Skip to main content

Steven O'Reilly: "Is Benedict a 'Strategic Genius' or a 'Theological Fool'?" vs. Aqua: "He told us, speaking from the Official Chair of St. Peter, that he resigned the Ministry of Pope; kept the Office of Pope"

 Pin on Antipope / the False Prophet / one of the anti Christs - Bergoglio aka Francis

 Anti Pope Francis Antipope, Heretic and Antichrist Apostate (Jorge Bergoglio)

Is Pope Francis an Anti-Pope? - YouTube

The Catholic Monitor hosted a back and forth 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/2022/05/aqua-i-find-cionci-thesis-compelling.htmI)

Here is the Aqua and O'Reilly back and forth:

Comments

Steven O'Reilly said…

@Aqua @Fred,

here is my latest on the Benepapist Civil War. The two competing theories are not compatible.

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/05/29/benedict-xvi-strategic-genius-or-theological-fool/

While each side points at the other and says "you are wrong"...they forget the reality is...neither of them is right!

Fred...btw...weeks and weeks are passing. Where are your answers to my Dubia???? You have time to post all these articles...but you can't post a simple "yes" or "no" to my questions? What's up? You pointed me to an outstanding question Debbie had...and I answered it immediately? Where is the reciprocity?

God bless,

Steve
Aqua said…
Steven,

Your fundamental mistake is that you think you can explain why Pope Benedict did something. If the Pope does not tell us, then we can't really know *why* he did what he did, can we? No one knows. Certainly not Barnhardt; not Cionci; you or me. Does it matter? Helpful, sure. Essential, no. All I need to know is: who *IS* Pope. That I know. Because he told us.

What was the last thing he did tell us? He told us, speaking from the official Chair of St. Peter, that he resigned the Ministry of Pope; kept the Office of Pope. The Office IS the Papacy. Further speculation is irrelevant. He is Pope.

Btw, did you read Barnhardt's latest ... reminding us of Ganswein's commentary on the matter? Gamswein's title? Prefect of the *Papal Household*. Prefect of the man wearing white, in the Vatican, signing as Pope, bestowing Apostolic blessing, receiving Cardinals - that guy ... Ganswein is Prefect of his Papal Household. And all you can is: those words don't matter. Fine for you, I guess, not for me.

Speculate all you want - you speculate plenty on your own theories ... everyone is trying to make their own sense of things, and that's fine - but all we really know is what the Pope said in his last official words from the Chair of St. Peter, from his own lips. And that is an ontological fact: he kept the Office; he lent the Ministry: Pope, according to Canon Law and Sacred Tradition.
Steven O'Reilly said…

@Aqua,

First of all...literally the last thing that Benedict said before his resignation on the February 28th was that he would no longer be the "supreme pontiff." Doesn't fit nicely into any Benepapist theory:

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/08/regarding-benedicts-comments-to-the-pilgrims-from-albano/

Cionci has an incredibly, laughable secret decoder ring explanation of it though...I addressed it here:

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/04/28/regarding-the-ratzinger-code/

Yes...as for Mr. Barnhardt...I read Ms. Barnhardt's latest. Beat her to the punch:

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/19/regarding-gansweins-speech/

Also, I also called out today for her misuse of the Principle of Non-Contradiction...which she does not seem to properly understand:

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/05/30/ms-ann-barnhardt-vs-the-law-of-non-contradiction-ms-barnhardt-loses/

But...I don't know why you appeal to Ms. Barnhardt...when Mr. Cionci criticizes her, and she him! It is amusing to watch this civil war. My latest commentary on it, may be found here:

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/05/29/benedict-xvi-strategic-genius-or-theological-fool/

So which is it, Aqua? Tell me. I have answered your questions. Is Benedict a "strategic genius" or a "theological fool"? Don't dodge...please.

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)

Aqua said…
Steven,

First of all ... why would you think a "civil war" within the Catholic faith is amusing? I don't. It hurts, wherever it may be found. It also hurts to see massive numbers of Faithful apostacize with the apostate sitting on the Holy See. You might want to think about that.

As to Pope Benedict's resignation error, it does not surprise me that his letter is full of supporting errors. It does not surprise me that he tries to justify his error. It remains the fact - he is in error. And everyone with eyes and a brain can judge it for themselves. I see Canon Law. I see his letter. I hear the words he spoke from The Chair. I see everything he has done since he left The Chair.

God gave us a brain and senses and a conscience. We are responsible to God for our own individual choices. We are not required to apostacize just because the Roman Bishop and the Cardinals in union with him have told us that we must. If I see a murder, I can judge it a murder, even though I can't render judgement on the perp. In the same way, if I see substantial error, or any heretical act that is proposed and imposed upon me I can (actually MUST) judge it as such, even though I cannot render judgement on the perp.

You call that "good enough".
I call that "substantial error".
That square can't be circled.

Your premise is not compatible with mine. And so you are left with what you see - two visible Popes, a new Emeritus title never seen before in them history of the Church without foundation in the Sacred Deposit of Faith or the clear words of Jesus Christ and you are left with an Apostate as your Holy Father whom, if you are still trying to be faithful as a Catholic, must ignore almost everything he says (funny way to be a Catholic imo).

As to your final question, it is not relevant to me - as you would know if you had read what I wrote. I am not Pope, nor am I privy to the mind of the Pope, naturally. I don't need to know "why". God does. I dont. All I need to know is "who" is the Pope. I know "who", and Imremain faithful to the Sacred Deposit of Faith from that perspective and ignore utterly the man squatting on the sacred Throne of St. Peter.

Aqua said…
Steven,
Another thought,min reference to the "humorous" civil war.

Unity is the natural state under the true Vicar of Christ who unified the living Faithful with the Roman Catholic Church past, present, future; militant, suffering, triumphant.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

(John 17: 20-23)

The entire 17th Chapter of St. John's Gospel are the holy words of Jesus Christ at the beginning of His Passion - the final spoken words He spoke prior to his ultimate suffering and crucifixion. He desired unity of the Faithful within Holy Mother Church, which is a Type of the unity to come within the Blessed Trinity, which is the essence of heaven, the Beatific Vision.

Disunity is a sign that we are in, or at least moving toward hell. Disunity and war within the Faithful is bad, not good. And it is ANOTHER sign that a false apostate Pope is leading this Church away from God toward another.
Aqua said…
Steven,

For clarification - here is the relevant Canon Law which must be fulfilled for a valid Papal resignation:

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office ..." (Canon 332.2)

Then read the rest of the relevant paragraphs of the section regards the authority endowed in the Papacy Canon 331 - 335, subset of "THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 330 - 367)".

"https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html

Upon what does this Papal authority rest? Munus. Office. Over and over it refers to various facets of Papal authority derived from his Munus, his Office. Never once does it refer to his Ministerium.

WHAT did Pope Benedict specifically resign in his letter, read directly to the Faithful from the Chair of St. Peter? Ministerium.

Again - your premise is that Ministerium = Munus.
It does not.

Aqua said…
Steven,
Another relevant phrase in 332.2: “properly manifested”.

Merriam-Webster Def:

1: readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sense of sight.
2: easily understood or recognized by the mind : OBVIOUS
3: to make evident or certain by showing or displaying

Words matter. They especially matter at the point where heaven meets earth in the person occupying the Office, endowed by Christ to visibly and substantially represent Him as visible earthly Monarch.
 
Note: The Catholic Monitor waited a day for O'Reilly to respond to Aqua's responding comments and since there was no response from Steve it was decided to post. Of course, O'Reilly is welcome to respond in the comment section on this post.

These are visible rites seen as signs and

 The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick - ppt download

Also, The Catholic Monitor also hosted another mini debate on April 4 with O’Reilly and 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 that debate with O'Reilly:

Aqua said…
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]

 

Comments

Aqua said…
Steven O'Reilly is articulate and well educated, but it is impossible to engage with him on the only point that matters: the invalid resignation and subsequent synodal Papacy of two (or more) visible Popes sharing space within the "enclosure of St. Peter". Because it is a question that cannot be answered without acknowledging base Catholic error and separation from God.

Everything *except* that is fair game for discussion and debate for him and the vast majority of others who have concerns. But *nothing else besides that* matters.

Every other theory about the present condition of a faithless "Pope" assumes Benedict's resignation was valid, the subsequent Conclave was necessary, the Papal election was Canonical, and (most importantly) the resulting synodal shared Papacy of two (or more) visible Popes within the bounds of Sacred Tradition and in accord with the one, true Faith. Show me one scintilla of evidence anywhere in the Deposit of Faith that allows for two visible Popes sharing the same space, the same "enclosure of St. Peter" at the same time.

Prove any and every other explanatory theory to be true .... and you are *STILL* left with a re-made Papacy that is now "synodal" and shared; impossible to reform because it is not Catholic.

*THAT* is the mother of all heresy and as far as I'm concerned the ONLY thing that currently matters. Even "Trads" are looking forward to Bergoglio's possible medically induced retirement so that we can possibly get another Pope more orthodox. That, to my thinking, just proves that the current conflict is almost completely lost ... because we have already lost Catholic understanding of the true nature of the Papacy. I don't think anyone even really cares, any more than Steven O'Reilly, that more than one man is visibly and substantially Pope, at the same time, within the enclosure of St. Peter together - a synod of Holy Fathers.

All other speculations about how we got here, if it misses that first step of departure off of the one, true, Papal path are misdirections and lead us away from restoration of the Holy Papal Office to its original intended nature ... and should be avoided as leading us into error on the one thing that really matters - the Papacy precisely as God gave it to us.
M.Murphy said…
Spot on again Aqua!!!
It does not matter what Benedict’s motives or intentions were for the resignation/declaration.
Whether a resignation or declaration of impeded See, the only pertinent issue is:
Is Benedict still the True Pope?

Putting both substantial error and impeded See aside, it can be argued that the resignation was invalid based solely on the outside forces put upon him to do so.
Anonymous said…
@Aqua I admire your fight in you, but c'mon...you are being foolish. Benedict has made it clear from the last audience that he gave up the Munus and I don't see him naming new Cardinals...I don't see him giving homilies...no fisherman's ring. Give it up guys...he's not the Pope. This is just getting to be ridiculous.
Anonymous said…
"pot on again Aqua!!!
It does not matter what Benedict’s motives or intentions were for the resignation/declaration.
Whether a resignation or declaration of impeded See, the only pertinent issue is:
Is Benedict still the True Pope?

Putting both substantial error and impeded See aside, it can be argued that the resignation was invalid based solely on the outside forces put upon him to do so."

He's not the true Pope anymore, that's the simple reality that all the Benepapists refuse to accept. You cannot be a sitting Pope and just sit on the sidelines and be doing nothing administrative for the church. The plan B theory is absurd...he didn't outfox anyone. These people are living in a different reality. He is not the Pope anymore, he's not running anything in the church.
Steven O'Reilly said…
Aqua,

You say:

"Steven O'Reilly is articulate and well educated, but it is impossible to engage with him on the only point that matters: the invalid resignation and subsequent synodal Papacy of two (or more) visible Popes sharing space within the "enclosure of St. Peter". Because it is a question that cannot be answered without acknowledging base Catholic error and separation from God.

Everything *except* that is fair game for discussion and debate for him and the vast majority of others who have concerns. But *nothing else besides that* matters."

I reply:

I will debate everything except Benedict's resignation and the suggestion of a "visible synodal papacy"? Is that what you are saying?

How can you say such a thing? I have argued against the Benepapist claims on both these questions, looking at the Declaratio, the last audience, Normas Nonnullas, Benedict's comments to the pilgrims of Albano, Ganswein's speech, Benedict's interviews. I reject the resignation was invalid. I reject the notion BXVI either intended or set up a "synodal papacy" -- and have provided arguments against it.

These arguments go straight to your premise and evaluation of the current situation! Benedict and Francis are not "synodal". No one is defending the existence of two "visible popes." Who is defending that? No one.

Barnhardt's thesis is debunked. There was no "attempted partial resignation." There was not even an attempt to create a synodal papacy (see my articles on Last Audience and Ganswein). There is no synodal papacy, real or imagined -- except in the minds of some Benepapists.

Benedict is praying in his retirement. He wears simple white cassock. He no longer wears the mozzetta, or red shoes -- all symbols of papal authority. He does not wear the Fisherman's ring. The Benepapists don't address these contrary questions with regard to his attire. Benedict is an ex-pope. That is intended by the honorific "emeritus" (e.g., see canon 185), i.e., it applies to an office which is 'lost due to resignation.'

Your arguments seems to be circular, you start with an assumption about the current "visible" situation. However, the arguments against Benepapism are arguments which show your premise about the visible situation are erroneous.

Folks interested in this discussion can read my arguments against Benepapism can find them here:

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/21/the-case-against-those-who-claim-benedict-is-still-pope/

and

https://romalocutaest.com/2020/02/11/summa-contra-the-bip-theory-why-benedict-xvi-is-not-the-pope/

So...I am arguing against all the points you and the other Benepapists try to make. No exceptions.

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Aqua said…
Steven:

You say - “Benedict is praying in his retirement.”

Popes don’t retire. They die. Or once every 500 years, they abdicate. Period. Your statement above is the essence of your base error.

Interesting … I read Canon 185, went back to Canon 145 … EVERYTHING related to “Ecclesiastical” authority hangs on the word “Office”, just as Canons 331-335 which deal with Papal authority, a subset of which is *RESIGNATION* (332) strictly, exclusively … OFFICE , or in the language of the Church - Munus.

He resigned Ministerium.

That is substantial error.

You proceed past that point with a blithe “Munus = Ministerium” assumption. You support that by dismissing all the clear evidence seen and heard since that calamitous day. I don’t. I won’t.

And now, you are left trying to explain how a Pope, for the first time in history, can be apostate - which he clearly is. I have an answer. You do not. As the Church burns to the ground and apostatizes with its antipope, you cannot explain such a thing can happen, from Traditional sources. I can.

You can’t fix the problem, can’t cure the disease, until you first define the problem, isolate the disease.
Aqua said…
Steven,

Any time someone claims to have “debunked” anything … I know for fact certain, they have no ground to stand on.

Trust me, no one has “debunked” anything Barnhardt has written. Even given certain speculations, the rest of time has proven her record over and over on multiple topics. Her logic is sound - she claims no great insights beyond fearless reference to logic - wherever that may lead. Her record is good. Check out today’s post recalling her forecast of future movement toward a totalitarian system of compulsion based on a “mark of the Beast” … written in 2016.

Nothing special about her work except most are not willing to follow certain logical conclusions to their ultimate destiny - in this case: the Church has imposed an anti-papacy on us by quantifiably electing a Pope without the requisite Office. Follow the logic - it is inescapable.
Aqua said…
Steven,

The fact that we have so easily slipped into this new reality where the faithful just blithely speak of Popes “retiring” shows why this is such a crisis. Beyond any other heresy, the transformation of the Monarchal Papacy into a synodal function which can be retired from, while remaining Pope (emeritus - not in Sacred Tradition btw), the remaking of Jesus Christ’s cornerstone is the supreme act if violence against Holy Mother Church.

The Pope is a Monarch. Not just any old Monarch, Christ’s Monarch - connected directly to God Himself. Can’t retire from that. You either are, or are not - if not, then dead or abdicated and gone. This is essential. The violation of this is why the Church is on fire, led into all error by the man imposed on the Holy Seat of St Peter (singular).
Steven O'Reilly said…
@Aqua,

(Part 1 of response)

You have an answer and I do not? I beg to differ. You have an answer, but it is the wrong one for the reasons I have provided many times by now.

It is not that I don't have an answer, it is that you don't like it. Let's be honest about that. Benepapists do not have a monopoly over concerns about the state of the Church, or about Francis in particular -- though some of them certainly seem to sanctimoniously believe they do.

Those in the time of Honorius, John XXII, etc., might have been perplexed by events given the Petrine promises as they understood them at the time -- 'how can this be, this situation hasn't happened before?' Thus, I think leading Benepapists need a little more humility than they have exhibited. They should consider the possibility that they might not have a complete handle on what God in His Providence might or might not allow to happen within the scope of the Petrine promise of which HE is the Author, and Guarantor.

What Francis *is* or *is not* may be, and - I believe - likely will be a subject of some future papal inquiry. It took 40 years for Pope Leo II to say what he did about Honorius -- so some patience may be required. Church "time" does not operate on Aqua's time scale. So, patience and calm is required, along with Faith. However, what Benedict *is* is clear and evident right now. We do not have to wait. Benedict is not pope.

(end of part I of II)

Steven O'Reilly said…


@Aqua,

Part II

Now, there is no assumption with "ministerium." The word can be used for 'office.' That is clear in the latin dictionaries. Secondly, canon 332.2 does not require the word "munus" be used at all. Even Estefania Acosta **admits** this much in her book -- and she is a full blow Benepapist. The ONLY two requirements EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED in canon 332.2 is that the resignation be "Free" and "properly manifested." That is it. Basta cosi. Full stop. The point isn't even debatable. The canon literally says that. Third, Celestine V and Boniface VIII, whence we have the definitive teaching a pope can resign, do not say the word "munus" must be used. Essentially, the teaching is a pope can resign the 'papacy' (see the Liber Sextus). So, any number of words might be used. It is not for you or anyone else to declare what can't be used.

So, contrary to your assertions, there is no set formula, either one necessary word, or necessary phrase. Common sense suggests, it should be obvious that a pope intends to resign the papacy. In that regard, it is impossible to read the Declaratio's key phrase without understanding Benedict is renouncing the papacy. He said he renounced the 'ministry' of the bishop of Rome "in such a way" that the "See of Rome, the See of Peter" would be vacant and a new conclave must be called. What else can be resigned in such a way that the See of Rome, the See of Peter is vacant? Nothing, except the papacy itself. It is clear. It is plain. It is obvious.

However, even *if* we were to entertain the question about the use of 'ministry' it is not for you or I to act on that doubt to affirm the resignation is definitely invalid. Papal acts are not subject to review or appeal, except by a future pope.

Thus, all those who publicly declare "Benedict is definitely (still) pope" and or who say that Francis is "definitely an anti-pope" are acting in opposition to the Church. The very canon they appeal to, 332.2, explicitly says the resignation need not be accepted by anyone -- that includes the Benepapists! However, the leading Benepapists are doing that exact thing, and arrogating to themselves the authority of a pope - who alone can judge another pope's acts. They are not accepting a papal resignation which the canon says is not their place!

Also, this is especially so for those who accept, authored and or signed the recent Declaration and Petition which declares fidelity to Benedict as pope, and which outlines the conditions those Benepapists(!) require to accept a future conclave!

Finally, while we agree Francis is a problem...you have settled on the wrong cause. But beyond that, as I indicated above, that it is the Church that must rule on these things...Not Barnhardt. Not Docherty. Not Mazza. Not Acosta. Not Cionci. Not Bugnolo. Not Aqua.

God bless,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst)
Steven O'Reilly said…

@Aqua,

oh...and regarding Ms. Barnhardt and her 'inescapable logic"...you say:

"Trust me, no one has “debunked” anything Barnhardt has written. Even given certain speculations, the rest of time has proven her record over and over on multiple topics. Her logic is sound - she claims no great insights beyond fearless reference to logic - wherever that may lead. Her record is good. Check out today’s post recalling her forecast of future movement toward a totalitarian system of compulsion based on a “mark of the Beast” … written in 2016.

Nothing special about her work except most are not willing to follow certain logical conclusions to their ultimate destiny - in this case: the Church has imposed an anti-papacy on us by quantifiably electing a Pope without the requisite Office. Follow the logic - it is inescapable."

I reply...you say follow her logic...but...as I pointed out in a recent post, she misstated the Principle of Non-Contradiction. She had tried to apply an incomplete version of it to the Benedict question. Unfortunately, as demonstrated, her formulation of the PoNC was incomplete. When properly understood and applied, her argument fails.

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/05/30/ms-ann-barnhardt-vs-the-law-of-non-contradiction-ms-barnhardt-loses/

Let me know when she replies to that; or to my numerous rebuttals of the Benepapist positions, e.g., :

https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/21/the-case-against-those-who-claim-benedict-is-still-pope/


Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)
Aqua said…
Steven,

Her logic makes sense to me. The pieces fit. When I puzzle through something, her ideas and propositions help me reach my own conclusions. If you think her ideas are determinative, binding … that’s not really how this works. I have read your work and many things you’ve written are interesting and helpful. I used to frequent your blog regularly for that reason. I profoundly disagree your position on this topic, which topic is to my mind existential. I stopped being helped by your blog and felt my contributions were not needed or wanted due to your convictions (precedent premises) and so I stopped visiting - agreeing to disagree. I rarely disagree with Ann, it’s happened, but she certainly doesn’t decide what I do or don’t think or what I believe. The Cionci thesis is one … though only to the extent she rejects it, while I give it air to breath and time to prove itself out. I remain open to her thesis as well - in fact I find hers equally likely as his.

Long story short - your proofs against her ideas are between you and her. They have nothing to do with me. I get to my conclusions in my own way and in my own time. Reach out to her by e-mail. Might be productive.

At this point, after *YEARS* puzzling through all this in multitudes of ways … I am confident before God, in conscience, in my understanding of the current crisis in the Church.
Steven O'Reilly said…

Aqua,

You're always welcome to comment on RLE.

With regard to my "convictions," they were neither arrived at in a vacuum nor without diligent consideration. I certainly hoped that Benepapism was true when I first began to look into and analyze the evidence. As anyone who has read my blog from its beginning knows; I am not a fan of Francis. Then, or now.

Unfortunately, against my hope, the Benepapist argument didn't hold together at all (e.g., BiP's clear misreading of the last audience). Facts are stubborn things. Best to recognize that, and move on to other theories, and test them. I am confident that whatever the "solution" to or explanation of Francis turns out to be in the final analysis...it is not going to be Benepapism.


God bless,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)




Aqua said…
" I am not a fan of Francis. Then, or now."

It doesn't matter if you're "a fan". If he is Pope, then you are required to honor him as your Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Monarch of the RCC. You don't get to hope that there is a way to remove him. You don't get to dishonor him by rejecting much or most of what he says as pablum and heresy. As a Roman Catholic, you have to defend him, until he dies (or abdicates) and another validly elected Pope is given to the Faithful in accord with Canon Law.

"Unfortunately, against my hope, the Benepapist argument didn't hold together at all".

Why unfortunately? Why would you want the removal of the Holy Father and the scandal to be true that placed him there? If you accept him as Pope, then rejoice that Bergoglio can rule unimpeded and you can follow him down all his chosen spiritual paths.

I suspect you are trying to have it both ways. But ... if you really do accept him as Pope - go all in and treat him as is his due before God. Don't try to find ways to get rid of him. That's not just hypocritical, it's kind of gross. If you accept him, defend him. Stop trying to cut him off at the knees. Follow his spiritual leadership, as your Holy Father,
Steven O'Reilly said…
Aqua,

Benedict has said he is not pope. In his Declaratio, the last audience, his words to the pilgrims of Albano, multiple Seewald interview he says he is no longer pope, and elsewhere where he has called Benepapist theories "absurd." Benedict is clearly not pope. Francis is at least putatively pope. You can't wish that away. If one is going to overcome the presumption of Francis' validity, one needs to bring demonstrable facts...plus one needs to await the judgment of the Church. Benepapism has failed on both these counts. The evidence is exceedingly weak (Barnhardt) to laughable (Cionci); yet, Benepapists are setting terms on future conclaves they will or will not accept.

So, I assume you will follow the logic of your position. If Francis dies first, you will certainly reject the result of the next conclave? If Francis dies after Benedict, you will certainly reject the result of conclave where the majority of electors are Francis-cardinals, yes? So...if you are consistent, your future is to be neo-sedevacantist? That is the path at least some of the leading Benepapists have chosen. What is your choice? Will you follow them into schism?

The problem is that you have lack historical perspective. You create a false dilemma, 'accept all of Francis, or accept Benedict is still pope.' Ridiculous and absurd. There have been many unworthy successors of St. Peter. Some have held erroneous opinions, or led horrible lives that no Catholic should have followed then, or now. Bellarmine said a pope who attacks the Church must be resisted, or words to that effect. I am not required to be a fan of Francis, or any given pope if he seemingly contradicts a prior pope on a point of doctrine. People resisted John XXII on his erroneous views. Francis has not definitively taught anything that is binding on all Catholics. Many things he has said are in quite apparent contradiction to other popes -- I await clarification, even if Francis refuses to give it.

Patience. Prudence. Faith. Don't run around like a chicken with its head cut off, Aqua. Those in the time of Honorius, John XXII, etc., might have been perplexed by events given the Petrine promises as they understood them at the time -- 'how can this be, this situation hasn't happened before?!?' Thus, I think leading Benepapists need a little more humility than they have heretofore exhibited. They should consider the possibility that they might not have a complete handle on what God in His Providence might or might not allow to happen within the scope of the Petrine promise of which HE is the Author, and Guarantor. Have faith in God. He is in control of all history. All will be revealed. Be patient. Stay calm. Wait for the Church to rule. Don't make a hasty judgment apart from it.

What Francis *is* or *is not* may be, and - I believe - likely will be a subject of some future papal inquiry. It took 40 years for Pope Leo II to say what he did about Honorius -- so some patience may be required. Church "time" does not operate on Aqua's time scale. So, patience and calm is required, along with Faith. However, what Benedict *is* is clear and evident right now. We do not have to wait. Benedict is not pope.

Regards,

Steve O'Reilly
(www.RomaLocutaEst.com)


Aqua said…
Steven said: "Church "time" does not operate on Aqua's time scale. So, patience and calm is required, along with Faith. However, what Benedict *is* is clear and evident right now."

But when I stand before God and am judged for what I did and for what I failed to do, whether I followed Jesus and venerated His Blessed Mother, whether I defended His Bride and supported the least among us - I will be judged specifically on Aqua's time scale which has been granted only to me, "Aqua", by God and to whom I must give account.

Future Councils will do what they do.

I, on the other hand, have been given a two-Pope abomination in which one Pope has the Office, another has the power. The one with the Office is silent and hidden as Pope within the Vatican. The one with the power is active and leading me (specifically) and all the Faithful (generally) into every possible error and sin, ultimately into Apostasy.

So ... in "Aqua time", that presents a practical problem for me. Everyone is faced with the same. That problem is not for another day, another Council. THAT particular problem is for every particular person whose soul faces eternity in heaven or hell.

God demands WE act in accordance with clear, revealed truth in accord with our conscience which is from God, if properly formed. WE must act. We can know. And we can also remain in willful ignorance. The choices are all ours, for which we will be particularly judged. Forever.

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul