Francis an Antipope: Black Guelphs Matter (Part 1)
Francis an Antipope/Benedict XVI the true Pope
What the heck is a Black Guelph? Is this some Lord of the Rings crap?
No. In medieval Italy, there were two main political factions, the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. Long story short, the Guelphs supported the Pope and the Ghibellines supported the Holy Roman Emperor. Pretty much every city on the Italian Peninsula was clearly defined as “Guelph” or “Ghibelline”, but in the major cities, there were divisions from neighborhood to neighborhood, oftentimes dependent on the sort of guild or craftsmen that were in each neighborhood. Eventually the Guelph party split into Black Guelphs and White Guelphs. The Black Guelphs were truly loyal to the Pope and the Papal States, while the White Guelphs stayed within the Guelph party, but worked against papal influence – like RINOs (Republican in name only), except GINOs (Guelphs in name only). If you would like to read more, the WIKI summary is HERE.
Given the events of the past few days, namely the public release of the Dubia Letter submitted by four Cardinals to the wretched, despicable Antipope Bergoglio, probable False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist, it is time for me to weigh back in, and hopefully add some more clarity, and even more so, to help people who are being scandalized and/or losing their faith be more at peace with what is going on.
Folks, with regard to this whole Antipope Bergoglio situation, I sleep like a baby. I am morally certain of what the situation is, and it in no way contradicts anything in Scripture, the Magisterium, or even common sense. My faith, personally, has been in no way shaken by the Bergoglian Antipapacy. What keeps me up at night are the souls – the countless, countless souls that are being driven into and lost to eternal, unending damnation because of the near-total failure of the clergy, and even the chattering class – of which I am very definitely a member – to acknowledge and explain what, exactly, the hell it is that is going on.
And so we review.
Bergoglio was never the pope, not for one second, NOT because he is a filthy, disgusting, blaspheming, power-mad psychopath arch-heretic. The reason Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope is because of JOSEPH RATZINGER, Pope Benedict XVI, still reigning.
Joseph Ratzinger’s attempted abdication was INVALID by the law itself, because it was made in SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
To be clear, yes, it is possible for a pope to resign – hence the very existence of Canon 188. The problem here is that RATZINGER’S RESIGNATION WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS MADE IN SUBSTANTIAL ERROR. Ratzinger attempted to abandon his duties, while retaining the Petrine office. If you don’t believe me, and refuse to listen to +Ganswein who has spoken at length of Ratzinger’s mindset, let me just confront you with a few items of OBJECTIVE REALITY:
Q: What is Joseph Ratzinger wearing right now, by his own choice?
A: Joseph Ratzinger is wearing the Papal White.
Q: Where is Joseph Ratzinger right now, by his own choice?
A: Joseph Ratzinger is inside the Vatican.
Q: What does Joseph Ratzinger’s staff address him as, by his own choice?
A: Joseph Ratzinger’s staff, and in fact, everyone on the planet, addresses him by the Papal Style, “Your Holiness” and “Holy Father”.
Q: What title did Joseph Ratzinger freely choose to designate himself after his faux-abdication?
A: Joseph Ratzinger freely chose to designate himself POPE Emeritus. Pope. Not Bishop of Rome Emeritus, POPE. POPE.
Sit in stillness with these simple citations of OBJECTIVE REALITY.
Now, I will say this one more time, and this transcends all personal friendships, acquaintances and anything else that might apply.
If ANYONE dare make the accusation, or even the implication, that I, Ann Barnhardt, am a sedevacantist, then you are either MALICIOUSLY DISHONEST, or so breathtakingly stupid as to be disqualified from public speech. I make this statement with ZERO exceptions.
Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, is the pope.
Jorge Bergoglio is not now, and never was the pope. Bergoglio’s heresy is not germane to the question. The antecedent premise is the INVALIDITY OF RATZINGER’S ABDICATION, made as it was IN SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
Unless and until this TRUE PREMISE is adopted, there will be nothing but a continued descent into hell, lies upon lies upon lies. Because when the base premise of a logical truth table is, in fact, a false premise, ALL logical corollaries derived from that truth table, whilst having the specious appearance of “truth”, are in fact, FALSEHOODS.
And an attack on The Church is an attack on Jesus Christ.
To love the Papacy is to defend it. Day in and day out, I see prelates, clergy, academics and talking heads, desperately trying to reconcile the Truth of The Church and its Magisterium to the LIE of the Bergoglian antipapacy. How is this being done, and being done by so-called “conservatives” and “traditionalists”? By attacking the papacy itself.
Yes, that’s right. Every time you read a piece arguing that “what the pope says is unimportant”, you are witnessing an attack on the Papacy, and thus on The Church, and thus on Our Lord. What the pope says IS important, and not just within the context of formal, ex cathedra declarations defining dogma. This is the argument that all of these people are making, and it is rubbing so many of you the wrong way, and sticking in your conscience like a thorn, because it is, in fact, wrong. Do you realize that there have been, in the entire history of the Church, exactly TWO ex cathedra definitions of Dogma? Those two are the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in ARSH 1854, and the definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in ARSH 1950.
Therefore, if we use our brains and think this trough logically, according to these various and sundry clergy and commentators, NOTHING in the 2000 year history of the Church that has been said by a Pope has had any genuine importance, and CAN BE IGNORED OR DISCARDED.
Let me say that again, because it is really, really important:
In order to reconcile the false premise of the Bergoglian Antipapacy to reality, one must necessarily deny the importance of ALL papal utterances as ignorable and/or discardable, except two: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Do you not see that YOU ARE DOING THE DEVIL’S WORK every time you try to minimize Antipope Bergoglio’s importance while clinging to the false premise that he is the pope? Let’s say that a massive earthquake hits Rome, and both Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger and Antipope Bergoglio are killed. The Pope would be dead, and the Antipope would also be dead, so there would be no controversy with regards to succession. Let’s say that the most orthodox, faithful man was elected Pope. Let’s call him Pope Pius XIII. Do you not see that EVERYTHING Pope Pius XIII would say, do and teach would be declared “unimportant” and “discardable” and “to be ignored” by the enemies of God and His Holy Church – citing specifically EVERY ONE OF YOU whom on a near-daily basis have said exactly that of Antipope Bergoglio, a man that you profess, erroneously, to be the pope? Do you see why this is so desperately, desperately important? Satan has YOU doing his dirty work for him. YOU ARE THE ONES who are now, as we speak, utterly destroying the papacy.
Oh, but wait. It gets so much worse.
The other argument that is constantly put forth by so-called conservatives and traditionalists is that “we cannot know with absolute certainty who the pope is”.
Oh REALLY?
Do you not see that this is EXACTLY the same tack that satan and his minions, Antipope Bergoglio first among them, has taken against MARRIAGE?
Remember how Antipope Bergoglio said that “most marriages are invalid”, and released a document citing such things as “a lack of faith”, “immaturity”, and my personal favorite, “et cetera”, as factors which could be used to falsely declare a marriage “null”? In other words, no one can really know if they are married, so all marriages should just be assumed to be “null”.
Well, if a person cannot know who their spouse is, then neither can anyone know who the pope is. And if we can’t know who the pope is, then the papacy, BY LOGICAL DEFINITION, is irrelevant. Stop. Think. Think about that statement until the full force of it sinks all the way in.
If we can’t know who the pope is, then the papacy, BY LOGICAL DEFINITION, is IRRELEVANT.
And if the pope is irrelevant, then The Church is irrelevant.
And if The Church is irrelevant, then God is irrelevant.
Congratulations, “conservatives” and “traditionalists”. By clinging in your sickening effeminacy to the false premise of Bergoglio being the Pope, you are destroying the papacy itself. Let’s go back to Pope Pius XIII. Don’t you see that as soon as Pope Pius XIII starts saying, teaching and doing CATHOLIC things, that your own argument will be used against you by the enemies of Christ? “Oh, we can’t know if Pope Pius XIII is really the pope, so we can just ignore him and wait for a pope that we like to come along….”
Which brings us to the utterly despicable, effeminate, narcissistic tack of pushing the entire Bergoglio question off onto future generations.
In the interests of nothing more than maintaining career tracks, donation revenues, and social connections, conservatives and traditionalists near-universally attempt to foist the entire Bergoglian question off onto future generations. “We can’t know one way or another. Only a future pope can decide. Therefore, we are absolved of all responsibility and duty. Let’s just pretend Bergoglio doesn’t exist.”
You SELFISH COWARDS.
How many souls – HOW MANY SOULS – are you content to see lost to ETERNAL HELLFIRE in order to justify your effeminacy?
You know, there used to be a saying in Christian Civilization: If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so that my child may have peace.
Do you know who said that? Thomas Paine. A stridently anti-Christian deist. What exactly does it say about us when an anti-Christian deist Jacobin can run circles around conservative and traditional Catholics with regards to charity toward future generations?
I’ll stop here for today and call these 2000 words “the introduction”, but do you see why I titled this, “Black Guelphs Matter”? What constitutes loyalty to the Papacy? Loyalty to the Papacy means DEFENDING IT, not calling an Antipope “pope” and utterly undermining the papacy in the process because, well, it’s just so much easier, and socially acceptable. Gotta keep that PayPal button hot! Gotta keep those soothing platitudes rolling for all the millionaire fanboy benefactors and Kathys. Gotta keep my crappy, horrible job!
“Everything’s fine… There have been bad popes before… This is for future generations to sort out… Just ignore him, and focus on yourself….”
And before you make your next post, or argue around the table at the dinner party with the “popular crowd”, that who the pope is or is not is irrelevant or unknowable, or that what words and deeds are attributed to a man holding himself out as The Vicar of Christ on Earth are irrelevant, just remember Pope Pius XIII, whom you are utterly hamstringing with your rhetoric, trying to square the circle of your false premise.
St. Peter, pray for us.
Christ, have mercy on us.
No. In medieval Italy, there were two main political factions, the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. Long story short, the Guelphs supported the Pope and the Ghibellines supported the Holy Roman Emperor. Pretty much every city on the Italian Peninsula was clearly defined as “Guelph” or “Ghibelline”, but in the major cities, there were divisions from neighborhood to neighborhood, oftentimes dependent on the sort of guild or craftsmen that were in each neighborhood. Eventually the Guelph party split into Black Guelphs and White Guelphs. The Black Guelphs were truly loyal to the Pope and the Papal States, while the White Guelphs stayed within the Guelph party, but worked against papal influence – like RINOs (Republican in name only), except GINOs (Guelphs in name only). If you would like to read more, the WIKI summary is HERE.
Given the events of the past few days, namely the public release of the Dubia Letter submitted by four Cardinals to the wretched, despicable Antipope Bergoglio, probable False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist, it is time for me to weigh back in, and hopefully add some more clarity, and even more so, to help people who are being scandalized and/or losing their faith be more at peace with what is going on.
Folks, with regard to this whole Antipope Bergoglio situation, I sleep like a baby. I am morally certain of what the situation is, and it in no way contradicts anything in Scripture, the Magisterium, or even common sense. My faith, personally, has been in no way shaken by the Bergoglian Antipapacy. What keeps me up at night are the souls – the countless, countless souls that are being driven into and lost to eternal, unending damnation because of the near-total failure of the clergy, and even the chattering class – of which I am very definitely a member – to acknowledge and explain what, exactly, the hell it is that is going on.
And so we review.
Bergoglio was never the pope, not for one second, NOT because he is a filthy, disgusting, blaspheming, power-mad psychopath arch-heretic. The reason Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope is because of JOSEPH RATZINGER, Pope Benedict XVI, still reigning.
Joseph Ratzinger’s attempted abdication was INVALID by the law itself, because it was made in SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
Canon 188Whether or not Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger was coerced (and let’s face it, he probably was) IS A MOOT POINT. What we do know, and it is sheer, effemininate delusion to deny this, it that Pope Benedict Ratzinger submitted his “resignation” with the intention of continuing to participate in the Petrine Office by transforming it into a “collegial, synodal” office, thus capable of having more than one living member at a time. Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger, in SUBSTANTIAL ERROR, believed that he could and has Split the papacy into a polyarchy. I have intentionally stopped using the words “bifurcate” and “dyarchy” to describe the false paradigm that Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger has wrought, because those terms imply only two office holders. If the madness of Ratzinger’s SUBSTANTIAL ERROR is not corrected, then we will see multiple men being called “pope emeritus”. If one thinks this through logically and mathematically, one quickly realizes that from here forward, having an antipope will be the norm. Think about it. Let’s say Bergoglio resigns and Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger, the one and only living pope, is still alive. Whoever is elected in a conclave, even if he is the most orthodox man alive, would be just as much an antipope as Bergoglio is, because there CANNOT BE TWO LIVING POPES.
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.
To be clear, yes, it is possible for a pope to resign – hence the very existence of Canon 188. The problem here is that RATZINGER’S RESIGNATION WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS MADE IN SUBSTANTIAL ERROR. Ratzinger attempted to abandon his duties, while retaining the Petrine office. If you don’t believe me, and refuse to listen to +Ganswein who has spoken at length of Ratzinger’s mindset, let me just confront you with a few items of OBJECTIVE REALITY:
Q: What is Joseph Ratzinger wearing right now, by his own choice?
A: Joseph Ratzinger is wearing the Papal White.
Q: Where is Joseph Ratzinger right now, by his own choice?
A: Joseph Ratzinger is inside the Vatican.
Q: What does Joseph Ratzinger’s staff address him as, by his own choice?
A: Joseph Ratzinger’s staff, and in fact, everyone on the planet, addresses him by the Papal Style, “Your Holiness” and “Holy Father”.
Q: What title did Joseph Ratzinger freely choose to designate himself after his faux-abdication?
A: Joseph Ratzinger freely chose to designate himself POPE Emeritus. Pope. Not Bishop of Rome Emeritus, POPE. POPE.
Sit in stillness with these simple citations of OBJECTIVE REALITY.
Now, I will say this one more time, and this transcends all personal friendships, acquaintances and anything else that might apply.
If ANYONE dare make the accusation, or even the implication, that I, Ann Barnhardt, am a sedevacantist, then you are either MALICIOUSLY DISHONEST, or so breathtakingly stupid as to be disqualified from public speech. I make this statement with ZERO exceptions.
Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, is the pope.
Jorge Bergoglio is not now, and never was the pope. Bergoglio’s heresy is not germane to the question. The antecedent premise is the INVALIDITY OF RATZINGER’S ABDICATION, made as it was IN SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
Unless and until this TRUE PREMISE is adopted, there will be nothing but a continued descent into hell, lies upon lies upon lies. Because when the base premise of a logical truth table is, in fact, a false premise, ALL logical corollaries derived from that truth table, whilst having the specious appearance of “truth”, are in fact, FALSEHOODS.
TO CALL AN ANTIPOPE “POPE” IS AN ATTACK ON THE PAPACY
And an attack on the Papacy is an attack on The Church.And an attack on The Church is an attack on Jesus Christ.
To love the Papacy is to defend it. Day in and day out, I see prelates, clergy, academics and talking heads, desperately trying to reconcile the Truth of The Church and its Magisterium to the LIE of the Bergoglian antipapacy. How is this being done, and being done by so-called “conservatives” and “traditionalists”? By attacking the papacy itself.
Yes, that’s right. Every time you read a piece arguing that “what the pope says is unimportant”, you are witnessing an attack on the Papacy, and thus on The Church, and thus on Our Lord. What the pope says IS important, and not just within the context of formal, ex cathedra declarations defining dogma. This is the argument that all of these people are making, and it is rubbing so many of you the wrong way, and sticking in your conscience like a thorn, because it is, in fact, wrong. Do you realize that there have been, in the entire history of the Church, exactly TWO ex cathedra definitions of Dogma? Those two are the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in ARSH 1854, and the definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in ARSH 1950.
Therefore, if we use our brains and think this trough logically, according to these various and sundry clergy and commentators, NOTHING in the 2000 year history of the Church that has been said by a Pope has had any genuine importance, and CAN BE IGNORED OR DISCARDED.
Let me say that again, because it is really, really important:
In order to reconcile the false premise of the Bergoglian Antipapacy to reality, one must necessarily deny the importance of ALL papal utterances as ignorable and/or discardable, except two: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Do you not see that YOU ARE DOING THE DEVIL’S WORK every time you try to minimize Antipope Bergoglio’s importance while clinging to the false premise that he is the pope? Let’s say that a massive earthquake hits Rome, and both Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger and Antipope Bergoglio are killed. The Pope would be dead, and the Antipope would also be dead, so there would be no controversy with regards to succession. Let’s say that the most orthodox, faithful man was elected Pope. Let’s call him Pope Pius XIII. Do you not see that EVERYTHING Pope Pius XIII would say, do and teach would be declared “unimportant” and “discardable” and “to be ignored” by the enemies of God and His Holy Church – citing specifically EVERY ONE OF YOU whom on a near-daily basis have said exactly that of Antipope Bergoglio, a man that you profess, erroneously, to be the pope? Do you see why this is so desperately, desperately important? Satan has YOU doing his dirty work for him. YOU ARE THE ONES who are now, as we speak, utterly destroying the papacy.
Oh, but wait. It gets so much worse.
The other argument that is constantly put forth by so-called conservatives and traditionalists is that “we cannot know with absolute certainty who the pope is”.
Oh REALLY?
Do you not see that this is EXACTLY the same tack that satan and his minions, Antipope Bergoglio first among them, has taken against MARRIAGE?
Remember how Antipope Bergoglio said that “most marriages are invalid”, and released a document citing such things as “a lack of faith”, “immaturity”, and my personal favorite, “et cetera”, as factors which could be used to falsely declare a marriage “null”? In other words, no one can really know if they are married, so all marriages should just be assumed to be “null”.
Well, if a person cannot know who their spouse is, then neither can anyone know who the pope is. And if we can’t know who the pope is, then the papacy, BY LOGICAL DEFINITION, is irrelevant. Stop. Think. Think about that statement until the full force of it sinks all the way in.
If we can’t know who the pope is, then the papacy, BY LOGICAL DEFINITION, is IRRELEVANT.
And if the pope is irrelevant, then The Church is irrelevant.
And if The Church is irrelevant, then God is irrelevant.
Congratulations, “conservatives” and “traditionalists”. By clinging in your sickening effeminacy to the false premise of Bergoglio being the Pope, you are destroying the papacy itself. Let’s go back to Pope Pius XIII. Don’t you see that as soon as Pope Pius XIII starts saying, teaching and doing CATHOLIC things, that your own argument will be used against you by the enemies of Christ? “Oh, we can’t know if Pope Pius XIII is really the pope, so we can just ignore him and wait for a pope that we like to come along….”
Which brings us to the utterly despicable, effeminate, narcissistic tack of pushing the entire Bergoglio question off onto future generations.
In the interests of nothing more than maintaining career tracks, donation revenues, and social connections, conservatives and traditionalists near-universally attempt to foist the entire Bergoglian question off onto future generations. “We can’t know one way or another. Only a future pope can decide. Therefore, we are absolved of all responsibility and duty. Let’s just pretend Bergoglio doesn’t exist.”
You SELFISH COWARDS.
How many souls – HOW MANY SOULS – are you content to see lost to ETERNAL HELLFIRE in order to justify your effeminacy?
You know, there used to be a saying in Christian Civilization: If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so that my child may have peace.
Do you know who said that? Thomas Paine. A stridently anti-Christian deist. What exactly does it say about us when an anti-Christian deist Jacobin can run circles around conservative and traditional Catholics with regards to charity toward future generations?
I’ll stop here for today and call these 2000 words “the introduction”, but do you see why I titled this, “Black Guelphs Matter”? What constitutes loyalty to the Papacy? Loyalty to the Papacy means DEFENDING IT, not calling an Antipope “pope” and utterly undermining the papacy in the process because, well, it’s just so much easier, and socially acceptable. Gotta keep that PayPal button hot! Gotta keep those soothing platitudes rolling for all the millionaire fanboy benefactors and Kathys. Gotta keep my crappy, horrible job!
“Everything’s fine… There have been bad popes before… This is for future generations to sort out… Just ignore him, and focus on yourself….”
And before you make your next post, or argue around the table at the dinner party with the “popular crowd”, that who the pope is or is not is irrelevant or unknowable, or that what words and deeds are attributed to a man holding himself out as The Vicar of Christ on Earth are irrelevant, just remember Pope Pius XIII, whom you are utterly hamstringing with your rhetoric, trying to square the circle of your false premise.
St. Peter, pray for us.
Christ, have mercy on us.
