Skip to main content

"Dr. Briggs... Pulling out a Dictionary and dropping the mic isn’t enough of an Analysis"

Unpacking Benedict's resignation: What if Francis isn't the pope after all?  - The John-Henry Westen Show | Acast
The John-Henry Westen Show ...

On today’s episode of The John-Henry Westen Show, I ask Dr. Edmund Mazza, a professor of Church history, to unpack the controversy and confusion surrounding the 2013 resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and address the potential implications for Francis’s papacy if the resignation were invalid….”  []

Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert []
  1. Dr. Briggs, if you don’t put that whole debate in the context of the Miller dissertation, which advocates changing the Papacy, and the Ganswein speech where he said Benedict had done something miraculous, you aren’t doing it justice. His intent seemingly was to bifurcate the Papacy, which he can’t do.

    Also, what about Bishop Gracida’s point that the electioneering made the whole conclave invalid anyway?

    Pulling out a dictionary and dropping the mic isn’t enough of an analysis.

  2. I fully agree that we should end the circular firing squad over this question. That said, quoting any source other than the 1983 Code of Canon Law in order to prove that munus and ministerium are synonymous is not helpful. The distinction between the terms exists in the Code, it is possible to have a ministerium without having a munus (instituted lay ministries), and, it has been a subject of great debate in the Church in recent decades, for better or for worse. I agree that there is no “magic formula” for renouncing the papacy, and it’s pretty clear that Pope Benedict intended to stop appointing bishops and other such tasks, but he has not completely abandoned being a Pope. The fact that he freely grants his apostolic blessing, which only the Pope can do, is evidence of this. He has also raised his voice on a few occasions, most notably over the issue of priestly celibacy following the Amazon synod. If he had gone back to Bavaria, never to be heard from or seen again in public, his intentions would have been very clear. The fact that he has stayed in the Vatican has raised the question of whether he is essentially a prisoner, especially after he was abruptly called back from his trip to be with his brother as he was dying. The biggest reason that this speculation exists at all is that Pope Benedict’s successor has been an utter “trainwreck,” who has returned Rome to the “bad old days” of the ‘70s, even as the rest of the Church in the West has transitioned from decline to collapse. This doesn’t even get into the matter of possible violations of the law governing conclaves, promulgated in 1996, that clearly forsees the possibility that there could be efforts to install an illegitimate claimant on Peter’s throne. Catholic believers have faith that the papacy is conferred directly and immediately by Christ on the man who accepts the election of the cardinals, and that his scriptural promise not to let the gates of hell prevail against the Church will always hold. It’s very difficult to see how this holds true these days, if Francis is the true pope. []

I respect the scholar Dr. William Briggs, but think he was mistaken to post "Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus BenedictGuest Post by Fr John Rickert" in which the two above commenters on his site critiqued well the problem with the post with Stephen saying "Dr. Briggs... Pulling out a dictionary and dropping the mic isn’t enough of an analysis."

In June, the Latinist Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (Fr. Z) summarized some important points made in October and before that time by Catholic scholar Dr. Edmund Mazza on why "Pulling out a dictionary and dropping the mic isn’t enough of an analysis":

Let’s play the mind exercise out a little more and hack through some of the issues which I have heard raised by, for example, Ann Barnhardt, who is without question of the mind that Benedict is still Pope and Francis is a usurper antipope.  Along with Ann is a smart fellow with well-articulated arguments, Edward Mazza...

... It seems that… in their view…

Benedict did NOT legitimately resign, because the language he used at the time he announced his resignation is confused. The confused language suggests that Benedict intended to resign the active dimension of his role, his ministerium (for example, doing stuff as Bishop of Rome and doing stuff as Pope to the larger world). However, he did not intend to resign his munus as Vicar of Christ.  Much turns on the technical term munus.

The fact is that munus and ministerium do not mean the same thing, though they are often bound together.  For example, one carries out a certain ministry in the Church because he holds an office, a munus.  Canon law says that the Pope has to resign the munus.  

Canon 332 §2: Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.  … If it should come to pass that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and that it be properly manifested, but not that it is accepted by anyone.

But Benedict said in his resignation:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.…  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.

Words have meanings.   It is not right simply to conflate munus and ministerium as if they are interchangeable.  They are closely tied to each other but they are not synonyms.  Not even close.

It is interesting to read the Canon that introduces the figure of the Roman Pontiff, the Pope:

Can. 331 — Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, Collegii Episcoporum est caput, Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor; qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet. … The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom persists the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely. []

In an October interview on PCM, renowned Catholic historian Dr. Edmund Mazza, a former full professor of history at Azuza Pacific University agreed with Fr. Z that "Words have meanings. It is not right simply to conflate munus and ministerium as if they are interchangeable.  They are closely tied to each other but they are not synonyms":

Canon law, as it is generally understood is pretty simple. It says Canon 332 part 2, says “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his office…  “In the original Latin, of the 1983 code of Canon law, the word is munus. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, it is required for validity that the renunciation is made freely, and be properly manifested.” You know, which is why he gave a declartio on February 11th 2013, but not that it be accepted by anyone at all. It’s not like the pope has to turn in his resignation to a superior. He has no superior. The key thing here is, again he has to renounce his munus, his office. But, now we get back to the sacramental ontological munus versus the canonical juridical munus, if you will. Let me introduce a quote from Joseph Ratzinger from Principles of Catholic theology from 1987, available from Ignatius press.  Basically he says, “I disagree with those who teach that “The papacy is not a sacrament that it is only a juridical institution, but this juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order.”  

Let me unpack that. Razinger is arguing that what’s important foremost is the sacramental ontological munus not the “office” that perhaps comes and goes. Obviously, Benedict ruffled a number of feathers with his renunciation and his taking on the office of Pope Emeritus, right? For example, Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, one of the dubia fathers, was very upset. Roberto De Matei, Dr. Matei was upset and Dr. Matei went on record saying, “look there is no such thing as a sacramental papacy. It is only a juridical institution.” Yet we have this quote. And, why is that? You could never lose it if it was sacramental, but you can lose it if it is just a juridical office...

... What does Joseph Ratzinger say? He says, “No, no, no. “I disagree with those people who say the papacy is not a sacrament, that it’s only a juridical institution. That juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order.” Now here is another quote from Ratzinger right after the counsel. This is from his book Theological highlights of Vatican II, Published 1966 by Paulist Press.

Again another money line. “The ministry of the bishop, meaning munus in Latin is not an externally assigned administrative power, but rather, is itself sacramentally-based. The ruling of the church and its spiritual mystery are inseparable.”

Here’s another interesting quote, I’ll try to weave this in. The very month, February 2013, when Pope Benedict makes this renunciation. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, a Jesuit, the former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and a very highly respected doctor of law, in of all publications it was Cattolica Civilta, the Jesuit- [La Civilta Cattolica]...

... He says that Ratzinger”s view of the sacramental ontological munus, when applied to the juridical office of the Bishop of Rome, is going to create major problems. Let me give you his exact words. “The greatest difficulty that arises from the affirmation, that the primacial power of the Roman pontiff comes from his Episcopal consecration and not from the acceptance of the election, would be that in the event that the pope resigned from his office, not because of death, he would never lose the power as it is conferred by a sacramental act, which has an indelible character.” Well, this is precisely what Benedict has stated in his interviews with Peter Seewald, why he’s Pope Emeritus, and not simply Bishop Emeritus, or Cardinal. It’s why he still issues apostolic blessings in his own name and why his proper form of address is still His Holiness, but here’s the wrinkle. Ghirlanda and other candidates and theologians not to mention centuries of saints and scholars hold that Ratzinger is just plain wrong and that’s not how it works.

He’s just wrong. Here’s the problem, if Ratzinger had ever been convinced of the real truth of the matter, I argue, he likely, would never have renounced the papacy, seeing as how committed he is to fulfilling his Petrine vow and living only for the Lord and his flock. So what do you call this? This is called substantial error. When your will chooses something based on the fact that your intellect has bad information. This is the theory that I personally hold to, why I think his resignation, or his renunciation was invalid. And I can go into more detail on that. [ and] 

This words of Fr. Z and Dr. Mazza reminded me of a post I wrote in 2019 that asked "Why is LifeSiteNews Afraid to 'Investigate or Report' that apparently Canon 17 'Requires that Ministerium and Munus [must] be Understood as Referring to Two Different Things'?":

On December 6, LifeSiteNews co-founder

@Patty: Your testimony is witness to the facts of the matter. Thank you for your faithfulness! There is a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on. These faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict's declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41. Did you know that in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium? The Cdl electors did not proceed with due diligence and maybe don't want to 'fess up to their mistake.

Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role.

Unfortunately, this is not exactly true. The news site has never reported on why "in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium," but instead spoke about the two words only referring to the "Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short)" and not in referring to the all important canon 17.

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains canon 17's importance:

"Canon 17... states 'if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places."
(Catholic World Report, "Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded," September 28, 2017)

On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the "abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: 'I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.'”

But, the "theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity" never mentioned canon 17:

“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’” 

The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”

"He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.” 

“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added.
Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities.
“One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”

The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is 'not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.” 

He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.

The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”

But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid."

“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”

“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”

Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says this is not a correct way to canonically and legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17's criteria as canon lawyer Peters explained and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict or in a Latin dictionary:

"Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."
(From Rome, "Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Why does it appear that LifeSiteNews refuses or is afraid to "investigate or report on" that "Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41... [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things."?

LifeSiteNews are you seeking the truth?

If you disagree with Br. Bugnolo's scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.

LifeSiteNews, please, refute the following if you're not afraid:

Br. Bugnolo has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists and others are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:

Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
["This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here":


Islam_Is_Islam said…
Good catch, Mr. Martinez. Here is the rest of the conversation:
Steve Jalsevac Mod Islam_Is_Islam • 24 minutes ago
Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role.
•Reply•Share ›

@Mr. Jalsevac: No, it is not a matter of what I like or do not like. It is a matter of transparency and full disclosure. I hope to see you address the following in the near future: Where are your reports on Prof Radaelli's Feb 18, 2013 public request for Pope Benedict to rescind and replace his statement otherwise his chosen words would lead to the election of an anti-pope? Where is your reporting on the facts that there are up to 40 errors in the Declaratio which would indicate a lack of due diligence if at least not negligence on the part of Cdl Sodano when he made his announcement calling for a conclave? Where is your reporting on the fact that
munus and ministerium are never used interchangeably in Canon Law? Again, I hope that you will soon and very soon correct this oversight in either investigation and/or thorough reporting. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this information to your attention. There is more, if you'd like to have it. We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by Find out more.
Islam_Is_Islam said…
In all fairness to LSN, I had exceeded their guidelines for the suggested number of comments per article, many of which were removed, before the one that apparently put the proverbial nail in the coffin, er plug in the inkwell.

Are we not seekers of Truth anymore or what?
Fred Martinez said…
Yes, that is the question:

Is the Catholic media seeking the truth?

If you disagree with with Br. Bugnolo's scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.
Alexis Bugnolo said…
LifeSite is banning commentators permanently, even though they claim they do not take a side. It seems they are only banning those who think the resignation is invalid. That is not being objective.

But my question for LifeSite is?

In the debate between Nazis and Jews whether Jews should be wiped off the face of the planet, does LifeSite think that their professional integrity means that they should take no side?

In the debate over whether women can kill the babies in their own wombs, does LifeSite think that their professional integrity means that they should take no side?

In the debate over who is the true vicar of Christ and who is the Vicar of Satan, does LifeSite really think that the professional thing to do is not to take a side?

LifeSite by banning only one side, is however taking a side. In only reporting one side, is taking a side. They are acking just like Planned Parenthood.

Alexis Bugnolo said…
Islam is Islam, it is not you.

AS far as I know, Lifesite had erased ALL of my comments in the last 9 months. ALL of them. I am worse than a pro abort, in their mind.
Debbie said…
Unite the clans......BS!
Justina said…
Yesterday, I was somewhat upset to find that I, too, have been banned by Lifesite-- which I have long held in great respect.

After reading Brother's remarks, I am deeply glad.
Anonymous said…
"you have been banned"

I got that message from LSN months ago (no stated reason why).
Islam_Is_Islam said…
@Cam, Justina, Br. Bugnolo, et al.. You probably know that you can use the disqus features to track down others who you may have been having discussions with at LifeSiteNews and other sites from which you have been banned. Some people are very sympathetic once they hear I've been banned and even willing to act as proxy commenters. It is war, is it not? At least Mr Matt from the Remnant said as much on one of his recent videos. lol
Justina said…
According to Lifesite, they themselves have been blocked by Twitter, but vow they won't be stopped.

Hear, hear! Back at ya, Mr. Jalsevac!
Anonymous said…
@III, 12:14: Thanks for the tip.

On having "exceeded their [LSN's] guidelines": I realized after the fact that I had too. But if that was the reason for my ban (using comments for discussion?), then I have to wonder why I hadn't already been banned. Of course, right before the block, I had also been engaging many over there on the evidence that Benedict is still Pope. So I imagine that might have had something to do with it.
Justina said…
Here, in part and with some editing for clarity's sake, is what I said to Steve Jalsevac that got me banned (and by the way, I have exceded the recommended number of comments before, without triggering any reaction from the Lifesite moderators):

"Did you yourself not say, earlier in this same thread, that as a news agency it is not Lifesite's role to take a firm position on controversies like whether or not the man attempting to foist heresy after heresy on the one true Church is even the Pope in the first place? (Yet you take other editorial stands--some of them, very strong ones indeed.) In other words, my question to you is, why shy from making a determination in this one area alone? At the very least, why not insist that the Cardinals, specifically empowered by UD Gregis to resolve such doubts, undertake this responsibility on behalf of the entire Church? Your willingness to wash Lifesite's collective journalistic hands in this way strikes me as rather glib."

Too harsh? I thought the Liberals were supposed to be the snowflakes, not the conservatives. If Jalsevac wants the site he co-founded to be regarded as a serious news agency, it's time to pay his dues.

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?":

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?":

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" []

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003":

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush:
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.



T said…
By keeping the narrative that no one can reject Bergoglio without also rejecting Benedict and by reporting all the scandals of Francis people are led either to downplay Catholic teaching on obedience to the pope or led to sedevacantism.

The true scandelars are not the people raising the question but those trying to uphold a narrative.

Popular posts from this blog

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t

"I Personally have No Doubt that Obama did in fact Orchestrate the Vatican [Pope Benedict] Coup, a[n]... Obama/Francis Partnership"

Attorney and World Net Daily (WND) contributor Scott Lively believes "that Obama did in fact orchestrate the Vatican [Pope Benedict XVI] coup, and... the Obama/Francis partnership behind the United Nation": Jesuit Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina became Pope Francis in March of 2013. I published  my first article about Pope Francis and the LGBT agenda  on August 1, 2013 when he was in the news for appearing to legitimize the concept of a “gay” identity as innate and unchangeable.  That concept is the false, anti-biblical premise of so-called “Queer Theory” (their term, not mine), a pseudo-scientific invention of “gay” political strategists, which underlies the entire LGBT political agenda. Francis infamously said in a media interview “If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?”.   I actually defended him against the charge that this statement represented an endorsement of homosexual conduct, and gave him the benefit of t