Referencing Aquinas & Athanasius, did "Benedict... the Munus" make Francis a "Pseudo-Pope" in a "Case of Necessity"?
AKA Catholic website reported that in a 2014 Fatima conference the then
editor of the Catholic Family News newspaper called Pope Benedict XVI "the man in the munus!”:
Fr. [Nicholas] Gruner.turned his attention to the fact that Benedict, by his own resignation statement, did not resign the munus, or “office” of Peter.
This led Fr. Gruner to suggest that whatever Benedict intended to do, he wasn’t actually resigning the papacy.
Now, bear in mind, this was more than a year-and-a-half before Archbishop Ganswein essentially confirmed as much, saying in in his infamous presentation of May 2016:
key word in that [resignation] statement is munus petrinum, translated —
as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus,
in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty,
guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict
understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine
ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on
February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this [munus] ministry.”
It was clear that Fr. Gruner’s comments took many if not all in attendance by surprise; in particular the Fatima Center staff members who were on hand.
When the presentation concluded just minutes thereafter, with a palpable uneasiness still hanging in the air, John Vennari took to the podium to dismiss the gathering...
... [saying] “I suppose that makes Benedict the man in the munus!” [https://akacatholic.com/resignation-agitation-and-the-wit-of-john-vennari/]
Samaticus blog agrees with Fr. Gruner that Pope Benedict did not resign
the "munus" and did so using the St. Thomas Aquinas teaching of "State
of Necessity" or "Case of Necessity":
Benedict in turn, even as a neo-modernist was the antithesis of an INNOVATOR. This was the reason why he was hated by the Team Bergoglio cabal. Support for this observation is provided in the following passage: Gänswein does not see the “beginning of the new” in any of Benedict XVI’s many acts of governance or magisterium [DP5]
Further evidence that “the new” refers to the State of Necessity comes from Guido Canale. Here are the pertinent quotes:
GFC: The analysis seems fairly clear: that
of Benedict XVI becomes a “pontificate of exception” precisely by
virtue of the resignation and at the moment of the resignation. [DP16]
GFC: his (AG) mother tongue makes it clear that Gänswein has no such banality in mind, but rather the category of “state of exception” (Ausnahmezustand).[DP18]
GFC: A category that any German with an average education immediately associates with the figure and thought of Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). [DP19]
I think the point is made.
Next questions that are answered are:
Who can declare a State of Necessity?
According to AG,“The sovereign is the one who decides on the state of exception. [DP20]
When did the State of Necessity become “visible” (declared)?
GFC: Gänswein does not see the “beginning of the new” in any of Benedict XVI’s many acts of governance or magisterium, but precisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates. [DP6] This is also confirmed by [DP4] that speaks about the “demarcation” between “old” and “new”.
As to consequences, OBJECTIVELY speaking, of the declaration of the State of Necessity, the following is the case:
“Aus-nahme” literally means “out-law.” A state of things that cannot be regulated a priori and therefore, if it comes about, requires the suspension of the entire juridical order. [DP22]
An “Ausnahmepontifikat,” therefore, would be a pontificate that suspends in some way the ordinary rules of functioning of the Petrine ministry, or, as Gänswein says, “renews” the office itself. [DP23]
The consequences that the above entail is that under a State of Necessity, as per St. Thomas Aquinas:
“The Church (Sovereign) may, for instance suspend the application of a positive law like some aspect of canon law.” and in extraordinary situations, acquire extraordinary duties and therefore extraordinary means”.
What this means is that a Sovereign (read pope), in this case Pope Benedict XVI, provided that he still is the Sovereign (POPE) can suspend the ordinary rules and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own, as per Herr Schmitt and referenced by Archbishop Ganswein...
... And the above is consistent with Canale’s inference:
The analysis seems fairly clear: that of Benedict XVI becomes a “pontificate of exception” precisely by virtue of the resignation and at the moment of the resignation. [DP16]
Notice that Gänswein used the term “pontificate of exception”, i.e. “pontificate” of necessity. The ENTIRE pontificate.
In other words, it was at the “resignation” when the “pontificate of exception” (State of Necessity) went from being “material” to being “formal”, so to speak.
Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate!
And how are the above actions of Benedict justified:
“Benedict XVI was aware that he was losing the strength necessary for the most burdensome office” [DP33]
In other words, by “resigning”, i.e. “the resignation that wasn’t” (see here), Benedict freed himself of not only the administrative duties of the Petrine Office, but also eliminated the attacks on his person that cost him much of his strength...
... And now concluding.
What the Pierce/Ockham pragmatic methodology is finding is the following:
- Benedict XVI is still the reigning Pope
- BXVI’s resignation enacted a formal State of Necessity.
- The 2013 Conclave was invalid since there was no vacancy in the See of St. Peter. (Here one can say that the 2013 conclave was as REAL as Benedict’s appearance at Assisi III. Once again, “necessity has no law”.)
- The State of Necessity allowed BXVI to effective keep the Petrine
Office while creating a “pseudo-pope” to manage the day to day
operations of the See of St. Peter.
- Proof of this is the FORMULA (“active” and “contemplative”) used by BXVI’s secretary, Archbishop Gänswein acting on behalf of BXVI,
- Maintained the visible vesture proper of a pope, along with the proper residence,
- Benedict explicitly demonstrates that he maintains the papal teaching office. (see here) [https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/ockhams-razor-finds-benedict-still-pope-francis-is-false-pope-universal-church-in-state-of-necesity-since-24-april-2015/]
Does Francis know he is a "pseudo-pope" according to Antonio Socci?
Socci in his book said "during the days of the polemical
statements [by Team Francis] concerning Ratzinger's preface to the book
of Cardinal Sarah Bergoglio [Francis] gave a homily that seemed to be a
criticism of the pope emeritus, specifically for his 'halfway'
"[A] pastor has to... take his leave well, to not leave only halfway."
"To whom is he referring? To Benedict XVI who relinquished all the power of governance while remaining pope?"
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 123-124)
In Francis criticizing Benedict's "'halfway' resignation" is he implicitly admitting the thesis of Dr. Ed Mazza that "Benedict XVI who relinquished all the power of governance [as the Bishop of Rome]... remain[ed]... pope [the Successor of Peter] " according to Socci?
The thesis of Dr. Mazza that Pope Benedict relinquished the power of the Bishop of
Rome while remaining the pope (the Successor of Peter) seems to be restating or at least mirroring Antonio Socci's theory.
The Socci book theorizes that there would be a "state of exception."
Both use the quoted phrase a "state of exception" in their thesis.
(Taylor Marshall Show, "Is Pope Benedict XVI still (but Francis is Bishop of Rome?) Mazza Thesis Revisited," 1;23:38)
Benedict's resignation said:
"[M]y strengths... are no longer suited to the adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry."
For theologian and canonist Stefano Violi the key limiting term or word in the resignation is "exercise":
"[T]he limited renunciation of the active exercise of the munus constitutes the absolute novelty of the renunciation of Benedict XVI."
Respected canonist Guido Ferro Canales says that this type of "renunciation" echoes the famous German Philosopher Carl Schmitt's "philosophical category of a 'state of exception'":
"Here, the 'state of exception' is to be understood... the suspension of the entire order of law that is in force. If this situation occurs, it is clear that the State continues, while the law is lost."
Canales explains how this applies to the "limited renunciation" that was examined by Violi:
"The pontificate of Benedict XVI became a 'pontificate of exception' by virtue of his resignation... A state of affairs that cannot be regulated a priori and thus, if it occurs, requires the suspension of the entire juridical order."
(The Secret of Benedict XVI, Pages 80-85)
Scholars Alon Harel and Assaf Sharon explain how Aquinas sees the "state of exception" or "Case of Necessity":
In the Summa Theologica Aquinas addresses the case of necessity by focusing on the limits of legislation. Aquinas asserts that: The lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens more frequently by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore, if a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed.11Furthermore, Aquinas recognizes that cases falling into this category are not “legislatable” and adds that:
He who in a case of necessity acts besides the letter of the law does not judge of the law but of a particular case in which he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed.
Last, Aquinas stresses that agents operating under these exceptional circumstances are not accountable to the law as in ordinary cases. In his view: “The mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” 11 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part II, 1st part, que. 96, art 6. See also II, II, que. 110 art.1. [https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/conferences2/Constitutionalism09-Harel.pdf]
Scholar Michael Davies explained how the teaching of Aquinas' "necessity knows no law” or "case of necessity" applied to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referencing St. Athanasius (and now according to the above scholars to the Benedict resignation):
Archbishop Lefebvre has been compared rightly to St.Athanasius. He is the Athanasius of our times. Like St.Athanasius and like St. Eusebius of Samosata, he went into the dioceses of bishops who were not acting as good shepherds, to give the people the instruction, the sacramental grace, and the pastors that they needed. For one bishop to intrude into the diocese of another is a very serious matter. It can only be justified if there is a state of necessity. A state of emergency, urgency, or necessity occurs in the Church when its continuation, order, or activity are threatened or harmed in an important way, and the emergency cannot be overcome by observing the normal positive laws. The emergency would relate principally to teaching, the liturgy, and ecclesiastical discipline. An interesting reference to such a situation occurs in a study of the Church's divine constitution by Dom Adrien Grea, OSB, in his examination of the extraordinary powers of the episcopate:
"In the fourth century St. Eusebius of Samosata traveled thorough Eastern dioceses devastated by the Arians and ordained orthodox pastors for them, without having particular jurisdiction over them. These are evidently extraordinary actions, as were the Circumstances that gave rise to them."[http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sdavies.htm]
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do next. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet
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)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
- "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
- 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."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html