Hey, ‘Red Hat’ Investigators: How about starting with this former Red Hat…Cardinal Bergoglio?

November 16, 2018 (Steven O’Reilly) – In a recent interview of Monsigor Nicola Bux conducted in Italian by Aldo Maria Valli-– and also reported on by Edward Pentin, the monsignor had some interesting things to say about the state of the Church. Per Pentin’s blog:

“In a forceful interview with Italian Vaticanist Aldo Maria Valli, Msgr. Nicola Bux has warned that the current pontificate is issuing statements that are generating “heresies, schisms, and controversies of various kinds” and that the Holy Father should issue a profession of faith to restore unity in the Church.”

Bux goes on to suggest the Pope make a profession of faith. Incredible…that we live in a time where it is seriously suggested–and needed–for a pope to make a profession of the orthodox faith. The reader should take a look at the interview, if you have not already, as it presents a sobering view of the situation today in the Catholic Church.  But, his assessment, although already shared by many, serves as a stark confirmation from a priest with such a respected background under former popes. He said much that is worth reading, including:

“More useful” than a fraternal correction, he said, would be to examine the “juridical validity” of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation and “whether it is full or partial.” Jesus, he said, did not give the keys of heaven to Peter and Andrew but “said it only to Peter.” Such an “in-depth study” of the resignation, he said, could help to “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.” (Source: Edward Pentin)

While I agree with Bux on pretty much of everything he says, the comment above is the one exception. I do not see how questioning the validity of the Benedict XVI’s renunciation of the papacy could possibly be “more useful” than a “fraternal correction” of Pope Francis regarding his errors (see this blog’s recent rebuttal of a Francis apologist here, here and here)–although it does appear clear there will be no correction (see here).

Bux does not suggest nor does he hint he is in possession of any new facts in the interview which explains the ‘usefulness’ of an investigation into the “juridical validity” of Benedict’s resignation. Certainly not from what I have seen. He seems to be in the same boat as the rest of us, i.e., regarding what is known of Benedict’s resignation. What is known strongly suggests, to put it mildly, that the theory claiming “Benedict is still Pope” remains–as it always has been–untenable (see Benedict is NOT popeBenedict is STILL not Pope; and Benedict is really, really still not pope! Really!).

All the above said, it remains quite remarkable that Bux even ventured to say what he did, as Christopher A. Ferrara in his Fatima Perspectives recently wrote: “I make no comment on Bux’s astonishing suggestion except to note that only in the midst of a pontificate such as this one — the likes of which the Church has never witnessed — could a cleric of such prominence feel compelled to publish such opinions.”

Whether by incompetence, gross negligence or by intent, this pontificate has been a catastrophic disaster for the Church. Nor, is there an end in sight. Bux’s comment above is a recent example of a notable cleric expressing significant doubts about Pope Francis in one way or the other. Another example of this, back in May 2018, is that of Cardinal Eijk who wrote a piece in the National Catholic Register on the controversy in Germany over communion for non-catholic spouses of Catholics. Commenting on the failure of Pope Francis to intervene on the side of orthodoxy in the matter with clarity, Cardinal Eijk opined and then quoted the Catholic Catechism (CCC 675):

“Observing that the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, I cannot help but think of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The Church’s ultimate trial

Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.””

(Source: National Catholic Register. “Pope Francis Needed to Give Clarity on Intercommunion” by Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk)

Although Cardinal Eijk does not state the explicit proposition, one might not be faulted for at least inferring he intended to associate Pope Francis, personally, with the “religious deception.” That is just my take on what he said. Perhaps I am wrong. Either way, it makes one wonder about the level of perplexity and frustration experienced by those in the Church’s high places, and what senior prelates really think and say about Pope Francis in private amongst themselves. I imagine among them there are some who—fearful to declare so in public–mumble to themselves in the dark hours of the night: “Where’s the formal correction! Be quick about it, Burke! ”

While I knock the idea that Benedict is still pope as ridiculous–it is, I do not say that with any glee. I get the frustration that wants it to be true, but a poor theory is no substitute for a proper understanding of reality. That said, I do believe events surrounding the election of Cardinal Bergoglio should be investigated (NB: for one example, an answer to this). Certainly, there is a lot of smoke and stink around the whole St. Gallen Mafia conspiracy, and the conclave which elected Cardinal Bergoglio as pope (see Of McCarrick and Past and Future Conclaves). Observing the apparent close ties between the Democratic Party and this Vatican in the years following the conclave led the Remnant Newspaper to publish an open letter, which was signed by a number of Catholic notables, inclusive of Michael J. Matt, Christopher A. Ferrara and Elizabeth Yore. The letter addressed to the Trump administration  [see A Vatican-Democratic Party Alliance (Catholics ask Trump Administration to Investigate)] asked a number of interesting questions, one of which was “What other covert operations were carried out by US government operatives concerning the resignation of Pope Benedict or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?”

What brings this all to mind is the news within the last couple months that former law enforcement and intelligence officers will create reports on all cardinals (see ‘Red Hat Report’: Should Laypeople Investigate Cardinals?”). According to the National Register article by Judy Roberts, this ‘Red Hat’ group has the following goal:

“Using the services of academic researchers, lawyers, editors and investigators who are former FBI and CIA agents, the group hopes to create dossiers on cardinals by examining their priorities and records of handling sexual-abuse incidents and financial and legal matters.”

More power to them. I just hope they add a section to each report with a theological profile of each cardinal’s orthodoxy. They don’t need to judge the cardinals; just a statement with citations of their theological and pastoral views on key issues, e.g., on communion for manifest adulterers and pro-abortion politicians, homosexuals in the priesthood, the traditional mass, etc. You get the idea.

This group intends to raise some significant funds for this effort, according to the article:

“The project’s $1-million fundraising goal, for instance, appears to have excited many commentators, he said, but he considers it a modest amount compared to the billions the Church has paid in sexual-abuse settlements worldwide. As for the group being backed by wealthy Catholics, he said that, so far, the typical donor has given a few hundred dollars, and no single donor has represented more than 5% of the funding.”

The Group even set up a GoFundMe site. The first report is supposed to come out next year on the North American cardinals, according to the Catholic Herald article, which reported the story in early October (see here).

I don’t know how their fundraising is going, but…I bet they’d get a tremendous boost if they announced the first of the “red hats” they are looking into is Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, his association with other St. Gallen mafia cardinals and bishops, and the 2013 conclave. Just a suggestion. If this group has former FBI, CIA and NSA firepower behind it…who knows…maybe they “know some guys who know some guys” who could provide the type of information to which Deep State “guys” have had access. Who knows…maybe “they know some guys” too.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. He and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is working on a historical-adventure trilogy, set during the time of the Arian crisis. He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA).

 


18 thoughts on “Hey, ‘Red Hat’ Investigators: How about starting with this former Red Hat…Cardinal Bergoglio?

  1. Francis is pope, but will surely go down in history as the Church’s worst. This mess heap of confusion had been growing well before his election. Only now it seems to be accelerating. The one think the puzzles me about the current homoheresy, aside from many prelates seeming affection for this particular vice, I truly don’t see what their long view is of embracing sodomy. Do they really think that approving sodomy and homo relationships is going to flood parishes with lapsed liberal Catholics? They surely must see the collapsing first world attendance numbers; do they believe this would stem the tide? The idea seems laughable because the Church would lose a greater number of conservatives than could ever be offset. Again, other than appearing up on current trends what do they think embracing these heresies will do for the Church.

    Like

    1. Ken, thanks for your comments. You raise valid points. Devoid of grace, their intellects are dimmed. Their consciences likely burn, and thus they hate the true faith. Consequently, they are enemies of the Faith. They do not operate on a rational basis. Do not look to arguments based on faith or reason to change their hearts and minds. They require conversion…God’s grace.

      Thanks again. Steve

      Like

    2. They have no purpose in pushing sodomy, except to silence the Church. They absolutely are not pushing sodomy because they think it will help the Church in some way–i.e., increase the popularity of Catholicism.

      Like

  2. “Whether by incompetence, gross negligence or intent this pontificate has been a catastrophic disaster for the Church”.

    There is another possibility, not mentioned.

    I think you should not be so quick to dismiss the sketchy circumstances surrounding the preceding abdication and election. It was not total, not complete, Joseph Ratzinger retained essential elements of His Papacy. Sketchy to you. Invalid to me. Worth another look.

    This “Pope” is anti-Pope. Clear by facts. Clear by “fruit*. He has not Grace; not in communion with nor influenced by the Holy Spirit. He is not wrong on this or that, he is wrong on everything he attempts. He pursues sacrilege against the Holy of Holies. He aims not at the perimeters but the Sacraments themselves.

    And there sits His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI (emeritus); in white; residing within the Vatican walls; pursuing he contemplative Munus that he insists remains his and his alone; communicating in contemplation with the Holy Spirit. Never a hint of heresy ever emanated from his lips or pen. But, after the coup (or whatever one chooses to call it) existential Vatican heresy never stops; indeed accelerates with each passing day.

    None of this has a precedent. Prophecy abounds to warn us of these times. This catastrophe is not limited to one man. It is diabolical. Unseen war. And it starts with an *incomplete, invalid* “abdication”/retirement. My opinion. How I make sense and order my spiritual life accordingly.

    *Pope Benedict XVI, still reigning*.

    Like

    1. Aqua, thanks for the comments. I sense we agree that something is awry with Francis. It may also be the case that somehow that he is not a true and valid pope. However, from what I have researched–contained in a number of articles on my blog–the evidence for the claim BXVI’s resignation was “partial” or whatever, is completely lacking. It is not because i want Francis to be pope that I say that…it is simply that I believe one is obligated to follow the truth as one sees it. I have not seen a single good argument for the invalidity of the resignation that withstands scrutiny. I know there are Catholic websites that argue the opposite; but I think one can say with moral certainty their arguments are absurd–and I do not say that lightly. When BXVI resigned, in his Declaratio he explicitly said: ” 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.”

      One sees above that he resigned “in such a way” that the See of Peter would be “vacant.” Thus, it seems to me it is clear his intent, regardless of the argument over Munus or ministry…that he INTENDED for the see of Rome and Peter to be VACANT and there to be a conclave. That is only possible if he ceases to be pope. It would be great if Francis were not pope…but if he is not pope…the BXVI theory is NOT the explanation one should fall back on.

      I have written several article debunking the BXVI theory. I have not seen one rebuttal, only repetition of the original, fallacious arguments. I’d LOVE to be convinced to the contrary. If you have read this blog…you know I have serious concerns over what is happening in Rome. But, as I have said, a poor theory is no substitute for a proper understanding of reality as it is.

      Unfortunately, Benedict XVI is NOT pope.

      God bless.

      Steve

      Like

  3. Had some trouble posting this (below) for some reason, so, another attempt. Just a couple of links (below) of interest in reference to the topic of invalid/partial resignation. There appears, to me, a small but growing understanding that what happened at the beginning was not as it appeared; improper; the source of all subsequent error.

    Many people see the same things and reach different conclusions about them. I see two Popes. We can’t have two Popes. Two Popes, according to the Seers indicates the end times and antichrist. Resignations are inconceivable. Partial resignations and two living Popes have never been seen before. This is not of Christ. The immolation we see is a clear sign that something is amiss at the source.

    Here are a couple of sources you may not have seen.

    Bishop Gracida (Emeritus, Corpus Christi) has a lengthy, learned explanation. He takes a different approach toward proving invalidity: https://saveourcatholicchurch.com/2018/09/this-is-huge-and-its-for-real/

    Msgr. Bux is now raising the idea as well: https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2018/10/13/monsignor-nicola-bux-lunita-si-fa-nella-verita/

    (Italian, but translatable in Google).

    Also: a commentary on Msgr Bux: https://pjmedia.com/faith/noted-vatican-theologian-calls-for-examination-of-validity-of-pope-benedicts-xvis-resignation/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    With this commentary a relevant excerpt:

    “He suggested that from a practical point of view, “it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation,” for example, examining whether it was “full or partial (‘halfway’).” Msgr. Bux added that “the idea of a sort of collegiate papacy seems to me decidedly against the Gospel dictate.”

    Msgr. Bux pointed out that Jesus did not, in fact, tibi dabo claves [give the keys of heaven] to Peter and Andrew, but only to Peter!

    “That’s why I say that perhaps a thorough study of renunciation could be more useful and profitable, as well as helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us,” the theologian declared.

    He quoted Saverio Gaeta, Fatima, the whole truth, saying: “It was written: ‘There will also come a time of the most difficult trials for the Church. Cardinals will oppose cardinals and bishops to bishops. Satan will put himself in their midst. Also in Rome there will be great changes.'”

    Like

    1. Aqua, thanks for the source and comments. (NB: I did read through these in preparing this article.)

      Regarding BXVI’s resignation, there is no getting around the fact he said quite literally the see of Rome and Peter would be vacant on the appointed day and a conclave needed. I don’t see how one can parse it and make it into anything other than it is….a statement that makes it sufficiently, indeed abundantly clear and evident—-BXVI freely resigned, completely. Not partially.

      I read the Bux interview. It does not appear to me he has any inside scoop; thus his opinion is based on what has been circulated for some time on the Internet. I have looked at that evidence and do not find it compelling at all; and have written a few articles detailing at least my opinion as to why not. I have not seen any arguments since I posted those articles which would change my mind. I’d love for someone to show me where the argument is wrong with relation to the BXVI’s resignation, or to his words spoken in his last papal audience, etc.–such as I addressed in my article “Benedict is NOT Pope”. What I suggested is far simpler interpretation of BXVI’s words which requires no massive or circular assumptions.

      Regarding Bux, for me the interesting thing in his statement is not the BXVI angle; but rather, the evident concern he shows over this pontificate, i.e., it seems clear he is wrestling with how to explain this pontificate within the protections promised to St. Peter by our Lord. I suspect that among those at his level, he is not alone…unfortunately, there are too few like him.

      I think you are right that this is the time of “cardinal vs. cardinal, and bishop vs. bishop” etc. I also recall that Cardinal Ciappi has been quoted as saying the third secret speaks of the apostasy beginning ‘at the top’. Scary times. We must pray.

      Thanks again for reading the blog, and for your comments and links. God bless.

      Steve

      Like

  4. We (orthodox Catholics) are confused by this in the same way we are confused by the rest of the revolutionary change in Doctrinal practice. “They” *say* the right things; “they” *do* the wrong things. And thus, change occurs without us knowing it.

    They assure us that the teaching on homosexuality has not changed. Yet, they bless homosexual unions; introduce “LGBTQ” language; give platforms to homosexual advocates. Somehow pederasty thrives.

    They assure us the teaching on the Eucharist has not changed. Yet they allow any and all to receive the Eucharist without precondition: Protestants, divorced and re-married, sodomites etc.

    They assure us the New Mass is the same as it ever was. Yet the actual Mass of the ages is their primary object of persecution. What was once unthinkable (unconsecrated layman hands presenting the Eucharist; Priest’s back to Jesus; etc) is now common practice in every new Mass.

    And here, on this precedent topic the same thing is at work. They say he abdicated freely and fully. Yet there he remains. Pope. White. His Holiness. Vatican home. Contemplative Pope (Emeritus) by mutual agreement. Two Popes. Catholic and non-Catholic all see it. Write about it. Accept it.

    This is all the work of Satan. Subtlety. Diabolical subtlety. They claim the language top to bottom, but turn it all inside out so that it eventually means something completely different. We accept them at their word, as they steadily, insistently commit their acts of revolution through changes to *Praxis*. The words of our Faith now mean something completely different after they are done. The doctrinal words remain as ever. But …. Sodomites are now in full communion. Sin is normalized and accepted. Protestants are not required to convert. The meaning of the words is changed. How did this happen? Subtlety.

    *I hear you that he says he freely and fully resigned. He obviously did not. His actions speak louder than his words*.

    I truly believe that if we do not deal with this fundamental error, *that* will be our doom before God.

    Thanks for letting me take up space in your comment section.

    Like

    1. Aqua,

      thanks again for your comments, the link and reading the blog.

      With regard to Ann Barnhardt’s video, I will definitely watch it all the way through (my schedule at the moment doesn’t allow me to watch all in one session). I did just complete watching up through her commentary on BXVI’s words in his final papal audience.

      I was hoping Mr. Barnhardt would address the sort of counter argument found in my blog article “Benedict is NOT pope” (see https://romalocutaest.com/2017/09/04/benedict-is-not-pope/). This article goes to the heart of her claim of “substantial error.” I have been disappointed that the advocates of the theory have not addressed it in any way, other than to continue to repeat their original assertions. If one is going to make case for BXVI still being pope, one should have all aspects of the argument nailed down tightly–it is my impression the lead advocates of this theory have not done that.

      For example, in “Benedict is NOT pope”, I explain my understanding of what BXVI was speaking of. It is a far tamer and reasonable interpretation than that offered by AB, and it is consistent and fully explains BXVI’s words without making the extreme suggestion he could be so wrong about the nature of the papacy. For example, he said he remains in the enclosure of Peter ‘so to speak’…i.e., in a manner of speaking….which is to say, NOT literally. Please read my article, and the others in my Benedict series, all of which are linked in (see https://romalocutaest.com/2018/09/22/benedict-is-really-really-still-not-pope-really/).

      Based on what I’ve read, and now heard again, the argument for an ongoing BXVI papacy is simply wrong. I don’t say it lightly, and I don’t say it to knock those advancing it. Fundamentally, many faithful Catholics are confused about Francis and are naturally trying to make sense of what is happening.

      The theories we are left with are (1) Pope Francis is a valid pope who is now another JOHN XXII or HONORIUS writ large; (2) Pope Francis is a valid pope who has fallen into formal heresy; (3) Pope Francis is not and has never been a valid pope.

      I do agree with AB’s commentary in her 2 hour video, from what I’ve heard in the bit I’ve listened to so far, in so far as she discusses the confusion of the faithful over this papacy is causing. One might even begin to truly wonder IF Francis was ever a valid pope (#3). However, even if we grant Bergoglio was never a valid pope, that doesn’t mean BXVI still is. There are other routes to a false papacy. But, a poor theory is no substitute for a proper understanding of reality as it is; because the latter better equips us to deal with the situation.

      At the moment, I think we are, most likely, looking at option #1. My pious opinion is that option #2 is not possible due to the Lord’s promises, although theologians over time have entertained it is possible (so, yes, I may be wrong on this). Regarding #3, I do not exclude it (see https://romalocutaest.com/2018/07/31/curiouser-and-curiouser-who-dispensed-jorge-bergoglio-sj-from-his-vows/), but, one needs a theory and evidence. I don’t believe AB has the evidence. For one, I’d like to see her address the sort of counterargument offered specifically in my article “Benedict is NOT pope,” as well as the others in the series.

      Thanks again Aqua for reading the blog.

      God bless,

      Steve

      Like

  5. My primary evidence is under the “substantial error” clause of canon 188 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PN.HTM

    Substantial error places an abdicated Pope “forever within the enclosure of St. Peter”, claiming all the visible titles and honorifics, and the contemplative munus of the Office giving up only active management. There Benedict XVI sits. And what say we to that? He should be gone, if abdicated. It may not be a “new argument”, but it remains central and compelling to me.

    Two Popes, side by side in the Vatican, is quite clearly substantial error when considering a resignation under Canon 188. A valid resignation results in the resigned Pope leaving Rome, in his prior status, to his former home. And his replacement reigning as Peter, *clearly*, *singly*, as it has always been since Christ established the Rock. Substantial error gives us this never-before-seen innovation of two visible Popes; divided duties etc.

    It can’t be any more clear than that. How can we possibly explain the visible manifestation of two Popes, without considering substantial error? It can’t be that easy to change the nature of the Papacy, can it? Future resignations not excluded. Future divisions of roles not excluded.

    As I said before, this is equivalent to the assertion that the rules governing the Eucharist remain unchanged. Yes, *Canon Law* remains unchanged. Yet I see with my eyes that *adulterers and sodomites are receiving* the Eucharist. So, that statement is “a substantial error” as well. To me, it is the same thing. Say this. Do that. We accept the words. They fill them out with the alternate action.

    If this resignation is not the clear definition of substantial error, I don’t know what is.

    Like

    1. Aqua, hi. My “Benedict is NOT pope” (see https://romalocutaest.com/2017/09/04/benedict-is-not-pope/) directly addresses the “enclosure” statement. What I have not seen is an argument that attempts to refute the explanation which I offer. The article has been posted for over a year. I have not read a lead advocate of the invalid resignation theory address it. This a no small point, as the papal audience is key to the Benedict is Pope (BIP) theory. If the explanation offered in the article is valid, the “substantial error” argument evaporates.

      Regards and God bless,

      Steve

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s