Aqua: "The Essence of [Francis is Definitely the Pope] Steve O'Reilly's Argument is: Words don't Matter, Error doesn't Matter, as long as the Intent was Clear. My Argument is: Precise Words Matter such [as]... Mary's Fiat; Eucharistic Consecration; Papal Abdication"
The Catholic Monitor hosted a mini debate with the publisher of .RomaLocutaEst, Steven O’Reilly, who is a former intelligence officer in his visit to its comment section in which he argued with the well known commenter Aqua on if Francis is definitely the pope or an antipope. (https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/the-catholic-monitor-aqua-debate-steven.html)
Here is Aqua's take on the debate with O'Reilly:
I went back through Steve's comments looking for any direct commentary
on the central issue of contention: Benedict XVI's resignation of what
the Pope DOES; Benedict XVI's clear and adamant retention of what the
Pope IS - he resigned Ministerium; he retained Munus.
My contention with Steve O'Reilly has been over his refusal to argue that essential point. I finally found this:
- Steve O'Reilly quote -
"So bottom line...the Roman Pontiff can resign the papacy. Any numbers of words might be used. There is no list of approved and unapproved words. There is no formula for that. He could say..."I renounce the papacy." Valid. Full stop. The word "munus" does not need to be used. I believe even Estefania Acosta admits that *narrow* point.
The term "mininisterium/ministero" may include 'office' among its definitions. That combined with the fact that Benedict said he renounced the Petrine ministry 'in such a way' that the "See of Rome, See of Peter will be vacant", etc., makes it quite evidence what he was doing. Resigning the papacy. What else leaves the See of Rome, the See of Peter vacant? The answer is obvious. A papal death or resignation. That is what leaves the See vacant. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Finally, though not necessary, but for those 'demanding' munus, we can see the logic of the whole text. He starts off using 'munus' saying he is unable to continue due to age/weakness, and a few sentences later uses the term ministerium in the same way, noting his age/weakness. So the two are logically interchangeable, and we have it on authority, such as Cardinal Burke they are used interchangeably. Why did he make the transition or switch to ministerium? Ultimately, it doesn't matter...but it has been suggested he preferred the more personalistic/relational tone of the use of "ministry."
- end Steve O'Reilly quote -
As with the entire parallel post-conciliar Vatican II newchurch™️, Steve's argument (above) boils down to this:
"It's good enough, close enough, meanings and definitions are open to interpretation and intent; we know what he meant to do; we don't know why he did what he did, said what he said - don't know why he calls himself Emeritus, don't know why he still uses the honorific Holiness, don't know why he still lives in the Vatican. We know what he meant. It is what it is. What will he will be. The Church has already spoken and we must do what they say. The Church is indefectible so any questions must submit to authority which is always right. And so ... Ministerium = Munus. Canon Law says Munus, but any old word will do also. The action is concrete and so the intent is clear. The Pope controls Canon Law and if he says Ministerium = Munus then it is so. If the Pope wants to simply say 'That's all folks', he can. If the Pope wants to remain as an Emeritus Pope, even though he dreamed it up himself - the Pope can do whatever he wants - he is unconstrained by law; a law unto himself. In sum: If the Pope wishes it to be true, then it is true".
I do not believe that. I believe shortcuts and expedience lead to heresy and are the Devil's raw material for his lies and deception to take root. Precision is a core element of the Faith, because there is only *One Way*, and, the *road is narrow; gate is small that lead to life*.
Ministerium ≠ Munus. Ministerium is not even ≈ (approx) Munus. One is one thing. The other is a different thing.
Ministerium = Bergoglio (it was resigned).
Munus = Benedict XVI (it was not resigned).
Thus, the essence of Steve O'Reilly's argument is: words don't matter, error doesn't matter, as long as the intent was clear.
My argument is: precise words matter such that at some times the entire Universe hangs upon them - Mary's Fiat; Eucharistic consecration; Papal abdication. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/the-catholic-monitor-aqua-debate-steven.html]
My contention with Steve O'Reilly has been over his refusal to argue that essential point. I finally found this:
- Steve O'Reilly quote -
"So bottom line...the Roman Pontiff can resign the papacy. Any numbers of words might be used. There is no list of approved and unapproved words. There is no formula for that. He could say..."I renounce the papacy." Valid. Full stop. The word "munus" does not need to be used. I believe even Estefania Acosta admits that *narrow* point.
The term "mininisterium/ministero" may include 'office' among its definitions. That combined with the fact that Benedict said he renounced the Petrine ministry 'in such a way' that the "See of Rome, See of Peter will be vacant", etc., makes it quite evidence what he was doing. Resigning the papacy. What else leaves the See of Rome, the See of Peter vacant? The answer is obvious. A papal death or resignation. That is what leaves the See vacant. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Finally, though not necessary, but for those 'demanding' munus, we can see the logic of the whole text. He starts off using 'munus' saying he is unable to continue due to age/weakness, and a few sentences later uses the term ministerium in the same way, noting his age/weakness. So the two are logically interchangeable, and we have it on authority, such as Cardinal Burke they are used interchangeably. Why did he make the transition or switch to ministerium? Ultimately, it doesn't matter...but it has been suggested he preferred the more personalistic/relational tone of the use of "ministry."
- end Steve O'Reilly quote -
As with the entire parallel post-conciliar Vatican II newchurch™️, Steve's argument (above) boils down to this:
"It's good enough, close enough, meanings and definitions are open to interpretation and intent; we know what he meant to do; we don't know why he did what he did, said what he said - don't know why he calls himself Emeritus, don't know why he still uses the honorific Holiness, don't know why he still lives in the Vatican. We know what he meant. It is what it is. What will he will be. The Church has already spoken and we must do what they say. The Church is indefectible so any questions must submit to authority which is always right. And so ... Ministerium = Munus. Canon Law says Munus, but any old word will do also. The action is concrete and so the intent is clear. The Pope controls Canon Law and if he says Ministerium = Munus then it is so. If the Pope wants to simply say 'That's all folks', he can. If the Pope wants to remain as an Emeritus Pope, even though he dreamed it up himself - the Pope can do whatever he wants - he is unconstrained by law; a law unto himself. In sum: If the Pope wishes it to be true, then it is true".
I do not believe that. I believe shortcuts and expedience lead to heresy and are the Devil's raw material for his lies and deception to take root. Precision is a core element of the Faith, because there is only *One Way*, and, the *road is narrow; gate is small that lead to life*.
Ministerium ≠ Munus. Ministerium is not even ≈ (approx) Munus. One is one thing. The other is a different thing.
Ministerium = Bergoglio (it was resigned).
Munus = Benedict XVI (it was not resigned).
Thus, the essence of Steve O'Reilly's argument is: words don't matter, error doesn't matter, as long as the intent was clear.
My argument is: precise words matter such that at some times the entire Universe hangs upon them - Mary's Fiat; Eucharistic consecration; Papal abdication. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/04/the-catholic-monitor-aqua-debate-steven.html]