“Rome’s” Final Pope? Benedict XVI Written Text of Part Two, Chapter’s One – Three

Part Two:

Broken Laws, Fear of Wolves and the “Inviolable Rock”

“Pray for me that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

~Pope Benedict’s words during his April 24th, 2005, speech~

Chapter 1: Fear of the wolves

“However, many of the chief men also believed in Him; but because of the pharisees they did not confess Him, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.”

Unfortunately, even though many already know and secretly believe, after seeing all the evidence I am about to show you, that Pope Benedict XVI is the only reigning pope, due to their fear of men, rather than fear and love of God, will not speak openly about the subject if it will jeopardize their human respect, cozy position of authority or their job. When I left the Discalced Carmelites, do you remember when I relayed how a powerful book fell in my hands not a month later? That book was The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still the Pope? However, I found out later that Socci’s original title was “he is still the pope” but Angelico Press would not publish it unless it was changed to a question rather than a statement. More proof that there is politics involved and in order to move forward, compromise was accepted. Socci was confident enough, “by the Law itself” and the overwhelming amount of evidence, that Benedict IS the pope and that is why the original title did not bother asking. I have had a traditional priest ask me in the past, after the publishing of our other book The Practice of the Presence of Mary: “who is your imprimatur?” (License of the Catholic Church to publish). As a former Discalced Carmelite and now aspiring Carmelite Hermitess, I can tell you that obedience and receiving permission from one with authority to read our work and approve it is a must. However, considering the unique times in which we are living, I am reminded of Our Lady’s words at Akita of “the Church will be full of those who accept compromise”. This message is so dire that if the only way I can publish this work is to do so independently, without an imprimatur, is because of the following reasons:

What imprimatur is not accepting compromise? What imprimatur is listening to one Voice? What imprimatur is not politically correct? What Imprimatur will let me speak the whole truth?

These are sincere questions and if you can point me to one who attends exclusively the Latin Mass, knows the dangers of the New, and believes Pope Benedict is the only reigning pope since April 19th, 2005 and is not afraid to speak it out loud, I am all ears; please point me to them so they can endorse this book for the kingdom of God and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. But until that day comes, I do not want to be held accountable on the day of my individual judgement for burying Our Lord’s talent, like the rest of the effeminates in the Church, when I could have been sounding the alarm. Again, there is a difference between prudence and fear. A gift of the Holy Ghost we must consider on this point as well is wisdom. Wisdom “is an illumination of the Holy Ghost, thanks to which our intellect is able to look at revealed truths in their more sublime light…”. [1] If we can hold a clear conception of reality, and see God’s Laws as precise rather than ambiguous, the fruit of this will be the ability to exercise good judgment, even in adversity. If we have a higher fear of men than of God, we have an examination of conscience that needs to be made; and immediately. Fear is clearly in the air and as Ann said, it has been for the last fifty years. Speaking of fear, let us go right into the canon below:

Can. 188 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.[2]

Out of those three reasons we will not be looking at simony[3], because as far as we can tell, it does not apply in this case. In this chapter we will be focusing on fear. Dr. Edmund Mazza made a remarkable comment about how the then Joseph Ratzinger during the time of the pontificate of Pope Paul VI referred to the papacy as a “cross”. So, in his February 27th, 2013, speech, I think it is no coincidence that Benedict said: “I am not abandoning the ‘cross’[papacy], but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord.” Accepting compromise by slapping the fancy term “in a new way” onto the situation is really just another word for fear, is it not? A few days after Pope Benedict’s election, on April 24th, 2005, look what he had to say about wolves:

“Pray for me, that I may learn to love His flock more and more – in other words, you, the holy Church, each one of you and all of you together. Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

When the highest prelates in the Church say, “there is no real evidence of fear”, we show them Benedict’s words and then they switch their answer to: “it’s hard to measure fear”. Then there is “Benedict resigning is proof he was not coerced” or “if Bergoglio’s Motu Proprio document of banning the Latin Mass is produced, it is proof Jorge is pope”. These answers prove to me one thing: something is disordered in their mind. Either they are the wolves working for Satan or they are the “just” who’s intellects have been clouded from proper reason (hence, why the Holy Ghost’s gift of wisdom is so important). The former is a given; we know there are wolves from within and we will expand on that in this chapter, but I think the latter is worse. Because even if these just and devout members of the clergy, religious or laity are sincere leaders or members of the flock who love Christ the King, they truly have been blinded. I know I have said this at least three times now, but I will say it again: “to deceive (if possible) even the elect”. When Benedict himself said, “pray for me that I may not flee for fear of the wolves” from the very beginning of his pontificate, we are expected to take those words seriously. Especially when they come from the mouth of the Roman Pontiff. When we in-turn ask the “experts”, canon lawyers and “thought-leaders” “why did he ask for prayers specifically for fear of wolves if he did not mean it or if he was not coerced?” The grievous reply of: “oh he did not mean that, he was just saying fancy words in a speech” is cringeworthy. If it is the wolves in sheep’s clothing saying that statement, that is easy to shrug off because they are hirelings to begin with, but for the faithful to be saying such things? Father Gruner was absolutely right when he spoke of a “diabolical disorientation”[4]:

Diabolical disorientation, on the other hand, is when a person is disoriented by various tricks of the devil. These diabolical tricks are not simply a kind of possession portrayed on television and in the movies. The devil, the purveyor of diabolical disorientation, manages often to give the targeted person a perception quite different from reality and yet, the person so diabolically disorientated is convinced what he thinks is the truth when it is actually a lie.

There are two major ways we can stay clear of the devil’s deceptions:

  1. Devotion to Mary; not just a small devotion, nay! I mean a true and constant love. An unwavering loyalty to Mary our Mother, Queen and Best Friend. Saint Louis de Montfort said that those who have a true devotion to Her will NEVER be led astray by the Devil.
  2.  Our Lord’s words to the mighty Saint Catherine of Siena: “Do you know, dear daughter, who you are, and who I AM? You are she who is not, and I AM, instead, THE ONE WHO IS. Never forget this, and you will never be deceived by the enemy.” 

I do not think it was too bold of Father Gruner to thereafter say, the result of this disorientation is “the blind are leading the blind” (Matthew 15:14). When I tell you that this diabolical disorientation is an illness, that is no hyperbole. I have sat down with some of the holiest priests and bishops who are so convinced at what they say and believe are true, no matter how convincing my argument may be, that nothing, and I mean nothing, will change their mind. A thick fog seems to be surrounding their judgement and proper reason. Those who have seen this behavior in action know exactly what I mean. Some will even laugh at you and that is the most twisted part of the disorientation; nothing is worse than this laughter coming from the just. Sometimes it looks like they need an exorcism of some sort just to liberate their intellects…

So, in terms of the fear with Benedict, I am not forming my own opinions, which in this particular case of the papacy, I am not entitled to, but I am entitled to commenting on the facts, which canon law says: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice is invalid by the Law itself.”

Notice how it does not say “invalid by the college of cardinals”: BY THE LAW ITSELF. Who is the Law, again? None other than Jesus Christ Crucified, Who, is the only One Who can say, “I am the Law”. This time it is not a picture of Rocky Balboa, but the Lamb of God. Malice is a great way to introduce the subject of the evidence of fear. And malice goes hand in hand with the wolves, because it was indeed the wolves inflicting this malice. For starters, our proof lies with the words of Ratzinger himself, just days into his pontificate: “fear”, “flee” and “wolves”. Now it is time to demonstrate this fear to readers because even though we have testimony coming from his own mouth, there is still a whirlpool of proof.

Evidence of fear due to malice, food poisoning and death threats by foreign powers and wolves from within the bosom of Holy Mother Church:


  • Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos Notified Pope Benedict of a threat to his life announced in China by Cardinal Romeo ONE YEAR TO THE DAY BEFORE Ratzinger announced his attempted bifurcation of the papacy. Read Ann Barnhardt’s description of the threat from May, 2022:

Cardinal Zen is now under arrest. The head of the Vatican Police, Domenico Giani, has been fired; the Chinese Catholics have been back-stabbed and sold out to the Chinese Communist Party; it has been revealed that the Chi Comms have bought the Vatican for $2 Billion per year and that the Vatican is actively facilitating the Chinese colonization of Italy; Oh, and there is that small matter of the entire Church being put under de facto interdict due to a fake panic over a seasonal cold virus that originated in China.  And that’s just a very, very short list.  The point is, two and a half years has added tremendous context to this information.

Here is the algorithmic translation of a news story detailing a death threat against Pope Benedict, announced by Cardinal Romeo while on a trip to China, that was delivered to Pope Benedict, his Secretary of State, AND Domenico Giani by Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, which appeared in Il Fatto Quotidiano, an Italian newspaper, on 10 February, ARSH 2012 – one year to the day BEFORE Pope Benedict announced his canonically invalid partial abdication.[5]

Note that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was ALREADY blowing the whistle on corruption, even back in ARSH 2011-2012.  And we all wonder why +Viganò is in hiding for fear of his life.

Also note that the point is made in this piece that even Pope Benedict’s so-called “ally”, Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, hated Pope Benedict and wanted him out.  Talk about being surrounded [wolves?].

I find it so very, very odd that pretty much everyone takes it for granted that Domenico Giani’s “resignation” was clearly coerced and involuntary, but the same people argue that it is categorically impossible that Pope Benedict was coerced in any way.  Between this and the Vatican being thrown off the SWIFT money transfer system… Well, it seems as close to obvious as you can get.



Mordkomplott. “Death Plot”. It is impressive to read black and white on a strictly confidential and confidential document, published exclusively by the fact that an authoritative Cardinal, the Archbishop of Palermo, Paolo Romeo, predicts the Pope’s death by November 2012 with alarming certainty. The security with which it was predicted, suggests to the cardinal’s interlocutors the existence of a plot to kill Benedict XVI. The note is anonymous and bears the date of December 30, 2011. It was delivered by the Colombian Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos to the secretariat of state and to the Pope’s secretary in the first days of January (2012) with the suggestion to carry out investigations to understand exactly what he did and with whom the Archbishop Romeo spoke in China.

The Pope was informed of the content of the memo in mid-January last directly by Cardinal Castrillon during a private hearing and the Pope must have made a jump in the chair. The document opens with a premise in capital letters: “Strictly confidential”. Probably the men who take care of the Pope’s security – starting with the Vatican Gendarmerie led by the former Italian secret service agent, Domenico Giani – are trying to verify the circumstances in which those terrible predictions and their credibility were pronounced. It has always been rumored about the Vatican conspiracies and many books have been written on the suspicious death of John Paul I first. Here, however, we are faced with an absolute novelty. No one had ever written down the hypothesis of a conspiracy to kill the Pope. A plot that could take place from now until next November and which is inserted in the document in a disturbing analysis of the divisions within the Church that they see opposed the Pope and the Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone on the eve of an alleged succession, which we hope will instead be far away in time.

The Fatto has already published on February 4 (2012) the letter of the Nuncio in the United States, Carlo Maria Viganò , former secretary of the Governorate of the Vatican City, in which the archbishop formulated very serious accusations about corruption, thefts and false invoices inside the walls Leonine and accused Monsignor Paolo Nicolini , director of the Vatican Museums, of alleged crimes. Then we published an exclusive document on the Aif-Uif reports that documented the Vatican’s decision not to provide bank information prior to April 2011 to the anti-money laundering authorities. Now we discover a document in which we speak without hesitation of certain death of the Pope and we are even told of a possible plot to kill the Pope.[6]

Poison (more fear of malice)

  • In 2012, Antonio Socci reported, Pope Benedict was having his food checked for poison. “The historical reference made by Benedict to Pius XII, who, in 1944 knowing that he was at risk of being deported by the Germans who then occupied Rome, wrote a letter of resignation that would go into effect if such a terrible thing happened. Various newspapers asked what could be the reason for this reference to a pope threatened by the Nazis: by whom did Benedict feel threatened? Even the Huffington Post ran an article about the letter with the headline: ‘I Am Like Pius XII Persecuted by the Nazis.’[7] A reference was made to “an episode reported by Der Spiegel in May, 2015, according to which Benedict was worried about being poisoned, so much so that, in October 2012, a few months before his resignation, the president of the state office of criminal investigations of Bavaria supposedly went to Rome to investigate any lapses of security in preparation for the pope’s food.”[8] In the first few pages of Cardinal Sarah’s book The Power of Silence, notice Benedict’s odd quote of “it is better to be silent and to be, then to speak and not to be”. Meaning, if he becomes contemplative pope rather than do the “governance of the Church”, at least he is alive? Is that what he is saying? How is this stuff going unnoticed? These hints of Ratzinger’s are found in the most obscure places and yet, nobody is saying anything about it- this especially includes the just. Other statements are found, like Edgar Allan Poe’s purloined letter, in plain site; for example, look at Benedict’s “last” public address:

“I no longer bear the power of office FOR THE GOVERNANCE of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict whose name I BEAR AS POPE, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” Socci concludes his chapter with, “it is well known that the holy monk was called several times to take charge of various communities as abbot, but they repeatedly tried to poison him, and so he went back to being a hermit.”


  • Ann Barnhart reposts Life Site News post and comments:

Archbishop Viganò unloads on the dirty, lying, gaslighting manipulator and jailer Georg Gänswein, calls Pope Benedict “the Sovereign Pontiff”. Present tense singular.

Here’s the full letter in Italian. This link is also very good as a photo essay demonstrating Gänswein’s ubiquitous presence. Pretty much everything that happens in the Vatican is brokered through and physically stage-managed by Gänswein.

The letter to the editor of La Verità newspaper, from +Viganò, still in hiding for fear of his life, opens thusly:

Caro direttore,

è tempo di rivelare il controllo abusivamente e sistematicamente esercitato da monsignor Georg Gänswein nei confronti del sommo Pontefice Benedetto XVI, fin dall’ inizio del suo pontificato. Gänswein filtrava abitualmente le informazioni, arrogandosi il diritto di giudicare lui stesso quanto fosse opportuno o meno far pervenire al Santo Padre.

Dear director,

it is time to reveal the abusive and systematic control exercised by Monsignor Georg Gänswein against the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, since the beginning of his pontificate. Gänswein routinely filtered the information, claiming the right to judge for himself how appropriate or not it should be sent to the Holy Father.

Note the VERY present tense: “the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, since the beginning of his pontificate.”

Oh, and isn’t THIS interesting from Viganò‘s letter:

He [+Harvey] then added that, at the beginning of his pontificate, Benedict XVI, indicating Gänswein to him with his index finger, exclaimed: “Gestapo! Gestapo!”

This unscrupulous attitude was revealed from the very beginning of his pontificate, also in the determination with which Gänswein managed to distance from the pope his precious assistant and secretary, Ingrid Stampa, whom then-cardinal Ratzinger had wanted at his side for well over a decade after the death of his sister Maria Ratzinger.

Furthermore, it is known that to escape this total control exercised over his person by Gänswein, Pope Benedict often went to visit his previous special secretary, Bishop Josef Clemens, inviting Ingrid Stampa to these familial gatherings.

If a Cardinal were to hold a press conference and make the following statement, the world would change instantly. There would be DOZENS of Cardinals crawling out of the woodwork to support the removal of the CRIMINAL USURPER Antipope Jorge Bergoglio.

All that would need to be said would be something like:

“Significant canonical irregularities have been identified with regards to the putative resignation proffered by Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013. Pending further investigation, a state of emergency suspense is hereby declared.”

Or something in that general vein. Pull the emergency brake. It’s that simple. Do that, and everything changes. Instantly.


Act, and God will act.

By now, if you have been reading this space, you can probably recite from memory Canon 188:

Can. 188 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.[9]

  • Our Lady of Fatima and Akita said the great apostacy in the Church would begin at the top. Most of we Catholics believe these apparitions because they are approved by the Church; yet, when they start happening before our eyes how many members of the flock say, “no… this is not possible.” Well not only is it POSSIBLE, but it is happening as I write this, and has been the Freemasonic goal since 1717. Doctor Taylor Marshall talks about this infiltration… in his book Infiltration because indeed Sodomite pedophiles, Free Masons and satanist became “priests” to destroy the Church from within. Ann Barnhardt also added the question to her Let’s Play… What a Difference Ten Years Makes of:

Do you believe that satan, working through Freemasonry and global Communism is at war with and trying to destroy the Catholic Church by attacking the Papacy?


TRAD INC. PARTISANS TODAY:  Shut up, stupid crazy conspiracy theorist!! That’s CRAZY![10]

That complete 180 is a direct result of the “diabolical disorientation” I spoke of in the introduction of this “fear chapter”. I will speak more about this “law” seen below, found in the Free Mason handbook, in the upcoming chapters but it is always worth speaking about more than once:

In Ann’s videos (part one and part two on the current state of the papacy[11]) she spent an entire segment on the Italian Mafia being in cahoots with the sodomite “priests”, satanists, Saint Gallen Mafia and Free Masons. She said “never underestimate the viciousness and violence of the sodomite. Satanism is real and its global nexus today is inside the Vatican. Archbishop Viganò is in hiding for fear of his life. The Southern Italian Mafia, longtime mercenaries of the Free Masons and sodomites[12], are very much in the pocket. Fear of blackmail by the sodomite mafia using PAID false witnesses (male prostitutes) to be used on the innocent”, rather than the guilty priests. Are we not seeing this unfold at this very moment with zealous and holy Latin Mass priests, right now? I can name a few. The holy are imprisoned and the guilty are promoted or simply sent to another parish to continue their perversion. Their goal is to silence the holy and forever ruin their reputation. Fear of blackmail on the innocent is most pertinent in the case of Pope Benedict XVI. So, after all that has been laid at your feet, are the words of Joseph Ratzinger, agenda of the Chinese communist party, evidence of death threats, checking food for poison, an Italian Mafia, sodomites, Free Masons, Saint Gallen Mafia, satanists and Carlo Maria Viganò in hiding for fear of his life and fear of black mail still not enough for you to believe that the word I have underlined twice in this sentence, even now not at play? “It’s hard to measure fear” they will tell you; well, not in the case of Pope Benedict XVI and if you can honestly read through those above bullet points and say, “there is no fear ‘inflicted unjustly’ or malice in this case” with a straight face, then with all due honor and respect, this below image is your current state of mind, and it is what Father Gruner so brilliantly called “diabolical disorientation”:

Just fear verses Unjust fear

In conclusion, in Jacinta’s vision of seeing a future Holy Father weeping in a “very large house”, I know what you must be thinking: “we have not seen Pope Benedict weeping and people throwing stones at him (yet).” Something that struck me was Our Lady of Fatima on October 13th, 1917, taking on the appearance of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows. One of the promises of Our Lord for developing a devotion to His Mother’s Sorrowful Heart is “true contrition for sins before death”. It does not end here:

Our Lady’s Five Promises of the Seven Sorrows Rosary

1.) With the recitation of the Seven Sorrows Rosary, the hardest hearts shall change, if you pray it for yourself or for others.

2.) By the recitation of the Seven Sorrows Rosary, you shall be freed from obsessions and addiction.

3.) This Rosary, when said from the heart, will obtain for the soul true repentance of sins and free them from guilt and remorse.

4.) Those who say it often, especially as recommended by Our Lady to Marie Claire [Kibeho visionary], on Tuesdays and Fridays, shall obtain clear understanding of their weaknesses and flaws, causing them to sin. In short, Our Lady reveals the soul’s greatest defect, which is found at the center, surrounded by all the other faults.

5.) You shall obtain whatever you ask for through this Rosary, praying this Rosary from the heart.

(The answer to cleansing the papacy of Pope Benedict lies in the Seven Sorrows of Mary. Is not this why She appeared as the Sorrowful Mother at Fatima? May we offer constant prayer that Pope Benedict be freed from any obsessions from the evil one, have fear of God rather than fear of wolves and repent of his substantial error, free him from guilt and remorse which will give him the grace to act before it is too late).

The power of the Seven Sorrows of Mary can give a soul the grace to repent and be truly sorry for their sins, even if “prayed for another”. If we storm heaven with Seven Sorrows Rosaries for Pope Benedict XVI, we might just see him begin to weep and repent. He could quite possibly be rid of, once and for all, his fear of wolves and replace it with fear and love of God, which perhaps, could give him the courage to reveal the Third Secret and tell the world he is in fact the only reigning pope, even if that is all he has time to accomplish like Father Gruner predicted. This will at least set in motion the grace needed for a proper consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart because then Benedict’s canonically and validly elected successor could have the proper authority to do so. There is a reason why the Seven Sorrows of Mary is so fittingly known as “Patron of Exorcists”; Mary has the authority to drive demons out of souls, liberate and cleanse them with Her tears. Who else ONLY has this very same authority? Christ’s Catholic priests. Our Lady’s Sorrowful Heart is connected to the papacy and the Chair of Peter is in desperate need of an exorcism. There is nothing too great, too far gone, that Mary cannot win for the Kingdom of God. Remember these words of Our Lady to Sister Lucia, four years after having entered Carmel: “Make it known to the Holy Father that I am always awaiting the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without this Consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor the world have peace.” Our Lord LOVES the repentant sinner, He is smitten for the sheep that was lost and eventually found; in short, Our Lord is a loving Father who “will bring hither the fatted calf” and rejoice by saying, “for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found.”[13] May this, God-willing, be the hopeful destiny of Pope Benedict XVI.

Chapter 2: “A synthesis of truth and error produces only error.”

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. ~2 Timothy 4:3~

1+1=2.5 (error)

Truth + error= error

Truth + truth= truth

1+1=2 (truth)

Canon 188: 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.

I must stress from the beginning: there are two sides of people to the substantial error argument, and both believe Benedict is pope:

  1. Those who believe Pope Benedict “outfoxed” the wolves by being contemplative pope and is a hero in the eyes of the Church because he is secretly planning to expose the Bergoglian anti-papacy.
  2. Those who believe Pope Benedict not only committed grave substantial error by his attempted bifurcation of the papacy, but he fled the flock of Christ.


I am in the number two category, along with Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Doctor Edmund Mazza and Ann Barnhart; here is why:

ALL, and I mean ALL of this could have been avoided if Pope Benedict XVI would have consecrated Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF HIS PONTIFICATE. When people speak of some of our past popes spanning from now to 1929 (official day Our Lord requested the consecration of Russia) being heroes, but failed to obey the commands of heaven by SILENCING the great Mother of God in hiding Her Third Secret or not consecrating Russia properly, there is an obedience problem. Do you see my point?

If Benedict has some secret master plan to supposedly save the flock and expose the “deep Church”, is he forgetting that “only She can help you”? Victory, an era of peace and “in the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph” is the PUBLIC master plan, if you will, and so again, if Benedict perhaps thinks his plan is better than that of heaven, who, is choosing Mary to crush the head of the serpent then my point is only proven that Pope Benedict XVI needs to repent of not only error but pride. Do not mistake me in saying that Pope Benedict is not good or holy in other respects, but at the end of it all “let your answers be ‘yes’ for ‘yes’ and ‘no’ for ‘no’, everything else is from the evil one.”[14] The faithful are confused by the “pope emeritus” papacy are they not? So, quite frankly, no, I do not believe Joseph Ratzinger is a hero; I do not believe he outfoxed anyone (Our Lord is not looking for smarts, He is demanding obedience); I do not believe he has “fundamentally transformed the papacy” and lastly, I do not believe he is merely “standing by the cross in a NEW way”. When John Henry interviewed Patrick Coffin on Life Site News YouTube Channel, God bless Coffin for certainly speaking up about Benedict being the pope, but like Antonio Socci’s point of view which we will discuss in this chapter, Coffin stated that he firmly believes Benedict being the genius that he is, became contemplative pope because he “outfoxed” the wolves.

This… is too confusing; if people, though good and holy, accept this farce, then I believe this is diabolical disorientation being done again on the faithful, but this time the devil is making those like Socci and Coffin believe Benedict is a hero rather than in error. And John Henry made an excellent point when he countered Coffin and reminded viewers that we must consider all the people who died believing Bergoglio to be pope and perhaps followed him in his error. And when souls try to counter this with “God’s not going to care on your individual judgement who the pope is”, remember that canon law 751 says that the standard of schism IS the Roman Pontiff; so, who is and who is not the pope, matters. The Chair of Saint Peter is the visible sign Christ has left for His Church and if it did not matter, the standard of schism would not be solely the Roman Pontiff; think about that! “How many people have been led astray, accepted heresy and easy sin, and gone to their eternal reward in such condition? I will tell you how many: 70 MILLION. That’s how many Catholics have died in the last nine years, two months” said a reader on Barnhardt’s blog. Reflect on the number of souls lost by Benedict risking such a plan as this; Saint John Eudes once repeated St. Gregory the Great’s words of “priests and pastors will stand condemned before God as the murderers of any souls lost through neglect or silence”[15]. Did you see that? SILENCE. Priests are the shepherds, so how much more will Pope Benedict, THE Vicar of Christ be held responsible: more so than the average priest.

As I ended our fear chapter, I of course pray that Pope Benedict will repent of his errors, weep and see him “come to life again”, daily and it is my main prayer intention. Even though he has, as I will demonstrate below, errored in his mind, I will never cease praying for him, as a little sheep, because I love him deeply as the Vicar of Christ. But right now, I look all around me and what do I see? Dozens and dozens of faithful lambs (the elect) following a hireling in disguise of a shepherd with a look of disorientation, confusion and fear in their eyes, and I want them to know that Our Lord has not abandoned them. Again, this could have been avoided if Benedict was obedient to God from the very beginning of his pontificate with consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I would also take this moment to gently caution those who fall under the number one category of Benedict outfoxing wolves, because choosing Pope Benedict’s supposed secret plan over Our Lady of Fatima’s remedy of consecration, which is a command from heaven, is a recipe for disaster. It will not be Pope Benedict’s “great reset” that will restore the Church, it will be the triumph of the Immaculate Heart; a Heart, destined for victory in this age of Mary. Our Lord told Sister Lucia that He wants the whole Church to recognize the consecration of Russia as Our Lady’s triumph. THAT is the peace plan; hold tight to that and keep doing your First Saturday devotion.

Now onto Substantial error! The same people who said, “it is hard to measure fear” (even after all that evidence shown in the last chapter, and then some) will tell you “One cannot really define error”. Since when? Those retorts sound like the ones who no longer “endure sound doctrine” as Saint Paul foresaw. Do not those answers sound like the thief who climbs through the window rather than through the door? Error is definable and it is indeed recognizable (just as sin is perceptible to the pure of heart); Our Lord Himself taught His flock to distinguish the difference between truth and error. One of Ann Barnhardt’s readers sent her the question of “can substantial error be objectively demonstrated?” Barnhardt dedicated an entire blog post for her answer, but the short of it was this:

Answer: Of course it can. Why would Canon Law specifically provide for it if it were impossible to identify and demonstrate? That would be irrational.

What does Substantial Error mean?

Ignorance or misjudgment about the essential nature, main terms, or principal motive of the object of an act (in our case, the object is the attempted failed resignation).

I do not know how I missed this, but one day it struck like lightening (likened to the day Pope Benedict announced his “resignation” and lightning struck the dome of Saint Peter’s, not once, but twice mind you) what another precise definition of substantial error is. We have already discussed it in the previous chapter, but it must be the Divine Providence at work:

Diabolical disorientation, on the other hand, is when a person is disoriented by various tricks of the devil. These diabolical tricks are not simply a kind of possession portrayed on television and in the movies. The devil, the purveyor of diabolical disorientation, manages often to give the targeted person a perception quite different from reality and yet, the person so diabolically disorientated is convinced what he thinks is the truth when it is actually a lie.

If the devil made/is making Benedict believe his error is actually truth and of God, rather than error and various “tricks” in disguise, then this certainly is an affirmable definition, and this error, or “misjudgment”, is happening as we speak. The simple-minded look for simple answers; those of high intellect have a tendency to make things complicated. Barnhardt once said that the ones who have the greatest minds, intellects and IQs often make the biggest mistakes; she talked about Lucifer and many of the angels found up in the higher ranks of the hierarchy and how they let their “status” get the better of them; once the highest, they are now found in the lowest pits of hell. Lucifer, once an angel of light is now a demon of darkness. She then immediately compared this to Pope Benedict XVI. IQ wise, Joseph Ratzinger is a genius, and as Barnhardt explained, most German’s are, and the higher the intellect, the greater the capability to error. I myself, though I have a MUCH lower IQ, was almost tempted to believe Benedict’s error, which I will display in this chapter, as truth rather, and from God because of the way it was presented, and so I fell in the number one category for months (believe it or not).

Yes, I too thought Benedict had some genius master plan and that, he “outfoxed the wolves”. It was presented by Antonio Socci in such a way, bless his heart because I respect him very much as a journalist, that I thought the error was truth, as well. I did not believe he feared any wolves, but that he had a secret plan of some sort. Does not that sound like, “For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears”? “Their own desires” is the root of Benedict’s error and it has now spread into some of the most traditional communities in the Church, where, canon law is being applied left and right to defend the Latin Mass, but it is ambiguous when it comes to the papacy. Are we forgetting that the foundation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Holy Mother Church is the rock of Peter? How it must break our Great God’s Heart to see this Chief Foundation Stone, which is really Himself sharing His power with Peter, seen as a simple stone with next to little worth. No rock of Peter, no solid foundation; this is the devil’s war with the Petrine See. Some of the biggest arguments from the other side, when you present Canon Law 188, is “oh, that Law doesn’t mean what you think it means”. These are the thieves that climb in through the window. Our Lord is the God of simplicity, and He created His Laws to be understood by children as well as patriarchs. This is the devil’s attempt to get Our Lord’s sheep to second guess themselves, the goodness of the Shepherd and it is also a fear tactic; it works on the weak and innocent who might not have the courage to put up a fight. Especially when they are speaking with a cleric. I know this intimidation, but you must remain firm in your love for the Law and will to defend it; what you are really doing is defending God Himself.

Countless times in the Gospels Our Lord tells us that the MAIN way we can show Him we love Him is by obeying His commandments. Remember, Our Lord is the Law, and the meaning NEVER changes to fit the “desires” of the times. For example, “thou shalt not bear false witness” is meant to endure forever: “as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be”. Notice how it does not also say, “but thou canst bear false witness if the truth hurts someone’s feelings” (modern language would call that a white lie). We are indeed seeing these conditions added to other Laws and this is where error is seeping its way into the hearts of man. No, a lie is a lie. All over scripture Our Lord lays forth a clear visible path with following His commandments and now some of the highest prelates in the Church are either treating them like suggestions or adding on their own conditions. Last I checked, error has no rights. If the Shepherd’s Voice is discernable, so are His Laws understandable. If they were complicated, how could we follow them? How was this error presented to me? In none other than Antonio Socci’s book: The Secret of Benedict. When I first read Socci’s work, promoted by Father Nicholas Gruner, Socci demonstrates the broken canon laws that indeed would make a resignation invalid. But the problem I hold now with Antonio is that he believes Benedict’s “bifurcation of the papacy” occurred and the tone of the work tended to praise Ratzinger for his actions.

 It is essentially saying that breaking these canon laws, substantial error in particular, was allowed by God as a sort of “state of exception” and that, we can accept this error as well. This notion was presented in such a way that for two solid years I went about Benedict’s misjudgment as not error, but truth. What was this “diabolical disorientation”? Below I will demonstrate MANY broken canon laws and as Ann said, substantial error can, and is, being subjectively demonstrated. I am sad to say that this is the case, but at the end of it all I am actually grateful that it is, because now we can have no scruple that “by the Law itself” Benedict’s attempted, partial invalid “resignation” is null. And it has been null, and reverted to the status quo (Benedict being pope, whether he likes it or knows it or not) the moment after the words left his lips on February 11th, 2013. The “canonical irregularities”, Viganò said need to be investigated, are not to be found in a faux conclave to “elect” Jorge Bergoglio; nay, they are found in the words and misjudgments of none other than Pope Benedict XVI, visibly demonstrated weeks prior to Bergoglio’s wannabe conclave. By the Law itself, a conclave for a new Supreme Pontiff cannot be called while the See is still occupied (again, whether Benedict knows or likes it or not). The Law does not depend on our likes and dislikes, but reason, common sense and logic. This error only becomes more potent when multiple other canon laws are broken, shown below, in order for the “pope emeritus papacy” to exist (even though it does not really exist, Benedict just thinks it does).

Broken Canon Laws

There is a video[16] of Father Gruner, which the Fatima Center slyly removed (Yes, I have carefully thought this through, and I believe sly to be the accurate term), after his death. In this video, link found in our footnotes, Gruner said,

Canon law 332.2 states that in order to renounce the papacy, the pope must renounce the munus. Benedict said, “I am not renouncing the munus”. Whatever he was doing, he was not resigning from the papacy.

Father in that same video discussed how at the Te Igitur of the Mass, where a name for a Holy Father and bishop of the diocese is inserted, he prayed for Pope Benedict XVI alone. He was convinced of this primarily because of Canon Law 332; he did not even mention Canon Law 188; 332 was enough for him. Because “this whole idea that we can have two popes” is a fiction. The “N and N” found at the Canon of the Mass is not for two popes; it is ONE Holy Father and the bishop of your diocese. In the back of this book, found after the epilogue, I have created five very important files: Benedict Files, Ganswein (secretary to both Benedict and Bergoglio) Files, John Paul II Files, Ann Barnhardt Files and Misc. Files. These are to be read at your own leisure and to be used as references throughout the evidence presented. The first two are compiled of Benedict’s speeches about the wolves and “his not renouncing the munus”, and the Ganswein Files are composed of his interview at the Gregorian University where he assures the faithful that “Pope Benedict has transformed the office of the papacy” and even compared it to the Immaculate Conception (if you can believe that). I will be inserting some important lines in this chapter that show you this error in the light, but I would also urge you to flip to the back files and read those speeches in full; they have been missed or ignored by Catholics all across the board and that is a travesty. There are pertinent lines in those speeches that I have underlined, and that is the evidence of substantial error, or should I more appropriately call it, diabolical disorientation being “objectively demonstrated.” Half of this book is composed of files; the actual book is not as long as one would think as it ends on page 249. However, I knew it was equally important to include these files that contain a mountain of evidence that has been buried and rather than the reader stopping to put down this book to go to the internet to find these documents, you only need to flip to the back. You might want to have two bookmarks: one for the book and the other for the files!

Munus verses Ministry

Ann Barnhardt sums it up well with Benedict’s view of office (munus) vs. ministry:

 THE PAPACY IS IMMUTABLE:  This means that the Papacy cannot be changed from the Monarchical form established by Jesus Christ Himself. This error of “demythologization” is the soil from which Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s Substantial Error of February ARSH 2013 grew, and is how it came to pass that he proffered an attempted PARTIAL resignation with the intention of “fundamentally transforming the Petrine Office into a collegial, synodal, shared ministry consisting of an active member and a passive, contemplative member”, which thus rendered the attempt invalid by the law itself per Canon 188, thus resulting in the See never being vacated.  Thus, per Canon 332.2 which states that the College of Cardinals have NO AUTHORITY with regards to Papal Resignations, the only determiner of validity being Canon Law itself, a completely invalid, non-canonical, UNREAL, faux-conclave was what was convened in March of ARSH 2013, and spewed forth from its deepest bowels Antipope Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Petrine OFFICE:  The Petrine Office (munus) is a state of BEING. Joseph Ratzinger IS the Pope.  George Washington WAS the first President of the United States.  When Queen Elizabeth dies, Prince Charles WILL BE the King of England.  In order to resign an OFFICE, one must resign BEING the Officeholder.  One cannot resign an Office by declaring that one will no longer exercise a specific activity that derives from that Office.  One cannot resign the Presidency by declaring that one will no longer exercise the duties of Commander in Chief, but will continue to come to the White House every day, be called “Mr. President”, deliver the State of the Union address, and issue Presidential pardons.

Benedict tried to differentiate the office: the being vs. the ministry: the doing. In his speech below, the very day lightning struck the dome of Saint Peter’s cupula, several laws were broken which I underlined and then we will break apart. Mind you, this is only the first speech.


Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.  And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.


John Paul II and “advanced age”

The first error in this speech is our first underlined sentence:

That my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.

Antonio Socci, on page 75 of his book, reminded readers of “implications of resigning the papacy”:

  • “An authoritative canonist, Cardinal Vincenzo Fagiolo, the former president of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, was assigned in 1994 by John Paul II “to undertake a study on the juridical and ecclesiological implications of the renuntiatio papae”. He concluded his work by declaring that “in an exhaustive and absolute way, the pope may not ever resign solely for reasons of age.” In the case of Benedict XVI, it was precisely this motive of “advanced age” that was the reason given for the resignation. After all, there was no serious illness present, nor was there any mental decline. It is now six years [ nine years at present] after the resignation and Benedict is perfectly lucid and in possession of his faculties. How is it possible, then, that he could have truly resigned the ministry of Vicar of Christ in the absence of the serious reasons required by the Church?”

Edmund Mazza highlights some interesting key evidence about that “age” and Benedict again emphasizes how he retains the munus (the being):

In 2017, Last Testament: In His Own Words, was published in which journalist Peter Seewald conducted a lengthy interview with Benedict. Benedict explains that a physical “slow-down” only affects the “functions” or “ministry” of a pope, his day-to-day tasks like any other official. But being Pope, Benedict insists, is not fundamentally about doing this or that, it’s about being. His answer is an ontological one: “the office [munus] enters into your very being,” not the “function” or “ministry,” but the office.

Seewald then observes: “One objection is that the papacy has been secularized by the resignation; that it is no longer a unique office but an office like any other.” (Read more of Mazza’s words in our Misc. Files)

  • Benedict’s error, fear of wolves and the “munus” so far, by the Law itself, have already rendered Benedict’s “partial resignation” invalid. In order for a resignation to be accepted before God, the pope must resign the entire kit and caboodle. If that applies to other civil institutions, how much more should it apply to Our Lord’s Divine institution? As such, another document is brought to light on Bergoglio’s election being invalid according to John Paul II ‘Universi Dominici gregis’ (turn to the John II File to read document in full). Catholic podcaster Patrick Coffin shared with John-Henry his thoughts on whether or not Bergoglio is an anti-pope MERELY by citing the 1996 apostolic constitution from John Paul II titled ‘Universi Dominici gregis’ and the totality of Bergoglio’s words and actions. Patrick Coffin, in the interview with John, dove right into Canon Law 332 and 333.1 with which munus could be used in place of ministerium, but never ministerium be used in place of munus. John Paul II must have foreseen this (having read the Third Secret of Fatima) because the document reinforces how any conclave that gathers WHILE THE SEE IS STILL OCCUPIED is automatically null, void and invalid (again, by the Law itself). Canon law already specifies that invalid resignations immediately revert to the status quo ante, but it certainly helps our case to have more Laws protecting the rock of Saint Peter.[17]

“The always is also a forever”

Snippet taken below from:



Saint Peter’s Square

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Presbyterate!

Distinguished Authorities!

The “always” is also a “forever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.

“The always is also a forever” answers the question of why he still “bears” not “bore” the name Pope Benedict XVI, still signs his name today with “PP” (Pontifex Pontificum: official sign of the pope; Bergoglio does not use that but writes “franciscus” as Patrick Coffin pointed out and let us not fail to mention that the only thing Jorge changed on his passport was his picture- his name is still Jorge Mario Bergoglio), still wears the papal white, gives his papal blessing and still lives in the enclosure of Saint Peter’s. But here is another visible error, there have been valid papal resignations in the past; canon law lists the requirements for resignations, so we know it can be done, but according to Gänswein and Benedict, it is impossible. Saint Peter Celestine validly resigned and went back to being a hermit. When people try to argue that Benedict’s resignation was totally normal, valid and looked like Peter Celestine’s, I ask: how? In every way it is different: Celestine did not remain in the enclosure of Peter, he did not keep his papal name, he did not continue giving papal blessings or continue wearing the papal white.

The always was not a forever for him, because canon law says popes CAN resign. So, for one moment Benedict’s actions are said to be like any other resignation but later described as likened to another “Immaculate Conception” as Gänswein called it, this is downright sinful and devious. Peter Celestine must have had a good reason for validly resigning and was not seen as “fleeing from the wolves” as he is a saint today, but this only backs up my claim, that Benedict’s “attempted partial resignation” is not normal and to believe that “the always is also a forever” even when canon law says one can resign, we are already seeing the warped mind-set of Ratzinger in this case “objectively demonstrated”. Then he continues to say whether “active or passive”, calling himself the latter,  that he is indeed still pope but in a contemplative way. In that same interview with Seewald, look what Benedict says about the munus:

I had to…consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy …Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign…a number of bishops…said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply: even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such… If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function… one comes to understand that the office [munus] of the Pope has lost none of its greatness.

Canon 131 §1. The ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.

Another error and Law broken by Pope Benedict is when he said, “I know longer have the power of the GOVERNANCE of the Church” and this is why he called a “conclave” to elect a “successor of Peter” to govern and be the “active bishop” of Rome. This is what Seewald meant when he said that Benedict has secularized the papacy (more on this later) and thus, again, I do not see him as a hero. What happens when Benedict dies, do we hold a conclave to elect another “pope emeritus”? This is utter nonsense! What does Canon 131.1 mean? It means that the governance of the Church cannot be delegated to another, which, is exactly what Ratzinger thought he did. I believe he still firmly thinks this is the case today; hence why we see those warm and fuzzy photos of Benedict embracing Bergoglio- both in their white apparel. That is the Stockholm Syndrome objectively demonstrated on the part of Benedict as Archbishop Viganò called it. I am also sure Benedict is really under constant supervision and that coercion continues to persist to keep him quiet “for fear of wolves”, but his actions have led the whole world to believe that a mere “bishop of Rome” as Bergoglio calls himself or “bishop dressed in white” as described by the Fatima children, is truly Peter.

Ann Barnhardt said calling a man “Peter” who is not really Peter is the greatest crime committed against the papacy. This reminds me of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle, where a donkey is covered in lion skin so the Narnians will be fooled into thinking it is Aslan, and all the while an evil agenda is being carried out and the Narnians become disillusioned. Does not that sound familiar? Then there is the mirror analogy described by the Fatima seers paraphrased by Edmund Mazza:

Can we forget that the children of Fatima saw “‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it: a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’…”?

Mirrors produce two where formerly there was one. (Read more from Mazza in our Misc. Files)

See below how Gänswein describes it. Again, we must thank God for Gänswein objectively demonstrating this error for the flock:

Badde reports in his interview that he knows of cardinals in the Vatican “who are still shocked that the Catholic Church has right now two living successors of Peter.” He continues: “You yourself have recently spoken about an enlargement of the Petrine ministry, of an exponentiation, I believe. Could you explain this a little more?”

Gänswein answers, as follows:

Yes, you refer here to the book presentation of an Italian professor, Roberto Regoli, who has written a book about the first evaluation of the pontificate [of Pope Benedict]. He is professor at the Gregorian University and that is where the book was presented, as well. I was one of the two persons who presented it, and indeed, I spoke about a exponentiated [enlarged] pontificate. It is clear – to say it clearly, because I have seen in some of the reactions how people insinuated things that I never said. Of course: Pope Francis is the lawfully elected and lawful pope. That is to say, there are not two popes – the one lawful, the other unlawful, that is simply not correct. And I simply said – that is also what Pope Benedict said – that he, after all, is still present with his prayers, with his sacrifices, in the “Recinto” of Saint Peter [within the walls and precincts of the Vatican], and that, through these prayers, through these sacrifices, there shall come forth spiritual fruit for his successors and for the Church. That is what I meant to say, and now we have had for three years two popes and I have the impression that the reality that I perceive is covered by what I have said.

Paul Badde then sums up how he understands what Archbishop Gänswein tries to say:

If I understand you right, he [Benedict] remained in the office, but in the contemplative part, without having any authority to decide. Thus we have – as you said – now an active and a contemplative part which form together an enlargement of the Munus Petrinum [primacy and office of Peter]?

Gänswein responds:

That is what I have said, indeed, that – if one wishes to specify it – it is very clear, the Plena Potestas, the Plenitudo Potestatis [full power, incarnate authority] is in the hands of Pope Francis. He is the man who has right now the succession of Peter. And then there are no difficulties left, as I also have said it. These two are also not in a competitive relationship. That is where one has to make use of common sense, as well as the Faith and a little bit of theology. Then one does not have at all difficulties to understand properly [sic] what I have said.

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”

He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’. (Not in its “Office”, the governance of the Church in the world, but in its “essentially spiritual nature”, through prayer and suffering.)

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.” [Ann Barnhardt comments on this and says “Do you see how this echoes Benedict’s erroneous idea of the papal coronation being an irreversible event, creating an indelible/irrevocable mark on the recipient forever? It’s exactly the same idea Benedict put forth in his final general audience”].

“Therefore, he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”

These Cardinals, bishops and priests can continue to say that “Pope Francis was LAWFULLY elected”, but in this case it does not matter how high up in the rankings these prelates and clerics are; the “Law itself” determines what is valid and lawful and in the case of Pope Benedict’s attempted partial, invalid resignation, he did not fulfill the requirements of a valid resignation in the eyes of the Law, and as we have discussed, WHO is the Law, again? None other than God Himself. Notice how Gänswein directly contradicted himself in that interview. He first said that there is only one lawfully elected pope, and “it is Francis” and then he ended that statement with “there are two popes”. What? And so, since it was never valid to begin with, any conclave called when the See is occupied, as WAS and IS the case with Ratzinger, Jorge Mario Bergoglio never has been and never will be the pope and as Archbishop Carlo Maria stated, “a synod of sutri to dispose Bergoglio the pretender” needs to take place as soon as possible. If you are tempted to believe that Pope Benedict fundamentally transformed the papacy, remember once more Vigano’s words:

Nor is the invention of the Emeritus Papacy an exception, where between being Pope (thesis) and no longer being Pope (antithesis), the compromise was chosen to remain Pope only in part (synthesis).

Father David Nix comments that Archbishop is here saying that “a synthesis of truth and error produces only error”. This statement is like saying you are only partially pregnant; you are pregnant in full or not at all. It is the same with that silly expression “in partial communion with Rome”. One is in full communion with Rome or not in communion at all; these liberal terms are being thrown around by some of the most traditional souls in the Church. The Law says no such thing about partiality; that is why the requirement to resign the papacy is the munus, because it is the ENTIRE OFFICE. Archbishop Athanasius Schneider made this remark with the Society of Saint Pius X when he was charged with a visitation to the SSPX seminary. He was interviewed with Dr Taylor Marshall where he stated firmly that the SSPX is NOT in schism; if they are granted faculties to perform one sacrament (partial) then it also applies to all seven sacraments (full). Fanciful rumors of “they can say Mass but not perform weddings” is again submitting to the liberal terminology that they only have one foot inside the Church and the other foot is outside.

 This is why Pope Benedict’s partial resignation is accepted by many Catholics today, because it’s normal these days to be considered in partial communion with Rome. What else hasn’t been secularized in our beloved Church? The faith has been secularized, indeed, in more areas than with the rock of Peter! Thank God Our Lord’s Laws clear all this confusion up, because again, the standard of schism per canon 751 is the Roman Pontiff; that is all. This Law sums up so well how important the vicar of Christ is, and WHY it must be fought for, restored to its rightful state, and protected with fidelity. Father David Nix takes it one step further by adding this about the true definition of schism: In traditional papal encyclicals, a “schismatic community” is a Christian community adhering to valid sacraments but without recognizing the primacy of place of Rome or the importance of the papacy.[18] The Society has always placed importance on the papacy, the primacy of Rome and has recognized each Roman Pontiff (besides Benedict being pope at this point, but God-willing the scales will fall from their eyes in good time) and ADHERES TO VALID SACRAMENTS. One cannot, lawfully in the eyes of God, ban the Old Rite as it is; if this were the case then the Council of Trent and Vatican I were all a lie, fabrication and not of God. We all know none of that is the case. Many faithful Catholics, I am sorry to say, are simply uneducated with the Laws and what it means to be in schism vs. canonically irregular. The SSPX are the latter, canonically irregular, and the Kennedy Reports said that at this point, for the SSPX, being canonically irregular is a badge of honor because if to be “regular” and gain status, means they must accept Vatican II and all its errors and admit that the New Mass is holy, then it is indeed their trophy. They cannot and will not do so in good conscience. That is what Our Lady meant with “the Church would be full of those who accept compromise” (Vatican II and the New Mass). And now we are seeing this same compromise with the acceptance of the Bergoglian anti-papacy and the rejection of Pope Benedict XVI as the only Roman Pontiff since April 19th, 2005. Is not it clear, then? If the devil knows that the standard of schism is the papacy, and he is getting the elect to either:

  1.  Not care who is pope
  2. Follow the wrong man in white
  3.  Accept the notion of two living successors of Peter

Then, is it safe to assume we are entering into a schism, right now? Two Church’s, each with its own pope as Vigano warned about when he reminded us of Anne Emmerich’s visions? As Patrick Coffin said to John Henry, Our Lord came to take away our sins… not our minds. We must use our minds for the glory of Jesus and Mary. Nowhere in our Church Law does it say that the flock cannot seek truth by virtue of the divine Law; in fact, I will reiterate once more:

Canon Law 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

Canon Law Conditions Benedict placed on Papacy (a time limit)

From 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Antonio Socci dedicated the following paragraphs to the objections even regular lawyers had:

Lawyer, Francesco Patruno (a great scholar of law and canon law) compared Benedict’s situation to Matrimony by stating this of Joseph Ratzinger’s wording:

The present codification of canon law, in contrast to the preceding code permits the fixing of a condition either of the present or the past within certain limits, but not a condition of the future, and it definitely considers null a marriage subject to a time limit at the beginning or the end.

The present canonical codification does not tolerate “accidental elements” such as a time limit; this has been confirmed. Canon 332, states that from the moment the man chosen for the papal throne says “yes”- at that very instant- he has complete authority over the whole Church, the “keys” are his. It is the same with resignation. Just as in matrimony, it is a “yes” or “no” at that moment of the ceremony, not two weeks later as we saw with Benedict. “From 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours.” He said this on February 11th and did not leave that day? Nay, in fact he continued doing normal papal activities of the “governance”, meetings, papal audiences for the rest of the month. This is unprecedented and again, has been missed or simply ignored.

J. Michael Miller Dissertation

This is perhaps the most compelling evidence of all, and I pray it will hit the ball of substantial error out of the park once and for all, for those who may still have doubts. Before I show you what this dissertation is, I must say from the very beginning, that the very person who helped edit this work is none other than POPE BENEDICT XVI AKA JOSEPH RATZINGER.

Ann Barnhardt’s definition of this Dissertation:

The J. Michael Miller’s ARSH 1979 dissertation, available for purchase on Amazon, “The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology” is a Rosetta Stone-esque synthesis of the massive Teutonic [Teutonic simply means German] Theological Academy’s writings in the mid-20th century on the “need” to “fundamentally transform” the irrelevant, illegitimate and expired Monarchical model of the Papacy by essentially dissolving the Petrine Office into a collegial, synodal Petrine Ministry or Function [did not Gänswein use those EXACT SAME WORDS?]. Why?  To appease the Lutherans (and Anglicans to a lesser degree) of course! And to conform the Papacy to the new, modern, democratized world!

And also, if we’re going to be perfectly blunt, because the Freemasons need the Papacy destroyed in order to bring their “one world religion” and one world government, together referred to as the “New World Order”, to fruition.  The number one target of the Freemasons since their formation in London in ARSH 1717 has been the Papacy.  All wars and revolutions instigated by Freemasonry over the past 300 years have had as a key objective the elimination of monarchy from the face of the earth, precisely as a steppingstone to the REAL GOAL of eliminating the Papacy. American Revolution. French Revolution. Italian Revolution. World War I.  Etc.

As has been documented in this space, the discussion of “fundamentally transforming” the Papacy into a “collegial, synodal, shared ministry” has been discussed openly and at length for over 50 years, with the Miller Dissertation being a compendium of the discussion – a Rosetta Stone, if you will.

At the heart of this drive has been Cardinal Walter Kasper, who became the de facto leader of the Sankt Gallen Mafia with the death on August 30, ARSH 2012 of Cardinal Carlo Martini, with Kasper being the openly-acknowledged “king maker” at the Cardinals Retreat and faux-conclave held in the Sistine Chapel March 10-13, ARSH 2013.

Chapter 8 of the Miller dissertation opens with a quote from Walter Kasper: “The present crisis of the Papacy is one of legitimation.” As in, the Papacy is no longer tenable in the modern, democratized world, and must be radically changed. This radical change, which would involve the dissolution of the Petrine Office in favor of a shared Petrine ministry or function, is also necessary in order to appease all schismatics, with Lutherans first among them, but also Anglicans, and even the Eastern Orthodox. This quote from Kasper is from a chapter that Kasper wrote for a book of collected essays on the future of the Papacy which was the project of and edited by Joseph Ratzinger, and published under Ratzinger’s banner in ARSH 1978, called “Dienst an der Einheit”.

Ann Therefore comments:

Did all of these people get it wrong, and early-21st century Social Media addicted Trad, Inc. “thought leaders” are the first people in the 2000 year history of the Church to have a proper understanding of the Papacy? I think true humility means knowing who you are, and who you are not, and therefore realizing that every saint and doctor of the Church for the past 2000 years had a proper understanding of the papacy – that is, a divinely instituted, irreversible, immutable, supernaturally negatively protected on matters of faith and morals, monarchical juridical Office, and that if your position demands anything other than that, that it is probably your base premise that is somehow wrong. THAT’S humility.

For an EXCELLENT summary of The Miller Dissertation turn to our Misc. Files, where lawyer and blogger “The Catholic Esquire. NonVeni Mark”, gives a precise and easy to understand explanation if you do not have time to read the book itself available on Amazon. Remember when I said even lawyers were scratching their heads at Benedict’s partial resignation? One cannot half quit, and this is where NonVeni Mark, in his last paragraph of his writing, concludes this of the Dissertation:

All of this information is in the public sphere and available to those who actually care to look into it. I invite all those who insist Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope right now to do just a little work and read the documents for themselves and use a basic level of logic to piece two and two together.

None of this “bifurcation of the papacy” came out of left field, my fellow readers. Barnhardt relayed in one of her videos on Pope Benedict[19], that Ratzinger grew more conservative by the time he became pope and perhaps, did not attempt to split the papacy for the reasons mentioned in the Dissertation, but resorted to this option for fear of the wolves? I think that is highly probable and if that is the case, of course he has my compassion. No matter the error Benedict has committed, he is our beloved Holy Father and I want to know what they have/are doing to him for Ratzinger to have cowered this way. We must not turn our back on Ratzinger out of anger because he seems to have turned his back on us, but storm heaven for the grace he needs to return home as the prodigal son embraced by the Triune God. I will end this Chapter with important snippets of Andrea Cionci’s article on Massimo Franco’s interview with Pope Benedict:

First published at Libero, 1 March 2021

Hear ye, hear ye: today’s exclusive interview of Benedict XVI by Massimo Franco in Corriere della Sera has finally brought clarity to the mystery of the two popes.

We copy here the quotations of the “pope emeritus” that, according to the interpretation given by Franco, supposedly definitively take the head off the bull of the rumors and disputes that would say that Bergoglio is an illegitimate pope:

“There are not two popes. There is only one Pope…” Joseph Ratzinger says it with a faint voice, straining to say each word clearly. “There is only one Pope,” he repeats, weakly striking the palm of his hand on the armrest.

There is only one pope; that’s great. WHICH OF THE TWO IS IT THEN? Ratzinger does not explain this. If you attentively re-read Franco’s article, in no place does Ratzinger say: “Bergoglio is the one true pope.” This is what would have been the most obvious and simple way to resolve a long-standing dispute.

Therefore, if desired, Benedict’s statements could be perfectly interpreted as referring also to himself: “There is only one Pope, and it is the one who has retained the Petrine munus, that is: ME.”

So is Benedict XVI dishonest and using tricks? Not at all: it would be perfectly sincere and coherent with all of his conduct to date. To see it from another perspective, of equal dignity to that of Corriere, Benedict did not resign validly; he is still pope because he retains the Petrine munus; he continues to dress in white, to be called Pontifex Pontificum [the “PP” found on the signature of this book], to impart the apostolic blessings, to make pronouncements on matters of faith, and he also reiterates in an interview, with force, that there is only one pope: him.


Many cite the fact that in 2019 Benedict supposedly admitted that Francis is the pope. But it’s not true. In 2019 Vatican News quoted the interview of Corriere della Sera where the following sentence by the journalist Massimo Franco appears:

“Bergoglio’s enemies, often conservatives desperately seeking for a word from Benedict that would sound critical of Bergoglio, heard him respond without fail that “There is one Pope; it’s Francis.”

So says Franco, but it is a rumor, a supposition; it is not a direct quotation from Ratzinger.

And instead Vatican News passed it off as a direct declaration from Ratzinger, headlining it: “Benedict XVI: There is One Pope, Francis.”

And in the text they write: “It is the certainty of Benedict XVI who reminds everyone: “There is one Pope, Francis.”

A manipulation that speaks for itself.[20]

Were not also Lucia of Fatima’s words manipulated, as well throughout her life? Are you starting to notice the trend? It is the “fake news” of the Catholic Church. May we officially conclude the second to longest chapter of this book with the profound and comforting thought: it is going to be the ones with the lower IQs and intellects that God will raise up to fight for the papacy, just as Saint Michael, found on the second to last thrones, rose up and cast Satan out of heaven, which, earned him the title of “Prince of the Seraphim”. Michael is truly “like unto God”, but he did not let it get to his head like Lucifer, who on the contrary, wanted to be God. In these times in which we find ourselves, it is a greater blessing to have the gift of courage, like Saint Michael, than the gift of high rank, like Lucifer. It is the former that is going to produce saints for Our Lady! And as Ann answered so well:

This is why Pope Benedict need not be ASKED anything. He needs to be TOLD that his resignation was canonically invalid, and that he is the one and only living Pope. His ERROR has no rights. His ERROR has no weight or legal standing.

What are my, or anyone’s credentials to dare claim that the Holy Father is in error? Canon Law, Objective Reality, and Truth. These are their own credentials. These are their own Authority. Canon Law, Objective Reality and Truth judge Pope Benedict. Not us. We just report the verdict. We just ride the coattails of Canon Law, Objective Reality and Truth.

“The Creator of the heavens obeys a carpenter; the God of eternal glory listens to a poor virgin. Has anyone ever witnessed anything comparable to this? Let the philosopher no longer disdain from listening to the common laborer; the wise, to the simple; the educated, to the illiterate; a child of a prince, to a peasant.”

~Saint. Anthony of Padua~

Chapter 3: Divinity of Christ and the inviolable rock of Peter

I have shown you My Divinity, so I will make known to you your excellence. “You are Peter”- that is, as I am the Inviolable Rock, the Corner Stone that makes TWO things into one, the foundation that no man can replace with another. You also are a rock, for you are made firm by My power, so that you are to share in common participation with Me in what is proper to My power.’ But there is a point in committing to one person that which is meant for all. It is entrusted to Peter in a special way because Peter is to be an example for all those who will rule the Church.  ~Matins Lesson Viii Chair of Saint Peter homily by Pope Saint Leo~

That brilliant quote by POPE Saint Leo debunks the Miller Dissertation and Ratzinger’s delusion that the papacy can ever be a shared chair, regency or synodal office. What, you may ask, made me realize that Benedict’s attempted bifurcation of the papacy was substantially erroneous, rather than some genius master plan? Looking back, now that the painful experience is behind me, I hold nothing but the deepest gratitude that I went through what I did. If, what I am about to tell you, did not happen this past February 2022, I would not have had the small courage that began to spark, and led me to finally come out on our own blog about how I have believed Benedict to be the only pope since I was driven up to his home in 2017. In fact, if you would have asked me six months ago if I would consider writing a book about Pope Benedict being pope I would have cringed. It was not sloth, but effeminacy that kept me silent. However, later I realized that fear is linked to sloth. In our first published book The Practice of the Presence of Mary: To Live and Die With Mary the work had two parts:

  1. The practice of the presence of Mary
  2. First Saturday Devotion meditations from January to December

In June’s First Saturday I somehow mustered up the courage to dedicate it all to Jacinta’s visions of a future Holy Father and how Benedict did not validly resign. I received my first letter of criticism and rejection from a priest I had deeply respected say, I am walking down the road to become a sedevacantist, and that, prominent men like Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Schneider said that Benedict validly resigned. It was a short letter with no evidence backing up his claim, simply the backing of those two men. This is where I realized that many, though holy, do not even bother to look into the canon laws but look merely to the bishops and cardinals and if they say “everything is fine” …then everything is fine. At the end of Part Two I dedicated an entire chapter to questions and answers, because I can say with all confidence after seeing the Laws for myself that there is not one question that cannot be answered about the current state of the papacy. I do not say this with pride, but only for the sheer confidence I have in God’s Petrine Promise, His Laws and Divine Providence. There are no loopholes to be found in Truth.

That letter of criticism started out as a torture, where, I found myself tossing and turning all that night believing I myself was deceived by Satan, had fallen into error and must repent. The days following Our Lady brought the dawn, when a dear friend and follower, to our blog, introduced me to Ann Barnhardt’s website. I immersed myself in her podcasts and listened to her two-part videos on the broken canon laws with the papacy; two things she said stood out that forever ignited a renewed zeal to fight for Our Lord and Our Lady through means of the papacy:

  1. Do not let any Catholic bully you about this subject. When one studies this topic, the broken Laws and providence of God, the other side of the argument (“Bergoglio is pope”) is a very weak one. It only seems intimidating when you are debating a canon lawyer, bishop or priest because they often have five or more degrees.
  2. Speak the truth and God will provide.

The evening of tossing and turning was only preparation for the grace Our Lord was waiting to give me. Grace comes after suffering, does it not? Through Ann’s videos, I felt the scales fall as I realized that Benedict is in error not a hero, he needs to repent, and this subject needs to be preached from the housetops. Because again, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary depends on an intact and unified papacy. In short, the Holy Ghost passively removed that fear and reminded me of Catherine of Siena’s words of: “start being brave about everything”. Because you see, when I first opened that letter from the priest, I knew his judgement was clouded but I was not thinking of defending the papacy the way I should have at that point, but of losing his human respect. To put it bluntly, I was thinking of my own ego and vanity having been wounded. If the top of the Mount of

Perfection is “only the honor and glory of God remains” and I fail to defend Him because I prefer myself, is not that what usually stands in our way of progress in the spiritual life? If Saint Gregory the Great died in exile, Saint Louis de Montfort and Saint Benedict were repeatedly poisoned by their own friars all the while Catherine of Siena was behind the right pope when Vincent of Ferrer[1] was behind the wrong one, well, two things are proven:

  1. If we are to be saints, the path of rejection and exile is our lot. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi once said, “to suffer but not die”. May this be our sign that Our Lord is on our side, and He will aid us in our fight for His sake.
  2. Vincent commemorated an anti-pope at the Te Igitur of the Mass, realized his mistake, and began praying for the real pope. Catherine and Vincent were on opposite sides of the “schism” so to speak, and yet both are great saints and the heroic Catherine’s zeal has made her a Doctor of the Church! If you will, Vincent was the priest with the degrees in theology and Catherine a poor but holy third order Dominican; yet, she is the Doctor and was the one who had the grace, yes, it is a grace, to see who the real pope was, rather than Vincent. This same grace instilled in her the zeal and courage to also write letters to the real pope.

Even the chief priests in the Acts of the Apostles “wondered” at Peter and John because they were “unlearned and unintelligent”. They were formerly simple fisherman, and I was formerly a simple animal science major. So, when advanced scholars say the unlearned have no brain or that it is impossible to remove an anti-pope or know if they were an anti-pope until they are dead is absurd. Bernard of Clairvaux recognized an anti-pope in his time and he did not sit around and wait for the man to die; he came forward with courage and preached it from the roof to dispose of him AS SOON AS POSSIBLE[2]. It is amazing to me that we have had anti-popes in the past, and anti-popes that were disposed while they were living, but somehow it is impossible in our time and the holiest and most traditional in the Church today are clinging to the false base premise of “Bergoglio is pope” with everything that they have. It is a warped form of Stockholm Syndrome, as I have heard it diagnosed more times than once.

Like the Titanic, they will not climb aboard a lifeboat that God is giving them but unnecessarily sink to their doom believing they are going with the Church as they forget that Our Lord promised “the gates of hell would not prevail against it”. Climb aboard the lifeboat, though smaller, of tradition. Our Lord has a plan.

Praying for the wrong pope, praying for two popes, or not praying for the pope at all (unless the See of Rome were to actually be vacant) is denying the Divinity of Christ and the answer to the “why?” is ALL found in that quote by Saint Leo above. Our Lord essentially said, “I am a rock” and to Peter “you are also a rock” but “I make these two rocks into one” that “NO MAN can replace with another”. Whoever becomes the newly elected rock after Peter, and so on and so forth, becomes one with THE Rock, which is Our Lord. Those two rocks, and two names: “thou art Christ the Son of the living God” (Divinity of Christ solemnly professed) and “thou art Peter” are made into one substance. Peter shares in the Divinity of Christ by becoming one with Our Lord and so do the rest of the popes who came after Peter. So, shunning the “name” of the pope himself when it has indeed been merged with Our Lord’s IS shunning God’s Divinity. And vice versa. Why? Because they are ONE.

We can shun that name by not praying for Pope Benedict at the Te Igitur of the Mass or simply not praying for him as the only Holy Father. Praying for Bergoglio as a bishop (or as Barnhardt says, “a criminal who should be laicized”) is completely fine; he NEEDS prayers. But praying for him as the Holy Father is denying Christ’s Divinity, because He is ONE with Benedict right now; when you turn your back on Benedict, you are doing the same to Our Lord at this point. Remember, the worst crime committed against the papacy is calling a man “Peter” who is not Peter. Validly elected popes, elected after Peter, sharing in God’s Divinity isn’t heretical but the words of SAINT Leo and solemnly professed by Our Lord and Peter. This is also proven in the footnotes of Matthew 16 in the Douay Rheims Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible, about Our Lord singling out Peter, apart from the other eleven, by manifesting to him His Divinity and then turning to Peter and making known to Simon the excellence Christ has in store for him and the line of popes that will follow him- a solemn profession made to Peter which we know today as the Petrine Promise. When Our Lord asked, “who do men say that I am?” it was in that moment that God consecrated Peter apart from the others in revealing to him the Divinity of Christ. God does not change His mind, just as we see with “you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” or nuns taking SOLEMN vows; it is a solemn promise. even after Peter denied Him thrice, His choice of Peter being the rock was set in stone (no pun intended). Our Lord proves this about Himself in the Gloria Patri: “as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, without end”. So, to “fundamentally transform the papacy” goes beyond the power entrusted to Peter.

So that you are to share in common participation with Me in what is proper to My power.

Trying to “fix” something that is already perfect because it was instituted by Perfection itself cannot be done and that is why the Law shows us that when this type of chaos, or rather substantial error, occurs things will automatically revert to the status quo. So, in praying for a man who isn’t the pope, since Our Lord never became one with Bergoglio the bishop dressed in white (even if Pope Benedict dies), is indeed denying Christ’s Divinity; ESPECIALLY while the one who He is STILL one with, this very moment (Pope Benedict), is still alive. Notice how Our Lord also didn’t say: “I make THREE things into one”. The office of the papacy can never be shared; it is always two (Our Lord and the newly elected pope made into one). This is why Ann Barnhardt says pray for Pope Benedict “whether he likes it, or knows it, or not as the ONLY pope” because Our Lord only chooses one VALIDLY AND CANONICALLY elected Holy Father at a time. Do you know what inviolable means?

Never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored.

“I am the Inviolable Rock” and “which no man can replace with another” is exactly why Benedict is in error. The past saints, doctors of the Church and above all Our Lord Himself did not get it wrong with the papacy, these last two-thousand-years, and Ratzinger’s attempted “replacement with another” is the result of diabolical disorientation. Germans are too smart for their own good. The papacy as we speak has indeed been broken, infringed and dishonored.

Side note: I still get very confused when people send me new “Saints” being canonized by Jorge Bergoglio, because he has no power to bind and loose. If Benedict canonized them, it would be a different story, but as far as I can tell, if Benedict made them a blessed, then that’s what they still are, because at this point only BENEDICT has the proper power to bind and loose. By accepting “canonizations”, “beatifications”, “doctors of the Church”, “servants of God” and “venerable” by a man who is NOT Peter, you are accepting the current state of the Papacy and saying it can in fact be a regency or shared office. Do not fall into this error. Canon law says that the office of the Papacy itself can never be delegated to another. This is why Benedict broke that Law by thinking that the “governance of the Church” could be shared and passed onto another “dressed in white”.

The Roman Rite breviary has a reading about “the chair of Moses” and the “chair” meaning doctrine: the “doctrine of Moses” and we can apply the same to Peter’s Chair: the “doctrine of Peter” (or the doctrine of the papacy). The feast of the Chair of Saint Peter is so pertinent because it is the very “doctrine” of the papacy being attacked at this very moment. Law after law after law has been violated, disrespected and the attempted “replacement with another”. In the Creed we read how Our Lord is one substance with the Father; when Our Lord instituted the office of the papacy, He intended to “make two things into one”: namely, Himself and Peter as ONE rock. It was not Peter, Our Lord and Andrew. Nay, Our Lord does not share power with Peter and company. Is it safe to assume that the greatest crime committed against the papacy today is the constant, knowing or unknowing, denying of the Divinity of Christ, then? Our Lord in the Gospel reminds us that sin against Him can be forgiven, but the sin against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. Lucia of Fatima mentioned this unforgivable sin when she showed how this crime could be carried out:

By denying the final remedy that heaven is giving the world: the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Holy Ghost is a very good Spouse to the Immaculate Conception. Ignore heaven’s request with revealing the Third Secret, failing to do your First Saturday Devotion or the consecration of Russia being done wrong, not done at all, or a consecration being carried out by a man who is not Peter, such as the mock ceremony carried out by Bergoglio, his minions and his precious Pachamama demon this past March, 2022 is certainly asking for punishment from the Holy Ghost. Let us end this chapter with the remembrance that God the Father purified the world through water, God the Son through His Precious Blood and the Holy Ghost, Whose symbol is fire, will indeed purify the world through fire as punishment for the great crimes committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the papacy and the denial of the Divinity of Christ. City half in ruins? We seem to be approaching this catastrophic event, from the Third Fatima Vision, by the leaps and bounds. Is that why Our Lady showed the sun plummeting to earth on October 13th, 1917? But Her Hand put a stop to the punishment; this again is proof that “only She can help you” and the consecration of Russia is what will lead to the Holy Ghost ceasing fire (pun intended).

Chapter 3.5: Consequences, questions answered, soils revisited, and the pope has the power to reboot the system

Below are questions, either you still have, or questions that you can be sure will be asked of you, if at this point, you believe Pope Benedict is the only pope since April 19th, 2005:

  1. What if Bergoglio dies before Benedict? Benedict is still pope. Any “conclave” called while Pope Benedict is still alive and occupies the See will be invalid. The bishop dressed in white dies and there will be another faux conclave to elect another bishop dressed in white anyways because more than half the Church will have believed Bergoglio was pope and anyone after him MUST be legitimate, they will say. Ann Barnhardt said this will be terrible because the person who comes after Bergoglio will be the equivalent to cleaning the home of one demon (in our case, the Church) and in come another seven. Whoever, or whatever, comes after him will be a thousand times worse I can assure you. This is why we MUST dispose Bergoglio while he is still living and not wait until his death, like many traditional Catholics are absurdly saying, is our only option. We do not want to have a line of anti-popes. Remember Bernard of Clairvaux; it is absolutely possible to dispose of anti-popes while they are still living, and Bernard did it single handedly. If it has been done before, why again, is it all the sudden impossible now?
  2. Am I a sedevacantist if I believe Benedict is the pope? A sedevacantist means that the See is vacant, and is a traditional Catholic who believes there have been no valid popes since 1958. If the whole point of this book’s argument is there IS A POPE, and it is Benedict, how on earth are we sedevacantists? A dear friend and aspiring Carmelite told me that she has heard those who believe Benedict is pope to be “Benevacantists”, which, also makes no sense. Are they trying to say, “Benedict is vacant”? Perhaps because it appears he fled the “governance of the Church”, but if he did not validly resign, which he did not, then the See is occupied and technically, Benedict is not “vacant”… so, I hope this does not take a genius to realize that the term Benevacantist is ridiculous.
  3. But if Benedict dies before Bergoglio, won’t that make Bergoglio pope in full? Nope. There was never a valid conclave to elect Jorge Bergoglio to begin with, because the See was still occupied with Pope Benedict XVI, when the null and void election of Bergoglio took place.
  4. “But Benedict himself said the See will be vacant and he himself called for another conclave”. Error has no rights. Canon law does not say, “if the pope calls a conclave, it is automatically valid”. The “Law itself” determines whether or not a resignation is valid and with Benedict’s attempted partial resignation, in order to validly resign, the pope must resign the munus. He did not do this and per canon law and John Paul II document reinforced, a conclave cannot be called when the See is occupied and is automatically declared null by the Law itself: NOT the pope OR the college of cardinals- THE LAW. Do I believe Benedict knew this? 100%; hence why he placed a time limit on his resignation. Ratzinger is not ignorant to the code of canon law and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to reevaluate that argument. Resigning the ministry (the governance), rather than the office (the being) does not cut it and quite frankly, the fact that people believe this “bifurcation of the papacy” is possible, shows how much progress the evil one is making, with deceiving the minds of the elect, by destroying the value of the Petrine See. “The only arbiter and judge of a Papal resignation is Christ THROUGH CANON LAW.”
  5. What if Benedict dies before Bergoglio? I hate to be the one to say it, but we will be “sedevancantists”. Not the type who believe there has been no valid pope since Pope Pius XII, but the See…will… whether we like it or not… be vacant. It will be the reality, not an opinion. This is the most tragic thing that could happen, and is likely to happen due to Benedict’s advance old age. This is why discussing and exposing the Bergoglian anti-papacy while Benedict is still alive is so urgent. Do not panic, however. Keep God’s Petrine Promise before you. Before Saint Peter Celestine became pope, the See was vacant for twenty-seven months. At that point there was not a group called “sedevacantists” per say, but if the seat was LITERALLY vacant, it is not an opinion anymore, it is simply a fact. Again, do not let people bully you into this argument that if we believe anyone BUT Bergoglio is pope then we are sedevancatists or will become so, they have truly fell prey to that diabolical disorientation we have spoken so much about thus far. The devil will do anything to cloud the minds of the elect to keep them believing Bergoglio is pope at all costs.
  6. What if Pope Benedict VALIDLY resigned tomorrow? Barnhardt said this would merely confirm that the February, 2013 attempt was invalid. The See would be vacant at that point, and many would not know this because they firmly believe Bergoglio is valid pope. With his election null and void to begin with, he would continue his “governance of the Church” as a mere bishop playing dress up pope and this… would be grievous for the flock. Again, do not despair; hold firmly to God’s Petrine Promise. If the See is ever vacant, Our Lord will not allow that to be the case for very long.
  7. “But God is not going to care about who I thought the pope was when I have my own individual judgment.” If the standard of schism, per canon 751, is the Roman Pontiff and the rock of Peter is THE visible sign Christ gives His Church, is it safe to assume that we should care about who the pope is? If someone really, in the goodness of their heart, had no idea who the pope was before their death, that is one thing but to have the attitude of “I do not care” is lukewarm evil at play in the hearts of the just. Let us not fail to mention one of Barnhardt’s readers reminding us that seventy- billion Catholics died since Bergoglio “took office” and out of that number, how many souls lost their faith, followed Jorge into error or embraced his false doctrine? If you do not care about the rock of Peter, then you perhaps do not care much about the flock of Peter, either and that… is devastating. Satan’s greatest desire is to make traditional Catholics indifferent to the Petrine See; it is working! No Petrine See, no consecration of Russia, no consecration of Russia, no triumph of the Immaculate Heart. This is a war with Mary.
  8. Is it morally ok for me, knowing that a priest is commemorating the wrong man at the Mass, at the Te Igitur, to receive Holy Communion at that Mass? Yes! The Mass is still valid, but the actions of commemorating an anti-pope are illicit. See the document on what it means to be valid yet illicit in the next series of questions and resources.
  9. Why won’t people even discuss this? EFFEMINACY and SLOTH. Remember the Master in the parable of the talents said, “wicked and slothful servant”. And the servant with the one talent buried it for fear (effeminacy). Ironic how many of the same traditionalists believe the Trump 2020 election was stolen, and it WAS stolen, but somehow it’s impossible for the faux resignation of Benedict to have canonical irregularities.
  10. “But canon law is ambiguous and not binding”. If it was binding before, why isn’t it now? When you hear this statement, go back and re-read Part One’s love of the Law and how important it is that we take God’s Laws seriously in all things. This is perhaps the most disorientated remark you will hear from the opposing side and nothing, and I mean nothing, you say is going to change their mind. This is the diabolical disorientation in full demonstration. In this case you can certainly try to explain why the Laws are not “suggestions”, they are “commands” but in most cases this is where you must act like a duck and let the water roll off your back and pray for their change of heart. Our Lord is the Father of Law and Order while the devil is the father of disorder and chaos. It is as simple as that!

Resources from those who also believe Benedict is the only reigning Pope. You’re not alone:

  1. Father Nicholas Gruner (God rest his soul)
  2. Father Paul Kramer
  3. Ann Barnhart (many people who watch Ann’s videos[3] convert almost immediately with Benedict being pope). My own Papa debated with me for nearly two years that it was impossible for Benedict to still be pope. He watched Ann’s videos and told me, “There is not a doubt in my mind that Benedict is the pope, all one must do is be open minded.” What a statement. Is your heart and mind closed to this topic? Sincere question. Let the Holy Ghost in!
  4. Patrick Coffin
  5. Doctor Edmund Mazza
  6. Antonio Socci
  7. Brother Alexis Bugnolo

*See footnotes for more information about these seven people. It is also looking like Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano can be added to this list by his recent interviews.[4] *

Benedict is a Valid YET illicit Pope due to his actions: the document can be read in our Miscellaneous File in full[5]:

This document explains how actions such as Pope John Paul’s kissing of the Koran, theology of the body, Paul VI New Mass and Benedict’s substantial error are valid yet illicit. This explains precisely why we are not sedevacantists even though the last several popes have made some exceedingly bad decisions. One main issue with sedevacantists, is even though they are traditional and holy, how on earth could the See be vacant since Pius XII, and all the popes after him “anti-popes” if the entire basis of the Fatima message and the Marian apparitions that followed Fatima, speak of the Holy Father? The entire Fatima Vision is about a future Holy Father… how can this be the case if the See is vacant? And here is where the Petrine Promise comes in: is it very likely that Our Lord would allow the Chair of Peter to be vacant for more than sixty years? Would not this break the Petrine Promise? It simply makes no sense. That is why the document of “valid yet illicit” is a beauty.

Extra facts from Ann Barnhardt: “The false prophet forerunner of the Antichrist is the Anti-John the Baptist. How would the false prophet forerunner of the Antichrist look and act any different from Antipope Bergoglio? Let me just put that question out there. Antipope Bergoglio is sowing chaos. John the Baptist came to straighten the way of the Lord in preparation for His coming. Antipope Bergoglio does exactly the opposite. He’s sowing chaos and he’s making the road almost impossible to traverse. Denying sin and the need for repentance. What did John the Baptist say? Repent, repent, repent, repent, repent. Bergoglio attacks marriage. Why was John the Baptist executed? For defending marriage. Holding himself out as more merciful than Christ. That’s what Antipope Bergoglio is doing. What did John the Baptist say? “He who I am not worthy to loosen the latch of His shoe.” But Antipope Bergoglio would have you believe that he is more merciful than Christ because he’ll let you get divorced and remarried, no problem. Because “mercy.” Preparing the way for the Antichurch and Antichrist. It’s hard to not have this thought occur to you.”

Jorge Bergoglio also has the same initials as… wait for it…. JOHN THE BAPTIST.

Conversation with Bishop Bernard Fellay: He relayed how a Jesuit, when he saw Bergoglio emerge after his “election” tell Fellay, “That is the fore-runner of the anti-Christ”. Jesuits of today are not typically traditional either, mind you, so this was a heavy statement indeed. This is also an excellent reminder to readers that St. Robert Bellarmine made it clear that because of the Petrine Promise, no pope who validly holds the keys can seriously derail the Divine Institution of the papacy or get even remotely close to destroying it. How else has it lasted two thousand years? Because it is just that: Divine. AND the Petrine Promise. The only reason why Bergoglio is getting away with so much damage is because he does not have the supernatural protection of the Holy Ghost for the state of office, because if you have not already gotten it by now, Bergoglio does not hold the office. So, the Petrine Promise right now lies with Pope Benedict XVI. Remember this: “external appearances of a papacy but devoid of all grace”. Is not this what we are currently living, right now?

The Pope has the Power to reboot the system (maybe when the consecration of Russia is done there will only be twelve bishops?)

Ann’s words: Don’t you understand that, in order to fix this, barring supernatural intervention, the only person who has the authority on earth to do what needs to be done to fix all this, is the Pope? And every single day conservative, trad Catholic thought leaders are going on the internet and attacking the authority of the Pope because they have to do that in order to hold the false base premise that Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope.

Only the Pope can do what needs to be done. And what will need to be done? Abrogate the Novus Ordo. Only the Pope can do that. Declare Vatican II a failed council. Only the Pope can do that. Suppress the Jesuits and the Legionaries of Christ, for a start. Only the Pope can do that. Put the German and Low Country churches under interdict, for a start. Only the Pope can do that. Consecrate Russia. Only the Pope can do that. Depose and laicize bishops by the hundreds. Only the Pope can do that. Reboot the College of Cardinals. Only the Pope can do that. I think one thing that probably should happen at this point is precisely that. The College of Cardinals should be rebooted. Start with 12. Can you find 12 men on the surface of this planet that could be elevated, made princes of the Church, and we just start over? Something to think about, but only the Pope can do that.

Things to expect to hear for believing Benedict is Pope:

  1. You will be called a conspiracy theorist.
  2. You will, no matter what, be called a sedevacantist (even though this contradicts reason).
  3. You will be laughed at, yes, even bishops who celebrate the Latin Mass will laugh at you.
  4. You will be told, “you’re not a cardinal, bishop, priest or canon lawyer”.
  5. You will be told that only the hierarchy can determine who the pope is and it’s up to the college of cardinals (actually it is up to the Law when it comes to resignations).
  6. You will be told, “you are not Catholic anymore”.
  7. “You have to be a canon lawyer to understand the Law”. Just like we have to be Moses to follow the ten commandments…
  8. I say this last one, not to sound uncharitable against these holy men, but people will perpetually tell you “But Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider said Benedict validly resigned.” Notice the trend with this argument; the souls who tell you this will not be able to quote one of the canon laws broken because they have never even taken a peek at the evidence. They follow the opinions of these shepherds, sometimes to a fault, too trustingly and blindly BECAUSE they are holy, a cardinal, bishop or canon lawyer. It is a beautiful thing to love our priests and allow ourselves to be led by them. But this is where I will also gently remind readers of Patrick Coffin’s words, “Our Lord came to take away your sins, not your mind” and if we only had general judgement, and not individual judgement as well, then it would be sound to believe that our own discernment was not important, but it is. Our Lord knows His sheep by name, and He expects us to judge all things, as Saint Paul says of the spiritual man. For example, I support Bishop Schneider’s stance with SSPX NOT being in schism, but his argument for the papacy is weak. Burke also has views that I support, but he does not hold Schneider’s view of the SSPX. See my point? Just because one prominent cardinal or bishop might be in the right with some things, does not make them automatically right with everything. We must genuinely try to hear their arguments for different subjects, and then according to the Law, also determine for ourselves. Again, this is not a disobedient rebellion, but as Saint Paul said, required of the spiritual man, and the perfect. “The sheep know My Voice”.

Consequences for obeying/praying for an antipope in place of the real Holy Father

1.  Grace will be withdrawn, because not only is the ACTUAL Holy Father not getting the right amount of prayers from the flock, whether that be in the Te Igitur of the Mass or the preces of the Divine Office, where the pope is prayed for by name, but prayer in general will be lacking. If the Mass is the highest form of prayer and Benedict’s name is not being mentioned on that altar of sacrifice… how grievous. And as I stated in our previous chapter, the flock are in turn denying the Divinity of Christ (knowingly or unknowingly) by praying for a man in place of the Holy Father who does not truly hold the keys of Peter. There will be clouded judgement even for the elect, the just and the prophets. This is where I will relay, as Ann said, that when one has been praying for an antipope at the Te Igitur for nine years now, she went so far as to say that their intellect has been clouded from seeing proper reason. Even the most intelligent of men. This completely supports her argument about why a question traditionalists answered ten years ago looks so different to how they would answer it today (one of those being canon law not being important anymore). “You shall know them by their fruits” and the “fruits” of praying for Bergoglio at the Te Igitur over Benedict is indeed producing error rather than truth. The antichurch will need to have all the external appearances of a papacy, but will be devoid of all grace, in order to deceive even the Elect into entering the antichurch. THAT is the entire goal of The Miller Dissertation. When anyone tries to argue this point with you about Benedict NOT being pope, say: “have you read The Miller Dissertation?” I can almost 100% predict they will have never even heard of it. Even the most prominent and traditional bishops will look at you dumb-founded.


Whether you like Benedict’s choices or not, we ALL have an obligation to pray for him as the ONE true pope. To believe in ONE holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Our Lord never intended two voices to be coming from the Father. Before Benedict dies, as he is “old and frail”, we need to pray that he repents of his errors before God, reveals the Third Secret of Fatima and addresses the people from the papal window by telling all of the flock that he never stopped being pope in full. And him believing he had the power to break the Law by inventing a new papal platform was wrong and not valid in the eyes of God. Lastly, that he dies in the state of grace. In a radical way, the grace to perform the consecration of Russia still depends on Benedict’s repentance, because at this point, we need a resurrection of the papacy. Bergoglio CANNOT be the one to consecrate Russia, because he is not the pope. So, the bishop of Ukraine asking Bergoglio to consecrate Russia, the intention is good, but he is asking the wrong man in white. Benedict is more to blame since he actually holds the keys of Peter. Bergoglio is a small piece of this puzzle, he’s not a pope, just a criminal. But the reason we are in this current crisis is because of the one who holds the keys right now, and that is Benedict.

Saint John in his epistle says this regarding doctrine: Anyone who advances and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God; he who abides in the doctrine, he has both Father and Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, welcome. For he who says to him, welcome, is sharer in his evil works [Benedict himself opened the Church door to Bergoglio and said, “welcome”].

Soils Revisited

After having heard the violations of canon law, now we can break apart the three soils of tempered faith of WHY souls are finding it so hard to believe Bergoglio is not the pope.

Three soils and groups of people within the Church

  1. Tempered soil: Faithful Novus Ordo Catholics in union with Bergoglio. Oh, they listen to ONE voice alright, but it’s the wrong one. They attend only the New Mass and listen only to Bergoglio. I am NOT including the cafeteria Catholics here who wears shorts and sweats to Mass, do not believe in the real presence of the Eucharist. No, I am referring to Novus Ordo, still very faithful, Catholics who, attend daily Mass, weekly confession, pray the rosary and wear their scapular. They are just that… faithful, but their faith is planted in “the wayside soil”. I call this group the Father Michael Gaitley, Mike Schmitt, and Father Donald Calloway’s of the Church. These holy men mean well: they write books on Our Lady, Our Lord and the Good Saint Joseph. They do all in their power to preach orthodoxy in the manner that they have been taught because they genuinely do not know their faith is planted in poor soil. They look to “saints” such as Paul VI, John XXIII and John Paul II as if they are some sort of heroes in the Church and they believe that the New Mass and Vatican II were ordained by God and “the movements of the spirit”. It was a spirit to be sure, but not the Holy One. The wayside faithers hear, but do not understand and in the name of what they believe to be holy obedience disregard the truth as dung. Take it from me, Father Donald Calloway is a true Father, he promoted our own poor little Etsy shop on his social media. Father Michael Gaitely, before I entered Carmel, sent me a hand-written note of encouragement, praying that I would enter soon and sent me a copy of his book on Saint Therese free of charge. As I said, TRUE Fathers and I believe with my whole heart that priests like this, precisely because of their love of Mary, the rosary, Saint Joseph that their eyes will one day be opened. The issue with wayside faithers, however, is when Bergoglio eventually does something more scandalous than they can handle, these poor souls will be stunned and shell-shocked. Our Lord never desired this. These Catholics, despite much confusion, have done all they can to justify the actions of Bergoglio throughout his fake papacy and this… this is a very sad delusion. This type of soil usually contains those who believe that the consecration of the world was accepted, and they have a great love for John Paul II. John Paul was not as bad as John XXIII and Paul VI, but his papacy was very weak, and for some odd reason, many people in this category tend to have a greater love for John Paul II than Mary, and this is the real problem. See below how many times he failed to properly consecrate Russia:
  1. June 7th, 1981: Pope John Paul II consecrates the world, but not Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
  2. May 13th, 1982: Pope John Paul II consecrates the world, but not Russia, at Fatima. The bishops of the world do not participate.
  3. March 25th, 1984: Pope John Paul II, before 250,000 people in Rome, consecrates the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Immediately after he pronounced the words of the consecration, he departs from his prepared text and prays: “enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our Consecration and confiding.” The Pope thus publicly acknowledges that Our Lady of Fatima is still awaiting the Consecration of Russia.
  4. October 8th, 2000: Pope John Paul II consecrates the world, but not Russia, in an “entrustment” ceremony. (November 30th: A Cardinal described as “one of the Pope’s closest advisors” (Cardinal Tomko) admits to a Vatican magazine editor that he advised Pope John Paul II to not make mention of Russia in any consecration ceremony because it would offend the Russian Orthodox.)[6]

 John Paul’s attempts at consecrations have still delayed the great chastisement, but it is not the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart and thus, that era of peace was not the result. Again, there is an obedience problem. A sort of peace being produced occurred by the consecrations of the world and this is proof that, though the last several popes were bad ones, they were still valid popes with the power to bind and loose. There are certain “Fatima Catholics” who make John Paul out to be some head over heels Marian Pope, and with all due respect, while I believe his devotion and promotion of the Divine Mercy message most likely won his salvation, he ignored Mary’s Fatima message more times than I can count. This soil typically has no clue about what Viganò calls the “deep state” and the “deep Church”. They live in a bubble. I mean that in the nicest way possible; yes, it’s more of an insult, but I am just calling it as I see it. This group also believes that the assassination attempt on John Paul’s life was the fulfilment of the Fatima Vision. Last I checked the pope in the vision dies, is shot dead by a band of soldiers who also had weapons such as arrows. John Paul lived and was shot by ONE single gunman; that is not even intelligent interpretation. Are we forgetting the various martyrs the pope in the vision is surrounded by? Plus, when you have a fake pope canonizing SAINTS, then we are expected to not question the New Mass and Vatican II. Why? Because they are “saints”. To lead astray if possible… even the elect. Why did Paul VI weep after he saw what Bugnini did to the Mass? Why did John XXIII on his death bed say, “stop the council?” if these were the “movements of the spirit”? Sincere question!

  • Rocky soil: Novus Ordo during the week and Latin Mass on Sundays. Two voices; they see no problem with the New Mass, they prefer the old but still attend both forms for many reasons. Their foundation is unstable because of this, whether they know it or not or whether they want to admit it or not and have come to believe that it is okay to listen to two voices. They say things like “Oh I believe Benedict holds the keys, but Bergoglio still has some power”. They think it’s natural for God to have two voices. This is a fallacy. But because they attend both forms of the Mass, they accept compromise and therefore see no issue with two popes. Satan is pleased with this…
  • Thorny soil: This next part I say with nothing but honest charity, I call this the Dr Taylor Marshall/ Bishop Schneider crowd. They are zealous, fervent, holy and strictly Latin Mass but to them it appears impossible that anyone but Bergoglio is pope. And even if they question it, they will avoid the topic and continue saying “Pope Francis” even after our shared hero Viganò sounded the alarm. Ann Barnhardt, on a recent blog, said she was personal friends with Christopher Ferrera (Remnant Newspaper columnist) and Michael J. Matt (Remnant Newspaper editor) and she shared how both of these men told her in secret that they believe she is probably right about Benedict being pope, but were fearful to come out about it. That is jaw-dropping. Many of the flock are afraid because they do not want to suffer persecution and so they willingly turn the other way.

Matthew 24 says that few would believe with true charity. That true charity stems forth from the Traditional Latin Mass where we properly, with temperance and order, adore our God AND having our faith (the Mass) planted on a firm rock (the papacy). If the charity is not placed on a firm foundation, this is where the elect are being deceived. They are placing their faith on a fake pope; a false base premise that is not the true rock of Peter, but the foundation stone of the Anti-Church. Here is where the Society of Saint Pius X and the Fraternity of Saint Peter share something striking in common. They are seeking union with the same anti-pope. When the FSSP were jumping up and down saying “we have consecrated ourselves to the Immaculate Heart of Mary” and “The Holy Father said we are not affected by Motu Proprio” and they cuddled up to Bergoglio for a nice photo, I cringed. When this happened, I received many messages from people expressing their excitement. Do you know why I was not? See that Mason Law yet again:

So, yes, bishops and priests are following a “bishop dressed in white, we had the impression he was the Holy Father” in the holy name of obedience; the devil is laughing his way to the pits of hell as the elect follow a man who only appears to hold the keys of Peter. The SSPX are continuously seeking union with a fake pope, while the FSSP have obtained it. These two groups are so competitive with each other by the way (I have spoken to both sides); SSPX says things like “well, THEY accept Vatican II” and the FSSP say “well, WE are in union with ROME”. Satan is thrilled with the discord in these two groups, because either way, they are still following the Masonic Flag- they are united through blindness that’s for certain. Do you understand why I am not excited, now? When Bergoglio told the two FSSP priests that he was “impressed” at their coming to him, he was impressed because he’s laughing thinking “ahhhh we got em, they are following our flag”. EVEN THE ELECT WILL BE LED ASTRAY. As much as I am not a fan of Summorum Pontificum anymore, because as Viganò said, this document merely placed two opposing forms of worship on equal levels, technically that document is still intact fully and completely, because Bergoglio has NO authority to bind and loose. You can’t bind heresy as it is, and to take away the Mass even if he were the pope is impossible, but the only power Bergoglio has over Catholics is BY MAKING YOU BELIEVE HE HAS THE POWER, MAKING YOU BELIEVE HE IS POPE. This is exactly what Matthew 24 was referring to with leading astray (if possible) even the elect. I believe Our Lord did not will Summorum Pontificum but allowed it so the priests ordained in the New Mass could learn the Old Mass and choose it exclusively and so that the flock could also attend and thus, the Old Mass is slowly but surely making its way back to all ends of the earth. Many do not want to hear this, but there is a reason Pope Pius XII called the future changes of the Mass A SUICIDE in his own time. And with the triumph of the Immaculate Heart the New Mass will be entirely wiped away and the ONE Mass will be reinstated to its rightful state. 

  • Lastly: Rich and fertile soil. Listens to not only one voice, but the RIGHT voice and that is this:

Pope Benedict is the only reigning pope and even though we believe the New Mass is valid, we avoid it unless we ABSOLUTELY have to fulfill our Sunday obligation and there is not a Latin Mass in the area. I sat down with Bishop Fellay and we discussed this very topic of “if there is no Latin Mass in an area, say when traveling etc., do I still go to the New Mass to fulfill my Sunday obligation, would it be a sin to not attend it? Because even though I believe the New Mass is sacrilegious, I know it is still valid…for now… and this is what he actually said:

“Would you willingly consume poison when you know it is bad for you?”

 I was stunned, but what an answer! He said it would NOT be a mortal sin to not attend it on a Sunday. However, this is where we need to make sure that we can find a way to be as close as possible to a Latin Mass, because we NEVER want to miss Sunday Mass willfully. I know there are so many people who cannot move to be near the Old Mass and thus, have to attend the New Mass on Sundays to at least be able to receive the Eucharist weekly and that is completely understandable. Circumstances are all things Our Great God takes into account, and this is why discussing the current crisis of the papacy and Mary’s Heart triumphing will restore the Traditional Liturgy in full, the New Mass will be abolished, and faithful Catholics will not have to worry about traveling long distances or moving homes to find it. This soil follows ONE Calendar and attends exclusively the Latin Mass, the Mass of the apostles. Here is what I tell people who say: “but I do not have a Latin Mass in my area”. I tell them how many graces come with moving to a home near a Latin Mass and is a thriving parish OR driving long distances to get to one. Whether that be FSSP, SSPX or Institute of Christ the King. If you live in an area and have the option between the New Mass and only the SSPX, one should have NO scruple whatsoever in attending daily Latin Mass at a SSPX parish. If this statement scares you, I recommend taking note of this and looking up Doctor Taylor Marshall and his interview with none other than a bishop under the hierarchy: Bishop Schneider and how he lays out through canon law how SSPX are NOT in schism[7]. Founder of the Fatima Center Father Gruner, God rest his soul, also has a video on Youtube where he explains how it’s even encouraged to attend SSPX chapels, because they choose tradition without compromise. Bishop Fellay even did the requiem Mass for Gruner. The Remnant Newspaper shows their support as well. Trust me when I say, Our Lady will provide in every way possible if you’re truly desiring to live near and attend daily the Old Mass. Nothing is impossible if you place your confidence in Her and believe that She is Virgo Potens. For those who can only attend The Old Mass on Sundays, I can say from experience that my own incredible grandparents drove me three hours one way and three hours back to the Latin Mass every Sunday for almost four solid months and the graces they received were IMMENSE!

The grace was there, it was rich and from their faithfulness they have been showered with more blessings than I can relay in this book. If you have your own Daily Missal at home, spiritual communions during the week are more powerful than many realize. And as Father Lawrence Carney, chaplain to the Benedictines of Mary told me, it’s better to refrain from the New Mass during the week, even when there is no Latin Mass in the area. I understand many want to receive the Eucharist daily, but the New Mass, especially overtime, when one discovers the dangers behind it, to keep attending, sort of like a priest continuing to celebrate it… their soil will eventually shrivel up and die. I once heard how the devil did not care one jot about the New Mass until the words of consecration, because essentially the only thing that has kept the Novus Ordo valid… are the words of consecration. If there indeed comes a day where the words of consecration will be changed it will no longer be a valid Mass and one would have no obligation to attend it, because it would not be Catholic anymore. My point is, the devil is not upset outside of anything save the consecration because many of the prayers are protestant. Copied word for word from other religions. Have you ever seen the photo of Paul VI with six protestant pastors? They played a part in the construction of the Novus Ordo. Try and take your Roman Missal to a New Mass and follow along. YOU CAN’T. It is a new creation, said reverently or not, there is sacrilege built into the Mass. Again, why did John XXIII on his deathbed say, “STOP THE COUNSEL?” Why did Paul VI weep after seeing the changes of the Mass? I am talking much about the Mass because it is linked to the rich and fertile soil seen as the “one voice” and its direct link to the papacy.

I will end this questions and answers with Ann’s statement on the Voice of the Lamb:

“You can’t judge the Pope! Ann, you can’t judge the Pope,” meaning Bergoglio. Can you answer this? We’re almost at the end, can you answer this? I’m not judging the Pope, I’m judging the Antipope, and not only can I judge the Antipope, I better judge the Antipope. Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope. I’m not judging the Pope, I’m judging the Antipope, and not only can I judge the Antipope, I’d better judge the Antipope. Look at the Good Shepherd discourse. Every one of us will stand before Christ at our Particular Judgments, naked and alone, and there will be absolutely no finger-pointing, ‘but, but, but.’ Nope. What does the Good Shepherd discourse say? The sheep must discern the voice of the Shepherd. Faithless hirelings, wolves there. But the sheep, the sheep have to discern the voice of the Shepherd.

[1] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/04/05/our-advocate-in-exposing-the-bergoglian-antipapacy-st-vincent-ferrer-the-saint-who-backed-an-antipope-for-a-time/

[2] That time St. Bernard of Clairvaux singlehandedly exposed Antipopes “morally unanimously accepted” by the College of Cardinals and restored the True Pope. Thank God manly St. Bernard didn’t listen to the effeminate “there’s nothing you can do” despair merchants!

[3] https://www.barnhardt.biz/the-bergoglian-antipapcy/ Part I and II Videos

[4] Popularly known as the “Fatima Priest”, Fr. Nicholas Gruner (b. 1942) passed away during the evening of April 29, 2015 while working at his apostolate to spread awareness about the message of Our Lady of Fatima.

Fr. Gruner dedicated many years of apostolic work to have Our Lady’s requests known and in particular, the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart fulfilled.

Father Paul Kramer was the right hand man to Father Gruner and has been shunned by the Fatima Center after Gruner’s death.


Antonio Socci is an Italian media personality, journalist and book writer. He is best known for coverage of Catholic Church topics, including general history and subjects such the Secrets of Fatima

[5] https://bibliaytradicion.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/a-heretical-pope-would-govern-the-church-illicitly-but-validly.pdf

[6] Fatima Center Timeline.

[7] https://youtu.be/pitQdPJIDLc

I only do not support his view of Bergoglio “letting them hear confessions”, because he has no power. Bergoglio carries out “governance” to deceive the elect.

[1] The Saint Andrew Daily Missal (Pentecost Sunday).


[3] Simony is the act of selling church offices and roles or sacred things. It is named after Simon Magus, who is described in the Acts of the Apostles as having offered two disciples of Jesus payment in exchange for their empowering him to impart the power of the Holy Spirit to anyone on whom he would place his hands. Simony remains prohibited in Roman Catholic canon law. In the Code of Canon Law, Canon 149.3 notes that “Provision of an office made as a result of simony is invalid by the law itself.”

[4] https://www.virgosacrata.com/diabolical-disorientation.html

[5] https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2012/02/10/complotto-di-morte-benedetto-xvi/190221/

[6] Read the rest of the article here: https://maryssecretary.com/2022/05/12/the-death-threat-on-pope-benedict-xvis-life/

[7] Maria Antonietta Calabro, “Io come Pio XII perseguitato dai nazisti,” Huffington Post (Italian edition), September 2018.

[8] The Secret of Benedict.

[9] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abp-vigano-denounces-benedicts-secretary-for-abusive-and-systematic-control-of-pope-emeritus/ and https://www.barnhardt.biz/2020/01/16/vigano-unloads-on-the-dirty-lying-gaslighting-manipulator-and-jailer-georg-ganswein-calls-pope-benedict-the-sovereign-pontiff-present-tense-singular/

[10] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/05/19/lets-play-what-a-difference-seven-years-makes/

[11] https://www.barnhardt.biz/the-bergoglian-antipapcy/

[12] And yes, there are absolutely Satanists inside the Vatican. The practice of Satanism, the nexus of it today, is inside the Vatican, and it has been that way for decades. It was just revealed that the gay orgy, the cocaine-fueled gay orgy broken up in the palace of the Holy Office, which sits literally right next to St. Peter’s, that it was supposed to be the apartment of Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, who is a secretary working in the Holy Office. Turns out that, in fact, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, who is one of the closest Cardinals to Bergoglio, known sodomite, and was Copozzi’s patron inside the Vatican, not only was he there, but the exact word that was used to describe his role in this homosexual orgy that was going on in the palace of the Holy Office, was that he was “presiding” over it. Presiding. “Orgy” tends to imply chaos, no organization. Cardinal qCoccopalmerio was presiding over this. That, I am convinced, is…read between the lines…this was probably some sort of a satanic liturgy. It was probably a satanic liturgy. That’s what was going on in there.

Ann’s video notes:

0:48:00 Freemasons. They’ve been present in the Vatican for over a hundred years now, and they’ve got power, and they too…you know the Venn diagram of satanism and sodomy and Freemasonry, that has a huge overlap in it, and again these are violent people. When they get power and they’re close to power, or they feel that power is slipping away from them, it is nothing for these people to slip into physical violence, absolutely nothing. They have no empathy, many of them have no consciences…they’re psychopaths. They are psychopaths.

Archbishop Viganò, as we’ve already discussed, has gone into hiding for fear of his life. Don’t you tell me that fear is not on the table with regards to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, and all of these events.

0:49:01 The Southern Italian Mafia has a huge presence and has allied with the Freemasons, sodomites, and satanists inside the Vatican. You say, ‘are these sodomite Cardinals going to be the ones who are going to pull the trigger on somebody or kidnap somebody? Are you going to find somebody hanging off one of the bridges in Rome because these Cardinals have gotten together and physically done it themselves?’ No. What they’re going to do is they’re going to contract it out to the Southern Italian Mafia, who don’t care as long as the money comes. They will do whatever. They’re psychopaths as well. And there’s a lot of pagan/satanists/satanic dynamic swirling around in that whole Neapolitan mafia culture anyway. Not unlike, Americans related probably better to the kind of Satanic, pagan rituals that we’re seeing resurge in Mexico and so forth, when you see that the drug cartels and these pagan Satanic cults are coming together and are overlapping. It’s like that in Italy from Naples south in southern Italy with the mafia and Satanism and paganism and so forth. So, yeah, the Cardinals would just contract out, to the Southern Italian Mafia, presumably, to do something like this.

[13] LUKE 15:32

[14] Matthew 5:37

[15] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/05/05/answering-the-question-why-has-christ-permitted-the-bergoglian-antipapacy/

THE MOST EVIDENT MARK of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clerics’ who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds.

Instead of nourishing those committed to their care, they rend and devour them brutally. Instead of leading their people to God, they drag Christian souls into hell in their train. Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they are its innocuous poison and its murky darkness.

St. Gregory the Great says that priests and pastors will stand condemned before God as the murderers of any souls lost through neglect or silence. Tot occidimus, quot ad mortem ire tepidi et tacentes videmus. Elsewhere St. Gregory asserts that nothing more angers God than to see those whom He set aside for the correction of others, give bad example by a wicked and depraved life.’

Instead of preventing offenses against His Majesty, such priests become themselves the first to persecute Him, they lose their zeal for the salvation of souls and think only of following their own inclinations. Their affections go no farther than earthly things, they eagerly bask in the empty praises of men, using their sacred ministry to serve their ambitions, they abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world, and in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits.

When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, “Return, 0 ye revolting children . . . and I will give you pastors according to my own heart” (Jer. 3, 14-15). Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge visited upon the people in consequence of sin.’

-St. John Eudes, ‘The Priest: His Dignity and Obligations’-

[16] https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/06/12/over-the-transom-chris-ferrara-benedict-resigned-under-mysterious-circumstances-or-partially-resigned-or-became-the-passive-pope-as-opposed-to-the-active-pope-who-knows-what-that-means/

“All of what I write here was either told to me by Fr. Gruner himself on numerous occasions or told me by my dear friend John Vennari in private conversations, either over the phone or face to face. For all of those involved in the controversy, we must remember what Aristotle said when confronted with a fundamental disagreement with his teacher, mentor, and colleague Plato, “Truth is more important than friendship”; and what are we all about but truth.

Among the insights offered by Dr. Chojnowski are those concerning Fr. Gruner’s deeply held conviction that the Third Secret included the following:

1) Our Lady’s warning that there would be an “evil Council.”

2) Our Lady’s warning that the Mass was “not to be changed.”3

3) Our Lady’s warning that “one third of the stars shall be swept from the heavens, by tail of the Devil”: Fr. Gruner interpreted this as indicating that 1/3 of the priests and bishops would serve Satan directly.

4) The Apostasy in the Church “would come from the very top,” in other words, from at least one or more men who were designated as being “the pope.” Cardinal Ciappi — who Fr. Gruner continually cited — was famous for indicating that this was the Third Secret, which he had read himself.

Leaving no room for doubt, Dr. Chojnowski immediately stressed:

In other words, Fr. Gruner saw the Third Secret as being a complete vindication of the traditionalist movement. Obviously, in Fr. Gruner’s understanding, the Third Secret was a condemnation of Vatican II, the New Mass, many of the clergy of the post-conciliar Church, and an indication that a man or men designated as pope would be the ones actually pushing the apostasy in the Church.” What was Our Lady warning us against? The New Doctrine, the New Mass, the New Priesthood, and the New Popes.

[17] https://youtu.be/F5Q8GAsYzMY

[18] https://padreperegrino.org/2022/05/sspx/

[19] Vatican News quoting Bergoglio naming his agenda as “Humanism of Fraterinty” – the very name of Freemasonry.

1:23:22 The coerced non-abdication exile of Emperor Charles I Habsburg – Blessed Emperor Charles only “renounced participation in state affairs”. He did NOT abdicate.

1:25:42 What does Walter Kasper want? Money and power, specifically from the Lutheran German Church Tax revenues. Freemasonry and satan share Kasper’s goals.

1:26:41 So what probably happened? “Either you let us schism the Church, or we will schism the Church…”

[20] https://www.marcotosatti.com/2021/03/02/there-is-only-one-pope-andrea-cionci-asks-which-is-the-real-one/