More Details on the Resignation in a Month?
More Details on the Resignation in a Month?
We here already know the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was invalid. Just as the Apostles fled, except for St. John, during Jesus’ Passion, the process repeats as the Church goes through its passion before the Second Coming.
Was Pope Benedict Driven from Office by the “Wolves” He Mentioned?A “fateful letter”? The mystery deepens.
by Christopher A. FerraraHistory will forever record the shocking words of the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI at the Mass for the inauguration of his papacy: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” Those words turned out to be a prophecy.
March 10, 2017
The “normalists” who insist that nothing is amiss with the current pontificate — a group whose numbers are rapidly diminishing — profess to be undisturbed by the most unprecedented manner in which Benedict left the Chair of Peter: retaining the papal name, the papal lgarb, the papal insignia, the papal residence in the Vatican and, so Benedict says, the “passive” aspect of the office (prayer and contemplation) as the first “Pope Emeritus” in Church history.
If a bishop emeritus is still a bishop, is not a Pope Emeritus still a Pope? If not, then how is the title “Pope Emeritus” anything but empty nonsense? But if Benedict still considers himself a Pope in any sense, what are we to make of two Popes living in the Vatican? How could a Pope who resigns his office still be in any sense a Pope, given that election to the papacy does not work any ontological change in the man — such as an indelible mark upon the soul, as does ordination to the priesthood or episcopal consecration — but merely confers the papal office, which here has supposedly been renounced?
I propose no definite answer to these questions. What is most certainly the case, however, is that Benedict did flee the papacy, professedly on account of his inability to bear its burdens due to advancing age. But did he flee in fear of the wolves he clearly had in view at the very beginning of his brief pontificate? And just who are these wolves?
The mystery not only lingers but grows deeper with each passing day of the Bergoglian tumult. Now there appears one Monsignor Luigi Negri, a friend of Benedict’s, who declares in an interview with Rimini2.0 that Benedict’s abdication is “an unheard of gesture” taken while he was “under enormous pressure.” But what kind of pressure, and by whom was it applied? Negri rightly pronounces the affair a “very serious mystery” and vows that when his “personal end of the world” arrives, the “first question I will ask Saint Peter will be precisely about this affair.”
Curiously enough, after Negri’s interview appeared, the former spokesman for the Vatican Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, issued a pro forma denial, citing Benedict’s statement in an interview with Peter Seewald that he had renounced the “exercise” of the Petrine office “in full liberty and responsibility.” There was no statement from Benedict in response to his friend Msgr. Negri, however.
Now, the phrase “full liberty and responsibility” is not inconsistent with a resignation under pressure. No one is suggesting that anyone put a gun to Benedict’s head or otherwise negated his free will. No, the question is whether the resignation was nonetheless still motivated to some extent by fear of something that might have influenced his will unduly: that “fear of the wolves” Benedict himself had mentioned. Whether or not that fear rose to the level of invalidating the resignation, if “the wolves” were the ones who applied the pressure, it behooves every Catholic to demand to know their identity and to be on guard against them as they scheme and plot their next moves.
In that regard, the mystery deepens. The pseudonymous but apparently very well-connected Italian blogger “Fra Cristoforo,” whose blogsite Anonimo della croce claims to have sources inside Casa Santa Marta, has responded to Fr. Lombardi’s denial with an explosive claim: “In a month Anonimo della croce will be able to publish the content of that fateful letter that Benedict received before deciding to resign.”
“Fra Cristoforo” continues:
“Also, Father Lombardi, like so many other journalists, should remain silent on this subject. Because the reasons for the resignation of Pope Ratzinger are not trifles. They are serious reasons. And not because of poor health or other theological reasons. But for serious, really serious, reasons… On this issue, we will publish in a month.”Perhaps in a month some light will finally be shed on the mysterious, unprecedented and strangely qualified resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, an event that must figure in the prophecy of the Third Secret of Fatima.
Read the full article at Fatima Perspectives