“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture are the perverse opinions of those who distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church”

Many thanks to Miss B. for publishing this essay a few days ago at barnhardt.biz.  I am re-presenting it here for the sake of opening the combox. Enjoy!

——————————————————–

Note well the two-pronged attack on error, via proper Authority and Jurisdiction, woven throughout this quote:

“We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.

“For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, “You shall be called Cephas” (John 1:42), that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, addressed these solemn words: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” (Mt 16:16-19).

“And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His Resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold, by the words: “Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17).

“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.

If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.
Pope Pius IX, PASTOR AETERNUS, 18 July 1870

What can we learn from this?

-Pio Nono was never vague or squishy

-The form of government of the Church, and the primacy of juridical and jurisdictional authority of the Church, was dictated by Christ Himself

-Since it was established by God Himself, it is immutable; not to be messed with in any way, no matter what the majority of 1960s German theologians thought HERE

-The Papacy was then, is now, and ever shall be until the consummation of the world, a Divinely Instituted Monarchy with full and universal power

-The transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors (not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church to Peter… if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)

-Yes, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a new pontiff, provided that the See is vacant (ahem, canon 359). But even if the See is indeed vacant and they validly elect a new pontiff, the papacy is bestowed upon the new pope directly by Christ Himself, not by the Cardinals, and not by the Church.

Let’s assume for a moment for the sake of argument that the 2013 “conclave and election” were valid, in the sense that Benedict’s failed partial abdication was not at issue. Let’s say the Cardinal electors followed all the rules, and voted legitimately. But the man they elected is an arch-heretic Marxist masonic non-Catholic, avowed enemy of the faith, who operates only in the material, non-supernatural realm of politics, economics, sociology, and ecology, extolling mankind to strive towards an earthly utopia as the ultimate good.

If that were to happen, is Christ really bound to confer the crown? While we have had awful, immoral, degenerate popes in the past, we have never, ever had a man like this one-world government, one-world religion poseur, squatting on the Chair of St. Peter. Never.

Think about this.

Now if the election/conclave were invalid, or in fact was not merely invalid, due to some procedural violations of UDG 81/82, but did not even take place, what would that mean? Would Christ transfer the keys to a man who was faux-elected in a faux-conclave that didn’t really take place? We are talking about ontological reality, not appearances. Sometimes appearances have nothing to do with reality, because as we learned, “An act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation” HERE.

So if someone were to tell you that “the Church” has the power to grant or deny the papal office out of some majority opinion, or even super-majority opinion, or even “Universal Acceptance,” they would go against settled doctrine, and it would mean any pope could be deposed by mob rule.

If then they say that the super-majority (it’s certainly not “universal acceptance”) didn’t directly CAUSE the “resignation” to be valid nor CAUSE the subsequent “election” to be valid, but rather they invert the premise and say that the visible existence of the super-majority, while not causal, is in fact the PROOF SET of God accepting and acting, well then they would be claiming that the will of men forces the hand of God. God has NO CHOICE, and must act in accord with mob rule. Either this, or else they would have to claim that no no no, God accepts and acts on his own, of course, but then imposes His decision onto the minds of the super-majority, overriding their individual free will, and thus forcing the result of Universal Acceptance, in some sort of divine brainwashing.

These are circular arguments within circular arguments.

Note well, canon 332.2 is not a general norm, nor some kind of obscure/arcane law, but rather deals precisely with the occasion of a pope choosing to resign, and the required conditions for the validly of the resignation.

The majority of the Catholic world is operating as if this canon does not exist or does not matter:

Can. 332§2. 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.

This tells us that:

-A papal abdication depends upon the free and proper manifestation of the resignation itself.

-The Cardinals have no authority to “accept” said resignation – their acceptance or rejection of the resignation has zero bearing the on the ontological reality of its validity; rather, its validity depends on it being freely and properly manifested. Christ is the arbiter, and Christ has bound Himself to the Law specifically to preclude the possibility of an “unknowable chaos” and guarantee the visibility of the Church, including at its earthly head.

We also have canon 188 fully in play in this matter, as there is a mountain of evidence that Benedict intended to create, and today believes he is participating in, an “Expanded Petrine Ministry,” which would be a most colossal “substantial error:”

Can. 188. A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

So again, if someone claims that “universal acceptance” of the election by the Cardinals, or even by the whole Church, guarantees both the acceptance of the election AND the acceptance of the antecedent resignation, remind them of a couple things:

-Whatever his reasons, Pope Benedict did not resign the Munus in his Latin Declaratio

-Pope Benedict (in his mind) created, defined, and executed his future role, which should have been at the sole discretion of the new Supreme Pontiff, had one actually been elected

-“Pope Emeritus” is not a real thing, is not provided for anywhere in canon law, and is an impossibility: When a bishop retires his office and becomes an ‘emeritus’ per can. 402.1, he becomes bishop emeritus of his diocese precisely because he remains a bishop but without the office… one cannot “remain pope” without the office

Benedict demonstrates his continued pontifical duties in various ways, including writing books and granting interviews, refusing to live in seclusion, imparting “MY Apostolic Blessing”, addressed as His Holiness, continuing to sign correspondence “HHPBXVI,” wearing the papal garb (because ahem “no other clothes were available”), prevented the fisherman’s ring from being destroyed, newly minted Cardinals are brought before him for his blessing…

-Benedict testified numerous times about his belief in the indelible nature of accepting the papacy, once pope always pope, that he is not fleeing but remaining “in a new way” in the enclosure of St. Peter, to fulfill the “essential spiritual nature” of the papacy as its contemplative participant, while delegating the governance aspect to the active participant

-All of the above point to an invalid non-resignation of the Munus per can. 332.2, and by “substantial error” per can. 188, and subsequently a “conclave” and “election” in March of 2013 that never happened. This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s not crazy, it’s not schismatic. It’s the truth.

I don’t have a degree in canon law, nor any advanced degrees of any kind. I have a diploma from a public high school and a B.S. in Food Marketing (from a Jesuit institution, no less… AMDG, y’all). But I can tell you this: Words have meaning; in the law, and in actions. That words are to be taken at face value, both in the law and in specific acts, is actually part of canon law (more to come on this). Everything presented here is done so according to the plain meaning of words, and you don’t need to be a genius to decipher it. Otherwise, it would be Gnosticism.

I’ll leave you with this little bit from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Church’s ultimate trial

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.
676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

75 thoughts on ““At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture are the perverse opinions of those who distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church”

  1. The “Pope” who will not let Catholics kiss his Piscatory ring, kisses the Piscatory ring of the Pope.

    Whatever one thinks of *that*, I find it incomprehensible any orthodox Catholic can see this picture of two Popes in the Vatican, deference of one to another, and say the one validly abdicated and left his Office as required, the other reigns solely and supreme.

    I truly cannot fathom how anyone see a picture like this and say that is normal, in accord with Sacred Tradition, Dogma and the will of Christ.

  2. That picture is a stained glass window for “ignorant boomers” (per Steve Skojec) such as myself.

    This essay is so very good and precise, I doubt any will challenge it. But would love to see ABS, SS, SO’R, Dr. TM try.

  3. prevented the fisherman’s ring from being destroyed

    Like with the lack of clothes, it could have been an innocent oversight. Nothing to read into that.

    Official Papal Ring Destroyer “Your Holiness, I am here to collect your Papal ring for its ritual destruction”

    Pope Benedict “Oh, yes, yes, of course. Hmm . . . now where did I put that ring? . . Just give me a second here. . . Hmm… it;s not there . . . not here either . . . Sorry, I can’t seem to find it, I’ll get back to you when it turns up.”

    I am certain that’s what happened.

  4. ‘B&B16’ duo
    The confusion that can be seen in the Roman Catholic church is not a crisis but an epochal breakthrough.
    The last papal decision of Joseph Raztinger’s led to the transformation of the Saint Peter’s Office into a synodal two-headed hybrid. Actually he dissolved – by virtue of power given to him [Mat 16, 19] by Jesus Christ – the same office on Feb. 28, 2013 at 8 p.m. (CET), so no he may already be a Roman Pontiff neither himself nor anyone else. This decision is irrevocable.
    The dissolution of the papacy does not mean that the gates of hell have overcome the Church [Mat 16, 18]. The Church will be reborn with the power of God as it was when the Mosaic religion degenerated into the form of the synagogue of Satan and Jesus Christ appeared to breathe new life into the Church of God and raise it to a higher level thrugh the Holy Sacraments.
    By the act of Feb. 11, 2013, Benedict16 released the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. These Keys are the Apocalyptic Woman and the Paraclete; only now the Church will shine on the whole earth with full splendor.

    The end of the papacy in Rome is precisely described in the Prophecy of Saint Malachi (+ 1148), the archbishop of Armagh:

    ‘Gloria Olivae’ – Benedict XVI; the glory/finial of the Roman Catholic church are two olive trees [Rev. 11, 4], which will blossom only now at the end of times – the Paraclete and the Woman of the Revelation.

    ‘In persecutione extrema S.R.E. Sedebit’ – ‘S.R.E [Sancta Romana Ecclesia] is in a period of extreme persecution’ – this is the phenomenon of Jorge Bergoglio, the destroyer of the Roman Catholic church (especially of the College of Cardinals, the very top of the Church hierarchy). Bergoglio, aside from the B16’s dissolution of the papacy, as an apostate, could not be the vicar of Jesus Christ, and therefore Saint Malachi does not name his name among the Pontifex but only characterizes the effects of his actions.

    ‘Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur & Iudex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis’. (“Peter the Roman will feed his flock in the midst of many persecutions, and when it ceases, the city of seven hills will be torn down and a terrible judge will judge his people”.)
    Saint Peter the Apostle was not a Roman (citizen of Rome). Peter the Roman is a Son of the Roman Catholic church (means a Roman) and is identical to the terrible Judge, the same as the Paraclete.
    The papacy in Rome was abolished definitively and irrevocably. What now? The fulfillment of this request addressed to God the Father for nearly 2,000 years: ‘Come Thy Kingdom, thy will be done, as in heaven so also on earth.’ The Kingdom of God on earth, finally!

  5. I have continually hammered O’Reilly with the obvious reality that BXVI IS actively executing the ministries of the Petrine Office, and he avoided addressing that reality like the plague – until – one of his lackeys threw against the proverbial wall of BS the thin excuse that:

    “Well, BXVI isn’t performing ALL of the duties – so see? He’s not really performing any papal ministries!”

    So naturally O’Reilly quickly adopted that baseless reasoning (because – he’s really well educated and he’s written BOOKS which makes him a living ORACLE and everything!) to which I asked him to cite WHERE and by WHAT definition the duties of Papal ministries are an all-or-nothing proposition.

    He went silent again.

    I ALSO addressed the Skojec/O’Reilly rationale (I’m not sure which of those twin echoing bookends came up with this ridiculous BS first) that the nonsensical made-up pope “Emeritus” retirement paradigm was an acceptable novelty because:

    “Popes are now living longer and so see – they’re not capable of fully executing the functions of their Papal Office. You know, like Bishops who are allowed to retire to Emeritus status as well.”

    To which I countered by pointing out THAT – unlike the ecclesiastical office of a Bishop – the Petrine Office is supposed to be *Divinely Protected* – so to that “Supernatural” and ultimate end (which is the ENTIRE POINT of the Chair of Peter – yes?) why in the world should this novelty of earthly concerns, and frankly a blatant display of a *LACK* of faith in the Providence of the Petrine Office itself, be used to justify a complete rupture with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

    And the response? *crickets chirping*

    I find it remarkable when these self-appointed know-it-alls who never run out of excuses, suddenly go silent when confronted with direct and simple counterpoints to their shooting-from-the-hip style of made-up BS.

    All of this reveals that their only possible motive here is NOT the pursuit of Truth itself – but rather – petty personal pride and its insatiable ego of the self-important elitist class.

    And THAT my friends, was always the fatal weakness of the pharisees.

  6. Mark, et al,,

    Here’s another trying at posting this…

    Thanks for the invite. I’ve read through the article. I am not moved from my position. I don’t see that this particular article breaks any new ground as far as I can see. I think I’ve addressed its arguments in a half dozen or so articles on Roma Locuta Est at various points. Still, I provide some of my thoughts below, as I gather that is why you invited me.

    With regard to BXVI’s resignation, I don’t consider it necessary to involve the argument over the universal acceptance of Francis. Francis, hypothetically, might not be a pope due to violations of UDG or even of Divine Law, but that would not do anything to support the case BXVI is still pope. The two are not necessarily or logically connected.

    There is no canon which requires specific verbiage to give up the See of Peter. There is no script or formula that must be followed. What is specifically mandated is that the decision is free, and duly manifested. The “munus” vs. “ministerium” debate is, I think, a silly one. I believe Whitaker provides “office” in the list of definitions of BOTH words, and other versed in Latin have made the case they can be interchangeable. I was reading Ut Unum Sunt the other day, and I believe “ministry” was used far more often than “munus” of the Bishop of Rome. But, even setting that aside, BXVI said he was resigning in ‘such a way’ that (1) the See of Peter would be vacant and (2) a new conclave would be necessary.
    Regarding the first point, if the SoP is vacated, there is no occupant having either the ministry or munus of Peter. Second, BXVI said there would must be a new conclave–again, reinforcing the obvious, that the SoP would be vacant and the election of a *new* pope, not a half-pope is required. Thus, it seems impossible to me to parse the resignation and concoct a credible argument he was not intending to fully resign the papacy. It is thus sufficiently clear BXVI intended and meant to resign the See of Peter fully and unequivocally.

    This then raises the issue of the partial abdication, bifurcation or diarchy theory. No evidence has been produced–none–that BXVI as a theologian EVER held such a theory. Ever. To claim the resignation itself is the proof is simply to assume what you want to prove–it is circular reasoning. Yet, the problem doesn’t end there. BXVI looked to the example of Celestine V for his resignation. Celestine V issued a document PRIOR to his abdication teaching such an abdication was indeed licit. It is beyond improbable that BXVI would spring a diarchy theory on the Chuch–at the last moment–and without providing a teaching that substantiated it, or authorized it, or explained it. This is one of the many fatal flaws of the BiP theory. BXVI didn’t provide such a document because he wasn’t intending anything new as far as vacating the SoP. Further, the BiP theory fails to provide a rational, logical explanation as to why BXVI would even prefer a “bifurcated” resignation, when he had the example of a Celestinian resignation before him. In short, the theory makes no sense and explains nothing.

    Further, the appeal to the pope’s last audience and his words such as “always…forever” have far simpler explanations than you allow, and you assume–in the face of these simpler, logical explanations–these mean he wanted to create a truly expanded papacy. When the words can be explained without resort to a convoluted BiP theory, the simpler explanation ought to be favored. I provide a more detailed discussion of this in my first couple articles on the question. I point folks to the article for a more detailed discussion. I believe I covered this either in the first article “Benedict is NOT Pope” or in “Benedict is STILL not Pope”.

    As to Ganswein, the BiP argument is in the difficult position of having to choose which Ganswein you want to believe. That is, you pick and choose what you want to believe of what he said. Whereas, I can reconcile ALL of what Ganswein says and in light of a far simpler explanation of BXVI’s words–without invoking fanciful theories. It is also interesting to note the famous Ganswein speech was at a book launching event for a book about Benedict. Thus, Ganswein used language that was flowery, etc. Ganswein even went so far as to say the author, by his book, now participates in the ‘Petrine munus.’ So…did Ganswein mean that too? Finally, Benedict himself calls the theory “absurd” and he himself has called himself a “former pope”.

    Quite simply, the weight of the evidence is such, I don’t really see that there is an argument. I agree PEB should not have dressed in white, used “emeritus” etc…but these things don’t prove anything other than he made poor prudential judgments. His use of the “apostolic blessing” means nothing, as prelates other than the pope can give them. It is not absolutely exclusive to the pope. So, THAT proves nothing.

    I don’t know how much more needs to be said on the question. I get that we all are concerned over Pope Francis and the errors reigning in our day. What Francis really *is* might indeed be a subject of debate in and of itself in relation to UDG and or Divine Law and or Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, and or whether there are “cracks” of daylight in the doctrine of Universal Acceptance for certain exceptions. However, if the day ever comes when it is ruled by a future pope that Francis was never a valid pope, I am certain it will *not* be because BXVI never really resigned, or was somehow in error in how he did it.

    I wish I could say otherwise, but the evidence is–for me–not even thin….it is non-existent. I think this whole debate a sad waste of effort. The ONLY one benefiting from this debate is FRANCIS. He is laughing at the divided resistance. The resistance to him is weak enough as it is without a group of Catholics going down this rabbit hole. I think it tragic, and this effort weakens our collective witness for the truth.

    Okay…that’s my two cents.

    God bless,

    SO’R

    1. Steven, thanks for your reply. To say that, “he wasn’t intending anything new as far as vacating the SoP,” is demonstrably false, and you know it. Regardless of the validity of any of the other arguments, “Pope Emeritus” was invented by BXVI. Fact. Never been done before. He himself called it a “Novelty”. Fact. So new, so revolutionary, so earth shattering, that +Ganswein equated his decision to God’s decision to carry out the Immaculate Conception! The proof set could not be more astounding, quite honestly. Also it is not okay to just toss the entirety of the +Ganswein speech just because he threw a bone to the book author at the very end. Have you read this: https://nonvenipacem.com/2018/12/09/was-the-immaculate-conception-a-proxy-for-the-expanded-petrine-ministryarchbishop-ganswein-thinks-so/

      1. Mark, thanks for the response. First; the Declaratio is the instrument effecting the resignation. That is was I addressed as not “new”, in that Benedict expressly intended to vacate the SoP and invite a new conclave. That is what is not “new”. My point stands.

        With regard to various surrounding issues, like style of dress, style of address, title, etc., these are matters of prudential judgment that certainly can be questioned as to their appropriateness, etc. but they do not taken separately or together nullify or alter the Declaratio. The SoP was made “vacant.” If something is vacant, it is empty. No occupant having either office or ministry.

        The Ganswein was panegyric in nature, glorifying Benedict. I address in detail before. Regardless, The Declaratio is the governing doc; not a book launch speech.

        And, again, Benedict calls himself a “former pope.”

        Regards,

        Steve

      2. No, Steven, that’s not what you wrote. You wrote that there was nothing “new” in what he did, EVEN THOUGH BXVI HIMSELF called it a novelty. Are you understanding that? Yet you even cited Celestine as the example that BXVI followed!?! That’s beyond absurd.

        Here is the broader context of what you wrote. I’ll let the readership judge:

        “BXVI looked to the example of Celestine V for his resignation. Celestine V issued a document PRIOR to his abdication teaching such an abdication was indeed licit. It is beyond improbable that BXVI would spring a diarchy theory on the Chuch–at the last moment–and without providing a teaching that substantiated it, or authorized it, or explained it. This is one of the many fatal flaws of the BiP theory. BXVI didn’t provide such a document because he wasn’t intending anything new as far as vacating the SoP. Further, the BiP theory fails to provide a rational, logical explanation as to why BXVI would even prefer a “bifurcated” resignation, when he had the example of a Celestinian resignation before him. In short, the theory makes no sense and explains nothing.”

      3. Mark, I quite literally wrote: “BXVI didn’t provide such a document because he wasn’t intending anything new as far as vacating the SoP.” I was speaking here specifically of the act of VACATING the chair of Peter, i.e., he was intending to fully resign as did Celestine V did, not a partial resignation, not a diarchy or what have you. That is what I wrote. That is what I meant.

        As far as the add-ons of “emeritus”, wearing white, I’ve already comments on that. Prudential decisions which were questionable.

        Regards,

        Steve

      4. Steven, Benedict quite literally wrote, “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity. Loving the Church means also having the courage to make difficult, painful decisions, always looking to the good of the Church and not of oneself. Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord…”

        Steven, Benedict’s “full awareness of its novelty” can’t possibly mean that he intended nothing new about his “resignation” and that it’s just like Celestine’s. Come on.

      5. Mark,

        calling his resignation “novel” or a “novelty” does not make his resignation what you allege.

        “Novel” or “novelty” (novita’ in Italian) can denote something new, but it also denotes something “unusual.”

        Here again, I must say your are reading into the statement your preconceptions–and only allowing the meaning that fits your theory. However, any papal resignation after so many hundreds of years–as was Benedict’s–is indeed a “novelty” (novita’).

        You are reading the most extreme meanings into words and sentences, when much simpler, and more mundane meanings are possible, and indeed more probable than what you suggest.

        Please tell me, you at least must admit (at least arguendo) that Benedict could use “novita'” or “novelty” (“unusual”) of a proper resignation–given it had been hundreds of years since the last one? Yes?

        Regard,

        Steve

      6. No, Steven, I don’t. The machine translators render it novelty/innovation. My full blooded Italian mother renders it “newness” in this particular context (she knows nothing about the BiP theory). In the secondary usage of “unusual,” its meaning is more about “strangeness,” rather than a rare occurrence in linear time.

      7. Mark…you must be joking. Until Benedict XVI, there had not been a papal resignation for over 800 years. You do not see how this might be referred to as a ‘novelty’? It really seems your fitting square pegs into round holes to me. Certainly, there is a unusualness, strangeness, out of the ordinary air to the whole thing, even of “newness” when speaking of such a time span. Even if I were to accept the BiP theory…I would never offer this statement as evidence of anything

        Regards,

        Steve

      8. Let’s say a certain thing happened 800 years ago. Then let’s say that exact same thing happened again in 2013. It would mean that the ontology of what took place was of the same nature both times. Nothing “new,” ontologically, at all. The actor in the 2013 instance would likely take great care to mimic the way it was done the last time, as precisely as possible, to be sure that it was done properly and so that no one could point to an anomaly and claim it was invalid.

        That’s not what was done here. Everything about it is “new.”
        Words have matter.
        https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/15/words-matter-in-law-and-in-actions-canon-131-1-and-the-retention-of-office/

      9. Mark, in the span of 800 years, in a 2000 year old Church, a resignation is a true rarity…indeed, it is something of a ‘novelty’ as Benedict said.

        His audience was to regular people…it was not a theological treatise. You are reading way to much into things, like you and AB do in pointing to “Germans” who held X, Y or Z–but without demonstrating Ratzinger even held any of those opinions. You both keep saying…”buy the book”…weeks and weeks, months and months go by…but no evidence is produced in your blogs that demonstrates anything about Ratzinger. Nothing. All innuendo. I have no doubt it is sincere and innocent…but it is innuendo that in the end does not deliver the goods. But, some folks will remember the innuendo and go away things “Ratzinger believed this”…when this is not the case. I’ve bought books to read to understand my opponent’s arguments…but you haven’t demonstrated even a prima facie case the book is relevant in the least, which could have been done by citing it, chapter and verse, specific to Ratzinger. You all haven’t.

        It is hard to take BiP seriously if proponents of BiP don’t even police their own arguments and at least admit such things, such as “yeah, you’re right, Benedict’s use of ‘novelty’ could very well be ‘innocent’, i.e., not referring to a diarchy or whatever, just simply to the novelty of there not being a resignation in 800 plus years–I guess he could have meant ‘novelty’ in that sense too.” But, you don’t.

        But….you guys don’t do that. If “you” do…I haven’t seen it. The problem to me is, if you guys dig your heals in on such things as “novelty” and the “German” thing, it tends to undermine credibility of an argument over all, one which already suffers.

        Just my two cents.

        Regards,

        Steve

      10. Context is important. In the very next paragraph after using the words “grave” (gravity) and “novelty” to describe his act, he launches into the *Let me go back to my irrevocable acceptance of the Petrine Office in 2005 and then describe all the ways in which this decision is different and new*… so yeah, novelty could mean unusual, and you wouldn’t be wrong, but it certainly means new too. He flat out says: ma resto in modo NUOVO presso il Signore Crocifisso. Q.E.D.

    2. @ Steven O’Reilly: The evidence is not only massive, it is overwhelming. It boggles my mind, to read your contribution, how you can see the same things as me and arrive at the conclusions you do.

      So now, they change the Catechism on the death penalty … (the gathered USCCB Bishops erupt in applause) … after already changing the Sacramental prohibition on sodomites in union with Holy God.

      It seems to me you are having it both ways. You accept Bergoglio as your Holy Father, yet you won’t follow where he leads. Sodomites in communion is a big deal to Bergoglio. You don’t really have the option of ignoring that, this and everything else he does.

      The intellectual gymnastics required, in your opinion above, to deny what is so abundantly clear is an amazing read.

      1. @ Steven O’Reilly

        It struck me, reading your response here, and your other at Roma Locuta Est, what this reminds me of.

        A book, Prayers for the Assassin, was about the former United States taken over by Islam, now the Islamic States Of America – except for the Bible Belt resistance.

        The premise for the revolution was *not* an armed Islamic invasion. The premise was a revolution as quiet as a mouse. A collective shoulder shrug. The Islamists take over and impose Shariah. America’s response? “Whatever”. “The trains still run. My paycheck still arrives. My TV show is still on. What’s changed?” They don’t care. They don’t see it in the external. The heart of their nation is gone, but they don’t see that, it doesn’t affect them currently, personally and so they don’t care.

        A synodal Papacy? “I don’t care.”

      2. Aqua, thanks for the comments.

        Clearly, we see the evidence in different ways; but I am obliged to evaluate it honestly and the best I can, with the light God gives me to see it. My examination of the evidence leads me to my honest conclusions I have expressed.

        Now, there are grave difficulties with the Francis pontificate. I have not withheld my opinions on that score. At this point; I don’t believe it can be said he is an anti-pope. I believe I’ve said here and elsewhere, I don’t exclude the possibility he may one day be found to be one by competent authority.

        But; even if—hypothetically—we were to say at this point PF is an anti-pope, I am convinced this would have nothing to do with Benedict’s resignation. BiP is a theory that is a bad one. It is attractive on its face; but bad theories lead to bad consequences.

        It is regrettable so many Catholics except it. I think it harmful to them, and harmful to the collective witness of the truth.

        Regards.

        Steve

    3. The FiP position cannot answer the lack of negative protection guaranteed by the Petrine Promise. I see nothing in your response to address this.

      The FiP position has led Jonathan Byrd and Robert Spencer to the Orthodox Church, which really is sedevacantism.

      The FiP position destroys the papacy.

      The BiP position protects the Petrine Promise and fits nicely with our Lord’s question: will He find faith when He returns?

      1. Kono,

        The BiP theory may explain things, but it is a theory without real evidence. One needs a good theory—-BiP isn’t it.

        Reagarding FiP. The gentlemen you mention can speak to their own situation.

        I believe in the Petrine promises, 100%.

        Regards,

        SO’R

    4. Steven O’Reilly says:
      June 14, 2019 at 6:49 am
      “BXVI looked to the example of Celestine V for his resignation. Celestine V issued a document PRIOR to his abdication teaching such an abdication was indeed licit. It is beyond improbable that BXVI would spring a diarchy theory on the Chuch–at the last moment–and without providing a teaching that substantiated it, or authorized it, or explained it. This is one of the many fatal flaws of the BiP theory. BXVI didn’t provide such a document because he wasn’t intending anything new as far as vacating the SoP. Further, the BiP theory fails to provide a rational, logical explanation as to why BXVI would even prefer a “bifurcated” resignation, when he had the example of a Celestinian resignation before him. In short, the theory makes no sense and explains nothing.”

      I already challenged you on this self-defeating assertion on the Catholic Monitor blog – and you had NO rebuttal then – nor do you have one now. And yet – here you are again repeating it again as if it is sustainable:

      To wit: IF Benedict was following Celestine’s example – then WHY did BXVI do the exact OPPOSITE of Celestine?

      Celestine:

      – did NOT choose to reside in Vatican City

      – did NOT keep his papal name. He only referred to himself thereafter by his birth name of Pietro Angelerio

      – did NOT continue to wear his papal ring

      – did NOT continue to wear the papal garments reserved exclusively for the one and only Holy Father

      – did NOT give Papal blessings. And yes these ARE exclusive to the Pope when HE gives an apostolic blessing. Because He’s the Pope. He calls himself by his papal name, wears a papal ring, wears papal clothing and issues papal writings.

      – did NOT sit with Pope Boniface and meet and greet ,and bless new Cardinals and give them his papal prayers.

      – did NOT issue papal writings

      So how on earth – by what pretzel logic of twisted “reality” – can you even begin to claim that Benedict looked to the example of Celestine – when BXVI did the complete and antithetical OPPOSITE of Celestine’s ACTIONS?

      Your entire thesis is built upon the questionable and shifting sands of Benedict’s words (or supposed words) while mandating that everyone should simply ignore their own lying eyes.

      But Our Lord told us to BELIEVE our eyes and to discount contradictory words:

      “By their fruits, you WILL know them”

      1. LG,

        Thanks for the comments. I had no “rebuttal”? Please do not assume people are running from your combox questions. I typically do not prowl the combox’s of other blogs. I think I saw a link appear on my stats page, and I went to see what was being said of Roma Locuta Est. I believe I left a comment or two. I never run away. Now, like I said, I don’t inhabit other folks comboxes. On Roma Locuta Est, I am generally pretty responsive to comments on my site. There is a healthy dose of BiP contributors in the comment sections. So, if you have a bone to pick with me…come to me directly, rather than declaring victory somewhere I am unlikely to see such a claim. I am pretty responsive with email, and as I said, the combox (within reason). Bring the evidence. Leave the attitude.

        As to your question above, the reference to having the example of Celestine V before him is with respect to the resigning of the papacy. It is clear BXVI had been thinking of it for at least a couple or so years prior. That is what I am speaking of primarily,

        With respect to a “diarchy”, the point is, why would BXVI resign in a “diarchal” manner when he had the straight forward example of Celestine V before him. The BiP theory has no explanation as to why BXVI (1) would have chosen some unheard of sort of split resignation and (2) why would BXVI not, as Celestine did, pre-announce and authorize such a thing with his full papal authority?

        That is gaping hole which the BiP theory cannot explain. Why not? Because there is no explanation because it would makes no sense at all. It has been alleged the German theologians held this or that papal, at this time or that…but not one document has been produced suggesting Ratzinger EVER held such an opinion himself. The suggestion he was part of a “current” is crass innuendo, I think, and it unfairly represents him…and indeed misrepresents him as it creates a foggy impression where NONE should exist on the question.

        Now, as to new stuff Benedict did afterwards, such as “emeritus”, continue in white, etc. these were prudential decisions but do not touch the resignation itself, the instrument of which was the Declaratio. I have my theory as to why he did it…which is not to say I agree with him. I don’t. But, a resigned pope might call himself “Star Lord”…it would make him that. He might where a cowboy hat, but it won’t make him a cowboy.

        As to your list of actions, these are not things that make a pope a pope. A fully resigned pope can do them too. As to “papal writings”…what “papal writings”? BXVI has issued no Encyclicals, Papal Bulls, etc. What are you talking about? As to the “apostolic blessing”…you are simply wrong. Look up “apostolic blessing” on Wikipedia. Others beside the pope can give an “apostolic blessing.”

        My “thesis” is not based on shifting sands. I would love to be able to say “Francis is NOT pope” and it gives me no pleasure to say that he is. But, I am constrained by reason, common sense and the facts. Perhaps these, for you, have led to conclude what you do. But, for me, it is clear the case is “absurd” (in the words of PEB).

        It is odd you would allege me of “pretzel logic”, since the BiP theorist must intepret various speakers in various ways to make the theory operable. For example, the BiP theorist must interpret Ganswein to be speaking of a diarchy in one place, yet they must reject Ganswein when he effectively denies this was his intent and meaning. Or, when Benedict says the theory is “absurd” or that he himself is a “former pope”, his words are essentially dismissed. I am afraid what you allege of me, I most certainly see in the BiP theory in spades.

        As I see it…and I may have said this already, but the BiP theory strikes me as what I call an “Argumentum ad Rube Goldberg.” It is an overly elaborate, but flimsy and contrived series of selectively chosen facts, quote mining, half-truths, excluded facts, and misrepresentations, stuck together like so many square pegs in round holes, and all held together by duct tape.

        Regards,

        Steve

      2. “That is gaping hole which the BiP theory cannot explain. Why not? Because there is no explanation because it would makes no sense at all.”

        Wrong. There is explanation.
        Beside, lack of explanation does not automatically render BiP theory false.

      3. “That is gaping hole which the BiP theory cannot explain. Why not? Because there is no explanation because it would makes no sense at all.”

        Wrong. There is explanation.
        Beside, lack of explanation does not automatically render BiP theory false.

      4. Steven, your cowboy analogy is flawed.

        If a cowboy retired, then proceeded to put his cowboy hat on and do some cowboy things….what would he be?

      5. Steven, your cowboy analogy is flawed.
        If a cowboy retired, then proceeded to put his cowboy hat on and do some cowboy things….what would he be?

        You are right if we consider cowboy. The thing is that B16 is not a cowboy.
        Being a cowboy is defined by actions, being pope is not.

        What Steven says is that B16 can say that he is ‘Pope Emeritus”, but those words doesn’t make him so. The same way as by saying he is a cowboy, doesn’t make him a cowboy.
        He is right.

        And exactly the same when he says he resigned from papacy. Such declaration doesn’t make it so.

    5. To Steven O’Reilly.

      Steven, thank you for your response. You are the first one, known to me, who tries to argue from non-arbitrarily positions and who actually presents some non-laughable argumentation. I don’t know your blog thus I know only what you said here.

      I do agree with some of your arguments and reject others. There are many approaches to the subject. I don’t intend to argue everything. My particular interest is in validity/invalidity of B16 resignation. I address only this point, counting on your answer.

      You said: “There is no canon which requires specific verbiage to give up the See of Peter.”

      Yes, there is. Canon requires for pope to sate he resigns from Office for resignation to be valid.
      B16 did not fulfill this requirement. Can we agree on that?

      You say that some hold that ‘office’ and ‘ministry’ are interchangeable words. Is this also your position? If so, I can show you that those words are not interchangeable at all, despite of anybody’s opinion. Canon requires word ‘munus’ to be used and this word was not used. (You may argue that it was, as some canonist say, just ‘bad Latin’ – if you do, I answer to that.)

      You said: “BXVI said he was resigning in ‘such a way’ that the See of Peter would be vacant”.

      Well, this is intention. You do not resign by expressing intention but by resigning from the Office.
      Let me use example, maybe little silly, just stay with me.

      Let’s say Mr X wants to paint his room yellow. He likes this color, yellow matches room’s furniture, plays nicely with rest of the house etc. So, he buys paint, brushes, rolls and starts painting. After he opens paint can he sees that he bought green paint instead of yellow. Oh well, he paints anyway.
      Now, what color is the room? Green of course. But he intended to paint it yellow – he said so to his wife, his children and everybody else and nobody questions that. He even was saying he paints yellow while painting – for some reason. Maybe he is color blind? Nevertheless room is painted green despite what he intended. Intentions don’t make reality.
      B16, truly or not, intended to resign but he make mistake and he did not resign after all. Do you see what I see? The room is green.

      I said B16 might not intended to resign properly after all and may intentionally did it the way he did. This is speculation only that in no way affects the color of the room. You said: “partial abdication, bifurcation or diarchy theory. No evidence has been produced–none–that BXVI as a theologian EVER held such a theory”.
      I don’t agree with what you said but also recognize that it doesn’t matter for validity/invalidity of resignation. The same way as Abp Ganswein’s words don’t matter. ‘German’s theologians’, ‘Ganswein’s’, ‘Celestine V’ and other cases may help explain why happened what happened but have no impact on fact of resignation itself. The room is green. B16 did not resign from papacy.

      What do you say?

      1. MC, regarding the canon in question. It does not say the pope must use the word “munus” to be valid, it does say if he resign his office, for it to be valid it must be ‘free’ and ‘properly manifested.’ Thus, need be sufficiently clear what the pope intends to to do. First, ministerium and munus, per Whitaker, have “office” in their list of meanings. Second, BXVI said he was resigning in ‘such a way’ that the See of Peter would be vacant AND a conclave would need to be called. Well, even setting aside the munus vs. ministerium dispute, if Benedict is saying the SoP will be vacated by him, that clearly means there will be no occupant of the Chair of Peter holding either the munus or ministerium. That is sufficiently clear as to his intent. Then for icing, he says a conclave must be called to choose a successor. I don’t see any question about intent, and the implementation of that intent in the Declaratio.

        It is clear that Benedict vacated the SoP. He resigned. If the 2013 Conclave gave us another Pius V or Pius X…none of these people making the BiP argument would be doing so.

        Regards,

        Steve

      2. Steven,
        not bad answer.

        I wont comment on Whitaker’s having meaning ‘munus’ under term ‘ministerium’. There can be many explanations, good explanations for that. I don’t know enough to reason with certainty. I know that in Canon Law term office is used in very strict sense, and can not be mixed with ministry. There is even paragraph for that.

        I give you that 188 does not explicitly requires ‘munus’ and there is possibility to be consider that ‘ministerium’ AND whole description ‘in such a way’ etc. as a valid substitute for ‘munus’. Not sure why one would do that but this is not important. So I agree to set aside the munus vs. ministerium dispute – for now. (Note that this is not agreement from my side.)

        Let’s look at strict conditions from 188: ‘free’ and ‘properly manifested’.
        I agree with your reasoning about ‘free’. There need to be proof that B16’s decision wasn’t of free will. I think that what you said to LG about what it would take to convince you, doesn’t hold but, again, it does not matter. There are only circumstances pointing that resignation might not be act of free will, but there is no proof. So let’s put it aside as well.

        “Properly manifested”. What does that mean? Does it refers to act of resignation alone or to manifestation after resignation? I say it is the second. Act of resignation is governed by separate canon (two witnesses – etc. I don’t remember details).
        So, the question is: did B16’s resignation is properly manifested (like in case of C5 for example). To answer just take a look at picture Mark attached to this blogpost. What is manifested there? I agree with someone who said that such a view can cause nausea – but be patient we are being conditioned as we speak. Soon vew of ‘two popes’ will be natural to everyone…

        Of course there are much more examples of such “manifestation” not only the photo above. Apostolic blessing for example. You mentioned that this action is not limited to pope but wouldn’t it be ‘proper manifestation’, if B16 stop acting like that? Even if he legally can (not sure about that in light of ‘proper manifestation’), to avoid any confusion? I suppose you will bring up B16’s words like “I’m former pope”, but doesn’t B16’s words and actions tell different stories? Is it ‘proper’?

        We can discuss what ‘proper’ means for long time. Instead: would you agree that there was, and is, confusion regarding B16’s resignation? And that this confusion only grows with time? If you agree, can you say then that resignation was ‘properly manifested’?

        If you answer is ‘no, there is no proper manifestation’ then you admit that resignation was invalid.
        If you have any doubts then you have doubts about resignation’s validity.
        If you answer ‘yes, resignation is properly manifested’ then take another look at picture above and realize that you deny reality.

        If the 2013 Conclave gave us another Pius V or Pius X…none of these people making the BiP argument would be doing so.

        Maybe so.
        Maybe if there was no lighting striking St Perers’s we can be told that it was direct God’s will to have BaF and B16 to together change Church ‘forever’. But we don’t have that.
        If we have good pope we wouldn’t have circus like on the pic above. That’s for sure.

      3. I have additional thoughts to share about resignation. For interested I will attach then at the end of combox, for convenience.

        ——————————————————————X8

  7. @ Mark Docherty,

    Could you please comment on Myron’s post above. I find his contribution compelling. I see it as a paradigm shift. What say you? That would be very helpful to me. Thank you!

      1. Myron continually posts his/her own pet theory (DotP – Dissolution of the Papacy) in comboxes everywhere. This goes against BiP in the worst possible way, as this position LIES to us by saying Jesus Christ could ever have given any such power for a pope, at whim, to abolish (to END!) that which has been divinely instituted. Just the same, never for one moment did Benedict XVI’s act of February 11, 2013 lead “to the transformation of Saint Peter’s Office into a synodal two-headed hybrid”. Neither a transformation, and most certainly not the dissolution of the Papacy ever took place. No. Pope Benedict’s role in this epochal shift is not yet fulfilled, and therefore he retains the Keys until his death and not one moment sooner. Period.

        Also, DotP is quite unfortunate to keep spreading, because this can lead those to prematurely believe Benedict XVI is “out of the picture” and thus lack the necessary inspiration to pray for him in his greatest hour of need.

        In my opinion, this scenario is more likely. Notice that the “true Pope” is still very much IN the picture.

        Yves Dupont writing in the book ‘Catholic Prophecy’: “From this prophecy [Premol – 5th Century), it is clear that the true Church will be faithful to the Pope in exile; whereas, the new Pope in Rome will be, in fact, an anti-pope. But, since a number of other prophecies tell us that the true Pope will die in his exile, it follows then that the true Church will be leaderless for some time. Then, it is not difficult to anticipate what the anti-pope and renegade hierarchy and clergy will say: “See, your so-called Pope is dead; and who can give you a new Pope now? Our cardinals have already elected the new Pope, he is here in Rome.” And, indeed, since the true Church will be completely disorganized, and the faithful Cardinals isolated, no new true Pope could be elected, and thus a large number of Catholics will be misled into accepting the leadership of the anti-pope. Such a schism could not happen if the Pope followed A. C. Emmerick’s advice “to stay in Rome”. “But”, she said, “the Pope is still attached to the things of the earth.” And, as is said elsewhere, “He will want to save what he thinks can be saved.” In other words, the true Pope, whoever he is at that time, will use his human judgment and leave Rome, instead of remaining firm in the face of the invaders.

      2. Pope Benedict (…) retains the Keys until his death and not one moment sooner. Period

        or until his valid resignation

      3. @MC – I agree with what you said in another comment: “B16 might not intended to resign properly after all and may intentionally did it the way he did.”
        Benedict has had over 6 years to correct his “error”. Of course he’s not unaware of the ongoing controversy surrounding the validity of his “resignation”, which occurred almost immediately with prominent canonists and theologians writing about this, as Mark previously pointed out in another post. And that Pope Benedict has chosen not to simply correct it (and can now be said to have tacitly accepted that his resignation was canonically invalid https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/pope-benedict-has-tacitly-accepted-that-his-resignation-was-canonically-invalid/), leads me to believe that he is the long-awaited prophesied Pope to flee Rome amidst a Church in utter chaos and crisis.

  8. Steven O’Reilly

    “But; even if—hypothetically—we were to say at this point PF is an anti-pope, I am convinced this would have nothing to do with Benedict’s resignation. BiP is a theory that is a bad one. It is attractive on its face; but bad theories lead to bad consequences.”

    Well if Bergoglio IS an antipope – then by your own thesis of Benedict’s supposedly licit resignation – the Chair of Peter is effectively vacant now. Yes?

    1. LG,

      If Bergoglio is in fact an anti-pope, that would not mean that Benedict is still pope. One does not necessarily follow from the other. My position is NOT “Bergoglio is in fact an anti-pope.” My position is that that conclusion would require both sufficient evidence and a competent authority (i.e., a future pope) to declare it. So, the chair could, theoretically, be empty as we speak…but we do not have the evidence at the moment or the authority to declare it ourselves.

      Regards,

      Steve

      1. Steven O’Reilly says:
        June 14, 2019 at 1:48 pm

        LG,

        “If Bergoglio is in fact an anti-pope, that would not mean that Benedict is still pope. One does not necessarily follow from the other.”

        Yeah I know – THAT is precisely my point.

        “My position is NOT “Bergoglio is in fact an anti-pope.” My position is that that conclusion would require both sufficient evidence and a competent authority (i.e., a future pope) to declare it. So, the chair could, theoretically, be empty as we speak…but we do not have the evidence at the moment or the authority to declare it ourselves.”

        Again – THAT was my point. Thank you for clarifying.

        So your position holds that it is possible the Chair is currently vacant because of the well-planned well-coordinated conspiracy to place the Heretic Bergoglio in Office – yes?

        – However, it is impossible that Benedict’s Novelty Resignation (that ruptured from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) had anything whatsoever to do with that well-planned, well-coordinated conspiracy – even though it was instrumental in launching the entire conspiracy to place Bergoglio on the Chair in the first place.

        Correct?

  9. Steven O’Reilly says:

    With regard to various surrounding issues, like style of dress, style of address, title, etc., these are matters of prudential judgment that certainly can be questioned as to their appropriateness, etc. but they do not taken separately or together nullify or alter the Declaratio. The SoP was made “vacant.” If something is vacant, it is empty. No occupant having either office or ministry.

    LOL this is O’Reilly’s confirmation bias that he uses to critique his own thesis: I see no evidence because there is no evidence. And the evidence you present to me is not evidence because I don’t see it as evidence. Because: questionable “prudential judgment”….. and Declarations….and words.

    Words words words. Words render actions powerless and words are self-sustaining. We must trust the words words words and never our lying eyes eyes eyes.

    I have looked at my thoughts and I have once again concluded that they are correct and free from error. And I checked with myself on that. And I told myself that that is correct.

    Oh and Celestine provided the example for Benedict by showing Benedict to……. do the exact opposite of Celestine?

    Oh but hey, that…… doesn’t matter because….. well words. Just words. Evidence is words – not actions. Not the “fruits” of their actions. But just words.

  10. Steven O’Reilly: How can you look at the picture of “Pope” Francis kissing the Piscatory ring of Pope Benedict XVI, still seated in the very heart of the Church; Benedict who still bestows “his Apostolic Blessing” and say Benedict XVI resigned validly? How? That makes zero sense to me. That renders words and actions meaningless.

    There Benedict XVI is. And there is the veritable fountain of heresy palongside him, kissing the Fisherman’s Ring. Explain that, because I can’t. And I refuse to just say, as so many “orthodox” Catholics do, that it is not relevant (couldn’t find any other clothes in Rome … please!).

    We can have one Pope; one Monarchical Pope. We cannot have two Popes; two (or more) Synodal cooperative Popes. I see two, and I don’t care how many tell me that 1+1 does not = 2. It does. It always will. Except in hell. There 1+1 can = anything we like.

    1. Aqua,

      As I’ve said. I don’t agree with PEB’s title, styling of dress, etc. I understand it is confusing. However, we must distinguish what is going on. He gave up the papacy in the Declaratio. Unfortunately, he kept some of the outward signs–I think, and I may be wrong–to make resignation a more attractive option for future popes. My guess, he say how badly JPII declined, and how weakened the papacy was in those last few years of JPII’s papacy, he wanted to set a ‘positive’ example of how a resignation-life might look in the modern world, e.g., not having to live in a cold cell in a monastery some where, retain some of the comforts, respect, etc.

      I could be wrong…but the bottom line, these outward signs do not make him pope. He could where a cowboy had…that won’t make him one.

      Regards,

      SO’R.

      1. “He wanted to set a positive example of how a resignation-life might look in the modern world, e.g, not living in a cold Monastery cell some where, retain some of the comforts, respect, etc.”

        I don’t know if you realize how terrible that statement is.

        A resignation from being Pope means you abandoned Christ and the Office that it is only *His* to give and His to maintain. A resignation means that for the sake of his soul, the good of the Church, and out of respect for the risen Lord, the “cold Monastery cell” is really the only place for a *former* Pope to spend his remaining days in Penance for his public sin.

        To say there is anything “positive” about a resignation; and that practical comforts and honors are possible there … is to support and defend the position of the Modernists who have successfully infiltrated the Cornerstone and are attempting to turn the Monarchy into a worldly satanic cooperative Synodal functionary.

        Christ gave us a Monarchy and one visible Head. On earth as it is in heaven.

      2. @ Steven O’Reilly

        Mr O’Reilly, since you have firmly entrenched yourself in the non-falsifiable position that ANY evidence presented to you on this matter is simply no evidence at all – because wacky disjointed conspiracy theories of the grassy-knoll type – then you need to clarify a few points of your own unassailable position of self-regulating circular-reasoning:

        – 1 Exactly WHAT sort of evidence would convince you?

        – 2 You’ve already stated in a previous Roma Locuta Est article that you DO BELIEVE a conspiratorial cabal of Geo-political forces involving the Democrats, the American Intel apparatus, numerous criminal power-players among the clerics in the Vatican hierarchy – et-al

        (all constituting some sort of Democrat Party-Vatican Alliance of clandestine power-players motivated by their Masonic/Communist/Atheistic ideology of world domination)

        could have – (nay – more than likely DID) launch a widespread detailed conspiracy to hatch the Hellish anti-papacy of Jorge Bergoglio – YES?

        – 3 So it IS fair to assert that you’re NOT exactly adverse to wide-spread, highly coordinated, painfully detailed, well orchestrated, Trans-Atlantic geo-political cloak-and-dagger plots to foist Jorge Bergoglio to the anti-papacy – YES?

        Do I have that correct so far sir?

      3. LG,

        Convince me of what? That benedict is still pope or that Francis is not pope? Those are two separate questions.

        First, it is your position that seems to think its view is non-falsifiable. This is clearly demonstrated in how innocent expressions are regularly construed in the most conspiratorial way possible; or when PEB himself falsified the theory, calling it “absurd”, or calling himself “former pope”…all these things are either ignored or rejected by BiPers. One can only shake ones head.

        What might it take for me to believe Benedict is still Pope? Benedict was not coerced. No evidence that he acted against his will. But, if it could be shown theoretically, he has somehow been drugged up for the 7 years in a way that allowed other to manipulate his will in such a way he did not have freedom…then there would be a cause. Again, that’s a hypothetical. The grounds for nullification would be lack of freedom.

        As to conspiracies, I think there was coordinated action to get Bergoglio elected. That is admitted in various ways by pro-Bergoglio allies themselves, including McCarrick. It stinks…but I have not seen canonists claim UDG was violated in such a way to nullify the election. There might be more beneath the surface of the ‘conspiracy.’ If more evidence comes out, perhaps the judgment of canonists might change.

        Regards,

        Steve

      4. Mr O’Reilly, given your willingness to accept SOME nefarious conspiracy theories to explain Bergoglio’s illicit hijacking of the Chair of Peter as plausible, it would seem you have only three equally plausible explanations to chose from in order to explain Benedict’s own self-described “novelty” resignation which launched all of this:

        1) Benedict was illicitly FORCED to resign

        2) Benedict was a co-conspirator whose “resignation” was instrumental in launching the Democrat Party/Vatican Mafioso overthrow of the Papacy

        3) Benedict’s novelty resignation was just a perfectly timed coincidence of absolute spiritual happenstance and Divine cosmic fate.

        (To which I would paradoxically apply a quote from Chesterton “… It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.”

        So which is it?

      5. LG,

        I reject #1 as unsupported by any evidence. Re #2, there is no logical connection to say Benedict has to have been a co-conspirator. Not sure as to your point in #3.

        But, I don’t think I have to accept any of the three hypotheticals you present as being the only possible ones. Your choices present a false dilemma. I’ve provided my thoughts on a hypothetical scenario on my blog. That is, I think Benedict was inclined and intent on leaving, and it is certainly possible that others for nefarious reasons fanned and encouraged those inclinations in a non-coercive manner. They wanted him gone so that Bergoglio might be elected.

        I don’t exclude there was a conspiracy that violated UDG. But, at this point, that is speculation…and we can’t act on speculation. I would be curious as to what a body of canonists would say as to what must be demonstrated to absolutely nullify the 2013 election.

        Regards,

        Steve

      6. Steven O’Reilly says:
        June 15, 2019 at 12:19 pm

        LG,

        I reject #1 as unsupported by any evidence. Re #2, there is no logical connection to say Benedict has to have been a co-conspirator. Not sure as to your point in #3.

        LOL what do you mean you’re not sure about my point? How much clearer could I make it?

        “But, I don’t think I have to accept any of the three hypotheticals you present as being the only possible ones. Your choices present a false dilemma. I’ve provided my thoughts on a hypothetical scenario on my blog. That is, I think Benedict was inclined and intent on leaving, and it is certainly possible that others for nefarious reasons fanned and encouraged those inclinations in a non-coercive manner. They wanted him gone so that Bergoglio might be elected.”

        ROFL wut? So – now you’re suggesting that not only was Benedict’s novelty resignation NOT a well-timed coincidence of fate to the well-planned and well-coordinated conspiracy to launch Bergoglio the Heretic to the Chair – BUT- Benedict’s novelty reasons were… encouraged in a non-coercive manner? LOL

        Are you serious here?

        So the nefarious conspirators were merely encouraging the ever-innocent Benedict to dive into the Novelty of his ruptured “resignation” – that was justified by Celestine’s resignation? – EVEN THOUGH – Benedict followed NONE of Clestine’s ACTIONS?

        And you believe all of this because you believe that Benedict was free to honestly explain all of this with his own words – even though he was surrounded by ruthless diabolic conspirators of the Masonic/Communist/Sodomite Cabal – who were just “fanning” his inclinations?

        LOL – are you kidding me here O’Reilly?

      7. Steven O’Reilly says

        “I think Benedict was inclined and intent on leaving, and it is certainly possible that others for nefarious reasons fanned and encouraged those inclinations in a non-coercive manner. They wanted him gone so that Bergoglio might be elected.”

        You love to flog “evidence!” Well the Evidence! has Benedict ON THE RECORD stating THIS little suspicious gem in his 2005 Pontifical Mass:

        “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves”

        When’s the last time you heard a pope say anything like that?

        Does that NOT indicate that COERCION was already pressing upon him?

        Hence “wolves” – as in the proverbial “wolves in sheep’s clothing” that Our Lord warned about – yes?

        Now you cite for me how that meant anything other than the obvious. And then cite for me WHEN that threat ended.

      8. LG,

        You must prove he resigned against his will because of coercion. You have not provided proof but only speculation.

        Resignation does not equal ‘fleeing’ from fear of anything. You are engaged only in speculation. He says ‘that I may not flee for fear’. He said it, but there is no proof he did “flee” and there is no proof he did so out of “fear”.

        You have bupkus.

        regards,

        SO’R

  11. Steven O’Reilly says:

    “But, a resigned pope might call himself “Star Lord”…it would make him that. He might where a cowboy hat, but it won’t make him a cowboy.”

    Good to know – because a resigned pope can also call himself “Emeritus” and it would have as much foundation in reality as calling himself “Star Lord”

    “As to your list of actions, these are not things that make a pope a pope. A fully resigned pope can do them too.”

    Really? Show me that in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Name the retired popes who did these things. Show the evidence of them doing these things.

    “As to “papal writings”…what “papal writings”? BXVI has issued no Encyclicals, Papal Bulls, etc. What are you talking about?”

    Did I imagine the written communications that BXVI has written since his retirement? Did I imgine the *LENGTHY* written essay he released in April? Do writings by popes not count as “writtings” unless they’re Encyclicals or Papal Bulls? Did he sign those writtings with his papal name?

    “As to the “apostolic blessing”…you are simply wrong. Look up “apostolic blessing” on Wikipedia. Others beside the pope can give an “apostolic blessing.”

    I never said apostolic blessings were unique to the Pope – I DID however clearly imply that an apostolic blessing from the pope – is uniquely special because it comes from the Pope.

    “It is odd you would allege me of “pretzel logic”, since the BiP theorist must intepret various speakers in various ways to make the theory operable. For example, the BiP theorist must interpret Ganswein to be speaking of a diarchy in one place, yet they must reject Ganswein when he effectively denies this was his intent and meaning. Or, when Benedict says the theory is “absurd” or that he himself is a “former pope”, his words are essentially dismissed. I am afraid what you allege of me, I most certainly see in the BiP theory in spades.”

    Why would you assume that Ganswein would be consitently telling the truth?

    Why would you beleive that BXVI would ever openly admit that he was radically (nefariously) rupturing the very constructs of the papacy itself from Sacred Traditon with this obvious novelty?

    But as I already stated – your ENTIRE argument is based upon words – even alleged words. And none of it on the contradictory ACTIONS that we all see before us.

    “As I see it…and I may have said this already, but the BiP theory strikes me as what I call an “Argumentum ad Rube Goldberg.” It is an overly elaborate, but flimsy and contrived series of selectively chosen facts, quote mining, half-truths, excluded facts, and misrepresentations, stuck together like so many square pegs in round holes, and all held together by duct tape.”

    Says the same guy who thinks that words can somehow pound the novelty of a made-up nonsensical Papal “Emeritus” status into the objective reality of Sacred Tradition.

    But then – BXVI is also the same guy who introduced the novelty of “the hermeneutic of continuity” which was in fact – a hermeneutic of rupture from all that came before it.

    So yeah, let’s just assume the pope’s words can alter reality itself.

  12. Steven O’Reilly says:

    “But, a resigned pope might call himself “Star Lord”…it would make him that. He might where a cowboy hat, but it won’t make him a cowboy.”

    Wait – I presume that was a typo on your part – right? Or do you really believe that a pope can become a “Star Lord” just by pronouncing it?

    Given your insistence on Benedict’s awesome papal powers to alter reality itself by mere words – I’m not really sure at this point.

    BTW if wearing papal garments doesn’t make Benedict the pope – then WHY does he do it?

  13. A belated note of thanks here, Mr. D., for the above comprehensive & indeed definitive proof of BXVI’s invalid abdication.

  14. “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’. There can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the *active* exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I am not abandoning the Cross, but remaining in a *new way* at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of Office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of St. Peter.”

    “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and its novelty”. (Pope Benedict XVI, Feb 27, 2013 – the day before he left governance of his Church to the imposter).

    And, sure enough, he remains, “so to speak”, as Pope.

    I simply don’t know what to say to those who see this and say it is meaningless and unimportant; that words and actions don’t mean what they say: “I remain” means “I left”; appearing as Pope is just an unfortunate costumed lifestyle choice. Living in the Vatican is no different than returning to Bavaria or a “cold Monastery cell”. Belief requires rejection of reality.

    He says he remains. He appears to remain. He acts as if he remains. His Declaratio specified in Latin that he remains in Office. Yet Bergoglio’s defenders say he does not remain. He is gone because he ‘needs to be gone’. He could have lived in a Chalet wearing a cowboy outfit, but he chose the Vatican wearing a Pope outfit. “*So what*”? “*It doesn’t matter*”. And to this, there is nothing more to be said, because reality is not relevant on those terms.

    1. Aqua says:
      June 15, 2019 at 7:57 am

      “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’. There can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the *active* exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I am not abandoning the Cross, but remaining in a *new way* at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of Office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of St. Peter.”

      “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and its novelty”. (Pope Benedict XVI, Feb 27, 2013 – the day before he left governance of his Church to the imposter).

      And, sure enough, he remains, “so to speak”, as Pope.

      (Doing my best Steven O’Reilly impression):

      “Nope. I checked with myself and I consulted my well-entrenched confirmation-bias of circular-reasoning that maintains there-is-no-evidence-that-can-convince-me-that-it-is-evidence, so see? I just don’t see this as evidence, …. because disjointed wacko-doodle conspiracy theories and such.

      BTW – have I told you I’m a big fan of the not-so disjointed wacko-doodle conspiracy theory of the highly orchestrated and detailed coordinated Trans-Atlantic Geo-Political Global-cabal between the Democrat Party’s Deep-State Intel Community and the obviously well-coordinated and highly detailed and ruthless power criminals in the Vatican’s Mafioso of Masonic/Communist/Atheistic/HomoPerv Clerics who all orchestrated Bergoglio’s illicit take-over of the Chair of Peter?

      Yep. And I’m convinced it’s true – because of third-party reports that patch-work themselves together with ….some-assembly required reasoning-skills and……. *sigh* wait.

      now just wait now – that whole unprecedented Benedict novelty-resignation thingy was all just a conveniently timed-out coincidence of pure happenstance and stuff. It bares NO operational connection whatsoever to MY perfectly-obvious conspiracy theory here!

      So don’t go getting any cwazy wacko-doddle BeneyVacantist ideas that THAT means anything whatsoever as far as MY perfectly sane conspiracy theory goes! Because remember now – the new never-before-heard-of “Pope Emeritus Star Lord” novelty (that Celestine established even though this Emeritus Star Lord’s actions are in complete opposition to Celestine’s actions) said some words that have the power to alter reality itself. And THAT is that.

      Yeah. That’s it.

      And besides – I don’t do cwazy conspiracies *phfft*….”

  15. @Kono…you questioned my analogy by saying “If a cowboy retired, then proceeded to put his cowboy hat on and do some cowboy things….what would he be?”

    My answer…he would be a retired cowboy wearing a cowboy hat. Just like Benedict being a former pope wearing white; he is a former pope wearing white. You all seem to think because he wears it, it must mean he still is one. It doesn’t logically follow, at all.

    Regards,

    SO’R

    1. Steven O’Reilly says:
      June 15, 2019 at 10:52 am

      “What might it take for me to believe Benedict is still Pope? Benedict was not coerced. No evidence that he acted against his will.”

      And yet you believe:

      “As to conspiracies, I think there was coordinated action to get Bergoglio elected. That is admitted in various ways by pro-Bergoglio allies themselves, including McCarrick.”

      If you believe there was coordinated action to get Bergoglio elected – then you obviously believe that Benedict’s novelty resignation was just a well-time coincidence – yes?

      If so – what are the odds of that being plausible?

      But, if it could be shown theoretically, he has somehow been drugged up for the 7 years in a way that allowed other to manipulate his will in such a way he did not have freedom…then there would be a cause. Again, that’s a hypothetical. The grounds for nullification would be lack of freedom.

      Perhaps you could show us why Benedict was “afraid of fleeing from the wolves” (because THAT is a documented statement of HIS at the beginning of his papacy) and then you can explain HOW and WHEN all of that magically changed during his papacy- yes?

      And then you can explain WHY we should believe any statements coming from Benedict leading up to, and following, his novelty resignation.

      Given the fact that such a large and coordinated conspiracy was powerful enough to launch the heretic Bergoglio to the Chair – why would you assume that such a cabal would somehow LACK the corresponding coordinated control to either force BXVI to resign – OR – involve him IN the conspiracy itself?

      1. LG,

        I was speculating that it is hypothetically possible that the conclave invalidly elected Bergoglio. I said for this speculation to be proved, more evidence would be needed. We don’t have this evidence.

        I don’t see any value in speculating on top of those speculations, or on top of your speculative questions.

        What is clear to me, which is not speculation, is that Benedict freely and properly manifested his resignation. He resigned fully…vacating the See of Peter as he stated he would do on the given date, necessitating a conclave.

        No evidence has yet been produced, that I am aware of, that invalidates the election in the eyes of canonists and theologians. Therefore, I do not claim, as I do not have evidential grounds, that Francis is not pope.

        Regards,

        Steve

      2. SO’R: “No evidence has yet been produced, that I am aware of, that invalidates the election in the eyes of canonists and theologians.”

        Well, that seems intellectually dishonest.
        https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/11/the-church-visible-how-can-a-simple-layperson-ever-figure-out-who-is-pope-um-you-have-the-internet-right/
        http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350913.html
        And finally this, from TWO DAYS after the Declaratio: “A NULL ACT?” https://fr.novopress.info/132011/un-acte-nul-etranges-fautes-de-latin-dans-la-renonciation-de-benoit-xvi/

    2. Steven O’Reilly says:
      June 15, 2019 at 11:09 am

      “My answer…he would be a retired cowboy wearing a cowboy hat. Just like Benedict being a former pope wearing white; he is a former pope wearing white. You all seem to think because he wears it, it must mean he still is one. It doesn’t logically follow, at all.”

      And you seem to think there is a basis for this novelty nonsense in Sacred Tradition – so show it to us already, because thus far, all you’ve been able to reference is Celestine V – whose actions were COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of Benedict’s.

  16. Here’s O’Reilly on July 23, 2017 citing the evidence of the COERCIVE and highly-detailed meticulous Machiavellian plot by the St Gallen Mafia led by Cardinal Martini to not only select Ratzinger in 2005 for the papacy – but to do so with the understanding that Ratzinger would resign from the Papacy by 2012 in order to make way for Bergogio The Heretic to take the Chair and radically transform the Church:

    https://romalocutaest.com/2017/07/23/thoughts-on-free-will-and-hypothetical-papal-plots/

    Now we know for a FACT that Benedict WAS being coerced from the start by his own admission when he stated at the 24 April 2005 Mass for the inauguration of the Pontificate:

    “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

    So now then, what’s O’Reilly’s ONLY rebuttal to any notion that Benedict’s novelty resignation was in fact prearranged as an inevitable conclusion from the onset by this ongoing coercion?

    O’Reilly’s own personal beliefs that Benedict just wouldn’t do such a thing.

    That’s it. Nothing more.

    O’Reilly cites NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that this coercion ceased.

    He cites NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Benedict’s written words since the Novelty Resignation – are in fact Benedict’s own words freely expressed without the overseeing censorship of this diabolic all-powerful Cabal.

    Now this is the same Steven O’Reilly who mandates that EVIDENCE! must govern every conclusion that is reached over this current unprecedented assault on The Bride of Christ.

    And yet – at the basis of O’Reilly’s own position – in face of all the documented evidence to the contrary – his entire premise is based upon nothing more substantial than his own Pollyanna wish-casting of a fearlessly courageous superhero orthodox image of Ratzinger that never really existed.

  17. Steven O’Reilly says:
    June 15, 2019 at 2:22 pm

    LG,

    You must prove he resigned against his will because of coercion. You have not provided proof but only speculation.

    Resignation does not equal ‘fleeing’ from fear of anything. You are engaged only in speculation. He says ‘that I may not flee for fear’. He said it, but there is no proof he did “flee” and there is no proof he did so out of “fear”.

    You have bupkus.

    On the contrary – YOU have not provided any proof that the coercion from which he was afraid of fleeing from the beginning of his Pontificate HAD EVER CEASED.

    Which means your assumption that he did NOT do so is merely speculation on YOUR part.

    And that ALSO applies to your baseless assumption that all of Benedict’s explanations since his novelty “resignation” were in fact his thoughts – made by his freewill – without any coercion or censoring.

    Thus far you’ve NOT provided any evidence for that at all. And the timeline clearly places the burden of proof on baseless YOUR thesis.

    So in fact, it is YOU who have bupkus.

  18. This is continuation of my conversation with Steven O’Reilly. Begining of conversation is nested somewhere above.
    ——————————————————————X8

    Two approaches to resignation letter.

    One.
    We have ‘common sense’, strict way to look at text of resignation where words have meanings.
    It is true that in colloquial (every-day) language words ‘office’ and ‘ministry’ sometimes can be used as synonyms. This is not allowed in legal language though, where meanings do matter much, much more. Such strict adherence of word meanings is logical, and practical, and is required by law itself.

    This means that in legal language usage of ‘ministry’ as an replacement for ‘office’ can not be accepted. Resignation from ministry does not equal resignation from office.
    If mistake was made it has to be corrected.

    Situation is parallel to Mr X, from example I created in previous post, who paints room green and claims he paints room in such a way that after he’s done room is yellow. In ‘strict’ approach intentions don’t matter. Room is green. (Green represents meaning of ‘ministry’, yellow – of ‘office’.)

    Looking at resignation text this way, we have no choice but conclude that resignation is invalid.

    But!

    Two.
    Steven pointed out that B16’s resignation can be interpreted also in other way.
    He suggested that when B16 said:

    I, B16 renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

    he really meant:

    I, B16 renounce the office of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter

    In Steven’s approach we have to shift focus from individual words to the meaning of whole text and accept potential misuse of words. Applying this method we have to examine intentions to discover ‘true meaning’ of given text. Specifically, in quote above, we have to overlook wrong usage of ‘ministry’.

    This is not ideal way to treat legal documents but also isn’t completely wrong.

    Can we agree then that B16 resigned from office?

    Firstly we have to interpret B16’s words as exact replacement for word ‘office’. Nothing more, nothing less. For example ‘ministry’ must mean ‘all ministries connected to See of St Peter’. “Resignation from ministry in such a way (..)” must mean resignation from all insignia of SoP and from all benefits connected to it. And so on.
    This method requires from interpreter good will and application of benefit of doubt if necessary, but is not solely based on anybody’s good will alone. This method has basis in canon law, and it happened so for good reasons.

    So, we have two ways to apply to resignation letter:
    ‘strict’ one – that tells us that resignation is invalid, and
    ‘soft’ one – that possibly can return valid resignation.

    If B16 used ‘munus’ there would be ‘clean cut’ rendering the same answer from both methods,
    but he didn’t.

    One has to wonder why B16 didn’t use simple, precise language but rather chose ‘poetic’ style where, it seems, by avoiding direct statements and combining many words, he tried to accomplish more that simple resignation from the office. Wording he used immediately lead to speculations about secret, hidden meanings. Depending on mindset one can read deliberate false resignation intent (safety button) or deliberate nefarious ‘resignation’ with goal to split papacy. As here I’m interested only in validity, I leave diving in ‘secret messages’ for other time.

    Also please note that Steven’s approach excludes possibility of B16 making ‘silly’ mistake by using word ‘ministry’ instead of ‘munus’. He must fully realize difference in meanings and tried to cover this difference with excessive wording.

    To answer the question about validity, I must admit that
    if there is nothing else
    I would have to lean to opinion that, even if resignation is not as it should be,
    by exercising good will in interpreting intentions,
    there is not enough evidence to categorically reject B16’s resignation as invalid,
    thus
    I’d have to admit that resignation is valid.
    (oh my – this is mouthful)

    But, as we know this is not the end of it.

    Shortly after B16 issued document in which he stated: “My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry(…)”. This is red flag.
    When he resigned ‘from ministry in such a way (…)’ he resigned form the office (as we concluded above), so obviously he resigned from everything including ‘active’. Why he makes such distinction?

    Later in the document we read: ”I no longer bear the power of Office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain(…)”.
    This is deal breaker.
    Big time.
    If he “remains” in even smallest thing, he is not resigning from the office.
    He wants to remain ”so to speak, in the enclosure of St. Peter.” and this means that he does not resign from the office in the meaning of the law, and common sense, and Tradition.
    Effectively this event shows that our benefit of doubt was misplaced and B16 indeed did not intend to resign from papal in the way required by canon law.

    This document wasn’t isolated event. We are aware of existence of whole plethora of facts confirming that we can not put equal sign between B16’s sequence “I resign from ministry in such a way(…)” and “the office”, ergo we have to conclude with certainty that B16’s resignation is invalid.

    Plethora of facts not only forbid us from interpreting B16’s resignation as valid, but also triggers canon 118’s clause about ‘properly manifested’, that invalidates resignation independently of wording.

    I will not list all facts, they are well known. I answer just one, preemptively.
    B16 did stated in one of interviews that he is ‘former pope’, what suppose to mean that he is not the pope anymore. (There is difference in meaning ‘former pope’ and ‘not the pope’ – but, again, I’ll leave it for now.)
    If bringing that fact suppose to prove that he do ‘properly manifests’ his resignation, I answer: no it does not prove it at all (and explain in details why, if necessary). I also point out that bare need to answer this type of questions indicates that there is something wrong with resignation or with manifestation or with both.

    Final conclusion: B16’s resignation is invalid.

    1. @ MC: There are other analogies, but here’s one –

      If the President of the U.S, ever feels that he is unable to discharge the duties of *his Office*, he transmits this in written declaration to the Senate President Pro Tempore And House Speaker, at which time the duties of *his Office* are performed by his Vice President … until he transmits another written declaration to the contrary. (25th Amendment Section 3)

      The President remains President, while his Vice President performs the President’s duties *for him*.

      The VP remains VP; the incapacitated President remains President. The *Presidential Office* remains occupied by the President, even though another person (the VP) is performing his duties temporarily.

      Understanding the difference between Munus and Ministerium; Office and Ministry … so crucial; so misunderstood; the crux of this galactic error.

      1. Aqua, I agree.
        You can only delegate some duties (ministries).
        Any ‘resignation from ministry’, separation ministry from office, automatically means transformation of the office itself. That is why we heave to consider B16’s resignation from ministry only in the meaning of resignation from the office.

        If somebody says differently he has to prove that B16 has/had power to do so, before even attempting to define what exactly is ‘active ministry’ he resigned from. Diving into this is a waste of time. First it has to shown that B16 was capable to transform papacy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.