Skip to main content

Did O'Reilly really Debate Dr. Mazza or was it a Psyop or is O"Reilly just not a Scholar? & Are Francis Catholics like the Leashed Dog in the Foghorn Leghorn Cartoon?

Replying to
Estefanía Acosta's comment was a reply to Aqua in this post: [https://nonvenipacem.com/2022/03/30/patrick-coffin-with-twelve-minutes-of-blistering-counterattack-against-voris-et-al-issues-challenge-for-open-debate-on-cmtv-to-expose-the-real-lies-and-falsehoods/ and https://twitter.com/CanoriMora/status/1510387414178713607]
 
Estefanía Acosta says:

O’Reilly will never “debate”. It’s all about psychological abuse and manipulation. He MUST be discredited and ultimately ignored, for the sake of the common good of the Church, the truth and true catholics (which he is not, obviously). That’s why Barnhardt’s podcast on the “debate” between Mazza and O’Reilly was so good and necessary: this man has to be exposed for what he is: an infiltrated destroyer of the truth about the current crisis of the Papacy.
All his claims about “everything is ok, it is not confusing at all that BXVI wears white, gives apostolic blessings, uses the title Pope Emeritus and so on…”. “Everything is ok”? “No confusion at all”? “There must be a “natural” explanation for all that”? (Like, for example, HIDDEN canonical norms by which “the two Popes” provided for such apostolic blessings by the Emeritus)… Yeah, right… Everything is ok and if you think otherwise you are conspiranoic… Psyop in front of us all… 

And then, of course, the claim that we, who affirm with moral certitude that the Pope is still BXVI, are “imprudent” and “destabilizing the Church”… Right… [https://nonvenipacem.com/2022/03/30/patrick-coffin-with-twelve-minutes-of-blistering-counterattack-against-voris-et-al-issues-challenge-for-open-debate-on-cmtv-to-expose-the-real-lies-and-falsehoods/]

The following is from the comment section of non veni pacem The Splendor of Truth post, but before we get to it I want to say I think that Steven O'Reilly in my dealing with him is a fine Catholic gentleman and I suspect (that as he said in to me in an email) that he is not a scholar and therefore may be missing some of scholar Dr. Edmund Mazza's finer points which Patrick Coffin recently has popularized:

Patrick Coffin with twelve minutes of blistering counterattack against Voris et al; issues challenge for open debate on CMTV to expose the real lies and falsehoods

  1. “ I really don’t understand why the people behind the scenes who are funding the Voris and Niles show are still funding them. ”

    It is not about the financial success, market ability, or audience appeal. That is not their mission. The money that goes into their coffers is meant to infiltrate and subvert the Traditional Catholic community. That is their purpose.

This (“… they haven’t even bothered to examine the evidence …”) is what I’ve noticed also.

Stephen O’Reilly of Roma Locuta Eat is the worst at this. He did to Prof Ed Mazza the same thing he’s done to me in exchanges I’ve had with him over the past few years. Completely, unequivocally, totally ignore everything I (or Ed) just said as if I (or he) weren’t even there.

At first, I just thought I wasn’t being clear enough – if I just re-phrased my point we could discuss that as rational Catholics. Nothing. Brick wall. I would engage him on his terms. He would engage me on his terms. And so I stopped visiting his site and wasting my time quite some time ago.

Then I watched him “debate” Ed Mazza on some podcast. I looked forward to seeing Mazza, and I looked forward to seeing how he engaged O’Reilly – and it went exactly how I expected. Ed Mazza was really interesting and I loved how he developed his ideas and how he logically, methodically, simply explained important complexity to a novice.

And then it was Stephen O’Reilly’s turn. He would start talking as if the previous 8 minutes of Ed Mazza hadn’t even happened. It was supposed to be a debate. Ed Mazza debated. Stephen O’Reilly expounded about himself. I could see, as a dispassionate observer, the precise same “technique” he used on Mazza as he has always used on me. He declares the other side wrong *without ever engaging that side and proving WHY it is wrong and how it is wrong*. And it’s not even a precise declaration of error as much as ignoring the essential point – because he never engages the “error”, the point being made by another person, before moving right along with the important work of talking about his own views.

I love a good debate. I love engaging with someone with whom I disagree and seeing whether I am wrong by carefully understanding the contrary and proving its falsity – or being prepared to accept its truth (which I’ve done on more than a few occasions over the years). It really, really bothers me … especially when it comes to a topic as crucial (existential) as the Papacy … to have someone so unserious that they can’t listen, understand, discuss, debate, learn – *together*.

And so – we remain where we were, in our ignorance and discord and a deformed disfunctional Papacy.

O’Reilly will never “debate”. It’s all about psychological abuse and manipulation. He MUST be discredited and ultimately ignored, for the sake of the common good of the Church, the truth and true catholics (which he is not, obviously). That’s why Barnhardt’s podcast on the “debate” between Mazza and O’Reilly was so good and necessary: this man has to be exposed for what he is: an infiltrated destroyer of the truth about the current crisis of the Papacy.
All his claims about “everything is ok, it is not confusing at all that BXVI wears white, gives apostolic blessings, uses the title Pope Emeritus and so on…”. “Everything is ok”? “No confusion at all”? “There must be a “natural” explanation for all that”? (Like, for example, HIDDEN canonical norms by which “the two Popes” provided for such apostolic blessings by the Emeritus)… Yeah, right… Everything is ok and if you think otherwise you are conspiranoic… Psyop in front of us all…

And then, of course, the claim that we, who affirm with moral certitude that the Pope is still BXVI, are “imprudent” and “destabilizing the Church”… Right…

The essence of my complaint was that he would never engage on the clear and unbelievably simple argument that Munus is the essence of the Papacy, Munus was acknowledged in the resignation letter as the essence of the Papacy, Munus is specified in Canon Law as the essence of the Papacy … but Pope Benedict XVI chose a different word, Ministerium, not mentioned anywhere else in his penultimate act.

It could not be any more simple than that.

One Pope at a time.

The Pope must die in Office (98% do that), or abdicate the Office (2% do that).

But that was crazy talk to him.

Much better to go down rabbit holes like the St. Gallen Mafia – behind-closed-doors influence theory – than consider a silly little thing like a faulty resignation statement that left him right where he was before he made it. That topic was closed, to O’Reilly. I speculate as to why, but decided further discussion was … unproductive. [https://nonvenipacem.com/2022/03/30/patrick-coffin-with-twelve-minutes-of-blistering-counterattack-against-voris-et-al-issues-challenge-for-open-debate-on-cmtv-to-expose-the-real-lies-and-falsehoods/]

Next, here is a post where "Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua implicitly expressed a similar question about "debates" he says he has had with Catholic pundit Steven O'Reilly from Roma Locuta Est":

Are Francis Catholics like the Leashed Dog in the Foghorn Leghorn Cartoon?

 

https://youtu.be/ocJ1GTnmO-w

Last year, the Catholic Monitor did a post called "Formal Correction: Why are Cd. Burke & Francis Trads like the Leashed Dog in the Foghorn Leghorn Cartoon?" which showed that the loyalty of many Catholics to Francis appears to be analogous to the old Warner Brothers cartoon rooster Foghorn Leghorn's archenemy George P. Dog's behavior.

The dog after getting hit hard with a two by four in the rear end by the rooster would chase him, but being on a leash meant he could only go as far as the length of the rope leash and had to stop while never thinking of freeing himself from the leash.

In that post, this question was asked:

Why are Cardinal Raymond Burke and Francis traditionalists such the Remnant's Michael Matt and Taylor Marshall as well as other Catholic media like Leghorn's archenemy George P. Dog not allowed to go passed the line with the sign that reads "Rope Limit"?

Yesterday, Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua implicitly expressed that question about "debates" he says he has had with Catholic pundit Steven O'Reilly from Roma Locuta Est. Below is his take on his "debates" with O'Reilly. 

Steven, after this piece was originally posted, emailed the following, "I saw your article, and Aqua's presentation of a 'debate.' I'd appreciate it if you would make it clearer that the conversation presented never took place, i.e., it is a fiction made up by Aqua. It would have been far more interesting, and fairer to the reader, if the imaginary debate addressed things I have actually said on BiP." So, I do want to make clear that the piece by Aqua is his "take" and according to Mr. O'Reilly not what he "actually said":

Aqua said… 
 
A typical “debate” with Steven O’Reilly (I have had many of these things):

Me: Pope Benedict is still Pope because he did not properly resign his Office. He only resigned his Ministry, not his office. It is clearly stated that way in his original Latin resignation text. He resigned Ministry. He specifically retained Munus. It’s right there ... on paper ... everyone can see it. That is substantial error. Canon 188. He remains Pope if he did not properly manifest a renunciation.

Steven: No, that would be substantial error. The Pope cannot separate his Office and Ministry. That is an error, substantial error and he can’t do it. Ontologically, that is not possible. Resignation valid. Not Pope.

Me: Right, I agree. He is in error, he can’t do it that way and that is why he objectively failed to properly resign according to Canon Law, Divine Law and he is still Pope.

Steven: No, he can’t do it like that, so it didn’t happen and he is not Pope.

Me: But he did do it and that is why he committed substantial error, failed to resign properly and is still Pope.

Steven: He didn’t do it because he can’t do it. If he did do it it would be substantial error and he can’t commit that error for the resignation to be valid. He resigned both because he has to and he is not Pope.

Me: Right, it is a major error. That is the whole point. He committed error and that rendered his resignation invalid. Still Pope.

Steven: No, he can’t do that. It is error. Substantial,error. You can’t divide the ministry and munus. Resigned completely. Even though he said he didn’t, he did. Because he has to. Not Pope.

Me: But that is what he clearly said in his resignation. That is impossible to resigns partially, as you say, so his resignation is not valid and so he retains his prior state as Pope.

Steven: He can’t have said that because that would be substantial error. Please see my web site to understand my further explanations on how this is all substantial error and is not possible according to Canon Law. Not Pope.

Me: But we already agree it is an error. Textbook definition of Canon 188 substantial error. So he is still Pope.

Steven: Yes, that error is not possible, which means he didn’t make an error, because it can never be. So his resignation was valid which is why he is no longer Pope.

13: Aarrrggghh!

Debate ... pointless.

 

 

Comments

Debbie said…
My issue with Mr. O'Reilly is that he'll hop on a BiP Twitter thread and try to discredit the Benedict is Pope crowd. Honestly, I don't understand any Catholic who doesn't at least think it plausible that Francis is an antipope. Something ain't right with the Francis is definitely pope crowd. To be uncertain or fearful of being wrong is one thing and even understandable....but to be adamant is fishy.
Anonymous said…
Dear Debbie,

Mr. O'Reilly is an honorable man that is just trying to be a good and faithful Catholic, it is unfortunate that people claim that he is some scholar as he has never claimed to be one. Benedict cannot be the Pope as he no longer governs the church, I don't see Benedict naming new Cardinals, nor is he releasing any encyclicals. His papacy is over, even the Vatican's official website does not list him as the current roman pontiff. Is it possible Francis is an anti-Pope for spreading heresy? of course but the church decides...not lay people that have no authority in the church. O'Reilly has not used ad hominem attacks on anyone, if anything he is staying true to our lord's command to turn the other cheek. Ms.Acosta & Barnhardt resort to childish insults because they've lost the debate. Benedict isn't Pope, Francis is just a terrible Pope...it's happened before and maybe someday he'll be declared an Anti-Pope by a council.
Fred Martinez said…

Dear Anonymous,

Here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren't too complicated for you, Steven O'Reilly and Steve Skojec, the former publisher of the One Peter Five website, to answer.

To make it really easy for you it has been formatted so that you only have to answer: yes or no.

1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said "The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See." Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

2. "Universal Acceptance" theologian John of St. Thomas said "This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff." Was John of St. Thomas for saying "the supreme pontiff" must be BOTH "lawfully elected and accepted by the Church" a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

3. Do you think that a "supreme pontiff" if "universally accepted" is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on "dubious election[s]", that he is "a woman... a child... a demented person... a heretic... a apostate... [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law"? Answer: yes or no.

4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:

"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses... A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."

Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious "Sedevacantist and Benevacantist" mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" which "prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)" was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no.

Please feel free to answer these dubia questions in any manner you decide, Anonymous.
Aqua said…
Anonymous:

I never said Steven O'Reilly wasn't an honorable man. That has nothing to do with this. There were no personal attacks on him. I just don't respect someone who has the intellectual and spiritual capacity to debate, but refuses to do so.

What I did say is that, for whatever reason, he never engaged my point and discussed it, proved it wrong if he possibly could - show me your sources Steven - demonstrated that he understood what I was saying and then debate back and forth from Sacred Tradition which belongs *equally* to us all, I'm sure you must agree.

What I did say was that he debated Ed Mazza in exactly the same way he debated me. And I could clearly see it, because I was a dispassionate observer of a video which I could rewind and check. O'Reilly stated his argument. Mazza answered O'Reilly's argument. Mazza stated his argument. O'Reilly ignored Mazza's argument and made his own argument again. *It was as if Mazza hadn't said a word* ... and I was paying close attention because I think it is important. SO MANY who claim Benedict is no longer Pope and that Francis is Pope, a crappy Pope but Pope nonetheless act JUST LIKE O'Reilly - they fail to engage the premise that cannot be answered.

I will wait to see if you engage Fred's five "Dubia". Maybe you will. Precious few do. THAT is the essence of a debate.

Here's a few more points to add ...

1: St. Catherine of Siena was a Third Order lay member of the Dominican Order. And she helped resolve the Western Schism of 1378. Pope Urban VI summoned her to help make his case to Cardinals and Noblemen that he was Pope, not Clement VII. A *Lay* woman, only age 33, did that. Why? Because the Church Fathers "gave" the Church a schism. And St. Catherine is now one of four Doctors of the Church.

So ... your claim that "lay people that have no authority in the church" may be true on one level, but your conclusion from that is false: we must do whatever those in authority tell us to do; accept whatever reality they tell us to accept; patiently cooperate in the destruction of Sacred Tradition and dogmatic morality because ... those in authority told us we had to and we have no authority to say no.

2: St. Bernard of Clairvoux had no authority in the Church Hierarchy. He was a Cistercian Abbot. Yet "Bernard was a major proponent of Pope Innocent II, arguing effectively for his legitimacy over the Antipope Anacletus II." The Church Fathers gave the Church an antipope. St. Bernard rose up and convinced the Churchnthey were in error. And by God's grace the error was corrected.

3: The Pharisees were the "authority" of Jesus' day, and Jesus affirmed their duty to obey them when they were in the "seat of authority". Yet, at the same time, he insisted his Apostles and followers *DISOBEY* that Pharisaical authority when it came time to define the existential question of every Jews' existence: who is the Messiah? All primeval Christians disobeyed - went into schism actually - over this question. They had no authority to do so ... except that Divine authority which rules us all and to which we are responsible at the granular level at judgement day to act in accord with revelation and reason and the constant Sacred Magisterium of the Church.

Neither Francis, or his Cardinals, will be there to help anyone who claims misbegotten authority, sinful rulers compelled them to sin against Church teaching from Sacred Tradition.

I can't render official judgement on the antipope. But I am not required to accept the antipope, either. And it is my duty to do whatever little I can to shed light on this deformity and injustice at the Throne - *to make my voice heard* by those in authority who can and must act.
T said…
The munus is the office and the ministerium is the ministry of the office. Canon Law is clear: you must resign the office. A lot of people like to escape the conclusion by saying the minisrerium is a metonymy for the munus. But I legal documents you do not use figures of speech.

What we see is that Benedict and Francis behave exactly as though Benedict holds the office and Francis does the active ministry of a pope, so this is substantial error, rendering the resignation invalid,
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

A few things.

First, thank you anonymous for the kind words.

Second, for the record, Fred, you know, or know now from my private email to you earlier today, that c. 2 years ago when you described me on your site as a "Catholic scholar" that I sent an email to CORRECT you, telling you this was NOT the case, i.e., not a scholar.

“MUST be discredited”?…“Psyop”?...."Infiltrated destroyer of the truth"?

Wow!

Steve O’Reilly
Steven O'Reilly said…

Fred,

(continued)

3. As to not understanding the finer points(?) of Dr. Mazza's interview with Mr. Coffin, I refer you to my article (https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/); and there see my Reply to Objections 2.1 and 2.2 regarding certain arguments and conclusions made by Ms. Barnhardt and Dr. Mazza which are said to be based on specific writings of Ratzinger.

Specifically, regarding Dr. Mazza's comments, I document -- by quoting him from his interview with Mr. Coffin and one of his articles, and citing Ratzinger; that Dr. Mazza misstated what Ratzinger wrote in his work, Principles of Catholic Theology.

For example, in the interview, Dr. Mazza paraphrases Ratzinger: “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.”” [Patrick Coffin Show. Time: 30:00; Unofficial transcription by O’Reilly].

However, as I document in my Reply to Objections 2.1 and 2.2 in my article "Regarding the Declaratio" that the theological position from this particular Ratzinger book is incorrectly ascribed by Dr. Mazza to Ratzinger when in fact Ratzinger was describing the position of the Eastern Orthodox and how *it* views the Western Church. Ratzinger is NOT expressing the view Dr. Mazza attributed to him in the given text he cites. Read the extended citation from Ratzinger's work which I provide in my article.

To read the whole series, see here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/21/the-case-against-those-who-claim-benedict-is-still-pope/

Thanks.

Steve O'Reilly
RomaLocutaEst


Steven O'Reilly said…


Fred,

(continued)

4. Now...regarding your dubia. You hounded Skojec re them. But, above, you now also mention my name. Therefore, I thought I'd take a whack at them on the condition you will definitely answer any dubia I may now send to you, or at least up to 5 of them.

Dubia:

#1 No.

#2 I suspect a 'strong' UA-er would say that the presence of "universal acceptance" would be sufficient proof the conditions were validly met, or if not, healed at the root. Personally, I haven't really incorporated UA into my arguments against Benepapism. I would add that UA is a 'real issue' that must be addressed...but it has not been formally defined with all its particulars and conditions (e.g., precise definition of "universal acceptance" and any exceptions), etc. Perhaps such a definition in the particulars will be one thing to come out of this whole mess.

#3 Your question should probably be reworded. It carries an internal contradiction. 'Strong' UA-ers would probably say, in a dubious election (e.g., of a woman) the signs for "universal acceptance" would be lacking. So, you're asking something of a "did you stop beating your wife? yes or no?" type of question in my opinion for which a yes or no is not reasonably possible. At least that's my initial impression of your question. Remember...Dubia are meant to clarify a position...they are not meant to be "gotcha" questions. But like the other questions, what's this have to do with Benepapism?

#4 To Carroll's proposition, I would answer "yes"...of course, someone elected against a conclave rule which is an *invalidating* rule would be invalidly elected, and therefore an antipope. I just don't see what this has to do with Benepapism. Proving Francis an antipope doesn't necessarily mean Benedict is still pope. That is a non sequitur.

#5 Did you ever consider the possibility that Gracida could be BOTH wrong and NOT a pawn? So it seems like another 'gotcha' question here, unnecessarily putting the good bishop in the middle of all this. So...first part of my answer is: Gracida is an honest, holy, intelligent man, a great bishop who rendered great service to the Church...who is not a pawn of anyone. He's his own man.

At the same time, I do not believe either Bishop Gracida or Ms. Barnhardt have convincingly demonstrated the conclave rules have been violated; if by this you mean *definitely* violated such that the conclave was really invalidated, and that a committee of Cardinals, or a future pope must or will obviously, necessarily, and definitely invalidate the conclave. No, I don't believe anyone has proved that.

Mr. Coffin for example has had Cardinal Burke on; and he has not suggested the conclave was violated such that it is invalidated. He has seemed to suggest overwhelming evidence would need to be produced--but has not to date in his estimation been produced. What might Burke say if a smoking gun turned up over the police raids that really happened on the morning before the conclave began, which torpedoed Scola's chances? (see https://romalocutaest.com/2021/04/16/the-forgotten-october-surprise-of-the-2013-conclave/ ).

What if evidence was found proving Bergoglio had conspired with forces in the Italian government to launch the police raids in Milan all to discredit Scola? IDK. It would be an interesting debate between the canonists and the UA-ers, I suppose.

I do believe the conclave and events surrounding it should definitely be investigated for potential invalidating conditions by a future pope, council (if we can't get an imperfect one now). Some of these events I've continued to research and write about these things in various articles (see https://romalocutaest.com/2020/09/23/the-conclave-chronicles/), and some of these Bishop Gracida has reposted on his site, relatively recently as well I believe. I am honored he did so.


Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
www.RomaLocutaEst.com
Fred Martinez said…
Steve,

As I said I have found you to be a Catholic gentleman. I was defending you on why it appears to me that you sometimes appear to miss the points that my friend, Dr. Edmund Mazza, was attempting to make to you. After all,Dr. Mazza is a trained scholar and you are not as you explicitly told me.

I think this might be a perfect time for you to answer the 5 questions above or have a clear exchange with Aqua here so everyone can see if you might be missing his points or not, also.

Thanks for having the courage to come here and have an exchange with those you don't agree with.

As Aqua said you are a "honorable man."

Fred

P.S. The above is the answer I gave to the email from Steve.

P.P.S. Will you give me permission to share the email you send me today?
Fred Martinez said…
Steve,

Thanks for answering the questions as best you could.

Unfortunately, it's late and I have to go to work tomorrow. So, I don't have time now to respond to you answers, but I will probably as time allow respond by doing a post in the future.

Now, I hope you will respond to Aqua's points.

Thanks,

Fred
Aqua said…
Steven O’Reilly: In all that you say, you still never answer the essential point. Which point can’t be be answered, after all. It can be ignored and declared irrelevant, which you do. But it can’t be answered. Because it is essentially true. To answer is to acknowledge.

Point: Canon Law specifies Munus multiple times when discussing the Papacy and specifically it refers to Munus when resigning the Papacy. Benedict XVI refers to Munus throughout his one page letter, never Ministerium, *except* the one sentence that matters - the resignation itself, which alone resigns Ministerium.

Again, all you can possibly say is it doesn’t matter, or a variation of that which is that Ministerium = Munus.

But then you are left with the troublesome visible original Pope with original title and original residence and a Title appended which is not authorized by the words of Our Lord, Sacred Tradition or Canon Law (governing at the time).

And you are left with a “Pope” who is obviously not even Catholic. Oh sure, he says things that align from time to time. But even devout Protestants can do that. The evidence that Munus is ≠ Ministerium is overwhelming and the product (Bergoglio) is the proof that keeps on giving.
Aqua said…
It reminds me of when I speak of John 6, the Bread Of Life discourse to my Protestant family and friends, in proof of the claims of the Catholic Faith. They cannot answer for the direct, adamant and repeated words of Jesus … “unless you eat and drink my body and blood, indeed unless you do, you have no life in you” (paraphrase).

To answer that is to become Catholic.

To remain as they are, they must ignore it, declare it irrelevant, or just change the subject … much like those mentioned in John 6 who left Him because of those words. I have seen it in real time more than once - this spiritual gymnastics performed to avoid a revolution in belief.

Why didn’t Benedict XVI simply resign the Munus as required? Nixon did: a simple little paragraph which resigned “the Office of President”, delivered to SecState … then he famously got on his helicopter and FLEW AWAY … to his NEW HOME.

It can’t be explained. Because it was illegal.
Steven O'Reilly said…

Aqua,

Long time no "see". It is not my habit to be the comment answer guy on other people's blogs. Tonight is an exception because of the ridiculous article above. If you or anyone else wants my opinion on something...I can be found on RomaLocutaEst.com, or via email. It is only the rare individual who does not get approved. Super rare, and for a few particular reasons which I'd be happy to explain to anyone who has never not had a comment approved. You, I have always approved.

I have recently written and published on my site a series of articles on the key documents in the Benepapist controversy. Each of these include a section for Objections and Replies. I tried to be as comprehensive as possible.

Links to the whole series may be found here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/21/the-case-against-those-who-claim-benedict-is-still-pope/

Links to my commentary on the Declaratio, Benepapist Objections, and Replies, may be found here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/

I tried to be comprehensive, and left open the possibility for readers to submit additional objections if they cared via email. Read my articles in this series if you haven't; then let me know what objections you have above which have not been answered.

Ciao.

Steve O'Reilly



Fred Martinez said…
Steve,

Please read and answer. Please answer: yes or no.:

1. Is Communion for adulterers an "explicitly a here[sy]"? Answer: yes or no.

2. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said "The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See." Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.

In JMJ,

Fred

P.S. LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

P.P.S. - "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
Aqua said…
Fred Martinez said: "Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said "The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See."

Hmmmmm ... that seems so ... harsh ... mideival ... non-Vatican II-ish.

Or, as with the Bergoglian "consecration" - the Church can just declare it was "good enough", and move forward into the concrete reality of current existence.

"Heresy" was for another time, another place. It doesn't really fit with the new reality of the Vatican II Church of mercy, kindness, understanding, forgiveness. We don't say heresy was wrong for those who imposed it in their day. We don't judge them for what they did to those who just needed a warm hug, rather than judgement and exclusion. We just say warm hugs and tolerance for differences in the concrete reality of life is what the Church Fathers gave us in the spirit of the Council that endures, and grows in the hearts and minds of the peoples.

We now know that Sacred Tradition is constantly evolving with the times. What worked for previous generations might now work for ours. To remain relevant to a rapidly changing world, Sacred Tradition and its hidebound Dogmas must evolve with the times ... or be left behind by the times. The attention of The Peoples will be drawn elsewhere.

Heresy is divisive.
Forgiveness is inclusive.
St. Francis De Sales spoke for his time.
Cardinal Reinhard Marx speaks for ours.

(Response of the Parallel Church of Vatican II).

My additional comment: Of you think this is extreme, and mean, then why is it that no one, *no one* at any level of the Catholic Church speaks of heresy any more? It doesn't exist, at a practical level ... heresy is over as a "thing". And I can only conclude that this is because we live in the times of the Parallel Vatican II Church that declared this to be so.

And THAT is why no one cares that the Papacy has been transformed to include Emeritus Popes retired firmly and forever within the Munus and additional Popes carrying on the Papal Ministry elevating idols onto the High Altar with Christ and proclaiming the devil with a Wicca Stang held high, Our Lord subsumed into its magical wood. No one cares. Not really. "Heresy" is SO over.
T said…
Aqua,

Wait just a minute. The only heresy is saying the man the masses claim is the pope is an antipope.
Aqua said…
Steven O'Reilly:

I haven't been to your blog in some time. I do congratulate you on your extensive discussion on the key points of dispute. I think you still missed the mark in your conclusions, but at least you provided extensive reasons for how you got there.

And perhaps, there is no possibility of agreeing on this one, as the base premises of yours and my positions are not compatible.

Again, (as per my comment above), referring to the John 6 Bread of Life discourse - how do followers of Christ persuade Pharisees, Sadducees and the "laymen" of the day that Jesus actually meant "*eat my flesh*"; "*drink my blood*" - literally?

But Jesus could not have been any more firm, insistent, clear on His meaning: three times he said it, "*indeed*" he added for emphasis; His followers bled away because such a thing was inconceivable on so many levels.

I have had many a discussion about this with non-Catholics, and they have many things to say about why Jesus didn't literally mean eat, drink. Ultimately ... you either accept it or you don't. Because the words are what they are, and they just sit their either accepted or ignored. That's just how it is. The proof is in the words themselves. And the *authority* of the One speaking them.

Just so, with Munus. The words are what they are. You can say they mean something differently, but in Canon Law a specific word is repeated in every paragraph that defines Petrine authority. And that word ain't Ministerium.

Canon Law references Munus *alone*.

Yet in the one sentence that matters - Benedict chose to resign Ministerium.

Munus remains - with Benedict, who clearly retained it and firmly and forever remains within it, because he never resigned it and clearly lives each day as if he had it - reality which we see with our eyes aligns with the word he retains.

And the guy with the Ministerium is as busy as an energizer bunny carrying out the duties of the See (Bishopric) of Rome which are clearly intended to destroy the Church at its most precious core - The Sacred Deposit of Faith.

The supreme authority of the Pope is defined in Canon Law sections 331, 332, 333. His authority is defined *only* in terms of Munus in almost every paragraph. Here are all the references to Munus in Canon Law surrounding the essential 332.2:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues *the office* given by the Lord uniquely to Peter ...

Can. 331 By virtue of *his office* he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church ...

Can 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff *resigns his office* ...

Can. 333 §1. By *virtue of his office*, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church ...

Can 333 §2. In *fulfilling the office* of supreme pastor of the Church ...

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff *in exercising his office*.

And then - we get to Canon 188: substantial error.

It doesn't matter that the Pope insists that the See of Peter is vacant and that a Conclave should be called to appoint a successor. He can't do that until he first validly, legally, properly resigns his Munus, such that the Munus, Office, is vacant - Sede Vacante.

And the proof that substantial error drove the faulty resignation sits before our eyes every day in the Vatican using a title never seen in history, discussed by Church Fathers, referenced in Sacred Tradition, nor provided for by the direct words of Jesus Christ who instead gave us a Rock upon whom he built His Church. There are no retired Emritus Rocks in history, living out their days in peace and solitude. There are no Popes Emeritus until this SUBSTANTIAL ERROR gave us one and the predictable evil deeds of his antipope successor.

What we see is the clearest possible Substantial Error I can imagine - rendering the act "invalid by the law itself".

Steven O'Reilly said…

Fred,

You ask:

"1. Is Communion for adulterers an "explicitly a here[sy]"? Answer: yes or no."

My reply, first, "heresy/heretic" can be used in a strict canonical/theological sense, or in a looser sense (i.e., as Lamont suggests). I do believe communion for adulterer is certainly an error -- or 'heretical' in this looser sense.

Familiaris Consortio 84 repeats the perennial teaching of the Church on the question, and JP II speaks of the non-communion practice is what the Church 'professes in faithfulness to Christ' (that's a loose quote from memory)...so to say or allow the opposite, is to profess an error which is NOT faithful to Christ. So, what does it mean for Francis? John XXII was in error on the Beatific Vision, but as the doctrine up to that point had not been dogmatized...he was not technically a "heretic" in the strict sense. The next pope defined the question.

Might Francis' case in this sense be analogous to John XXII...possibly. It is for the Church to decide the question, to examine Francis words (or lack of them) in this matter. Lamont might be right, but I've seen arguments, such as made by Cardinal Muller, that the Buenos Aires Guidelines in the AAS can be read in an orthodox sense (I think theologian Dr. Fastiggi make similar point to Muller) which would neutralize the AAS controversy -- if they are right. Personally, I think Muller has a hard go of it to prove his interpretation. So...I am not dismissive of Dr. Lamont's opinion here. But this just goes to show there's a need for a thorough review by appropriate Church authority. That is not me. That is not you. An imperfect council is out of the question, as a practical matter; so we're looking at a future pope. Even in that case...it took 40 years for the Church to formally 'correct' Honorius for merely *favoring* heresy.

My hunch is, I think a future pope might treat Francis like Pope Leo II treated Honorius, or more likely, more harshly. I do believe a future pope will make some sort of definition on the question. I think it unfortunate the Open Letter of the 19 scholars -- of which I think Dr. Lamont was one -- was not taken up by the bishops. Certainly questions that must be examined by competent Church authorities.

"2. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said "The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See." Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no."

My reply...I answered this before. I replied "no" already.

Regards,

Steve
Aqua said…
Steve:

"I do believe communion for adulterer is certainly an error -- or 'heretical' in this looser sense."

Communion for an adulterer is heretical, full stop. There is no nuance on this.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with respect to the word Munus and substantial error. There is no nuance and shadings and grey areas and room for debate. The Pope occupies the Munus which gives him his authority on loan from God. The ministerium does not give him authority. The Munus gives him authority, Only one person may occupy that Munus at any given time. The Pope must resign his Munus before Sede is Vacante. A Conclave is illegal on its face if it is called to fill a Papal Munus already occupied by another.

There is no room for grey areas and future rulings by some future Pope a few hundred centuries from now, long after we are all dead and gone to our particular judgements when such a ruling will do us no good. Canon Law says Munus. Sacred Tradition also says Munus. Pope Benedict XVI chose Ministerium and a new title out of thin air.

Substantial error. No grey. No shadings. Canon Law was made to define important facts. This is a fact.
Aqua said…
T:

I missed your comment above. And I was just thinking of saying the same thing after reading Steve's mitigation of heresy into categories of loose heresy and mere error (etc).

As you say, there IS a heresy in the parallel church that will not be tolerated: Sacred Tradition and applying its Dogmas to specific heretical acts.

The Holy Sacrfice of the Mass, suppressed. Sodomites receiving communion with Jesus, not suppressed. Transformed Papacy, "dogma".

Everything is turned upside down. What was heresy is encouraged. What was dogma is suppressed and rooted out.
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

Okay...by my count, you've asked me 5 + 1 Dubia. So, I figure, there are six dubia of mine you must answer.

Here is the first:

1. A central component of Dr. Mazza’s thesis “3.0” is that Ratzinger erroneously believed in some way that the papacy was a sacrament, and thus, it could not be lost. Dr. Mazza expounded on his thesis, during his Coffin show appearance, citing two Ratzinger texts, the first being from “Principles of Catholic Theology.” In support of his thesis, Dr. Mazza paraphrased Ratzinger from this book as follows:

“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.””

[Patrick Coffin Show. Time: 30:00; Unofficial transcription by O’Reilly]

Now, An extended citation* from Principles of Catholic Theology that Dr. Mazza briefly referenced is provided in my article. It won't fit in this comment box.

Fred, You can find the extended quote with BOLD emphasis, which might make it easier to see the point I am making. You may find that in my article https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/. Find the quote under The Reply to Objections 2.1 and 2.2.

What is apparent in the extended citation, Ratzinger is speaking on the subject of ecumenism between East and West. Ratzinger is clearly speaking of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the text, and that he is describing their (negative) view of the development of the papacy and Western Church, e.g., that “I should like to indicate in a few words how this impression has arisen in the East. For such a view..."

Therefore, is it the case Ratzinger is describing the Eastern Orthodox negative assessment of the papacy and Western Church when he writes: "The old sacramental structure seems overgrown, even choked, by this new concept of the law: the papacy is not a sacrament, it is “only” a juridical institution; but this juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order"?...

...Consequently, Is it the case that Dr. Mazza misstated and or misunderstood what the text is actually saying when he suggested to Dr. Coffin and his audience that Ratzinger here “disagrees with those who say the papacy is not a sacrament...” when in fact Ratzinger is merely describing the Eastern Orthodox negative impression of the papacy and the Western Church? Yes or no.


Thanks.

Steve O'Reilly
Steven O'Reilly said…


Fred,

here is the citation that goes with my first Dubia to you. As I indicate above...it is more easily read in my article, but for convenience I place it here on its own. It would not fit within the comment box above due to character restrictions.

Again, note Ratzinger in his book is speaking of the Eastern Orthodox.


--- BEGIN QUOTE ---

"All this, as we have said, is basically true also of the separation between Rome and Constantinople that became the starting point of the division between East and West. Not everyone, it is true, especially on the Orthodox side, would agree with this opinion – which shows how time has served to intensify the gravity of the dispute. For, from the Orthodox point of view, at least according to one interpretation, the monarchia papae means a destruction of the ecclesial structure as such, in consequence of which something different and new replaces the primitive Christian form. Because this aspect of the problem is, generally speaking, more or less foreign to us in the West, I should like to indicate in a few words how this impression has arisen in the East. For such a view, the Church in the West is no longer, under the leadership of her bishops, a nexus of local churches that, in their collegial unity, go back to the community of the twelve apostles; she is seen, rather, as a centrally organized monolith in which the new legal concept of a “perfect society” has superseded the old idea of succession in the community. In her, the faith that was handed down no longer (so it seems) serves as the sole normative rule—a rule that can be newly interpreted only with the consensus of all the local churches; in her, the will of the absolute sovereign creates a new authority. Precisely this difference in the concept of authority grew steadily more intense and reached its climax in 1870 with the proclamation of the primacy of jurisdiction: in one case, only the tradition that has been handed down serves as a valid source of law, and only the consensus of all is the normative criterion for determining and interpreting it. In the other case, the source of law appears to be the will of the sovereign, which creates on its own authority (ex sese) new laws that then have the power to bind. The old sacramental structure seems overgrown, even choked, by this new concept of the law: the papacy is not a sacrament, it is “only” a juridical institution; but this juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order."

(Source: Joseph Ratzinger, Principle of Catholic Theology: Building Stone for a Fundamental Theology. Ignatius Press. 1987 Pages 194-195)
Steven O'Reilly said…


Fred,

here is my second dubia to you.

2. When a man is first elected in a conclave, he is asked if he accepts his election as Supreme Pontiff (cf UDG 87, as amended in Normas Nonnullas 87). Thus, accepting his election as Supreme Pontiff, the man elected acquires the Petrine office and or “Petrine munus.” Thus, the Petrine office or Petrine munus is associated with *being* Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.

On February 28, 2013, just a few hours before his effective resignation, Pope Benedict XVI spoke to a group of pilgrims from Albano, to whom he said: "I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, or I will be until 8:00 this evening and then no longer.” Did Pope Benedict XVI at that moment believe he would no longer be Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church after 8PM that evening, and thus, after 8pm no longer holding the Petrine office or “munus” associated with *being* Supreme Pontiff -- something he had accepted upon his election as supreme pontiff, and of which he had just said, ‘I am no longer Supreme Pontiff…” after 8pm that evening? Yes or no.

Thanks.

Steve O'Reilly
www.RomaLocutaEst.com
Fred Martinez said…
Steve,

Thanks for the questions and your time and effort. As my regular CM readers know, I very rarely get involved in the comment section, but I consider you a gentleman and a friend whom I disagree with on some issues, but respect. I'm working and have a lot on my plate on top of that so I'm probably going to do a post or two on them. I may do a comment post on your comment on Cardinal Mueller's theory on Communion for adulterers which in my opinion is plainly ridiculous.

Best,

Fred

Aqua said…
Steve:

In regards to question 2:

Just because Benedict XVI continues to hold to his error, persist in error, explain his error does not mean that he did not in fact resign in error - substantial error, as it were.

Perhaps he still believes it. Perhaps he doesn't. As with all heresy, it is objectively wrong, knowable by reference to facts, and the heretic does not get to explain away his error by his good intentions, personal circumstances and reasonings.It is objectively heretical in reference to the Deposit of Faith and all its governing documents and traditions.

Still no word from you on why you think Ministerium is interchangeable with Munus, given that Canon Law clearly defines the episcopal Papal Office in terms of Munus, Munus and ONLY Munus. There is no mention of Ministerium in defining the Papal Office. But Benedict XVI used Ministerium. But Benedict remains. And Benedict has taken a forbidden title (not authorized). And the new Bishop of Rome occupying the See of Peter *without the Munus - an antipope by definition* is the worst heretic apostate the Church has ever seen.

And yet - in the face of all this quantifiable evidence against you, you still persist and say Ministerium = Munus. Close enough. His intent was clear. Even though his resignation was in substantial error he meant well.

You can't explain why this is so, except that Benedict XVI wanted it to be so.

Not good enough. His mistaken desire does not abrogate Canon Law (332.2/188) governing his resignation. It binds him.
Aqua said…
Steve:

What needs to happen is a Cardinal or Bishop needs to submit a simple resignation sentence to Benedict XVI, and ask him to sign it - correcting Ministerium to Munus.

If he refuses, upon what grounds does he refuse?

He must abandon the Emeritus title and return to his prior state, absent any connection to the episcopal Munus of the Papacy.

If he refuses, upon what grounds?
Steven O'Reilly said…
Fred,

to be clear...I wasn't saying I agree with Mueller's theory. My point is, there are divergent opinions on the question, even thought I have a hard time seeing how Mueller can hold his opinion. So, do not suggest I agree with Mueller.

Regards,

Steve
Fred Martinez said…
Steve,

If you don't agree with the "arguments, such as made by Cardinal Muller... [or] Dr. Fastiggio," which was brought up by you to support your ambiguity then who do you agree with that supports your ambiguity on Francis's Communion for adulterers teaching?

Thanks,

Fred
Aqua said…
Steve -

"..I wasn't saying I agree with Mueller's theory."

Actually, you presented it as *your* theory, *not* Mueller's theory.

You referenced Mueller in your explanation, but your point, your first point, was this:

"My reply, first, "heresy/heretic" can be used in a strict canonical/theological sense, or in a looser sense (i.e., as Lamont suggests). I do believe communion for adulterer is certainly an error -- or 'heretical' in this looser sense."
Steven O'Reilly said…

Aqua,

I will try to be brief. My full answer is in the series of articles, see the one on the Declaratio for my view of the munus/ministerium question.

When the question of the possibility of a papal resignation was defined, it essentially read that the Roman pontiff may resign the "papacy" (not exact words...other than for papacy). Canon law was amended to state he could resign being the "Roman pontiff." Going by memory now on that regarding the Liber Sextus. But it is in my article.

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."

One final point on the use of 'emeritus'. As I point out in my series of articles, while the title "pope emeritus" is new...Benedict did believe that former popes were that in fact, if not name. So, he didn't think he was doing anything new in that sense. Further, canon 185 says the title of "emeritus" can be conferred on anyone, among other things, who "lost an office by resignation." Granted, this canon didn't have the pope in mind since it refers to resignations that 'must be accepted.' Still, when Benedict was considering what title to choose, it seems fairly obvious he must have had the example of canon 185 in mind to serve as analogy for his own case. So, the use of "emeritus" by Benedict actually works against the Benepapists, because as I noted, "emeritus" is clearly an honorific (see c. 185) conferred up one who "LOSES and OFFICE by resignation"...which is what we have in Benedict's case. The point being, the use of "emeritus" is an admission by Benedict he LOST his office.

With that...or until Fred answers my Dubia...I am out of here for now. If you or others need further comments or have other questions you want to direct them at me...go to RomaLocutaEst, or my email. I believe most of what I just said was in my recent Declaratio article. If potential "objections" to that article are missing, feel free to email suggested additions to the article.


God bless,

Steve O'Reilly

Steven O'Reilly said…

Fred,

You say: "If you don't agree with the "arguments, such as made by Cardinal Muller... [or] Dr. Fastiggio," which was brought up by you to support your ambiguity then who do you agree with that supports your ambiguity on Francis's Communion for adulterers teaching?"

There is no ambiguity regarding communion for adulterers. The source I cited was JP II in FC 84. Please reread what I said. I spoke how he said the Church does what it does because it 'professes its fidelity to Christ', implying, anything less or other is infidelity. The point I was trying to make is that while this has been the teaching, it has not been dogmatized...which I believe is necessary condition for a charge of FORMAL heresy (afterall isn't that what you were getting at with the follow up, repeated, dubia?). That's why I noted John XXII's case. He was in error with regarding what the Church had taught, but just not in a definitive manner.

As to Mueller, I clearly did not say I agree with him. I noted he does not think the AAS is an issue (along with Fastiggi). I said: "Personally, I think Muller has a hard go of it to prove his interpretation. So...I am not dismissive of Dr. Lamont's opinion here." The point being...there is disagreement among good folks on this...an authoritative judgment needs to be made here on the relevance of the AAS. I explicitly said Mueller's argument has a hard go of it...indicating my difficulties with it; something I did not note with Lamont's view.

The high level point was...the Church must review and decide. Not Fred. Not Steve.

So, I don't why you are looking for a cause to be argumentative or find controversy, especially where there is none.

I'm moving on. If you ever answer the first two Dubia...let me know.

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly





Aqua said…
Steve:

“ … 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.”

No. There is a formula, there is one word. It is contained in 332.2.

We can’t agree because our base premises are not reconcilable. Your premise is that any word or combination of words are good enough to resign the Office of Pope. If he obviously meant well, then that’s good enough for you.

My premise is that in the same way that the election of Pope is precise and tightly governed, so also resignation. It must be done according to Canon Law as defined by Papal predecessor. Papacy is not a word that defines what he is resigning before God; from God. Munus is a word that Canonically defines what precisely he is resigning before God; from God. Words matter when you are talking about the Vicar of Christ.

You say any old word will do.
I say the word that Canonically defines the authority he is resigning from must do.
Aqua said…
“It’s a wrap”, is not valid.
“That’s all folks”, no good.
“I’m out of here”, nope, not.
“I quit this job”, still your job.
“I resign this troublesome burden”, carry on.
“I resign the Office of Pope, such that the See of Peter is vacant”, now you may go home.
Unknown said…
Aqua,
Rem acu tetigit.

"My additional comment: Of you think this is extreme, and mean, then why is it that no one, *no one* at any level of the Catholic Church speaks of heresy any more? It doesn't exist, at a practical level ... heresy is over as a "thing". And I can only conclude that this is because we live in the times of the Parallel Vatican II Church that declared this to be so."

That's why anything goes in the V2 Newchurch.
And because anything goes, there is no more a word excommunication either that exist in the V2 Newchurch.
Except of course when a heretical and apostetical V2 bishop "cancels" a good Catholic priests.

This all is a prove that prophecy of st. Francis of Asisi and prophecy of ven. Fulton Sheen became a true.

Ivan
Anonymous said…
Benedict is not the Pope anymore. Reality...
Anonymous said…
What does Benedict XVI have in common with Ann Barnhardt, Acosta, Coffin, Martinez, etc? None of them are Pope!

Beneplenists have no authority to declare anything.
Anonymous said…
Correction to last comment, none of them except Benedict has been Pope, he's former Pope. Aqua I agree, no talk about heresy.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk