Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Of Papal Resignations And Depositions

The seemingly non-stop insults to Tradition coming from Pope Francis have led to much discussion regarding the possibility of deposing a sitting pope and, in this case, whether or not Benedict XVI's resignation was valid.  Below are two videos.  The first is a discussion between Taylor Marshall and Eric Sammons regarding the possibility of deposing a pope.  As you listen, pay close attention at the 6:04 mark, when Sammons says, "there's only been one pope at a time; never has there been a case of two popes at a time."

That dovetails into Ann Barnhardt's video, in which she makes a case, from canon law, that the "resignation" proffered by Pope Benedict XVI was invalid.  That being the case, Benedict is still pope and Jorge Bergoglio never has been.  These videos are long, but they are well worth the investment of time to consider.  You may agree or disagree with what these individuals say, but they raise questions that all faithful Catholics must ponder for we are indeed living in treacherous times, and much of that treachery comes from Church leadership.  Now the videos...


  1. I for one will not be holding my breath waiting for the current bunch of Cowardinals to do anything about the current sad state of affairs.

  2. Barnhardt's thesis relies on using Ganswein's words as an accurate reflection of Benedict's mind, and on interpreting words of Benedict. I don't think hearsay and interpretation is sufficient. There is reason to believe the resignation was invalid, but not enough to declare it so, and, moreover, it is not our call; we are not the ones to declare. We can have an opinion. I personally opine that Benedict faux-resigned in plain sight, for whatever personal or strategic reasons. But that's just my opinion. Only Benedict can let us know, at this point. And it appears incontrovertible that the conclave was invalid by the terms of UDG, and would be invalid even if there were no questions about B's resignation.

  3. I've been contemplating Barnhardt's video for days now, I think she makes some excellent points.

    1. Julie, check out the opposite view at this blog post:
      I think Steven has the much stronger argument then Ann.

  4. More than just Ganswein's words are Benedict's himself. But.....correct that it is not our call at this point, but worth the discernment. The entire abdication has been quite irregular from every aspect, and continues to be so. The idea that a 'split' Papacy would pass muster is a tad ludicrous. Circumstantial evidence alone should have and should BE raising questions. Just to point out that Ann is not the only one who has come to this conclusion, there are quite a few others who believe Benedict's abdication is worth looking at the validity and shouldn't be dismissed outright as some kind of 'nut job' theory. There are plenty of indicators that point to it being terribly amiss. There is almost no doubt in my mind that he was 'coerced' into resigning which would throw it into question by just that fact alone.

  5. I was unconvinced by Barnhardt's arguments until I read this analysis of Benedict's words in LATIN:


  6. Replies
    1. Would you care to elaborate on your objections, or are ad hominems all you can generate?


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.