Flashback: "This is One of the Finest and most Balanced Overviews of the Controversy concerning Benedict XVI's Resignation & whether Francis Can or Cannot be with Certitude Determined to not be Pope "
- Mr. Martinez, this is one of the finest and most balanced overviews of
the controversy concerning Benedict xvi's resignation and whether
Francis can or cannot be with certitude determined to not be pope that I
have read.
Scholars have traced the famous adage 'where Peter is, there is the Church' to St. Ambrose in his Commentary on the Psalms.
The
rest of the phrase adds 'where there is the Church, there is not death
but Eternal Life.'["Ubi ergo Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi
nulla mors sed vita aeterna." In Psalmum XL Enarratio, PL XIV, 1134.]
Given
the foibles of so many popes, and given the confusion of absolute
administrative power with Peter's authority to confirm truth, I wonder
if Divine Providence is not purging us of simplistically using the first
part of this phrase.
Rather, we should say first of all, is what this pope or hierarch espousing truly Eternal Life or is it spiritual death?
And
if it is the latter, does this imply that he has 'ipso facto' lost his
authority, for there is not the intention of the Church or Christ in
him?
Any faithful can judge whether this has possibly occurred or
probably is present. Whether or when there is a juridical confirmation
with certitude that such is the case is just that, declaratory.
But
no Christ faithful can obey or follow any false shepherd's lead into
heresy or immorality, with or without juridical confirmation.
To do such is to be an Unfaithful Catholic. - Catholic Monitor commenter MEwbank
Did LifeSiteNews admit that Benedict’s Resignation could have been Invalid & Implicitly admit that an Imperfect Council is Needed?
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.'”
The "theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity,"
also, appeared to implicitly say the issue of the validity of the
Benedict resignation could be solved by an imperfect council of
cardinals or bishops to give a "judgement of the Church" on the matter.
The LifeSiteNews theologian said “So even if someone is convinced that
Benedict XVI is still Pope, he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church."
Here is the essential part of the LifeSiteNews article:
"A
theologian who spoke to LifeSite on condition of anonymity argued that
supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood
the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities.
“If you think that ministerium means only acts of teaching and
governance, then it would indeed seem to be different from the munus,
which normally designates an office, that is, a kind of state,” he
said.
“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.”
He
said that people who insist Benedict’s resignation was invalid
“therefore seem to be in a position similar to that of a Catholic spouse
who is personally convinced that his or her Church marriage was
invalid.”
“However
convinced the person is of this, he or she is not free to marry again
until an ecclesiastical court has declared that there was never a
marriage,” he said. “So even if someone is convinced that Benedict XVI
is still Pope, he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church
before acting on this belief, e.g. a priest in that position should
continue to mention Francis in the canon of the Mass.”
As
for the argument that Pope Francis can’t be Pope because he clearly has
no graces of state, the theologian said this forgets that “grace is
normally offered in such a way that it can be refused.”
“You might as well say that a man who beats his wife obviously can’t be validly married to her,” he said.
Other theologians see Benedict’s use of the title “Pope emeritus” as a point in favor of the resignation.
Can. 185 of
the Code of Canon Law (on the loss of ecclesiastical office) says: “The
title of emeritus can be conferred upon a person who loses an office by
reason of age or of resignation which has been accepted.”
As
one theologian explained, every bishop when he retires becomes bishop
emeritus. He is the emeritus bishop of the last diocese of which he
presided. By creating the “pope emeritus” title (it is argued), Benedict
is saying “what every bishop does, I’m doing too.”
LifeSite
also asked noted Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei for his thoughts
on arguments invoking “substantial error.” Seconding the first
theologian’s line of thought, Professor de Mattei noted that: “The
Church is a visible society, and canon law does not evaluate intentions,
but concerns the external behavior of the baptized. Canon 124, §2 of the Code states that: ‘A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.’”
“Did
Benedict XVI intend to resign only partially, by renouncing
the ministerium, but keeping the munus for himself? It’s possible,” he
said, “but no evidence, at least to date, makes it evident.”
“We
are in the realm of intentions,” he added. “Canon 1526, § 1 states:
“Onus probandi incumbit ei qui asserit” (The burden of proof rests upon
the person who makes the allegation.) To prove means to demonstrate the
certainty of a fact or the truth of the statement. Moreover, the papacy
is in itself indivisible.”
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in]
Canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo apparently disagrees with the LifeSiteNews theologian that Catholics need to "wait for the judgement of the Church." He says that "the validity of a papal renunciation is determined by the law":
"It is true regardless of who declares it
or does not declare it, because the validity of a papal renunciation is
determined by the law itself, not by the acceptance or rejection of
anyone. Here many Catholics get confused and are being gaslighted by the
lavender mafia. Because it is one thing that a canonical act is or is
not, or is or is not valid, its another thing that it is judged to be
valid or not, to be or not. In the case of matrimonial vows, the Church
puts their validity under its judgement. But in the Case of a papal
resignation, the Church does not put this under anyone’s judgement,
because a papal act is what it is, there is no one who can judge it to
be other than it is. So when the Pope says I renounce the Ministery,
those who say that means he renounced the Papacy ARE ARROGATING
JUDGEMENT over the Pope, and not only err but sin mortally and merit
eternal damnation, because the Pope can only be judged by God. However,
though we must recognize that He did renounce the ministry, we do not
need authority to know whether that is or is not a papal resignation. We
have Canon 332 §2, which says it is not. And to say that is simply to
reiterate what the law says. That is why those who say Pope Benedict XV
is still the pope not only do not err, but they neither sin or arrogate
judgement to themselves, while those who say he is not pope, do both,
and thus must attack either the Law or those who uphold the law.'
[https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/11/24/will-the-mafia-of-st-gallen-triumph/]
Journalist and Vatican expert Antonio Socci in his new book presents the
case that Francis may have implicitly confirmed that Benedict's
"resignation is invalid, because doubtful and partial" by saying
"Benedict... has opened the door of popes emeriti":
Socci wrote that Benedict XVI's personal secretary Georg Ganswein said:
"He [Benedict] has not abandoned the office of Peter."
And thus according to Benedict's closest collaborator Ganswein Benedict
became a pope emeritus which has never existed except for retired
bishops who still held the munus or office of bishop.
An unexpected thing happened when Team Francis went into "damage
control" and denied there could be a emeritus "to the office of Peter."
Unexpectedly, Francis at some point in time contradicted the
"ultra-Bergoglians" assertion that that there couldn't be a emeritus "to
the office of Peter."
Socci's book says after Ganswein made the above statement in 2016 the
"ultra-Bergoglian website Vatican Insider" went into "damage control" by
interviewing Team Francis canonist Monsignor Giuseppe Sciacca who said
emeritus "regards only the 'episcopal office'" and "'cannot be applied
to the office of the Pontiff.'"
The book quotes Francis contradicting the Bergoglians or Team Francis by saying:
"Benedict... has opened the door of popes emeriti."
Socci explains the predicament that Team Francis is in:
"The dilemma which the Bergoglians find themselves in is without
solution: if, in fact, they recognize the title of 'pope emeritus,' they
must recognize that Benedict XVI is still pope; but if they deny this
title and contest the declared intention of the 'resignation' (which was
not a resignation of munus [office], but only of the active ministry),
it means that they would have to hold that the resignation is invalid,
because doubtful and partial."
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 92-94)
In 2016, One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec actually defended Ann
Barnhardt's integrity in it appears saying the "abdication would be
invalid... if he... resign[ed] the ministerium [which is]... distinct from the munus" against a statement from pro-life attorney Chris Ferrera in the comment section of that website.
In response, Ferrara appeared to agreed with the
LifeSiteNews theologian who said "So even if someone is convinced that
Benedict XVI is still Pope [or if someone is convinced that Francis is a
manifest heretic], he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church."
Moreover, the attorney called for a "conclave" or imperfect
council to judge if Francis is a manifest heretic who has deposed
himself and, also, apparently to judge the validity of the Benedict
resignation:
" Chris Ferrara: To declare that Francis is not the Pope... make[s] for good click bait..."
"... Steve Skojec: "Ann writes things that certainly come across as
sensationalist... This is who she is. I don't believe she ever publishes
something she doesn't truly believe in. I don't think it's fair to call
this clickbait... "
".... Chris Ferrera: "My only objection is any of us making final
forensic determinations based on 'overwhelming evidence' and then
announcing our verdict of one. It's a rather silly exercise."
"Perhaps a better approach is to amass the evidence and send it to every
cardinal, demanding they convene [an imperfect council] and issue the
kind of judgement Bellermine contemplated in this situation: not that
the Pope is deposed, but that he has deposed himself. Such a
hypothetical conclave would offer the Pope an opportunity to explain
himself."
(One Peter Fives' comment section, "If Francis is an Antipope, We Can't know it Yet," June 21, 2016)
The only prelate in the world to take attorney Ferrara's legal advice
was Bishop Rene Gracida who "amass[ed] the evidence" and wrote a Open
Letter to all the cardinals "demanding they convene [an imperfect
council]."
Comments
The marxist tactic of narrative control requires changing the goal posts of reality every year or so. Our Lady said the error of the Marxists would spread to all the world.
Some very devout Catholics, before Feb 11, 2013, have forgotten Her words after Feb. 11, 2013. It is sad to see such admirable men fall into such a silly error.
It must also be said, however, that if PBXVI had himself not been so immersed in VII & had carried out Our Lady's request for Russia to be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart in the way she requested it to be done we might not be in this ugly situation. He also badly failed to mandate TLM worldwide. However, as he stated at the time, he had a "mystical" experience prior to resigning so maybe Heaven advised him to do so in the way he did so the gates of hell would not then prevail as they certainly would be seen to have done so if PF is actually a valid pope.
The continued silence of the entire Hierarchy on this subject is diabolical.
Mr. Martinez, this is one of the finest and most balanced overviews of
the controversy concerning Benedict xvi's resignation and whether
Francis can or cannot be with certitude determined to not be pope that I
have read.
Scholars have traced the famous adage 'where Peter is, there is the Church' to St. Ambrose in his Commentary on the Psalms.
The
rest of the phrase adds 'where there is the Church, there is not death
but Eternal Life.'["Ubi ergo Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi
nulla mors sed vita aeterna." In Psalmum XL Enarratio, PL XIV, 1134.]
Given
the foibles of so many popes, and given the confusion of absolute
administrative power with Peter's authority to confirm truth, I wonder
if Divine Providence is not purging us of simplistically using the first
part of this phrase.
Rather, we should say first of all, is what this pope or hierarch espousing truly Eternal Life or is it spiritual death?
And
if it is the latter, does this imply that he has 'ipso facto' lost his
authority, for there is not the intention of the Church or Christ in
him?
Any faithful can judge whether this has possibly occurred or
probably is present. Whether or when there is a juridical confirmation
with certitude that such is the case is just that, declaratory.
But
no Christfaithful can obey or follow any false shepherd's lead into
heresy or immorality, with or without juridical confirmation.
To do such is to be an Unfaithful Catholic. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/11/did-lifesitenews-admit-that-benedicts.html]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.