(Pastor Aeternus, ch. 2) On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
- That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.
- For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.
- Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.
- For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.
- Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Saint Louis Catholic 
In other words, TM, we are in deep doo-doo if Benedict dies before Bergoglio. 😳🙏
I think we’re in it either way, of course. But should Mary not act until one of them dies, then better the Pope first, so that the antipapacy ends with the death of the other.
Agree completely!
If we agree on the identity of the pope, that is
We do.
I by into this explanation. However, the Argentinian does not.
Yes, agree in principle, but begs the question about the legitimacy of our current Pope. Is Benedict the real Pope?
Our current pope is legitimate. He was elected in 2005, I believe. Each person must investigate for himself. I think the Estefania Acosta book is a great place to start, as it approaches the subject systematically from a civil lawyer’s perspective. I was skeptical of Bergoglio from the moment he emerged on the balcony, but it took nearly 8 years for me to reach— for me— a moral certainty. Until Benedict clarifies and/or definitely claims the throne, there is room for reasonable Catholics to disagree without question of schism. It is merely a mistake of fact for whichever opinion is incorrect. Not schism, which would occur if one knowingly refused submission to the lawful pontiff. Trust yourself the the Mother of the Church and have the courage and humility to go where the evidence leads you.
I follow the Ann Barnhardt interpretation. Benedict is Pope; Bergoglio a usurper and heretic.
Ann Barnhardt and company are simply wrong.
When Benedict speaks of “always and forever”, he is not saying he is pope always and forever. He is clear in the last audience he is referring to the loss of privacy faced by anyone elected pope; and thus, belonging to the whole Church. It is this that his resignation will not revoke…i.e., even though he is resigning, he will continue to love the sons and daughters he gained when becoming a pope, and he will maintain this love…and pray for the Church. It is a tender, loving reflection that has been mauled in the name of BiP.
Unfortunately, the leading BiP apologists do not consider more natural, simpler readings of the things Benedict has said; instead forcing complex interpretations without explaining why a simpler, more benign reading is not possible in the least. That or ignoring things that plainly state he resigned to ‘free up the chair’ for another.
I go into this in greater detail in response to Dr. Mazza here: see https://romalocutaest.com/2021/04/10/being-wrong-the-ontology-of-the-bip-argument/. All my articles rebutting Dr. Mazza are found here: https://romalocutaest.com/2020/11/02/the-summa-contra-dr-mazza/
Regards,
Steve O’Reilly
Thanks for your input and perspective. I hope people find it helpful. The easiest analysis, in my opinion, is the text of the putative abdication contra the requirements of CIC 332.2. Simply stated, he resigned the ministry, not the office. Hence, it is not accurate to say he abdicated the papacy.
Of all the variants of the invalidity theory of which we can form some judgement (the very likely resignation through fear requires knowledge of Benedict’s mind we cannot have)— intentional non-abdication, substantial error, and the Mazza split f Roman See from Petrine office— I do think the Mazza thesis is the least likely, in light of Pastor Aeternus. I haven’t written on this yet, but might.
But munus ain’t ministerium, and I 5hink Acosta explains why very well.
TM,
With regard to 332.2…there is no formula for a resignation. The word “munus” is not mandated to be said. Ministerium also is synonymous with “munus” as shown by Ryan Grant, for example. But even beyond that, in the Declaratio, Benedict said he was resigning the ministry in such a way that the See of Peter would be vacant. Thus, it is clear, regardless of the sense others might place on “ministerio”, Benedict intended this renunciation would leave the See of Peter vacant…i.e., no pope. This is further underlined by the fact he said a conclave would now be required to elect a “new” “supreme pontiff.” Not an ‘additional’ one. Not a ‘active’ one, etc.
Finally, I have pointed out to Dr. Mazza et al the BXVI document Normas Nonnullas. BXVI promulgated it shortly before the effective date of his resignation. Normas Nonnullas (NN) was written specifically to update the conclave rules in time for the coming conclave necessitated by his imminent resignation. Thus, any changes or non changes in it would reflect BXVI’s state of mind on what the conclave would be doing.
In Normas Nonnullas, Benedict amended some of the sections; but what is as important is what he left untouched. For example, he left untouched the section which stated the one elected by the conclave *is* the “Supreme Pontiff” with full authority, etc., over the Church.
The implication should be evident. Benedict believed his successor to be elected in the March 2013 conclave would be “Supreme Pontiff” in the fullest sense of the term…not merely the “active” pope, etc., while BXVI somehow remained the “passive” one, etc. as BiP-ers seem to argue.
I’ve hoped for Dr. Mazza or any BiP-er to explain Normas Nonnullas in the context of their theory. Here is one of my articles on it. It address Dr. Mazza’s original hypothesis, but it applies to any BiP theory. (https://romalocutaest.com/2020/06/11/addendum-normas-nonnullas-explodes-dr-mazzas-bip-theory/)
Thanks.
Steve
Ministerium is not equivalent to munus in the main, typical, usual usage. Acosta explains this convincingly, in my opinion. The comments of Benedict after the putative resignation I take in a different sense, and are strictly speaking not relevant. 332.2 speaks of a situation IF the pope resigns his OFFICE. He didn’t,and therefore didn’t. All the rest of the abomination of heresies, demonic worship (allowed at least, of somehow unknowing), and attacks on the faith he would otherwise be charged with defending, they re mere confirming signs.
You can’t defend this guy. You cannot turn munus into ministerium.
TM,
A couple things.
First, I am not defending “this guy.” Where have I ever done such a thing? Granted, you might not be familiar with what I have written on “this guy”, but one cannot read what I have written on my blog (www.RomaLocutaEst.com) on Amoris Laetitia, imperfect councils, the “influential Italian gentleman”, the “October Surprise” and more, and come away thinking one can honestly believe I defend “this guy.”
What is needed in regard to “this guy” is a good, defensible theory. BiP is not it. For one, BiP-ers like Ms. Barnhardt and
Dr. Mazza keep returning to the “always…forever” line — but NEVER address simpler interpretations of it like mine. I should say, the only time I am aware Ms. Barnhardt has come close to address an opposing view on that is by claiming those who reject the BiP interpretation are “liars” and other such ad hominems (see https://romalocutaest.com/2021/02/28/on-the-8th-anniversary-of-the-resignation-of-pope-benedict-xvi/). And, aside from that, I have not seen a BiP-er address Normas Nonnullas and its implications to their theory.
In sum, such tactics and avoidance simply underline the risk that the BiP carries with it, the danger it is leading folks into a intellectual and theological boxed canyon.
Second, again, with regard to 332.2. It does not say what formula must be used, and it does NOT say the term “munus” must be used. For that matter, the term “munus” is not used when a man who is elected by the conclave “accepts” his election. But even that raises another point….if BXVI has such a warped view of the papacy that he cannot resign it, how on earth was he ever able to validly accept his election? The argument should seem to cut both ways.
Regarding Munus/Ministerium’ See Ryan Grant’s article in 1P5 wherein he write:
“…Thus, the episcopate, and the papacy, is considered a munus, properly speaking. In this sense, it is roughly synonymous with officium, which is the Roman word for duty. Ministerium can mean a ministry or service, but it also means office or duty, in the sense of the essence of what the munus entails. In fact, Forcellini uses the word munus to describe ministerium in the Lexicon Totius Latinitatis: “MINISTERIUM, -ii, n. 2 (<minister), opera et munus ministri et famuli” (my emphasis) [2]. Cicero shows that munus can mean the very work that is done in an office, just as ministerium does [3]. Stelton’s dictionary of ecclesiastical Latin lists for ministerium: “ministry, service, office, duty” [4]. St. Thomas refers to the use of ministerium to refer to the power and office of the papacy: “[s]ome power was also conferred to ministers of the Church, who are dispensers of the Sacraments, to remove the obstacle, not of itself, but by the divine power and the power of the passion of Christ, and this power is metaphorically called the key of the Church (clavis ecclesiae), which is the key of service (clavis ministerii)” [5]." (Source: Ryan Grant, 1P5, https://onepeterfive.com/benevacantists/).
Finally, again, I do not defend "this guy" and it would be exceedingly unfair and untrue for anyone to seriously try to suggest that. But simply 'not wanting' to defend him doesn't give one a free pass to land on any theory one wishes, simply because it yields the desired result. Rules of evidence, logic, reason, and common sense must still apply. There is an explanation of "Francis" — but we have to live with the possibility more time and patience may be required of us by God; indeed, perhaps more than some have been willing to show.
Thanks for the space to opine.
God bless,
Steve
Steven, sorry for the late post and reply– I was exceptionally busy and didn’t want to approve your comment before being able to reply.
I am not of the Barnhardt or Mazza opinions being the likely reason for invalidity– I believe they are useful because they are plausible and persuasive opinions should the most obvious reason for invalidity be considered insufficient: the “resignation” did not comply with canon law and was not valid per se.
Canon 332.2 does in fact specify that a pope may resign from his “office” (munus); it does not contemplate resigning a “ministry” (ministerium). Benedict’s words were that he resigned the “ministry”, not the “office”. Thus, whatever he did, he did not resign the office. I tend to think he did this intentionally, in order to protect the papacy from the wolves in the Bergoglio/Sankt Gallen camp. Or he may of course have made a mistake. It matters not. It is clear from the resignation itself that he did not resign the office. All the rest– speculations as to why, or what motivated him, or what is views are on the ability to bifurcate the papacy or to decouple the successorship of the Vicariate of Christ from that of the Bishop of Rome are helpful background to understand the situation but are strictly speaking not decisive.
However it comes out, he either did or did not resign the office. He either did or did not attempt to bifurcate the papacy. He either did or did not attempt to decouple the offices of Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ. Regarding the latter two– the Barnhardt and Mazza theses– whether the answer is yes or no, and whether he could or not actually do so, the result is the same: he did not resign the office of the papacy. Any attempt to resign partially is not effective; any attempt to decouple the papacy from the Bishopric of Rome leads to the result that he did not resign the papacy.
It is a matter of law and logic.
I believe the Acosta book mentioned in the post addresses these points better than I have, and is to me quite comprehensive and persuasive. I agree wholeheartedly with Ann Barnhardt that the Almighty Providence has intervened in an unprecedented way to protect the Faith and the Faithful here.
Thank you for the discussion. I think well-meaning inquiry is helpful. As it is my blog, I will claim the right of the last word and move on to my paying work in my state of life and to other posts. God bless you.
TM….just checking. My last response has been in moderation for several days. Are you going to approve?
Thanks.
Steve