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