Update: I have learned to spell.
The momentum is growing all the time. Will enough people stand up before it is too late? Lengthy excerpt:
High caliber intellects whose work I respect are among those who dismiss the thesis that Benedict XVI remains the pope. Perhaps there is something I haven’t accounted for, but to date I haven’t found any adequate rebuttal to the specific claim that Benedict XVI did not fulfill what is required by canon law for a valid renunciation of the Papal office.
There has also arisen a rift of sorts among those who are rightly convinced Bergoglio is an anti-pope. In one camp are those who feel that Benedict XVI made a “substantial error” in his Declaratio, because he aimed to retain a portion of the Papacy yet also incorporate a successor pope to take over the practical, day to day administrative and governing functions of the universal Church.
In other words, he mistakenly thought he could bifurcate or otherwise expand the Papacy – transform it from a Divinely instituted charge given individually to St. Peter and all his individual successors to a similarly authoritative but more collegial unifying entity.
The relevant canon for this view is 188, which reads:
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.
Whether or not Benedict XVI audaciously intended to introduce an unprecedented and inadmissible wrinkle into the nature of the Papacy, it may also be said that the failure to heed the distinction between resigning the office itself and ministries or activities emanating from said office constitutes an invalidating substantial error.
In another camp are those who contend that Benedict XVI did not erroneously attempt to pluralize the papacy, but rather that he specifically and intentionally did not renounce the munus because he intended to remain Pope. So why such a tack?
He did this because he felt he could no longer properly function as Pope on account of pervasive opposition from within the Church itself. He was essentially impeded from governing in accordance with his charge in the manner he saw fit. (Canon 412 delineates the criteria of an impeded See).
By stepping aside the way he did, he judged his unworthy, subversive adversaries would likely jump at the chance to seize power; their nefarious ways would eventually be exposed, thereby hastening a much-needed purification of the Church.
Talk about intrigue! I can appreciate how anyone considering this possibility for the first time might be incredulous. But this is not a movie or a novel; if only the widespread, hostile infiltration of the Church – the rot even at its highest levels – were fictional.
One shudders to ponder the depravity stacked against Benedict XVI, who explicitly mentioned his “fear of the wolves” upon first assuming the Papacy. So his maneuver may have been a purposeful act of inspiration born out of desperation.
Both of the above interpretations, sincerely held by their proponents, are products of intensive investigation; both are reasonable suppositions, plausible enough at least at first hearing that they cannot simply be dismissed.
In one sense, both explanations cannot be right because they offer conflicting analyses of Benedict XVI’s motivation for doing what he did – a highly important question that awaits an answer in due time. And yet both are correct in what matters most: whatever his motivation or intention, Benedict XVI did not renounce the Papacy in accordance with Canon Law, and therefore Bergoglio is an anti-Pope and everything he has done carries no weight whatsoever because he has never held the Papal munus.
The implications are massive going forward – and not just for Catholics. If the situation is not rectified, the next conclave (regardless of who dies first) would be invalidly constituted, so we’d have another anti-Pope, succeeded by yet additional anti-Popes – who, like Bergoglio, would not likely supply much forceful, indispensable moral and spiritual resistance to the various inhumane agendas menacing our horizon.
Though initially a bit reluctant to look into this matter, I found myself at peace with my conclusion. Sure, it is a distressing, grave situation. But it also provided an interpretive key to so many other things unfolding all around us – primarily the lockdowns. The unprecedented closure of churches. The “Pope” canceled Easter! A pope never does that.
Back in 1958, Giuseppe Cardinal Siri was elected pontiff. This was verified by Malachi Martin who was there, He took the name of Gregory XVII. — He then abdicated “out of fear”. He then was forced to take an oath (pending excommunication). He himself stated that “there were tragic events that took place in the conclave and he could say nothing”.—Events regarding Benedict XVI “smell the same” down wind. He resigned under pressure and can say nothing. This now tells me that there was an oath of excommunication involved just like with Siri.
We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.”
Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World
I was BiP for 5 years and now believe it is not only wrong, but possibly a dangerous position. Benedict is just as much a heretic as Bergoglio. R&R (SSPX) has been around since VII and is not the Catholic response. Sedevacante is the only position which does not contradict pre-VII teachings, most especially teaching on the papacy.
IF Benedict intended to expand the papacy, this would show he was in error of what the papacy IS and therefore would not have been able to become pope in the first place. If he resigned to expose the rot, he’s led millions of Catholics to believe Bergoglio is pope. Either way, it’s a no win for Catholics and dangerous. Bergoglio is an obvious wolf, whereas Benedict is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing and much more dangerous.
If Benedict is not the pope his death will not result in fireworks. If he is the pope his death will result in fireworks. Let us see. I don’t know how to explain that Catholicism is true if he is not the pope. It was the true religion until Vatican II, when infiltrators started transforming it.
If he (B16) is not the Pope, the Church is true. Never doubt that. Christ will never fail us. It’s a lot easier to explain the ruin if B16 is pope, but I can make a case through lots of slick lawyer tricks.
If Bergoglio were pope
Pingback: Canon212 Update: “The Maid Will Destroy You!” – If Only St. Joan Were Here Today – The Stumbling Block
Steven O'Reilly said:
Or…as is most probable…the arguments against the other’s competing theory are in fact two halves of a combined theory that disproves Benepapism.
Hello Mr. O’ Reilly,
I’m glad to see you comment here. I am happy to allow your link, as this issue is so important every Catholic needs to prayerfully examine it. I will say I have read these arguments before and I am not persuaded to agree with you. It is a simple matter of canon law, and that the putative abdication failed to comply with the law. Everything Bergoglio has said and done are simply signs that tend to confirm that invalidity. The invalidity was ab initio.
Whether the putative act of abdication complied with the law is the opposite of Gnosticism, and I respectfully state you overdramatize any “civil war”. On the various camps of those who question the abdication. Kind of a long non sequitur, really.
That sentence makes no sense.
You should read the article. That makes sense.
Not sure what you’re referring to, aqua
“The arguments against the other’s competing theory are two halves of a combined theory that disproves benepapism.”
And this, he says, is “most probable”.
Can a man who denies the pope is the Vicar of Christ, become a pope? Isn’t this akin to saying you’re married, even if you believe marriage can tried for a while and then seek a divorce. Or get married with the intention of never having children. Then the marriage is invalid. So, a man who does not accept that he is the Vicar of Christ, is he really the Pope? He never accepted the office in the first place. A person who does not believe in Christ cannot be a pope even if consecrated by the Cardinals. Is this correct or not? Not sure how you use the office and ministry of the papacy to destroy the papacy you never really accepted to begin with. Does this make any sense?