Part 2 of Exclusive Transcription: Is Benedict XVI Still the Pope? Dr. Edmund Mazza & Patrick Coffin
https://www.patrickcoffin.media/is-benedict-xvi-still-the-pope/
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly. 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.
Patrick Coffin:
Because his intellect was formed based, or informed, on other incorrect information. Say bad ideas or a simple theological error about what the papal office means, so that his renunciation has to be obviously rooted in the truth. And you’re saying there’s a bug in the system a kind of an idea virus.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly, in other words there are prominent Catholic editors and journals that have really gone out of their way to make fun of people like Ann Barnhardt, and other people like myself, who are trying to get at the truth of this. And they think that were all a bunch of tin foil hat conspiracy theorists, but I hope…it’s become abundantly clear and I thank you for having me on the show today. I hope it has become abundantly clear that there is a lot of smoke here from Benedicts own lips, even in his own declaratio and Ganswain is talking about it. Let me get to the heart of the matter. Again, other so-called Benevecantists might have different interpretations, but I maintain that the stipulated reason why Benedict renounced the active Petrine ministry was to become Pope Emeritus, to do the contemplative, the prayer and suffering aspects of the papacy.
Now, if such an ontological entity is metaphysically impossible, it means that his will chose something based on erroneous knowledge in his intellect. Now let me give you an example. Substantial error normally happens when it comes to matrimony and canon lawyers know a lot about this. Let me give you a quick example: if a man, let’s say he’s an aristocrat, stipulates that he will only marry an imperial Romanov descendent, and maybe he sends out a match maker to find himself a spouse. They used to do that in the old days, 100 hundred years ago. In fact, the match maker finds him somebody, a Russian girl named Natasha Romanova. And he marries her thinking that she is, in fact one of the imperial family bloodline, when in fact she is an Avenger.
Patrick Coffin:
She’s from Scranton.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
No she’s the Black Widow. She’s from the Avengers. Well then guess what? The marriage never happened in the eyes of God due to substantial error. Because he stipulated that he was only going to marry this person if they were a Romanov heir, a Romanov bloodline. Now there are other criteria for substantial error. It comes up in contractual law, but this is what I call the stipulation variety, it is the one I think seems to fit in Benedict’s case.
In other words, had he known that the truth of the matter is there is no such thing as a sacramental papacy and when you renounce the office, that’s it. You’re not papal in any way shape or form anymore. I honestly believe based on everything he’s said for the last 60 years, he would not have resigned. You see how he clings to it? How he talks about once you say yes to God and you become a Shepard, a follower of Peter, it’s a forever.
Patrick Coffin:
He refers to a question about that as an accusation.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Precisely, a functional misunderstanding. Exactly.
Again, we thank Dr.
Ed Mazza and Patrick Coffin for giving the Catholic Monitor permission to
transcribe the whole show and post on our site. Above
is a brief taste of the show. The hour and half show transcript is over
thirty pages long so it has been laid out into four parts. Tonight, we
will give part two.
Our plan is to do a series of posts examining if Francis is possibly an anti-pope or as The Coffin Show title stated "Is Benedict XVI Still Pope?" using the show to look at that possibility, but first we will present the four parts. Here is part two:
Dr. Edmund Mazza
Benedict in his declaratio is stipulating, like a lawyer, that, “Yes, I’m going to give up the active exercise of the papacy. I no longer have the strength to do the active stuff, but I’m stipulating that I’m only leaving to become Pope Emeritus”. Not even Bishop Emeritus, he’s leaving as Pope Emeritus. Then of course he gave talks. After February 11th, he gave a talk at one of his last general audiences, where he says that, “I no longer return to private life.”
He basically says whoever accepts the Petrine Ministry, it’s a forever, it’s an always. So how do we understand that? So I did a deep dive into how does he understand munus. And what I discovered is that Vatican II, surprise, surprise, introduced a new wrinkle into how we understand priesthood, episcopacy and even the papacy. So let me give you a brief quote from Vatican II.
Patrick Coffin:
In which document so I can put a link?
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Gaudiaum et spes and I’ll let you know after the show the exact chapter.
Patrick Coffin:
Sure.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
It goes like this “Without higherarchical communion the sacramental ontological munus, which ought to be distinguished from the canonical juridical aspect, cannot be exercised”. Now let me break that down for the average person in the pew. In other words, what Vatican II is saying is that when you are consecrated a bishop you are given a sacramental, which means that you can never get rid of it, ontological meaning it’s transcendent, munus. What does munus mean here? It means a gift that allows service.
How’s the best way of expressing this? Vatican II talks about this in Gaudiaum et spes: Christ has three munira. To teach, to sanctify and to govern. The priests and bishops, and for that matter, the pope, what do they do? They teach, they sanctify and they govern and these are the three munira or the munis’.
Patrick Coffin:
Muni.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Alright. Muni, thank you. That is distinguished from the canonical, canon law, juridical law aspect. It’s like this. Traditionally the church has understood that there is something called potestas ordinis, which is the sacred power to teach to govern and sanctify; that a priest or a bishop gets when they are ordained or consecrated. That is directly from God. You never lose it, but because you can lose it. Like you said a priest who gets de-frocked, or a pope who resigns. Like Pope Celestine, back in the Middle Ages, they would no longer have their munus, their office.
So there must be something, another aspect to the munus besides the sacramental ontological, or you would never lose it, if you follow what I mean. There are also theologians that tell us, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine and Vatican I, they tell us that there is also the canonical juridical aspect. So in other words a bishop becomes the Bishop of Los Angeles, New York, or wherever, Paris. That is a grant of authority given to him by the Pope, by the church, which is separate from the munus that was given to him when he was consecrated a bishop, and somehow the two work together.
Vatican II says that without hierarchical communion, without being in union with the pope and the Catholic bishops, the sacramental ontological munus or the potestas ordinis, which is distinguished from the canonical juridical aspect, which we were just talking about, it cannot be exercised. At consecration you’re given the gift, the munus, to teach, to sanctify and to govern, but you’re not allowed to exercise that unless you’re in hierarchical communion, unless the pope has given you a canonical juridical office. You know, Bishop of San Diego or whatever. Does that make sense?
Patrick Coffin:
It does yes. Something analogous to a priest having faculties to administer the sacraments, if he travels to a different diocese.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly, now-
Patrick Coffin:
Formal permission in organic unity with the hierarchy is required. Otherwise yes, there’s the definition of schism perhaps.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly, but this is the thing. Through my research what I’ve discovered is that Joseph Ratzinger, the darling of the parity of Vatican II, and of the post-Vatican II church, he is on record on multiple occasions as saying that what really counts is your sacramental, ontological munus, and not the canonical juridical office, if you will. Let me explain why this is important. The devil’s in the details, so to speak.
Patrick Coffin:
And so are the angels. Periti is a latin plural for peritus, which means expert or adviser to the counsel fathers, in case people wonder what that was.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Yeah, 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.
Patrick Coffin:
Yeah, that makes sense.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
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.”
Patrick Coffin:
Okay, let’s draw a straight line, from those lines you just read to February 11th 2013. It is consistent.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly.
Patrick Coffin:
In the sense that you can’t bifurcate and renounce just one because he says there of a sacramental piece.
Dr Edmund Mazza:
Exactly, now 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]
Patrick Coffin:
Civilta Cattolica, the unofficial, the Jesuit version of L’Osservatore Romano, so to speak.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly.
Patrick Coffin:
Yeah.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly. 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.
Patrick Coffin:
Because his intellect was formed based, or informed, on other incorrect information. Say bad ideas or a simple theological error about what the papal office means, so that his renunciation has to be obviously rooted in the truth. And you’re saying there’s a bug in the system a kind of an idea virus.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly, in other words there are prominent Catholic editors and journals that have really gone out of their way to make fun of people like Ann Barnhardt, and other people like myself, who are trying to get at the truth of this. And they think that were all a bunch of tin foil hat conspiracy theorists, but I hope…it’s become abundantly clear and I thank you for having me on the show today. I hope it has become abundantly clear that there is a lot of smoke here from Benedicts own lips, even in his own declaratio and Ganswain is talking about it. Let me get to the heart of the matter. Again, other so-called Benevecantists might have different interpretations, but I maintain that the stipulated reason why Benedict renounced the active Petrine ministry was to become Pope Emeritus, to do the contemplative, the prayer and suffering aspects of the papacy.
Now, if such an ontological entity is metaphysically impossible, it means that his will chose something based on erroneous knowledge in his intellect. Now let me give you an example. Substantial error normally happens when it comes to matrimony and canon lawyers know a lot about this. Let me give you a quick example: if a man, let’s say he’s an aristocrat, stipulates that he will only marry an imperial Romanov descendent, and maybe he sends out a match maker to find himself a spouse. They used to do that in the old days, 100 hundred years ago. In fact, the match maker finds him somebody, a Russian girl named Natasha Romanova. And he marries her thinking that she is, in fact one of the imperial family bloodline, when in fact she is an Avenger.
Patrick Coffin:
She’s from Scranton.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
No she’s the Black Widow. She’s from the Avengers. Well then guess what? The marriage never happened in the eyes of God due to substantial error. Because he stipulated that he was only going to marry this person if they were a Romanov heir, a Romanov bloodline. Now there are other criteria for substantial error. It comes up in contractual law, but this is what I call the stipulation variety, it is the one I think seems to fit in Benedict’s case.
In other words, had he known that the truth of the matter is there is no such thing as a sacramental papacy and when you renounce the office, that’s it. You’re not papal in any way shape or form anymore. I honestly believe based on everything he’s said for the last 60 years, he would not have resigned. You see how he clings to it? How he talks about once you say yes to God and you become a Shepard, a follower of Peter, it’s a forever.
Patrick Coffin:
He refers to a question about that as an accusation.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Precisely, a functional misunderstanding. Exactly
Patrick Coffin:
Could you say a devil’s advocate question.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Sure.
Patrick Coffin:
Someone could say, “Well he’s finding a basis for this in the lines you just read from Gaudiaum et spes.”
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Well, you know, again here we go with Vatican II. I mean the documents of Vatican II are up for grabs, right? What is the proper interpretation of them? And what I’ve found out, I’ve been in touch with Italian canonists and it’s kind of an open secret that Cardinal Ratzinger, Joseph Ratzinger, didn’t know his law, didn’t know his theology. I could give you more quotes from him where he’s really into this idea that the church before Vatican II didn’t understand the theology of office correctly. Let me throw this in here. This might be interesting. This is from Principles of Catholic theology, published in 1987, Ignatius press. He is talking about Pope Pius XII. He says that Pope Pius XII, in 1947 changed the wording for the ordination ceremony, and he’s talking about what it was before Pius changed it.
Ratzinger says, the medieval rite is formed on the pattern of investiture in a secular office. Its key word is potestas. However since 1947, the key word is now ministerium or munus. “Service and gift.” Then he comes up with a doozy. He says “The most crucial event in the development of the Latin West was, I think, the increasing distinction between sacrament, potestas ordinis and jurisdiction, potestas jurisdicciones.” In other words between liturgy and administration as such. And he finishes by saying, “I think we should be honest enough to admit the temptation of mammon in the history of the church, and to recognize to what extent it was a real power that worked to the distortion and corruption of both the church and theology, to their inmost core. The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as sacramental rite was continued for reasons of prestige and financial benefits.”
It’s all right there Patrick, it’s clear as day. He had an erroneous understanding. You know, thanks to the Nouvelle theologie of what it means to… Like you said peanuts, right? Charlie Brown. If I was Linus I could say to Pope Benedict, as respectfully as possible, “Joseph Ratzinger you’re the only person in the world who could take an easy thing like resigning and turning it into a problem.”
Patrick Coffin:
This is very difficult territory for lifelong Catholics who are proud to say that they’re orthodox. People like myself who have been reading Raztinger for many years. My first book that I read of his was Introduction to Christianity. It was recommended to me by then Cardinal Archbishop Aloysius Ambrosic of Toronto. I met the man by God’s grace in 2012. I introduced him to my late father, had a few moments with then-Pope Benedict. Looking back on the photos, it’s very interesting because the Popemobile that drove past us in St. Peter’s Square; prior to my personal encounter with him, was driven by Paolo Gabriele the late butler of the Vati-leaks infamy.
We now know based on the timeline that he’d already decided to renounce the papacy, on the day that I happened to meet him. It’s a bit surreal looking at those photos. This is territory that many self-described conservative Catholics... There is a tremendous taboo against even going here. This explains the sarcasm and the what! Are you crazy? You’re a sedevacantist. You’re a radical traditionalist lunatic, but-
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Now let me explain. I don’t think myself…I have to do more research. I don’t think he’s guilty of heresy per se. As a matter of fact, what my research has uncovered is that there’s a slight possibility that he might be right, because the church has actually never come down and defined the mechanics, of how you are made a bishop in the church. There’s an outside possibility that he could be right, in which case his renunciation was valid. I could send that to you to maybe put in the show notes. But the fact of the matter is he could be in just error. You know just genuine sincere error; if that’s not the way the mechanics of the church, if that’s not a correct ecclesiology.
Patrick Coffin:
If I can press pause just a second. You’re talking now about Episcopal ordination. Isn’t the whole controversy papal election, the office of the Bishop of Rome, the sovereign pontiff?
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Well that’s the thing. As I understand it, he kind of sees becoming pope as almost like a second Episcopal election. Excuse me, a second Episcopal consecration.
Patrick Coffin:
Like a super bishop? Bishop 2.0?
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Again he told Seewald, “If you think that you can just step down from the office, because of old age, that’s a functional misunderstanding.
PART 2 OF 4 ENDS [00:46:04]