrate that Ms. Barnhardt’s position is not based on sound
theology; in fact, in contradicts the Church’s teachings, at least implicitly,
and must be regarded as a danger to the faith, for reasons that will be
explained below.
Prophecy
Her essay is split into
several sections (which she apparently considers evidence enough to offer at
least moral certainty in her conclusion), with prophecy being the first.
She begins this section
with the (now!) well-known prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi, in which he
speaks of a future pope, “not canonically elected,” who will be a
“destroyer.” Here is a selected portion of what she quotes (I own this
book as well):
“Act bravely, my
Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in
which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions,
both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold,
and the malice of the wicked will increase.
The devils will have
unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so
much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true
Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity.
At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be
raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many
into error and death… for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true
Pastor, but a destroyer” (emphasis mine).[3]
It is curious that Ms.
Barnhardt chooses this passage first in support of her hypothesis, given that
it is clear that the great saint[4] was speaking of an
actual pope – a man “raised to the Pontificate” – not an
antipope. St. Francis certainly understood that, in terms of Thomistic
philosophy, to be “raised to the Pontificate” is indeed to be made pope:
This phrase implies the man (matter) being joined to the form of the
papacy. The learned saint would have never spoken of an actual
pope in such terms.
But Ann’s thesis is that
Francis was, in fact, not raised to the Pontificate (despite
what her proof-text prophecy states), but is a usurper antipope. (As we
will see below, being “not canonically elected” is not an insurmountable
impediment to being a true pope.)
(Incidentally, it may
well be that the Seraphic Father was indeed speaking of Pope Francis in this
prophecy; more than one traditionalist author has suggested this.
However, clearly, no conclusive case can be made, especially since we know not
what the future holds – we may be in the “dry run” to the true last days rather
than the real show. But, even if so, since he was speaking of a true
pope, the subject is irrelevant to her thesis.)
Next up is a quote from
Cardinal Manning that says, in part, "...Rome shall apostatize from the
Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient
paganism... Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and
shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in
catacombs..."
What Cardinal Manning
speaks of seems to be a public action; there is no indication that
the "driving away" of the "Vicar of Christ" is something
that somehow happens in secret, which is what Ann asserts has
occurred (this occult aspect has theological issues in itself, explored
below). More importantly, in any case, there is absolutely nothing
specific to tie this to Francis. This type of prophetic proof-texting is
directly analogous to methods that Protestants use to apply passages from
Revelation with theological certainty. There simply isn’t a shred of
direct evidence that ties this prophecy to Pope Francis, and, to paraphrase
Scripture, no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation.
To grab hold of such
wisps of private prophecy and use them to justify something as rash as
declaring the man the Church recognizes as Pope to be an anti-pope, based on
one’s own judgment, is rash in the extreme, and not reflective of the Catholic
attitude towards legitimate authority and private judgment.
Using Pope Pius XII's
well-known prophecy about the crisis in the Church to suggest that Francis is
an antipope seems quite a stretch indeed. We are far along a rather thin
branch at this point, are we not? Pius’ words – incredibly prophetic of
our time indeed, it would seem – suggest nothing of any antipope,
much less providing the tiniest hint of evidence that Francis is one.
The same goes for the
(somewhat disputed) prophecy of La Salette.
And, last, are the words
of Our Lady of Fatima. Except – they’re probably not. The quote Ann
provides, without attribution, is apocryphal, at best. In fact, I have it
on the authority of one of the world’s foremost Fatima experts that it is not
legitimate. But that’s not really here nor there, as it would not help
her case if it were authentic.
Now, traditionalists
have long attributed Our Lady of Fatima’s warnings to apply to the current
crisis in the Church. In fact, given the critical date, provided by Our
Lady Herself, of 1960 for the public revealing of the Third Secret, along with
the reports of those few who have read its text, of this there can be no
substantial doubt. However, once again, this does absolutely nothing for
Ann’s case.
(It might also be noted
that the entire legitimate Fatima narrative depends on their
being an actual Pope in the Vatican to both release the
missing part of the Third Secret (the words of the Virgin that go along with
the vision) as well as to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart in concert
with the world’s episcopate.)
In conclusion, this
collection of prophecy testifies to a grave crisis of faith in the Church,
starting “at the top.”[5] However, not only is
there no evidence for the assertion that Francis himself is an antipope, there
is contrary evidence, in the form of the very first proof text
put forth.
The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
As a preliminary, for
the record, I must state that there is no doubt that the resignation of Pope
Benedict XVI was an occasion of profound confusion for the Church – especially
when we consider also the shocking statements of his secretary, Archbishop Ganswein,
in May of 2016.
Immediately preceding
the section where Barnhardt purports to demonstrate that Benedict’s resignation
from the papacy was invalid due to a nuance of canon law (by her
interpretation), she states this: “After his ‘resignation,’ Ratzinger still
wore the papal white cassock, still referred to himself as
‘Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,’ and continued to live in the
Vatican” (emphasis mine).
This single, short
sentence contains an implicit falsehood: Barnhardt states that Benedict “still referred
to himself as ‘Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’” even though it is
a plain fact that neither Benedict nor anyone else referred to him as Pope Emeritus until after his
resignation. This is perfectly consistent with the definition of the word emeritus:
“one retired from professional life but permitted to
retain as an honorary title the rank of the last
office held”[6] (emphasis mine again
–note the past tense regarding the office). Pope Emeritus is
a [singular] title; the first word is modified by the second which renders it
“honorary,” and referring to the past. At the very least, there is no
reason to assume the contrary, so this is not helpful to any thesis: It’s just
another red herring, though a disturbing one in a sense.
Before beginning the
detailed analysis below, it should be noted that it is a maxim of the Church
that public judgments are only valid when issued by the Church’s public
authorities. St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, teaches that “usurpation of
justice” is a perversion of it.[7] “Now since it
belongs to the same authority to interpret and to make a law, just as a law
cannot be made save by public authority, so neither can a judgment be
pronounced except by public authority…”[8] Ann might claim she’s
pronouncing no judgment, merely giving her opinion, but the difference is
academic. She believes her own private conclusions based on her judgment
of canon law extend to the external forum of the Church and publicly influences
others to do the same.
Ann asserts that Pope
Benedict XVI’s resignation from the papacy was, in fact, canonically invalid,
and thus null. She relies entirely on Canon 188 of the 1983 Code for her
argument. It states, "A resignation made out of grave fear that is
inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony
is invalid by the law itself" (emphasis hers).[9]
Archbishop Ganswein
stated that Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ election had created an
“expanded [Petrine] ministry” with “an active member and a contemplative
member.”[10] It goes without saying
that no person, pope or not, has any power over the form of the papacy, which
is a divine institution created by Christ Himself.
However: 1) These are
not the statements of Benedict himself, and no individual can determine his
position without his public testimony (much less in contrary to it); 2) Only
the Church could decide if such a belief constituted legal “substantial error”;
3) Canonical issues become moot by the acceptance of Francis as Pope by a moral
unanimity of the Church, which did occur.
That, in a nutshell, is
why Barnhardt’s position is invalid. We’ll examine these three facets
now.
Ann argues that,
"Gänswein stated openly that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger [sic] considers
himself still to be a participant in the Petrine Ministry, which by his
'resignation' he 'expanded,' with his role being contemplative,' while his
successor’s role is 'active.' He further stated that Pope Benedict XVI
Ratzinger believes that his resignation was 'quite different' to that of Pope
Celestine V, and that it is specifically for this reason that Pope Benedict XVI
did NOT revert to his given name and continues to wear the papal white cassock
while living inside the Vatican Walls."
This is an accurate
summarization of Archbishop Gänswein’s comments, but, again, this was
Archbishop Ganswein, not Benedict XVI, speaking. (Note, for example, that
the Archbishop even contradicts Benedict XVI on at least one matter: The
wearing of papal white. What Ganswein states contradicts Benedict’s
repeated statements that he wears white out of “purely practical reasons.”[11] That was Benedict’s
position, regardless of one’s judgment of its sensibility. One dare not
construct theological reality based on interview hearsay.)
After correctly noting
that the “substantial error” clause is usually regarded as intending to cover
cases such as a prelate (the canon deals with resignations from ecclesiastical
office in general, not the papacy in particular) resigning over a mistaken
notion that he is required to do so,[12] Ann remarks:
"We now know what
‘substantial error’ is. Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger made a 'substantial
error' in believing that the papacy could be 'expanded' - in this case,
bifurcated into a diarchy. Pope Benedict XVI submitted an invalid
resignation not because he was coerced, but because he mistakenly believed and
continues to believe that he could at once resign, thus allowing for the
election of a successor, and yet still remain a Pope... and thus, according to
Canon 188, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s resignation of 28 February ARSH 2013
was 'invalid by the law itself,' and thus, he remains the one and only
Roman Pontiff, whether or not he believes it or likes it” (emphasis mine).
First, she places
beliefs upon her subject he has not publicly revealed – a clear violation of
the Catholic principle of non-judgment of the internal forum. Then, this
assumed, she presumes to declare that this belief would certainly (“we now know”)
meet the “substantial error” clause of the law, perhaps obvious to the fact
that such a matter of law could only be decided by the Church.
Ms. Barnhardt does not
cite a single canon lawyer or other authority in support of her
conclusion. This author wrote two American canon lawyers - one of them
very well-known and respected by traditional Catholics - who both expressed the
opinion that Ms. Barnhardt’s reasoning on this matter is not sound. The
burden of proof for her assertion falls on her, and she did not make an attempt
to provide any, nor cite any authority other than herself.
Others have stated,
based on the text of Benedict’s resignation itself, that Benedict did intend
what Archbishop Ganswein states above. However, this is, again, contrary
to what Father Benedict – which is how he has said he desires
to be addressed[13] - has consistently
stated publicly.
We know that Benedict
did have the intention to resign, as he has stated publicly
many times, even calling assertions that his resignation was deformed by
coercion or lack of true intent “absurd.”[14]
These things are matters
the Church might weigh in deciding if the resignation were invalid, but the
Church never had cause to even consider the question, which was rendered moot
in any case by its acceptance of Francis as pope. Ann’s argument that
Benedict’s resignation was not valid comes to nothing more than a naked assertion
– a judgment of law reserved to the Church but made by an individual - based on
the words of a third-party commentator.
That his resignation was
valid is the public position of the Church, and Catholic moral theology allows
an individual to deviate from the Church’s public judgment only when probable
doubt in the external forum exists. There is no such doubt here; all
“doubt” relies on speculation and hearsay outside the public forum or on
sources other than the subject.
From the theological
point of view, we must consider the public good of the Church, as that is a
factor the Church herself uses to settle matters of doubt in public fact.
The Church accepted Benedict’s resignation and accepted the election of Francis
as Pope – and, now, we are coming to the meat of the matter that really undoes
Ann’s position. Let us look at what the distinguished theologian Louis
Cardinal Billot had to say regarding what public acceptance of a pontiff by the
Church means:
“…the adhesion of the
universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the
legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all
the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look
far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the
infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against
it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church
to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith,
seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow
and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we
shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the
Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise
about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that
the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
Therefore, from the
moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the
head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible
vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for
legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the
root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the
required conditions” (emphasis mine).[15]
This quote packs a lot
of important information. The adhesion of the Church to a pope is an infallible sign
that he is a true pope, and God will not permit that
the Church as a whole follow a false pope. For God to allow such a thing
would clearly sow great harm in the Church – a level of harm the theologians
have decided is not possible.
(It might be argued that
greater harm than what Francis is doing now could scarcely be imagined.
This is naïve. Pope Francis, like the modernist popes he follows, has
made no attempt whatever to change doctrine – because he
cannot - instead making an end-run around it via heterodox praxis. This
is, indeed, gravely harmful to souls, but an antipopewould have no such
constraints. An antipope would be free to issue
“binding” doctrine, in formal language, undoing or declaring
absolutely anything. The fact that the post-conciliar pontiffs, including
Francis, have done no such thing, despite their quite apparent modernist
inclinations, is about as clear a sign of the Holy Ghost’s protection of the
True Church, as well as the confines of papal infallibility binding an actual
pope, as could be imagined.)
Furthermore, this
adhesion in itself “heals” any merely canonical obstacles
that may have stood in the way of a valid election (which, in this case, would
obviously include possible impediments to the validity of the resignation that
preceded the election).
There is no doubt that
the Church, on the whole, has “adhered” to Francis as Pope; we will below
explore in more detail the criteria thereof, but the vast majority
of the laity – and allof the episcopate (including the
Traditionalist bishops of the Society of St. Pius Xth) – have recognized
Francis as Pope since his election.
Ms. Barnhardt also
opines that the existence of the St. Gallen Group, "...adds to the overall
dataset indicating that something is terribly, terribly wrong..." While
this revelation was, indeed, disturbing (due to the corruption in the Church it
reveals), we see now that such canonical issues – if there were any[16] – were “healed in the
root” by Francis’ acceptance by the Church as pontiff.
Dogmatic Fact
As seen above, Ann’s
canonical argument falls apart when examined in light of the Church’s teachings
on dogmatic fact alone.
Explains Fr. E.
Sylvester Berry, in his dogmatic treatise on the Church, The Church Of
Christ:
“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 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” (emphasis mine).[17]
Fr. Berry here echoes
Cardinal Billot in stating that the acceptance of a pontiff by the Church makes
an infallible fact that the man is actually Supreme
Pontiff. Fr. Berry also clarifies what is meant by “adherence of the
universal Church” and similar phrases: What is necessary is moral unanimity
(essentially, a large majority; the Mind of the Church), which has certainly
been demonstrated in the case of Pope Francis.
Note also that a papacy
becomes a dogmatic fact as soon as this moral unanimity is
demonstrated, and, once brought into existence, is not subject to a subsequent
revision (facts are not undone). That is, as soon as the Church
(especially the episcopate) accepted Francis as pope immediately following his
election, his papacy became such a dogmatic fact.
Do not confuse moral
unanimity in acceptance of a pontiff with popularity, as some
indeed seem to. Such a dogmatic fact is not subject to the whims of
popular opinion; it does not waver when a pope who appears more akin to an
aging hippie than the Vicar of Christ gives another cringe-worthy interview on
an airplane, etc.
At this point, let me
pause to comment on the general character of the argument Ms. Barnhardt
makes. She suggests that due to a canonical irregularity, the man the
entire Church, and the world, treats as the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic
Church is really no such thing (and she determines this by her own judgment,
which we’ll get in to a bit later). Those who understand the purpose of
canon law – it exists in service of the Faith and is subordinate to divine law
– will recognize something inherently very wrong with such an argument.
To put it colloquially, this would be a case of the tail wagging the
dog. Canon law cannot rule the Church to the extent
that it makes ignorant slaves of the faithful (laity and clergy alike), in
effect tricking them into following a false pope.
(One of the many reasons
that Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledged the papacies of the post-conciliar popes
was that he recognized that these papacies were dogmatic facts: "But in
any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals
and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the
theologians."[18])
Bergoglio’s Litany of Heresies
Barnhardt now goes through a laundry list of materially erroneous (and, in some cases, possibly heretical) statements by Pope Francis, of which all are aware. No properly formed Catholic (certainly no traditional Catholic) doubts for an instant that Francis has been a terrible pope by any objective measure; calling him a “destroyer,” in reference to St. Francis’ prophecy above, seems fitting.
Ann, however, does not
appear to be making any real argument, or one she is specifically informing her
audience of in any case. Is her argument that no pope could make
materially erroneous (or heretical) statements? We know that is not
true. Is it that the sin of heresy severs a man from the
Body of the Church, and thus ecclesiastical office, or that “public” heresy as
judged by an individual does the same? These are both
sedevacantist errors – in fact, one or the other is the root error of virtually
every sedevacantist variant.
She does not say; she
states merely what she “hears” – in other words, what she feels. But this
is not relevant. The Church’s ecclesiastical offices are not regulated by
private opinions regarding prelates – including opinions regarding heresy –
much less vague, general, observations.
By Whose Authority?
“By Whose Authority Do I
Presume to Denounce Bergoglio?” Ann asks, rhetorically – and then answers by quoting
Scripture (and nothing else). Authoritative private
interpretation of Scripture is forbidden Catholics, especially in the case
where one is taking a position contrary to the Church’s public one. I do
not believe it is necessary to provide references for this assertion.
"The notion that we
laymen – the sheep – are NOT to listen and discern whose voice it is that we
hear is abject lunacy."
It seems Ann may not be
aware of the simple but critical difference between resisting material error
and formally separating from a prelate, or declaring that he does not hold the
office that the Church says he does. Though Ann objects strongly to being
called a sedevacantist – and she should, because she’s not a
sedevacantist (she believes there is a pope, somewhere) – the arguments and
mindset of sedevacantism permeate this essay. It is not necessary for
anyone to extend a judgment about any of Pope Francis’ statements to the
question of whether or not he is the Pope, as the Church says he is.
These things are unrelated.
And this is the very
crux of the difference between recognizing but resisting prelates who teach
error (the true Catholic position), and sedevacantism and its variants.
Ann comments further
that, "The notion that Bergoglio is 'non compos mentis' is a
fantasy. He contradicts himself because in his evil, warped mind,
contradiction is not only non-problematic, it is a valuable tactic to deceive,
confuse, obscure and provide so-called 'plausible deniability'”
Once again, the
Church does not judge internals – this is a maxim of the faith.
Now, for the record, I
also happen to believe that Pope Francis knows exactly what he’s doing; I don’t
think he’s mentally ill, incompetent, or anything of the sort. However, I
cannot have moral certainty that he intentionally and obstinately
rejects the Church as the rule of faith, which is the critical mark of
formal heresy according to the theologians. Even I had personal certainty
of this, there would be no relevance of that in regard to his
membership in the Body of Christ and thus his ecclesiastical office. (Again,
it’s not clear if Ann intends to assert that Francis isn’t the pope because
he’s a heretic, or his being a heretic proves he isn’t the pope, or neither,
or...)
Rebuttals
"I already know too
well what the responses to this will be, so I will answer them immediately to
save us all time.”
Yet, clearly – she
doesn’t. She doesn’t address at all the arguments that are most relevant
to her position:
· The
fact that the very first prophecy she produces as evidence contradicts her
thesis
· The
fact that the rest of the prophecies offer no evidence for her thesis
· The
fact that Catholics are not qualified to interpret canon law, prophecy,[19] or Scripture
authoritatively, or in a way contrary to the public judgment of the Church
· The
entire body of theological teaching on dogmatic fact and related matters
· The
fact that private judgment of heresy has no bearing on ecclesiastical office
While Ann is correct
that she is “not a sedevacantist,” if Pope Emeritus Benedict
XVI passes away this evening, she will discover that she’s become one by
morning. (Or will Francis’ invalid election suddenly become valid?)
Conclusion
Ms. Barnhardt’s approach
to this issue, in the large, smacks of the mindset of
sedevacantism, whether or not she is conscious of that (I suspect she is
not). The spirit of private judgment permeates her essay (to the extent
that she does even attempt to offer any justification for her position other
than her own interpretation of Scripture and prophecy), she feels free to judge
the internal forum of the pope (his soul), she argues – at least implicitly –
that he is a [formal] heretic (by her judgment, again) and thus somehow unable
to be joined to the form of the papacy; etc.
Though I wish to remain
as objective as possible, this essay by Ms. Barnhardt strikes me as much more a
product of the will than of the intellect. Is this position (which some
term francisvacantism) borne out of the belief (conscious or not)
that Benedict XVI was so vastly preferable a pontiff that we simply must hold
on to him at all costs?
This is, of course, a
fantasy. What Francis is doing in the moral sphere, Benedict XVI, John Paul
II, and Paul VI did with liturgy and theology. The fingerprints of
modernism are as plain on those aspects of the faith as they are on what
Francis is now “making a mess” with: Rupture, ambiguity, uncertainty, the
faithful confused and scandalized, etc.
The Vatican II Reign of
Novelty has enshrined ambiguity as the only true dogma. Francis did not
bake this cake, but is merely providing the icing. And it comes with a
blessing the enemy did not foresee: The peeling of the scales off the eyes of
many “conservative Catholics” who have somehow been able, until now, to believe
that all is right with the world.
And the truth,
uncomfortable though it may be to some, is that francisvacantism and
sedevacantism share the very same roots. It is a rather small step from
deciding, personally, that Francis is not really the pope due to issues of
canon law and “heresy,” as judged by the individual, to deciding
the very same thing about other pontiffs elected & accepted by the
Church. Because there was indeed a material rupture in 1965 (roughly
speaking), the dominoes fall relatively easily – in this mindset – up to John
XXIII. But, do not think that all stop there: Not by any means. (If
you doubt me, please devote some light reading time to the list of pontiffs that
Steven Speray and Richard Ibranyi have deposed.)
And this mindset undoes
the Church in an instant. If we cannot have moral certainty of the true
existence of pontificates, we have no certainty in anything the Church teaches,
since every dogma of the Church is promulgated by a pope indirectly (via an
ecumenical council) or directly. This is exactly why pontificates are
considered dogmatic facts.
More broadly, dwelling
on the ramifications of private judgment of ecclesiastical office (i.e.,
anarchy) will also impress upon the mind the reasons why an ecumenical council
of the Catholic Church anathematized any individual who would
formally separate from his bishop without a formal judgment from the Church.[20]
Hiding from the pope
won’t make him, or the crisis in the Church, go away. The proper path is
that which has always been the Catholic response to wayward prelates:
Recognizing the authority God has given to them while resisting their material
errors.[21]
[1] http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/06/19/vocem-alienorum-the-voice-of-antipope-francis-bergoglio-is-the-voice-of-a-stranger/
[3] St. Francis of Assisi, Works of the Seraphic
Father St. Francis Of Assisi (R. Washbourne, 1882), 148-150
[4] St. Padre Pio called St. Francis the greatest saint of
all time after the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph
[5] As Cardinal Ciappi famously remarked regarding the
still-hidden portion of the Third Secret of Fatima
[10] http://aleteia.org/2016/05/30/complete-english-text-archbishop-georg-gansweins-expanded-petrine-office-speech/
[11] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/benedict-rejects-rumors-on-why-he-resigned-as-simply-absurd/2014/02/26/445f27ee-9f03-11e3-878c-65222df220eb_story.html?utm_term=.9c70d6126567
[13] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/the-request-of-a-retired-pope-simply-call-me-father-benedict-49952/
[14] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/benedict-rejects-rumors-on-why-he-resigned-as-simply-absurd/2014/02/26/445f27ee-9f03-11e3-878c-65222df220eb_story.html?utm_term=.9c70d6126567
[15] Cardinal Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi,
Vol. I, p612-613, as quoted in John Salza & Robert Siscoe, True Or
False Pope? (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2015) p382-383
[16] Canon law in effect (then and now, via Universi
Dominici gregis) states that, “No Cardinal elector can be excluded from active
or passive voice in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, for any reason or
pretext…”
[17] E. Sylvester Berry, STD, The Church Of Christ:
An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009),
p290
[20] The Fourth Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: “…
this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that
no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his
own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he
alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must
not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or
offices.” As quoted in Salza & Siscoe, True Or False Pope, p207
