Skip to main content

Flashback: Might Edward Feser be using "Circular Logic" in saying "there can be no reasonable doubt that Benedict Validly Resigned"?

It is also a non-starter even apart from all that, because there can be no reasonable doubt that Benedict validly resigned.  Canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law tells us:

If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Now, Benedict publicly and freely resigned his office, and has publicly reaffirmed that his decision was taken freely, in answer to those who have speculated otherwise.  He has also explicitly acknowledged that there is only one pope and that it is Francis.  His resignation thus clearly meets the criteria for validity set out by canon law.  End of story.

Some have suggested that the resignation cannot have been made freely because, they say, it was done under the influence of an erroneous theory of the papacy, namely the one described by Gänswein.  But this is a non sequitur, as any Catholic should know who is familiar with the conditions for a sin to be mortal – grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent.  My point isn’t that Benedict’s resignation was sinful, but rather that these conditions illustrate the general point that the Church distinguishes acting with full knowledge and acting with deliberate consent or freely.  And canon law makes only the latter, and not the former, a condition for the validity of a papal resignation.  Hence, even if Benedict’s resignation was made under the influence of an erroneous theological theory about the papacy, that would be irrelevant to its having been made freely and thus validly. - Dr. Edward Feser [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/04/benevacantism-is-scandalous-and.html]

Aqua said…
Michael O’Hearn:

Canon 332.2: “Canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law provides that: “[i]f it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.”
Aqua. Laws only regulate human activities. If God accepts the resignation, therefore it must be so. This ultimately determines the answer to the question. The argument with respect to canon law has disappeared unfortunately. Someone obviously more interested in division than in getting to the truth.
Aqua said…
Michael O’Hearn: Sorry, that is no argument at all. It is called circular logic, which is a fallacy.

He resigned because God accepted his resignation. How do we know God accepted His resignation? Because he resigned.

You have not answered the Canonical question - which is very, very simple - it required one sentence and equivalent action: “I resign the Munus. I am no longer Pope but Father Ratzinger. Good bye”.

But that didn’t happen, did it?
- The Catholic Monitor

The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua and an Edward Feser-like "Francis is infallibly definitely the pope" guy named Michael O'Hearn fought a couple of rounds in the CM comment section with O'Hearn apparently using logic similar to Feser as quoted above. You decide who won the fight:

My argument is that the 1983 changes in canon law did not in any way alter the requirements for a valid papal resignation.

Dr. Mazza’s explanation of Benedict’s conception of the papal office as forever gift conferred by God is accurate. This also explains why Benedict did not refer to munus in his declaratio of February 2013.

Benedict’s explanation a la nouveau theologie seems to be that the later distinction incorporating a separate concept of potestas iurisdictionis was in fact a medieval accretion imposed by the exigencies inherent in the feudal system set up in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, and not without a secular purpose.

One can look at the papal prerogatives in either sense without necessitating the nullification of the resignation.
Fred Martinez said…


On Nov 18, 2021, Michael O'Hearn said: Father Kramer asserts [The Case Against Bergoglio, digital version page 479]: ““The incontestable fact that Pope Benedict XVI has maintained some claim on his papal munus proves absolutely, that he remains in full possession of the primacy as a result of the conditionality of his renunciation of the munus.

Michael O'Hearn commented on "Flashback: "Saruman" Taylor Marshall's False Dichotomies on Francis"
Nov 18, 2021
Father Kramer asserts [The Case Against Bergoglio, digital version page 479]: ““The incontestable fact that Pope Benedict XVI has maintained some claim on his papal munus proves absolutely, that he remains in full possession of the primacy as a result of the conditionality of his renunciation of the munus. The reason for this is that the nature of the papacy is such, that the actual holder of the office possesses the primacy in virtue of the Petrine munus which he possesses in its absolute and indivisible fullness, so that a pope who would attempt to renounce the papal office by an act that lacks a total and unconditional renunciation of the munus, by the very act of his stipulating a qualifying condition of the renunciation, whereby the intention is asserted in the act, to retain anything whatsoever of the munus he received from Christ upon his election, albeit only “spiritual” and not jurisdictional, nullifies the act in virtue of the fatal equivocation brought about by the logical opposition of contradictory assertions made in the act.” Excerpt From On the true and false pope Paul Kramer https://books.apple.com/us/book/on-the-true-and-false-pope/id1595649148 This material may be protected by copyright.
Someone in Italy alleges or good authority that there will be mourning in Rome after the Pope returns. This may the beginning of penance to correct the moral and theological errors of this papacy.

I contend that God does accept Benedict’s resignation and so reject the sedevacantist conclusions reached by some.
Aqua said…
Michael O’Hearn said “ My argument is that the 1983 changes in canon law did not in any way alter the requirements for a valid papal resignation”.

You didn’t make an argument. You made a declaration. What is the argument?
Aqua said…
Michael O’Hearn:

Canon 332.2: “Canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law provides that: “[i]f it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.”
Aqua. Laws only regulate human activities. If God accepts the resignation, therefore it must be so. This ultimately determines the answer to the question. The argument with respect to canon law has disappeared unfortunately. Someone obviously more interested in division than in getting to the truth.
Aqua said…
Michael O’Hearn: Sorry, that is no argument at all. It is called circular logic, which is a fallacy.

He resigned because God accepted his resignation. How do we know God accepted His resignation? Because he resigned.

You have not answered the Canonical question - which is very, very simple - it required one sentence and equivalent action: “I resign the Munus. I am no longer Pope but Father Ratzinger. Good bye”.

But that didn’t happen, did it?
Unknown said…
Info alert! It seems wikileaks is providing us all its files, publicly and for free:

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/?fbclid=IwAR2U_Evqah_Qy2wxNY12FMqFC5dAFUcZL5Kl4FIfQuMFMp8ssbM46oHXWMI

I reiterate that my explanation based on Canon Law was either intentionally or accidentally deleted. As I now recall, it was after my reading of a summary of professor Violi who explains unequivocally why Benedict’s resignation was valid notwithstanding his choice of words. That information provided by a canon law scholar in Italy ends the argument. My motivation btw was never to champion the Francis papacy, but to arrive at an honest, truthful understanding. I have no intention of repeating an argument that was already clearly set forth in this forum.
Fred Martinez said…
Thanks Michael. Please post links and more info.

Pray an Our Father now in reparation for the sins of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

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)

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.

Election Notes:  

- 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

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
 
A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
 
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
 
Pray an Our Father now for America.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary in saying "there can be no reasonable doubt that Benedict Validly Resigned"?

Comments

Michael O'Hearn said…
Hope this is the right URL:
https://silo.tips/download/the-resignation-of-benedict-xvi-between-history-law-and-conscience
Please reflect on the title. What interests me from a legal perspective is how the doctrine of papal resignation develops over time. The early ecclesiology seems to have held that once elected, a pontiff cannot resign or be deposed except in cases of apostasy, but few and far between. This helps to gain proper understanding of what Pope Benedict may have meant by the “munus” as a forever character and gift received at acceptance of the responsibilities of office. In this sense which I believe Benedict had in mind, and perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, all of the subsequent papal resignations did not entail giving up this gift simply because the gift is irrevocable. Benedict took it a step further by stating explicitly the not so obvious fact that he still retains this “munus” (gift) even after his resignation of the ministerium, and so chooses not by necessity to exemplify some of the “nonessential” outward signs of his former ministry. To argue that his words were somehow inadequate would in effect be saying that all papal resignations prior to that point were invalid, because in every case the resigning or deposed individual still endowed with the same irrevocable “munus” (gift), i.e. Benedict knew that he could never voluntarily give this up even if he wanted to, which of course he didn’t. In this regard Ann Barnhardt is wrong in saying that Benedict was in substantial error. It is rather she, not Benedict, who is in substantial error.

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

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

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t