By Edward Pentin
VATICAN CITY — Seven years have passed since Benedict XVI’s resignation but discussion over the precise role of a “Pope Emeritus” and the permitted extent of his influence has not only continued but increased in intensity.
Polemics over this contentious issue came to a head in January after Benedict XVI’s unexpected intervention a month before the release of Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Querida Amazonia.
The Pope Emeritus and Cardinal Robert Sarah had written essays on the nature of the priesthood in the book From the Depths of Our Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy and the Crisis of the Catholic Church, strongly affirming mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Church.
The publication prompted a storm of criticism largely derived from the book’s timing: Francis was widely expected in his exhortation to allow the ordination of some married men in remote Amazon regions, and From the Depths of Our Hearts appeared to be an attempt to thwart such a move which, it was feared, could undermine the Latin rite discipline of priestly celibacy universally.
Although figures close to the Pope have insisted the door remains open to the possibility, the Holy Father appeared in the end to hold off from making such a change in Querida Amazonia, at least explicitly, leading some to believe that the book was effective in protecting the priestly celibacy rule. (The Vatican implicitly denied this, saying the document was already completed on Dec. 27, except for marginal style and translation changes).
Though many welcomed the positive influence the book might have made on safeguarding clerical celibacy, the episode reignited questions over whether a former Pope should be allowed to make such statements that impact his successor’s pontificate.
It has also sparked debate over whether rules should be implemented to define the precise role of a Pope Emeritus, and highlighted a related question increasingly heard in Rome: whether Benedict has, in fact, fully resigned the Petrine Office.
Aside from the controversy over whether Benedict was aware of his precise involvement in the book (Cardinal Sarah strongly asserted that he was), Benedict’s contribution to it was not the first time he had broken a rule he imposed on himself at his resignation: to serve the Church in silence, “hidden from the world” and “dedicated to prayer.”
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, a vocal critic of Benedict’s resignation, lamented the “many times” the former Pope has contravened that rule by making speeches, writing letters and giving occasional interviews. Benedict wished to retire “to pray in silence,” Cardinal Brandmüller said. “It was never going to happen.”
“This is why I am so angry,” he said, “and this is what destroys so much.”
“He had no idea what would happen”
At the root of Cardinal Brandmüller’s frustration is that the office Benedict created for himself after his resignation — that of Pope Emeritus — is totally new, created quickly and with little apparent regard for its possible consequences.
“He had no idea what would happen,” the 91-year old Church historian said. The German cardinal, who served as president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences under Benedict, stressed that the institution of Pope Emeritus “doesn’t exist in all of Church history and in canon law.”
The cardinal puts these oversights largely down to Benedict’s lack of consultation, saying “even Celestine V,” the last Pope to have resigned the papacy, “consulted the cardinals before he resigned” but Benedict made the decision “practically alone” — an omission, he believes, which showed “disdain” for the College of Cardinals.
Other senior Vatican sources have said that between Benedict’s announcement of his resignation on Feb. 11, 2013, and his departure from the apostolic palace three weeks later, a number of cardinals pressed Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Vatican Secretary of State, to clarify the canonical status of an abdicated pope as they saw it could be “potentially problematic,” but “nothing was done.”
The concern now, according to some senior prelates, is that Benedict appears to think he somehow has a papal role, even if he believes he has fully renounced the papacy.
This confusion has been aggravated externally through Benedict’s adherence to some of the trappings of the papacy: his decision to wear white, to refer to himself as His Holiness, to impart his apostolic blessing, and his use of the title “Pope Emeritus.”
But more importantly, questions hinge on comments Benedict and others have made over whether he has fully abdicated the ministerium (active ministry) of the Successor of Peter but not the papal munus (office) — a bifurcation which canonists and theologians say is impossible.
This concept of a kind of split Benedict-Francis papacy has a number of origins, most notably comments Benedict himself made during his last general audience on Feb. 27, 2013.
In his discourse, he said that after his election as Pope in 2005, he was “engaged always and forever by the Lord” and so could never return to the “private sphere.” Other similar comments include Benedict’s words to Peter Seewald in the 2017 book Last Testament in which he said his resignation “was not one of taking flight” but “precisely another way of remaining faithful to my ministry.”
Benedict’s personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein also considerably fueled the debate in 2016 by telling a Rome conference that Benedict had “not at all abandoned this ministry” of pope but instead de facto “expanded” it with a “quasi-shared ministry” that consisted of “an active member and a contemplative member.”
Archbishop Gänswein has since said his words, which many believe must have been cleared beforehand by Benedict or perhaps had been even written by him, were misunderstood. “There is only one Pope, one legitimately elected and incumbent Pope, and that is Francis. Amen,” he said last year.
But despite Archbishop Gänswein’s wish that the debate would end, it has continued, and doubts about the resignation have broadened.
Inner Responsibility Remains?
Professor Edmund Mazza, a Catholic author and broadcaster, has pointed out that in Last Testament, Benedict made the point in relation to the papacy that a “father does not stop being a father” even if “relieved of concrete responsibility.” He remains “in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function,” Benedict said.
Mazza then related these comments to a talk Joseph Ratzinger gave in 1977, entitled The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God, in which the future Pope argued that the institution of the papacy “can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility,” and that he “abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ.”
“For Benedict, ‘personal responsibility’ is the essence of what it means to be pope,” Mazza wrote in an essay entitled Resigned to the Papacy: Is Benedict Still Pope?, and he proposed that Benedict believes such a “moral responsibility” cannot be renounced, based on the fact that, in his Last Testament interview, Benedict said a pope “remains in an inner sense within the responsibility” even if the “functions” are relinquished.
A further study currently circulating in Rome is that by Italian civil lawyer Francesco Patruno. Noting that Benedict has preferred to leave his status “unregulated,” Patruno argues that the title “Pope Emeritus” is, in itself, of concern as it “involves a sort of split between the primatial office of the Pope and that of the Bishop of Rome” — a division which, because those aspects of the papacy are “united in the one person of the Roman Pontiff,” presents “inevitable legal-theological implications.”
Patruno is not the first to question the Pope Emeritus title: Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, also expressed reservations, saying in 2017 it “theologically creates more problems than solving them.”
But whereas Archbishop Fisichella recognizes the validity of the resignation, Patruno goes a step further, asking whether a pope could legitimately create ex nihilo (out of nothing) such an unprecedented figure as a Pope Emeritus. He believes this “would not be possible” because it would “touch on divine law” given that the institution of the papacy is “of direct divine creation.”
To imply the papal office is by its very nature divisible, and that it us up to “human willingness to choose which faculties to renounce and which to maintain, is in blatant violation of divine law,” Patruno writes in an essay of “brief reflections” on the “emeritus papacy.” He concludes, therefore, that Benedict’s resignation is invalid as it is “contrary to divine law itself.”
Others have proposed similar arguments and questioned how, through his resignation, a pope could unilaterally alter, or appear to alter, the papacy which is a divinely instituted monarchy with full and universal power. They quote in particular canon 188, which states that a resignation made out of “substantial error” would be “invalid by the law itself.”
In 2018, Father Nicola Bux, a former consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and for the Congregation of Saints, was concerned enough about the possible basis for this seeming diarchy within the papacy that he called for a juridical and historical investigation into the validity of Benedict’s resignation.
Now he believes the fracas over the Cardinal Sarah-Benedict book has highlighted how the “institution” of Pope Emeritus — and an apparent bifurcation it implies between the Pope’s active and passive ministry — is “harmful to the unity of the Church” and demands a resolution.
An Authentic Monstrum
The papal office cannot be “divisible into functions (active and passive) which could be renounced separately,” Father Bux said on Feb. 5. Such an idea, he believes, makes Benedict’s resignation an “authentic monstrum [monstrosity, unnatural event].”
He added that canonist friends of his are “firmly convinced” of the invalidity of the resignation based on the traditional canonical axiom, “doubtful resignation, no resignation” — a reference to St. Robert Bellarmine’s assertion that “a doubtful Pope is no Pope” if a “papal election is doubtful for any reason.”
But such doubts are rejected by theologians and others after having assessed the arguments. John Salza, a Catholic apologist and co-author of the book True or False Pope, argues that the resignation is valid principally on the basis of the doctrine of universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope. This provides “infallible certainty” that Christ “severed the bond between Benedict and the papacy in order make Francis Pope,” he said Feb. 25.
Any doubts about the resignation, Salza added, are “irrelevant because Francis was universally and peacefully accepted as Pope immediately following his election, by the entire episcopacy and a moral unanimity of the faithful.”
But he agrees with others who see Benedict’s actions after his resignation as problematic and causing confusion.
A priest theologian speaking on condition of anonymity and drawing on commentary on ancient canon law regarding resignations, (in particular M. Thériault, “De actibus juridici,” in A. Marzo et al. Comentario exegético al código de Derecho Canónico, 3a ed), said that if Benedict believed the munus and ministerium were not the same thing, “he would have to clearly say so within the resignation itself.”
But Benedict “did not distinguish clearly between them in the renunciation, nor did he include conditions, such as ‘I resign as acting Pope, provided I can be a ‘contemplative Pope.’” Rather, he stated, “’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.’”
The theologian sees the situation as analogous to a woman who is divorced and insists that she is no longer married, and yet retains external trappings of her marriage, such as the ring, the name, and claims a right to her ex-husband’s property.
Both he and Salza argue that even if Benedict believed he was still Pope, that would be a matter of the internal forum, and “the Church does not judge internals.” “In the external forum, he did everything that was required for a valid resignation,” Salza said, and we have certainty of this because Francis has been peacefully and universally accepted as Pope.”
Furthermore, the theologian said no resignation requires “complete understanding, or even orthodoxy, regarding what is being resigned” for it to be valid, merely that the one resigning intend to resign the “substance of his position” — papal governance and jurisdiction. He also said by Benedict using the term emeritus, it is a “significant sign” he has fully renounced the papacy as canon 185 indicates that the title is given to a bishop “only when he has validly resigned, or lost office in some other way.” Thus, he said, Benedict could not be ‘Pope Emeritus’ “unless he resigned.”
Cardinal Brandmüller, even though he has been a critic of the resignation, similarly accepts its validity and firmly rejects the hypothesis of the Petrine Office being divisible, saying he believes Francis is Pope as there can only be “one Pope,” inseparable in his unity and in his power — a thesis he presented in a 2016 canonical and historical essay in the Italian journal Archivio Giuridico.
For him, the roots of the problem date back to 18th century France and the beginning of ultramontanism (the view that the Pope has absolute, boundless power) and particularly the long pontificate of Pope Pius IX when a metaphysical view of the papacy began to take root — a view which he believes Archbishop Gänswein (according to his 2016 speech) and others appear to support. “The institution of the Pope Emeritus is the last expression of such papalism,” he said.
Such a metaphysical conception of the papacy that gives it a sacramental character is believed to be behind the notion that a pope could renounce his active ministry but keep the munus. The theory was put forward by heterodox German theologian Karl Rahner, even before Pope St. Paul VI instituted the episcopal emeritus (until that time, bishops did not retire and become emeriti).
Papacy Juridical, Not Sacramental
In his 1964 book The Episcopate in the Church (L’ episcopato nella Chiesa), Rahner claimed a pope could resign the juridical aspect of the papacy but not what relates to its indelible character, or what he called its “sacramental nature.” Without evidence, Patruno claims this theory, relaunched in 1974 by the heterodox School of Bologna, is one that Benedict, who was once a friend of Rahner, “wanted to follow.”
But Rahner’s theory is rejected by, among others, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
“The phrase ‘renunciation of the exercise of the ministry of Peter’ does not mean that the election to the office of Bishop of Rome is a sacramental consecration which confers an indelible character,” he said on Jan. 29. “He is not, therefore, like a bishop emeritus who retains all the sacramental munera given with episcopal ordination, but renounces the exercise of jurisdiction in his diocese.”
Further stressing the non-sacramental nature of the papacy, he added that on the level of ordination, a pope is “only a bishop” and does not have any level of consecration higher than that. A pope, he said, retains the munera of a bishop, but in “renouncing this papal office, he loses primatial powers completely.” Hence, in renunciation the ministry, Benedict renounced what was proper to the papal office.
Italian Church historian Professor Roberto de Mattei agrees with Cardinal Müller, saying that the papacy, “despite its divine institution, is of a juridical nature: it is not a sacrament, it is an office.” He therefore firmly believes there is “only one pope, one Vicar of Christ and it is he who governs the Church. Today he is Pope Francis.” He also believes any “grace of state” is linked to the Petrine office, and that Benedict XVI lost that, too, “by renouncing the office.”
De Mattei, who is president of the traditional Catholic Lepanto Foundation, said the attempt to “redefine the munus petrinum was born in progressive circles that have wanted to de-institutionalize the Church, giving the Pope a charismatic rather than juridical role.” As well as Rahner, this was a theory further supported by dissident theologian Hans Küng, also a former friend of Benedict. For this reason, De Mattei believes those who “defend the tradition of the Church must strongly reject this error.”
And yet due to this ongoing debate over this seemingly “bifurcated” papacy and events in the Church since 2013, it is not just scholars who have been questioning Benedict’s resignation, but also an increasing number of faithful, causing significant distress and challenging unity in the Church.
The sensus fidei, or sense of the faith — an instinct that regards what pertains to the Catholic Faith — currently “perceives something is wrong,” said Father Bux who, in 2018, called on Francis to make an urgent profession of faith.
The faithful, he said, “perceive that Francis’ teaching has something ‘strange’ about it and they don’t understand the reason for it, but they almost perceive that a kind of grace of state is lacking, [a grace] which would make Francis’ teaching immune from real heresies.”
Father Bux, who has also served as a consultor to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, does not go so far as to suggest Francis is an “antipope” — a term he regards as “excessive” — but rather as “a sort of ‘unfinished pope’ or acting pope, precisely because of the way Benedict XVI set out his act of resignation.” He added that the resignation “had no clarity of ideas” and by the way “Benedict XVI designed it, Francis seems almost like an administrator, an acting director, a delegate or something like that.”
But the anonymous priest theologian took issue with Father Bux’s argumentation, saying that “just because a pope may not be receptive to the grace of state doesn’t mean it hasn’t been given.” He also said the sensus fidei is misapplied in this context as it normally relates to a specific doctrinal claim, whether it is Catholic or heretical, rather than the “grace of state” which is “not a matter of faith as such.” No one can have a “sense” of whether a person has a “grace of state,” he noted, as it is something “only God can know.”
Benedict Aware of Situation
Nevertheless, Benedict is aware of the divisions and fraught situation in the Church that his resignation has caused, as a somewhat heated exchange of correspondence between him and Cardinal Brandmüller in 2017 showed.
This is “absolutely” a sensitive point for Benedict, Cardinal Brandmüller said, adding that Benedict has “discovered what he has really done, and seen the consequences.”
So what is the solution to this vexatious problem?
One could be to draw up regulations on what a retired pope can and cannot do — something that is rumoured to be under consideration and may possibly be included in Pope Francis’ new constitution for the Roman Curia expected later this year.
In his 2016 article, Cardinal Brandmüller laid out what some of those rules could entail, including the need to define the status of an ex-pope, his name, his residence and also regulation of his social and media contacts so that his dignity is respected but also any danger to Church unity is prevented.
Father Bux said regulations could only be devised for future papal resignations and not applied retroactively. Furthermore, he said a Church legislator could regulate what happens around some of the practicalities of a papal resignation, but he could not legislate on a matter that would “foresee dividing the functions of the papal office, or foresee that a subject could renounce some functions and not others, splitting the office.”
“Only the Lord could allow the papal function to be divided,” he said. “But He did not. And certainly, man could not. Many think the Pope is an interpreter of divine law. He is. But it’s one thing to interpret it in accordance with divine law; it’s another to invent a figure or an institution not provided for by divine law.”
Still, the absence of any man-made legal framework carries risks regarding Benedict’s role.
“The problem that can arise from the legislative vacuum is precisely this: the possibility of a schism in the Church,” said de Mattei, adding that “unfortunately, the responsibility for this confusion lies with Benedict XVI himself.”
It is solely up to Benedict to “clarify his ambiguous position which seems to be the consequence of an erroneous ecclesiology,” he said.
Until then, De Mattei believes Catholics have every right to resist what they see as problems with this pontificate, but they must consider Francis “a legitimate Pope, until proven otherwise.
“To deny this fact, express doubts, clues or hypotheses are not enough,” he said. “Sure proof is needed, shared by an authoritative portion of the Catholic world. This does not seem to me to be the case, at least until today.”
Cardinal Brandmüller believes the matter will ultimately only be fully resolved by Benedict’s passing. “From the institutional point of view, it’s the only solution,” he said. “The ground is very mined.”
But for those who have become convinced Benedict is still Pope, that would be unsatisfactory as they would continue not to recognize Francis’ election and, in turn, question the validity of all Francis’ acts such as his encyclicals and appointments, including those of cardinals and bishops.
This is one of the reasons why Bishop Athanasius Schneider rejects the invalid resignation argument, and instead urges greater trust in God, stressing that only He can correct this situation, that the Lord will take “command in the storm” and “give calm back to His Church.”
He also takes some solace in a 2014 letter from Benedict to Andrea Tornielli, then a journalist with La Stampa, in which Benedict reportedly wrote: “There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry. The only condition of validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculation about the invalidity of renunciation is simply absurd.”
Putting the Question to Benedict
But those comments have failed to quell questions about the seeming diarchy of the papacy. On the contrary, the controversy over the validity issue has increased, leading some to insist, for the good of the Church, that Benedict simply issue a clarification himself. This could perhaps be achieved by one or two of his friends asking him to affirm that Francis is the only Pope, there is no bifurcation, and that he fully renounces all trappings of the papacy. Cardinal Brandmüller said he was sympathetic such an initiative.
However this question is resolved, Cardinal Müller believes the virtue of “prudence is needed here,” and noted that “many people are emotionally attached” to a pope and “transfer their sympathies unevenly.”
He also appealed for “the Christian gift of discernment of spirits” so that “ideologues in the media” are not allowed to “incite one another (e.g. in films)” — a reference to the recent Hollywood movie, The Two Popes, which further spread the notion that two pontiffs could exist.
“Everything that causes quarrels and discord is not of the Spirit of God,” Cardinal Müller said, referring to disputes and, at times, vitriolic arguments that have become a frequent occurrence since Benedict’s resignation.
Quoting St. Paul’s letter to the quarrelling Corinthians, Cardinal Müller said: “Each of you is saying, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?’”
Mr. Pentin: In October of 2018 when you made the report on Msgr Bux calling for an examination into the renunciation, I thought, “How wonderful! Finally someone with a voice and some clout who with stood the onslaught of the German cardinal who’d dismissed and demeaned the African Cardinals at the Synod on the Family. FINALLY, I thought, someone who will be fair.” As you have shown in this article, not so much, Mr. Pentin. Not so much.
As Fr Hannon recently said in his youtube video, “I’d like to see FAIRNESS!” That is why The February 28 Proposal exists: Basic, decent FAIRNESS. Please, Mr Pentin in the spirit of FAIRNESS, address the substance published by Marco Tossatti in Russo’s presentation and not straw men. I and many others look your future fairness. https://abyssum.org/2020/03/06/here-is-one-of-the-clearest-and-most-convincing-presentations-of-the-truth-that-pope-benedict-xvi-is-still-the-pope-of-the-roman-catholic-church-and-that-jorge-bergolio-is-an-anti-pope/
***
Thank you for your comment – I hadn’t seen the report you mention until after this article was published.
“Christ is the whole point of the [Church’s] functioning. We are not baptized into the hierarchy, do not receive the cardinals sacramentally, will not spend eternity in the beatific vision of the pope … Christ is the point…” Sheed, “Christ in Eclipse”
Catholic’s who spend all their time and spiritual energies focused on trying to shoehorn BXVI back into the Papacy are inadvertently letting this eat away at what is most important to their spiritual lives – humility, Christian charity, prayer, and trust in our Lord. Do not forget, we must strive to be saints, we must.
There is a legitimate place in the public square for questions, concern and ecclesiastical acts that might need to be taken to ensure the fraternal peace and unity among Christians is safeguarded. But to personally assert with moral certitude about such grave matter is rash and imprudent.
Christ promised us the Cross, and showed us the path to it by walking there Himself. If there was any other way, He would have shown it to us. Do not abandon it. His is the example par excellence.
PS. Everyone ought to be praying for final perseverance, making acts of faith, being careful to remain in a state of grace, avoiding occasions of sin, and going to confession if they have fallen. Love God first, and your neighbor as yourself. Be watchful, for we know not the hour…
Absolute nonsense! I am tired of professional fence sitters attempting to paint other Catholics rightly concerned about these questions as somehow neglecting their spiritual life and other responsibilities. We are very capable of doing both, thank you very much. So spare us the pious ad hominem. The only jokers who deserve to be raked over the coals are the useless hierarchy who don’t want to do anything and just hope things magically work out, because they seem to have forgotten that God put some men in charge of doing precisely that, and I really don’t think Schneider will like it if God finally decides to do it Himself because Schneider doesn’t. It’s time to drag Benedict kicking and mewing before a formal public inquisition to clarify his stupid novelties, and if necessary name a new heresy of Papal diarchies after him to his everlasting shame and as a warning to future innovators.
Thanks for calling out this annoying form of pietific virtue-signaling.
Quite right.
Your “P.S. is spot-on. Vigilate et orate…
Salza is simply an American civil lawyer. He is neother a canon lawyer nor a theologian but a mere layman.
Why do you cite him at all, let alone give him so much space?
A very helpful summary of the situation. As a layperson trying to understand the various arguments, I thank you.
Thank you, Edward, for your exhaustive research on this topic and presenting the various arguments respectfully and seriously. It is refreshing to hear a professional and balanced presentation of all sides that avoids any disparaging remarks.
It appears that nobody quite knows how to explain this unprecedented situation.
The clearly anti-Christian nature of Bergoglio’s words and actions only makes the questions more pressing.
Connecting the present situation to the Fatima message and Jacinta’s vision of “the Holy Father” and “a bishop dressed in white” offers hope that in fact this confusing situation is not outside God’s Providence and is in fact part of the tribulation the Church must endure as it progresses toward the promised Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. More to be revealed; Come, Holy Spirit, lead us and guide us!
Speaking of “unprecedented situation”, Our Lady of LaSalette, who said that Rome would lose the Faith, also said that God would “strike in an unprecedented way,” i.e.: without precedent.
Dear Edward,
Thanks for your good work on this important topic.
Your journalism is thorough, clear, evenly presented, well cited and faithful to the Church.
I hope this article helps speed a peaceful resolution to the problem of Benedict’s resignation for the sake of the Church and especially for those most troubled by todays crises.
Respectfully,
AFR
Catholics are traditionally not divided because we are under Christ, behind a valid Pope who acts as Christ’s Vicar – Christ’s standard of unity. We see Christ and His Blessed Mother through the Pope. That is our Faith.
That is why the question: “Who is the true and valid Pope” is existentially important. No other question matters to me, because my salvation and that of the whole Church depends upon getting that question correct.
Jesus Christ built His Church upon that foundation. That is clear. We cannot play games with this. The Pope, Benedict XVI, did not resign his Office. He resigned his Ministry. No. He cannot do this, by Canon Law. He must do this correctly and legally, or he remains Pope, in full, as before. No one, even himself, can gainsay that or play games with that. His Office is from God.
We will be divided and increasingly so, until total irrevocable fracture occurs, until that question is answered and the dilemma resolved.
Yup, Acqa, & manifestly.
Absolutely correct & the only person who can give us the truth is PBXVI who has stubbornly remained silent whilst a long catalogue of heresies, blasphemies, idolatry, abandonment of Chinese Catholics, dumbing down of the Ten Commandments Tradition & Scripture etc. are being promulgated by his political Marxist, NWO godless successor. We’ve all had enough & want the Cardinals & Bishops together to make a proclamation as to which man is the Pope & the one who isn’t dealt with for putting the entire ethos of the CC in jeopardy.
This whole subject is just stupid. So what if A FEW quarreling canonists, who can never agree on anything anyway, are taking the opportunity to wrap themselves up in knots over nothing? Nobody is confused except the Steve Skojecs of the world, who, lets face it, make their living out of making cases out of nothing. He wears white! Oh, my God! It says in the bible only the pope can wear white! Oh, wait, it means nothing at all. You have nuts out there trying to make youtube and internet hay out of this fake, conspiracy world “controversy”. Sorry to see Pentin join their ranks, I had much more admiration for him before this. Nobody in the world has the slightest doubt about who is pope. Nobody is troubled, nobody really objects to Benedicts few public statements which are always cleared by the Vatican anyway. I am sorry to say, much of the Catholic Social Media has become a sort of UFO hunters club, always finding “evidence” that the aliens have landed in our backyard. It’s foolish and getting out of hand.
And yet here you are, commenting under ‘stupid’ ‘conspiracy’ topics whilst simultaneously contradicting yourself. Clearly it’s not ‘nobody’ who cares, and I do believe that this rant of yours proves that you actually do care much more than you’re pretending otherwise. It’s thanks to non-chalant what -me-worry attitudes like this that the world is so screwed up. If you’ve got nothing to contribute here, then please return to your regular scheduled programming where the nice blonde teleprompter newscaster lady tells you everything you’re allowed to believe in and where only the Russians are responsible for every approved conspiracy. Now please stand by for a word from our sponsor…
If a priest says “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Red Firetruck”, it doesn’t matter his intention, the baptism is invalid. Pope said ministerium instead of munus. INVALID.
Elmo: Perfect. Precisely the point. Cuts through all the static and noise.
Intent is proved by precise, carefully stated, formulaic words in the Sacraments …. and in Papal Renunciations.
Dear Elmo. Sacraments have required matter and form to be valid.
Where is the Dogmatic Fact/Teaching that a Papal Resignation is required to have specific matter and form?
From the 1983 Code of Canon Law please post for all to read the Canon invalidating a papal resignation if it was actualised using bad Latin.
The very first canon says, “Words actually have meaning, and that matters a lot, so it is always necessary to choose one’s words carefully in any expression of legal matters.” Oh it doesn’t say this?!? Well of course it doesn’t, because this is a fundamental precept of communication etc., and there is no need to repeat such fundamental precepts.
Turbinado, don’t drag Steve Skojec into this. He’s on your “side”, a regular ‘Francis IS Pope” sort of guy. Steve does teach that WE all should actively resist the teachings of THE “Pope” if WE disagree with his new teachings. A very Protestant position.
Here is an article pointing out that the bar for ‘substantial error’ is high. It is not the same as ‘serious error’. One can be wrong about a necessary property of some state without thereby being in substantial error.
https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2020/01/25/these-apostolic-blessings/
What can be a more substantial error than resigning from Pope by not resigning the Office of Pope, and creating an Emeritus (bifurcation) out of thin air – no support from Sacred Scripture or Tradition.
If that doesn’t meet “the bar”, then nothing does.
Saying that it does not “meet the bar” is to say it doesn’t matter – the Office, the Institution, the Divine connection to Christ, Cannon Law, bi-millennial Tradition, the founding words of Christ Himself, the clear meaning of words and language. “Whatever”.
This is a fabulous article laying out all the ambiguities — which my mind has no problems understanding. But I have friends still snorting fire about the exact words Pope Benedict used! This open discussion is really helpful to lancing the boil, flushing the fever. Thank you.
What boil was lanced? Mr. Pentin only reported the various arguments. He resolved nothing. I want the Cardinals and Bishops to do their job and resolve the matter.
Thank you for the article Mr Pentin.
Questions about papacy are very serious and can’t be simply ignored. Any claims about Benedict XVI being still the Pope deserves honest answers, this is a matter of charity. Truth doesn’t want to stay hidden.
Please note that act of papal resignation must be clear in itself. It is not subject to anybody’s interpretation. So opinions of theologians or cardinals can not establish or change status of the resignation. The same applies to resigning and proceeding pope, even they can not make valid act invalid or vice versa. Not to mention subversive idea of democracy introduced by improper use of universal and peaceful acceptance.
What Benedict XVI did is not clear per se. His act is doubtful – not because some people have doubts but because it did not follow the law. External interpretations are needed to understand what happened.
We can speculate on motives. Maybe Pope was pressed and he resisted pressure by faking his resignation, maybe his intention indeed was to bifurcate papacy or maybe he simply had ‘a senior moment’. Whatever an answer might be, the fact that his resignation is dubious stays unchanged.
So before anything else we have to look at words of Benedict XVI solely in light of the law itself. Doing otherwise exposes disdain for Churches’ laws and puts personal opinions above everything else.
Your article may help the Truth to win regardless of anybody’s opinion.
Unfortunately, there is no “law” concerning papal resignation/abdication. And, as was pointed out (one of the opinions expressed) in the article, Christ instituted the office and ministry of the papacy, but there is NO indication in either Scripture or Apostolic Tradition that there is any way to separate the “office” from the “ministry” of the pope (although I suppose a “grammatical” distinction between the two may be possible). As the papacy is the “principle of unity” for the Church as part of Christ’s design, there can be ONLY ONE pope at any given point in time! Even during the Great Western Schism when there were several claimants to the Chair of Peter, nobody actually thought that there was more than one pope. The actual problem was that no one at the time was really sure just WHO among the several claimants was the TRUE (one-and-only) pope (so the thorny issue had to be settled by an ecumenical council–the Council of Constance, 1414-1418). Today, Benedict is not disputing that Francis is the pope. When he resigned in 2013, he gave up the “ministry” of pope when he relinquished the “office”, because the one goes with the other and they cannot be separated (he who holds the office must perform the ministry–although he may do it either well or poorly, or may even neglect to do it at all–but no one else can do it for him, and he cannot “delegate” that authority it to anyone else). Now, Benedict may have had “second thoughts” at some time after the election of Francis, but (even if that were so) that is another matter entirely. The torch has been passed, as it were, and (for good or ill) there is no going back.
But what you term “second thoughts” may well have been his intentions all along.
Benedict repeatedly, and with the utmost firmness, has said that he renounced the “ministerium” of the papacy. He has NEVER said that he renounced the “munus.”
So any question to him on the ministerium will get the same answer, and appear to close the case while closing nothing, since the question that needs to be asked is: Did you freely renounce the munus of the papacy?
Those canons of Canon Law that deal with the office of the Roman Pontiff, canons 331 to 335, refer to the office of the Pope seven times as munus, never as ministry. Seems to be crystal clear.
BenedictusΧριστοῦVIcarius.
Thank you for your article.
Any statement by Benedict now affirming his resignation would do nothing to make his original resignation valid. And even if he were to now issue a totally valid resignation, it would only confirm that his original resignation was deficient. Francis would not suddenly become a valid pope, but a new conclave would have to gather to elect him (or someone else) validly.
This “universal and peaceful acceptance” theory is total bovine manure. Nobody has ever even heard of it prior to just a few months ago, but all of a sudden it’s being peddled by Team Francis as the most important dogma the Church has ever had. I can’t find anything remotely close to it in any comprehensive list of dogmas. It’s simply made up out of whole cloth. Moreover it leads a logical contradiction. If you accept that an invalid conclave can “universally and peacefully” elect a new pope in the face of an invalid resignation of an existing valid pope, then you are implicitly implying that a council could depose a valid pope, just as long as everyone agreed to it. This is simply the heresy of Conciliarism which the Church has condemned. Equally ridiculous is the idea that a valid conclave could have their election nullified by a single Cardinal who “unpeacefully” rejects the outcome. As if we could reject and refuse to submit to a lawfully elected valid pope, just as long as we did it early enough. Totally ridiculous nonsense.
As a society we’ve all lost the ability to think logically.
Totally agreed.
Besides the problem we have with the controversial resignation, we have the problem of cardinals publicly bragging of politicing for Bergoglio contra Universi Dominici Gregis which states: “76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”
And:”79. Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.”
So we actually have two controversies.
And we also have the controversy of the ambiguity created by Amoris Latitia and the subsequent documents that appear to many to allow unrepentant adulterers to receive Holy Communion.
Huston, we have a problem.
Universi Dominici Gregis also specifies the number of ballots per day. Two in the morning and two in the afternoon. Bergoglio was “elected” on the FIFTH ballot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_papal_conclave A ballot that violates the Law and is automatically invalid. BTW, they had three in the morning and two in the afternoon.
“Cardinal Brandmüller believes the matter will ultimately only be fully resolved by Benedict’s passing. “From the institutional point of view, it’s the only solution,” he said. “The ground is very mined.””
Benedict is on suicide watch?
Note for non-US readers: this is a lame joke referring to the circumstances of the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
To make a long story short, Myron M. is simply trying to resuscitate the heresies of Joachim di Fiore (d. 1202), errors which were condemned throughout the Thirteenth Century, although Joachim himself was never anathematized as a heretic.
From Wikipedia:
“The mystical basis of his teaching is his doctrine of the “eternal gospel”, founded on an interpretation of Revelation 14:6 (Rev 14:6, “Then I saw another angel flying in midheaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation and tribe and language and people.” NRSV translation.).
His theories can be considered millenarian; he believed that history, by analogy with the Trinity, was divided into three fundamental epochs:
The Age of the Father, corresponding to the Old Testament, characterized by obedience of mankind to the Rules of God;
The Age of the Son, between the advent of Christ and 1260, represented by the New Testament, when Man became the son of God;
The Age of the Holy Spirit, impending, a contemplative utopia. The Kingdom of the Holy Spirit, a new dispensation of universal love, would proceed from the Gospel of Christ, but transcend the letter of it. In this new Age the ecclesiastical organization would be replaced and the Order of the Just would rule the Church. This Order of the Just was later identified with the Franciscan order by his follower Gerardo of Borgo San Donnino.
According to Joachim, only in this third age will it be possible to truly understand the words of God in their deepest meanings, and not merely literally. In this period, instead of the parousia (second Advent of Christ), a new epoch of peace and concord would begin; also, a new religious “order” of spiritual men will arise, thus making the present hierarchy of the Church almost unnecessary.”
@William Tighe: Thank you for simplifying Myron M’s mission. Every time I’ve tried to wade through all the information he presents, I get bogged down.
The whole ‘Universal Acceptance’ argument is problematic.
For one, it seems to me that it is under the 3rd tier of consideration and follows from the legitimacy of the first two being in order –
1) That Benedict XVI’s Abdication be valid
2) That the Conclave that elected Francis was legitimate
3) That there be universal acceptance after the fact
The attempt to put the focus on #3 is the argument that #3 absolves any inconsistencies that might occur with 1 & 2 and thus ‘cover over’ any mistakes or illegalities.
But I don’t get that sense from the texts quoted in support of that arugment and it seems that #3 is only valid in so far as #1 and #2 were legitimate, as in, that they followed the law. Otherwise the natural result of putting #3 ahead of #1 and 2 is that objective reality and the law do not matter whatsoever. If this is the case then that is a dangerous precedent and the Cardinals can then do anything willy nilly and completely ignore the law and universal accceptance makes everything kosher by democratic opinion.
It seems that there is now a movement to develop a universal acceptance of the universal acceptance argument on the part of its promoters, which again then places the idea of objective truth being made subservient to subjective interpretation in a pure numbers game.
This doesn’t add up. Especially considering that in #1, a Pope abdicating correctly according to the law, if followed by the letter states that it must be an act of his (the Pope’s) own will and not subject to acceptance by anyone else.
So it seems in order for #1 to be legitimate – universal acceptance is completely disregarded from the onset. Yet for some reason when we get around to #3, it supposedly covers over for any mistakes made in #1???
If anything #3 is only arguably applicable to covering up for any debatable issues with #2. But #2 is only legitimate in light of #1 being legitimately done in the first place. And if #1 wasn’t done legitimately, then #2 is invalid on its face, and to attempt to argue that #3 can cover up any issues and give #2 a pass, yet is clearly stated that it is not even acceptable as a necessity to the legitimacy of #1 according to the law, makes any attempt to square this circle absurd on its face.
Johno,
universal acceptance is a sign (not ‘the sign’) that everything is ok with papal election but it is absolutely not the cause for anybody to become true pope.
If there is no such acceptance in the Church it means that legality of papal election should be re-examined.
Using universal acceptance as a way to confirm validity is serious abuse and, as was said here before, contradicts common sense. Whoever promotes it doesn’t understand what UA means or is deliberately deceiving others to obtain his goals.
I’ve never head UA being doctrine, but it doesn’t mean it is not. I do not know that, but either way UA can not man a pope.
Benedict XVI is still the Pope. The attempt to gainsay this fact is merely a charade of desperation by Team Francis and the various Novus Ordo toadies who have a vested interest in the ratification of modernist heresy. What’s ironic is that an entire swath of so-called “traditonalists” seem just as desperate to maintain the charade.
Yes, Benedict is still the pope. But he is also the stupidest and most incompetent buffoon ever to hold the Papal See.
The words of St. Augustine deserve to fix the attention. “It is not,” said he, ” upon thee as Peter, but upon that rock which thou hast confessed.”
Every single Bishop and over one billion Catholics accepted the resignation of the former Pope and the election of Pope Francis.
On the other hand, there exists no acting Bishops and nine laymen who raise canonical objections as though that is a legitimate way to object to a papacy. Talk about legalism run amuck
One can imagine the future election of a Pope and how any layman or Canon Lawyer could launch a legalistic objection and keep the captious controversy raging.
It is silliness on stilts walling on top of the space shuttle.
Both Dr. Peters (Canon Lawyer blogging at In light of the Law) and the former Pope himself say the objections raised by the schismatics (they are not in communion with Pope Francis) are absurd.
But because the Occult Cult (They know what Benedict intended better than he) and its charismatic leader Ann Barnhart initially accepted the election of Francis their claim now seems silly but they do have a shared delusion about substantial error this and bad latin that they can not be reasoned with because a delusion can not be corrected by reason or logic.
They are sort of like sectarian John Kerrys they were for the papal election before they were against it.
They will remain steadfast in defense of their delusion.
C’est la vie.
The majority of Catholics largely reject the Catholic Faith and much of its moral teachings and couldn’t care less for the office of the Papacy and would openly universally accept a woman as the Pope if circumstances permitted, so these stupid appeals to democracy to determine the truth are a farce.
Even then, a valid Papal resignation rests on objective reality and rules. NOT on the feelings of Benedict nor the feelings of the mob, clerical or lay, whose acceptance or lack of acceptance DOESN’T MATTER. Only the free will of the Pope AND provided he is not making the decision based on SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.
There is no doubt that Benedict believes himself ‘retired’, the question is whether he believes his retirement is rooted in the heretical notion that more than one member can share the Papacy simultaneously while exercising different ministries. Benedict has NEVER directly answered this question, and any statements attributed to him are second hand and selective from third parties that just say Francis actively is Pope, which fits into the diarchy just as well and therefore answers nothing. Benedict must be forced to answer without room to escape into ambigious retreats that don’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
Depending on his answer, this could invalidate his resignation objectively and the feelings of the majority and their Twitter account opinions DON’T MATTER! Not even secular legal documents and procedures work this way! It’s COMPLETELY NONSENSICAL!
This is why it is PERFECTLY reasonable to doubt Benedict’s resignation as flawed. And why it all rests on his testimony to clarify his words and intentions publicly before the entire world, and then a council be called in the event that he admits that he intended to do the impossible. This is NOT a claim that we know better than Benedict but an honest appeal to him to tell us directly without ambiguity. Unlike somebody here who doesn’t practice what he preaches and has no argument to make other than appealing to the democratic opinion of unknowledgable largely fallen away baptized Catholics and openly modernist compromised clergy, many of whom would prefer the Protestant model of the Church without any head if they could have it. This is how stupid that argument is and further demonstrates the extent of mental compromises and gymnastics one needs to practice to accept the Francis ‘Papacy.’
Ed Peters has never addressed the Barnhardt Hypothesis, and continually refuses to do so, because he has a nice, comfortable life.
Ed Peters is utriusque, both a civil and canon lawyer. Why would he take the time to address the concerns of Ann Barnhardt?
“…there is no bifurcation.”
There has to be or how can you explain the fact that we are witnessing a pope v. Pope, and thus v. every other validly elected Pope?
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost; For It is “Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost”, that Holy Mother Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, exists.
It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion if one is following a schismatic pope, and furthermore, to follow a schismatic pope, sets one apart from Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,
It is not possible to be in communion with and autonomous from Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, simultaneously, due to The Unity Of The Holy.
“True or False Pope, argues that the resignation is valid principally on the basis of the doctrine of universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope. This provides “infallible certainty” that Christ “severed the bond between Benedict and the papacy in order make Francis Pope,” he said Feb. 25.”
No, because the bond of unity was separated prior to the election of Jorge Bergoglio.
The facts are:
1) Jorge Bergoglio’s heresy was external and made public and notorious, when as a cardinal, he stated in his book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex sexual relationships, and thus same-sex sexual acts, prior to his election as pope, on page 117, demonstrating that he does not hold, keep, or teach The Catholic Faith, and he continues to act accordingly:
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church:
II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN
“1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121
1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125
1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal – so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.”
It is a sin to accomodate an occasion of sin, and thus cooperate with evils
“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power.” de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8
“Nor is there any schism if……one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2”
“…there is no bifurcation.”
There has to be or how can you explain the fact that we are witnessing a pope v. Pope, and thus v. every other validly elected Pope?
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost; For It is “Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost”, that Holy Mother Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, exists.
It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion, and thus Ecclesial Communion, if one is following a schismatic pope, and furthermore, to follow a schismatic pope, sets one apart from Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,
It is not possible to be in communion with and autonomous from Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, simultaneously, due to The Unity Of The Holy.
“True or False Pope, argues that the resignation is valid principally on the basis of the doctrine of universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope. This provides “infallible certainty” that Christ “severed the bond between Benedict and the papacy in order make Francis Pope,” he said Feb. 25.”
No, because the bond of unity was severed, prior to the election of Jorge Bergoglio.
The facts are:
1) Jorge Bergoglio’s heresy was external and made public and notorious, when as a cardinal, he stated in his book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex sexual relationships, and thus same-sex sexual acts, prior to his election as pope, on page 117, demonstrating that he does not hold, keep, or teach The Catholic Faith, and he continues to act accordingly:
“If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church:
II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN
“1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121
1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125
1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal – so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.”
It is a sin to accomodate an occasion of sin, and thus cooperate with evils
“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power.” de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8
“Nor is there any schism if……one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2”
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”
“REMEMBER, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, I fly to thee, O Virgin of virgins, my Mother; to thee do I come; before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen.”
At this hour it is late, but not too late, to do The Consecration of Russia to Our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart.
Those who have given such high importance to the text of St. Cyprian, taken from his
letter to Cornelius, have forgotten another that so well explains it that it is difficult to
understand how they have omitted it. It is that in which he declares that, “Rome should
precede Carthage, because of its great size–pro magnitudine sua.”
This doctrine agrees with that of St, Irenæus and the other Fathers, who have never mentioned any divine prerogative
with which the Church of Rome had been favored. St. Optatus, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and many other Western Fathers have praised the Church of Rome as an Apostolic Church, and have attached a high importance to her
testimony in questions of faith. But not one of them ascribes to her any such doctrinal authority that her testimony would of itself be sufficient to determine questions under discussion. It must even be remarked that St. Augustine sets up the authority of the Oriental churches against the Donatists, and does not mention that of Rome, although she was the
Apostolic Church of the West.
Those who reject Francis as Pope are outside The Church.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/br-bugnolo-redefines-dogmatic-facts-to.html
Many of those in The Occult Cult also hold to the extreme form of EENS doctrine which just goes to show you that justice does not exclude irony
You’re still listening to that comedy team of Salza and Siscoe?
What’s even worse, you’re claiming that devout Catholics who follow the dictates and traditions of the pre-Vatican 2 Church are schismatics, while an open heretic and visceral anti-Catholic from Argentina is “The Holy Father.”
I think you need some amateur brain surgery upon yourself,.
Their arguments on “universal and peaceful acceptance” are so bad, only a 32nd degree Freemason could have come up with them.
Here is a link to an excellent refutation of The Occult Cult’s different claims that Benedict is Pope
https://romalocutaest.com/2020/02/11/summa-contra-the-bip-theory-why-benedict-xvi-is-not-the-pope/
All Steven O’Reilly says is that everything is uncertain, we can’t know for sure, we’re not in a position to render a judgment, and therefore we have to just sit tight and trust that some future pope or council will tell us what to think about the matter. In other words, don’t use your ears and eyes and mind about the situation, but instead just lie back in supine indecision.
That isn’t an argument. That’s a confession of ignorance, and a plea for gutless inaction. But it’s quite typical of fake traditionalist spinelessness.
The abdicated Pope Benedict, whom you think is still Pope, taught that men like you, who reject the election of Francis, are outside the Church.
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/cardinal-ratzinger-benevacantists-are.html
You prolly should be less judgmental and more seeking of the truth.
What Benedict thinks personally doesn’t affect objective reality. I can see you haven’t read Aquinas.
You need to be more thorough in your search for the truth, if you can actually believe that a flagrant and public heretic who is openly anti-Catholic is the Vicar if Christ on earth. That’s REALLY cognitive dissonance.
The word is “probably,” not “prolly.” Where did you go to school?
Prolly is a word ABS picked up by reading John Kennery Toole’s’ “Confederacy of Dunces.”
It is southern idiom meaning probably.
ABS went to school in the Haint haunted hills of Vermont
I’m also tired of the effeminate “we can’t do anything about it” brigade. It’s like they’ve never even heard of St. Catherine of Sienna.
“DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
What do you think you’re contributing to the conversation by copying and pasting from the blog of a mad disciple of Maciel? And what kind of citation is that, with no author stated? Real scholarly.
Yes, thank you for presenting your expertise on this. Thorough job.
The problem is not really Benedict at its root. It is Francis. If Pope Francis had acted as an orthodox defender of the faith, nobody would have ever brought the question of validity up. The problem is that the sensus fidelium knows that Pope Francis is doing a very poor job. But the benevacantist solution is equally ridiculous. After the mess he made, who would want him back? Any pope in the future who is ever elected under the shadow of a “pope emeritus” should direct that person that he will use his cardinal name, wear the red, and, if necessary, get out of Rome.
Once again, it is NOT a matter of public perceptions! The facts are quite plain: the “resignation” of Benedict was canonically invalid, the subsequent conclave of 2013 was therefore inoperative, and Jorge Bergoglio is therefore NOT the Pope. It doesn’t matter what the Catholic faithful “see” or “think” or “believe.” This isn’t the world of advertising!
There is no such position as “Pope Emeritus.” Search through canon law and tell me when you find it.
Add to this (as pure lagniappe) that the man Jorge Bergoglio is by every sane criterion a heretic, an apostate, and a ferocious anti-Catholic.
And yes, Benedict is a clueless idiot and a coward who fled his responsibilities (as he did in World War II, when he deserted his military unit in combat and went home) rather than “face the wolves.” Does anyone remember the old saying “Past is prologue”? It amazes me that no one in the Catholic blogosphere wants to allude to this striking parallel.
Two points:
First, the argument that BXVI only resigned the ministerium but not the munus ignores the fact that munus is predicated not merely of the Papal Office but also of Sacramental Function (cf munus sanctificandi) common to all bishops. Thus, the only way he could have resigned the munus would have been to resign as bishop.
Second, the phrase episcopus emeritus, whether assigned to the pope or any other bishop, has IMHO never been adequately explained. My understanding is that historically an episcopus emeritus was not just a man who had retired due to age but one disabled to the point that could no longer function as a bishop.
Auxiliary bishops are assigned a titular diocese–but what of an episcopus emeritus? A few years ago a bishop in Kansas who had reached retirement age but didn’t want to retire was made an auxiliary in Kansas City and given a titular diocese. He was never an episcopus emeritus of the diocese for which he once had jurisdiction.
So what jurisdiction does an episcopus have? If the answer it none, then what is the difference between him and an auxiliary?
Canon Law is supposed to clarify matters rather than obscure them.
The substance of the papacy is not jurisdiction etc., but being the Vicar of Christ.
Bergoglio refuses to call himself the Vicar of Christ. So why should we do so?
All theologians agree that the College of Cardinals can not depose a (valid) pope. A corollary of this means that if a valid pope lives, the College of Cardinals can not validly elect a new pope.
Now if even the College of Cardinals can not validly elect a new pope as long as a valid pope is still alive, how much less can the ‘doctrine of universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope’ serve to effectively depose a valid living pope and establish in office a new pope!
Therefor John Salza is entirely wrong in his assertion that universal and peaceful acceptance of Bergoglio proves him to be the valid pope.
Salza also “argues that even if Benedict believed he was still Pope, that would be a matter of the internal forum, and ‘the Church does not judge internals.’ ” But if the Church can not judge internals, the the canon stating that a papal resignation is invalid if done through fear etc. would be effectively meaningless, because fear is an internal matter, and the Church would have to be the judge of it. Any theory that renders a provision of canon law meaningless is without merit.
Francis is clearly a heretic. So either Benedict was still pope when he died and now there is no pope. Or Benedict was never even pope. Maybe Pope Michael is the real deal!