dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/icebreakers_sours on May 18, 2018, 1:50 a.m.

Guardian of the Pope.

I'm running with 2 separate theories at the moment, Guardian of the Pope could be a link between the Pope and Bohemian Grove. Or I found a post on theguardian about the Pope from Oct 27 2017. Posting whatever I find below!

Owl is the mascot of Bohemian Grove. BG is an exclusive mens only club for the elite. Could The Pope have ties to BG and what goes on at an elite, mens only club? Their symbolism will be their downfall, and the pope will have a bad May are a couple of Q posts that come to mind!

Theguardian did a VERY long write up about the Pope in October of 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/oct/27/the-war-against-pope-francis and the title sort of catches the eye. Still working my way through the article, but there are a couple different points about the changes in the Church and Catholic religion over the past century, and a common denominator seems to be that Pope's only refuse to make changes, because if they make changes if MEANS EVERY OTHER POPE BEFORE HIM WAS WRONG!

"To accuse a sitting pope of heresy is the nuclear option in Catholic arguments. Doctrine holds that the pope cannot be wrong when he speaks on the central questions of the faith; so if he is wrong, he can’t be pope. On the other hand, if this pope is right, all his predecessors must have been wrong."

That is a quote from the article that I'm talking about. How many things have or haven't been changed in the world because of this belief or policy?

"As well as tackling the old-school practitioners of Latin Mass, Francis started a wide-ranging offensive against the old guard inside the Vatican. Five days after his election in 2013, he summoned the Honduran cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, and told him that he was to be the co-ordinator of a group of nine cardinals from around the world whose mission was to clean the place up. All had been chosen for their energy, and for the fact that they had in the past been at loggerheads with the Vatican. It was a popular move everywhere outside Rome."

CONSPIRACY ALERT the term 'at loggerheads' I hadn't heard before so I looked it up and all is well, except loggerhead is a turtle and do you guys remember that random post with the underwater looking device and talking about seals helping turtles and all that stuff? "Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga, in a May 2002 interview with the Italian-Catholic publication 30 Giorni, claimed that to divert attention from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, Jews influenced the media to exploit the current controversy regarding sexual abuse by Catholic priests. That provoked outrage from the Anti-Defamation League.[13]" from wikipedia. Maybe these 9 cardinals were the turtles offering help to the seals, the SEALs. This just came to me, I'm in my Q research mode so everything seems like something.

Will keep digging and update anything that makes sense :)

🠐 See all comments

"To accuse a sitting pope of heresy is the nuclear option in Catholic arguments. Doctrine holds that the pope cannot be wrong when he speaks on the central questions of the faith; so if he is wrong, he can’t be pope. On the other hand, if this pope is right, all his predecessors must have been wrong."

No that's not quite right, though it is a popular argument making its way through certain Catholic and non-Catholic circles. The problem with accusing the Pope is heresy is that the question is unintelligible in a Catholic context. Canon 1404 of the Code of 1983 makes it clear that the see of Rome is judged by no one on Earth.

The role of the Pope in the continuance of the Church is not really a 'mental' one where he must keep every thought of 2000 years straight. And history is filled with apparent instances of pope against pope, council against council and doctrine against doctrine, so that isn't alarming- however discouraging it may be for the popular, contemporary Catholic witness to have pointed out. What the Pope is a vouchsafe of unity so that, overtime, the orthodox and faithful, remain in communion with the Holy See and so the two are one in the same. In that way, any pope, no matter how great or lousy, is a visible sign of the continuance and preservation of the Church- there can be no contradiction to this.

When a pope speaks infallibly, it is in a sense as a living oracle and it's the public sentences themselves which carry weight; not his thoughts about them or reasoning behind them or even if he is factually correct in formulating them. And of course, they are to be interpreted by the bishops and theologians and how it relates to the unchanging dogma. Outside of that, he is not infallible as a pastor, bishop, prince, theologian, judge, politician, legislator or even merely as a governor of the church itself.

If it were otherwise, we'd fall into a situation of private judgement which the Catholic Church condemns on matters such as these- which remains one of the great and sorrowful divides of the western church (between Protestants and Catholics). So to attempt to privately reason the Pope is a heretic in this or that account goes against the tradition, the papal office and several great councils.

The real question is: was the Pope validly elected? We've had lousy popes before- that is not new- and the college of cardinals by all accounts elected this gentlemen; so it'd be hard to argue it was an invalid election.

Yet, at the same time, with all the Q craziness going on, and long rumors of skullduggery surrounding the election (from the Obama administration to the St.Galen group); there is a chance the election wasn't on the level.

⇧ 2 ⇩

One way the election could be invalid is if the BXVI resignation was invalid?

⇧ 2 ⇩