MUST-READ - Dr. Mazza Destroys Bp. Schneider's "Arguments": Benedict XVI’s own words prove that his resignation was invalid: a reply to Bishop Schneider

Benedict XVI’s own words prove that his resignation was invalid: a reply to Bishop Schneider

If Benedict thought he could resign the Papacy and at the same time retain the Papacy in the least degree, his intellect was in error concerning the substance of his action

By Dr. Edmund Mazza

(LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Schneider opens his essay that Francis must be Pope by arguing that human law or Church law must be subordinated to the greater good of the whole Church. He is not incorrect.

But Pope Benedict’s resignation is first of all a matter of Natural Law from which no man may prescind (and whose infraction no amount of subsequent episcopal unanimity may make licit).  A resignation, like a marriage, is not valid in the eyes of Almighty God if it is not freely willed. And it is not freely willed if that person’s intellect has an erroneous understanding of the substance of the act. If Benedict thought he could resign the Papacy and at the same time retain the Papacy in the least degree, his intellect was in error concerning the substance of his action. Can anyone dispute this logic? In which case, his substantial error not only violates Canons 126 and 188 of the 1983 Code, but Natural Law itself. In which case, he unalterably remained Pope until his death almost two years ago.

The next argument that His Excellency makes is that Francis must be Pope because:

The universal Church cannot exist for a considerable time without a visible Supreme Shepherd, without the successor of Peter, since the vital activity of the universal Church depends on its visible head, such as, for example, the appointment of diocesan bishops and cardinals, appointments that require the existence of a valid pope. In turn, the spiritual good of the faithful depends on a valid appointment of a bishop, since in the case of an invalid episcopal appointment (due to an invalid pope), priests would lack pastoral jurisdiction (e.g. to hear confessions, to witness marriages).[1]

While true to a degree, the above principles do admit of exceptions and extenuating circumstances. Taking a doctrinaire and exceptionless stance on the Church’s visibility would be at odds with the known facts of history. And as St. Thomas teaches, “Against a fact there is no argument.”

Anacletus II (r. 1130-1138), who today is generally considered an antipope, was elected and accepted by the overwhelming majority of electors and clergy and ruled from the Chair of Peter in Rome for almost eight years. He appointed vacancies (later challenged by Pope Innocent II) throughout his tenure. If God can permit this to go on for eight years back then, he can permit it for twelve years right now.

The Visible Church survived this incident as she later did the Great Western Schism which saw two and then three “popes” over the course of forty years. Episcopal appointees of these antipopes did not destroy the spiritual good of the faithful because they were not invalid, they were ultimately “grandfathered in.” (And unlike Francis who overwhelmingly appoints [homosexual] Modernists who pervert the faithful, these antipope cardinals and bishops actually adhered to the Church’s faith and morals.)

The next argument that Bishop Schneider makes that Francis must be Pope is that “universal peaceful acceptance” of a man as pope heals any illegality in his election:

The spiritual good and eternal salvation of the faithful is the supreme law in the normative system of the Church. For this reason, there is the principle of supplet ecclesia (“the Church supplies”) or of sanatio in radice (“healing at the root”), that is, the Church completes what was against the human positive law, in the case of the sacraments, which demand jurisdictional faculties, e.g. confession, marriage, confirmation, the burdens of the intentions of the Masses.

Guided by this truly pastoral principle, the instinct of the Church has also applied the principle of supplet ecclesia or sanatio in radice in cases of doubts about a renunciation or a pontifical election. Concretely, the sanatio in radice of an invalid pontifical election was expressed in the peaceful and morally universal acceptance of the new Pontiff by the episcopate and the Catholic people, and in the fact that this elected, supposedly invalid, Pontiff was named in the Canon of the Mass by practically the entire Catholic clergy.

It is actually a disputed question whether Francis IS universally peacefully accepted in the sense intended by the theologians. (See https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-there-universal-peaceful-acceptance-of-francis-as-pope/) Furthermore, while this theological opinion may possibly be true in principle, it must be viewed against the facts of history. The principle does not appear to be valid when the real pope is still alive.

In September 1378, the entire college of cardinals universally and peacefully accepted Cardinal Robert of Geneva as “Pope” Clement VII. According to Schneider’s reasoning, any illegality in his election should have been healed in the root by his unanimous acceptance by the college. But down through the centuries he has been viewed as an antipope—the man who started the Great Western Schism.

Universal peaceful acceptance seemingly does not work when the true Pope is still living, as in the case of Urban VI at the time of Clement, or Benedict at the time of Francis.

Elsewhere Bishop Schneider has written: “There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope.”[2]

But, once again, facts are stubborn things. Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Siena (an unlettered laywoman) did exactly that: declared and considered an elected and generally accepted “Pope” Clement VII an antipope and defied the entire college of cardinals when she wrote to them:

…I tell you that you [cardinals] did wrong, with the antipope…he was chosen a member of the devil…you have committed all these faults in regard to this devil…to confess him as Pope, which he surely is not…[3]

Additionally, His Excellency has written that Francis must be Pope because:

…automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy remains only an opinion…even St. Robert Bellarmine…did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium…The perennial papal Magisterium never taught such an opinion.[4]

But as Rev. Damien Dutertre points out, the same is true about universal peaceful acceptance, an opinion upon which Bishop Schneider leans so heavily:

…the…doctrine of universal peaceful acceptance … [proposed by] renowned theologians…has [only] the authority of the theologians…Although these…are approved authors, and…their speculation…permitted and encouraged by the Church, it does not bear the authority of the Church’s magisterium.[5]

Should we continue to countenance the loss of countless souls under a putative antipope because we have made an idol out of universal peaceful acceptance—an opinion which has never been taught by the Magisterium? Indeed, there isn’t even a consensus on what constitutes “universal” acceptance.

Bishop Schneider has written elsewhere that Francis must be Pope because

Even in the case of a heretical pope, he will not lose his office automatically and there is no body within the Church to declare him deposed because of heresy…[6]

But as scholar Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira points out, Schneider’s

opinion–which Saint Robert Bellarmine classifies as ‘exceedingly improbable’–is defended by only one theologian, among the 136 theologians… [over the last thousand years!] whose position on this matter we could verify.” [Only Marie Dominique Bouix (d. 1870).][7]

Another objection that Bishop Schneider raises in his Lifesite article is that we cannot read Ratzinger’s mind. The whole notion of his resignation being invalid due to his erroneous understanding is illusory since

God alone judges intentions whereas canon law merely limits itself in evaluating the outward behavior of the baptized. “A well-known sentence of canon law … affirms that ‘De internis non iudicat praetor’; a judge does not judge interior things”

The answer to this objection is: Yes and No.

Yes, Pope Benedict might have resigned out of pride, for example, or embarrassment, or despair—or because he wanted to spend more time with his cat! These are his personal intentions to which the rest of humanity have no access. But this is not the intention which we are speaking about.

We are not speaking about “the finis cujus gratia opus fit, the end for which one does something, which is extrinsic to it.”  We are speaking about the very

 finis operis, the intrinsic end of the work itself. Personal motivations (the subjective intention) could be very difficult to determine, and are often a combination of many different reasons…[but] for whatever personal reasons, the person wants to do something…[8]

A famous example from history should suffice to explain. In 1896, in the document Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII declared all Anglican orders invalid. What is key for us, is that the Pope attributed this partly due to defect of intentioneven though intention is normally part of the internal forum:

[D]efect of “intention”… is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has…used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does…On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then …not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.[9]

So it is possible to judge Benedict’s objective intention (not his personal motivation) from an examination of the words he used in his Declaratio. True, resignation is not a sacramental act, nevertheless, if Benedict deviated from the traditional expression of resignation (i.e. “if the rite is changed”) and if his words (and actions) contradict what “belongs to the nature” of resignation and/or “the nature” of the Papacy, one can judge it to be invalid. His renunciation was, after all, a legal act:

By legal transaction is ordinarily understood a juridical act…a direct manifestation of intention or will to produce a juridical effect. Hence, the essential requisites of every legal transaction are: (a) will or intention of the subject…(b) their competence (natural or legal)…(c) external manifestation, without which the internal will has no legal force or value…just as if you ate meat on Friday thinking it was a Thursday, you did not sin…you did not intend to…eat meat on Friday, so also, whenever the internal intention does not correspond to the legal transaction posited.

What matters is therefore the objective intention, manifested externally, which is necessarily included in the subjective intention, which is internal…[not] the personal, subjective, intention motivating someone to do something, which would answer the question: … Why do you want to do this thing? It is sufficient to observe that, whatever his personal motives are, the person in fact clearly manifests the intention to do something.[10]

Benedict, in his Declaratio, manifested his intention externally when he explicitly said: “I am well aware that this munus [office], due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering;” he will continue the prayer and suffering, therefore, he will continue participating in the Petrine munus. And Can. 331 specifically states that a pope’s power comes from making the munus his own: “The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the munus given by the Lord uniquely to Peter…and to be transmitted to his successors…By virtue of his munus, he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power…”

Benedict never renounced the munus and so it appears he implicitly attempted to share it with the new Bishop of Rome. This amounts to a bifurcation of the papacy, which is not canonically or metaphysically possible.[11]

READ: Is Francis really the pope? The debate

In conclusion, it is long past time for the cardinals and bishops of the Church to do something about the unprecedented situation in the Church today: a putative pontiff not teaching Catholic doctrine but rather spreading heresy and fully cooperating with Marxists and Masons for the destruction of the Faith.

Sister Lucy of Fatima said that unless a valid pope and bishops consecrate Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, every country in the world will be taken over by communism.

Our Lady of Akita said that, unless mankind repents, “fire will fall from the sky…the living will envy the dead.”

If World War III breaks out—and it can happen any day now—because no (valid) pope ever consecrated Russia with all the (genuine) bishops in time, it will be precisely because the “princes” of the Church failed to act when they could have.

St. Catherine’s words to the cardinals of her day will then certainly apply to them:

Flowers you who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek! No lights you placed in a candlestick, that you might spread the faith; but, having hidden your light under the bushel of pride, and become not extenders, but contaminators of the faith, you shed darkness over yourselves and others. You should have been angels on earth, placed to release us from the devils of hell, and performing the office of angels, by bringing back the sheep into the obedience of Holy Church, and you have taken the office of devils. That evil which you have in yourselves you wish to infect us with, withdrawing us from obedience to Christ on earth, and leading us into obedience to antichrist, a member of the devil, as you are too, so long as you shall abide in this heresy.[12]

O Mary conceived without original Sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee!

Dr. Mazza is the author of The Third Secret of Fatima and the Synodal Church and is delivering online lectures, which you can watch live or download here, about conclaves and antipopes.

Footnotes

[1] https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/exclusive-bishop-schneider-explains-why-he-believes-francis-must-be-the-pope/?utm_source=featured-news&utm_campaign=usa

[2] https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/

[3] St. Catherine of Siena, Letter to Italian Cardinals, 1378. https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Medieval-EN/XCT.053.html;chunk.id=00000117

https://archive.org/details/saintcatherineof0000vida/page/280/mode/2up

[4] https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/

[5] Rev. Damien Dutertre, “ANSWERS TO THE OBJECTIONS BASED ON THE UNIVERSAL PEACEFUL ACCEPTANCE,” October 2022, mostholytrinityseminary.org

[6] https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/

[7] Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, THE THEOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS OF A HERETIC POPE, 1975.

[8] Rev. Damien Dutertre, “On the Lack of Intention to Accept the Papacy;” https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/Lack_of_Intention_Dutertre_2022.pdf

[9] Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896, 33.

[10] Pio Ciprotti, article “Act, Juridical,” in the Dictionary of Moral Theology, Roberti and Palazzini, (Westminster MD, 1962); As cited in Dutertre, “On the Lack of Intention.”

[11] Paul Kramer, To Deceive the Elect, “A partial act of renunciation is null and void due to defect of intention, ‘To the Pontiff, as one (person) and alone, it was given to be the head;’” Domenico Gravina, OP, 1610.

[12] St. Catherine of Siena, Letter to Italian Cardinals, 1378. https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Medieval-EN/XCT.053.html;chunk.id=00000117

https://archive.org/details/saintcatherineof0000vida/page/280/mode/2up