As some readers may already be aware, the Novus Ordo Watch blog has weighed-in on what it calls A Dispute between Steve Skojec and Louie Verrecchio.
This refers to my previous post, which, for the record, is not at all personal – for me, it’s about the Faith. Period. That said, I would like to offer the following.
In the aftermath of my post, Steve Skojec ran to social media to cry foul at having not been approached privately before I published my article. This reminds me of those persons who (especially in the early years of the Bergoglian Occupation) sanctimoniously complained that writers like me should do the Christian thing and send private letters to Francis rather than pen refutations of his soul-endangering errors.
Look, both Steve Skojec and I publish our thoughts and ideas on the Faith in the public realm by choice. This isn’t a place for men with fragile egos; those who can’t handle public criticism of their opinions shouldn’t disseminate them beyond the scope of the merely personal. Simple. That is why you won’t find me whining that Novus Ordo Watch didn’t first send me a personal note and a fruit basket before publicly denouncing my work.
On the contrary, I wish to begin by expressing my gratitude to NOW for the research that was done, and I encourage readers to follow the link to check it out for themselves.
I’ll begin my response by addressing a couple of tangential comments. NOW writes:
Why is neither Skojec nor Verrecchio quoting from pre-Vatican II Catholic theology books on this issue? Their failure to even attempt to do so illustrates the fundamental problem so prevalent in Resistance Land…
Speaking for myself, I can assure readers that I most certainly did attempt to do so, but even after spending literally hours searching for reliable pre-conciliar sources on this subject, I was unable to find much of value. It is a matter of genuine difficulty for those of us seeking nothing more than to be truly Catholic in our understanding.
Elsewhere in its post, NOW refers to Fr. Gregory Hesse as an “oddball canon lawyer.” They would have to explain what is meant by “oddball,” but having listened to a number of Fr. Hesse’s conferences, it is clear to me that he relies very heavily on the very pre-conciliar texts that are being encouraged. It is for this reason that I find it reasonable to put considerable stock in his opinion on the matter.
There are a number of valuable citations in the NOW post that are well worth consideration. I will limit myself, however, to just two, beginning with the following:
To consecrate outside the Mass would not only be a sacrilege, but probably also an attempt at invalid consecration. The priest would certainly not perform that action in the person of Christ, nor according to the intention of the Church, which is restricted to the celebration of the Mass.
(Rev. P. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, vol. IV [St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1920], p. 156)
I get it. Theologians – faithful ones at any rate – frequently speak in cautious tones on questions that have yet to be definitively addressed by Holy Mother Church. [More on that momentarily.] In other words, they avoid expressions of absolute certitude on such matters, and it is for this reason, presumably, that Fr. Augustine writes, “probably also an attempt at invalid consecration.”
Be that as it may, Fr. Augustine left absolutely no room for doubt whatsoever in the very next sentence when he stated, “The priest would certainly not perform that action in the person of Christ, nor according to the intention of the Church…”
OK, folks, let’s do the math; it’s not difficult.
Basic sacramental theology is crystal clear: One of the indispensable conditions for validity is the intention to do what the Church does. According to Fr. Augustine, however, this is certainly not the case regarding an attempted consecration outside of Mass.
Furthermore, basic sacramental theology informs us that it is Christ Himself acting in the sacraments as the minister performs the rite in persona Christi. Fr. Augustine is equally as clear on this note, saying that this is certainly not the case when consecration is attempted outside of Mass.
If the pre-Vatican II Catholic theology book cited by the writers at NOW is worth the paper it’s written on, then a faithful Catholic has no choice but to conclude that a consecration outside of Mass is certainly not valid.
At this, I would remind readers that the current “dispute” concerns two very specific scenarios as presented in Skojec’s article on the Novus Ordo Paradigm. He writes:
Technically, a priest has the power to consecrate the Eucharist anywhere. It’s legally forbidden, but he can do it. He can sit at a bar, drunk, and consecrate bread and wine if he says the right words with the right intention. He could even do the same thing at a satanic Mass for the purposes of desecration.
With regard to the first scenario, NOW provides the following:
Finally, regarding the question of a priest being drunk when attempting to confect a sacrament, we also have a rather clear answer from an unquestionably traditional source:
…[H]e who would administer a sacrament in a drunken, or somnambulistic [=sleepwalking], or hypnotic state, would perform an action that is null, even though before the occurrence he might have had the most formal intention of doing what the Church does; for in that abnormal state he no longer acts as a rational being capable of being the representative of Christ and the Church.
(Very Rev. P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments [St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1910], p. 393)
Here, Fr. Pourrat does not refrain from expressing certitude in the least; he plainly informs us that the action of a drunken priest as described by Steve Skojec is null.
One of the wonderful things about the Catholic faith is that it makes good, logical sense. In the present case, the very idea that Our Blessed Lord can be ordered, as it were, by a drunken priest to become “truly, really, and substantially contained … His Body and Blood together with His Soul and Divinity” (Cf Council of Trent, Session XIII) under the species of a dinner roll on a bar is as illogical as it is offensive.
This notion has been expanded to include claims made by Skojec’s defenders (also addressed by NOW) that a priest can simply utter the words of consecration in a bakery (silently even) and turn all of the bread therein into the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, if only he intends to do so. In addition to the initial sin, just imagine the sacrilege that would ensue at the hands of innocent people who know no better!
Ask yourself, doesn’t it make far more Catholic sense for Our Lord and His Church to see to it that His Real Presence – the Bread of Life no less – should be recognizable as such by restricting valid consecration to the celebration of the Mass? (See Fr. Augustine’s quote.)
In conclusion, I wish to return to the idea of faithful theologians speaking in cautious tones on questions that have yet to be definitively addressed by Holy Mother Church. This pious predisposition can be observed in a number of the quotes offered in the NOW article; e.g., expressions such as probably invalid or at least doubtful.
Bear well in mind, however, that these men lived and wrote during the pontificates of Pope St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII – at a time when it made good sense to wait for Holy Mother Church to pronounce before speaking boldly on such matters.
Today, life is very different. (Thank you, Captain Obvious.)
Not only are there no such men-in-white to be found, the theoretical proposition of an attempted consecration outside of Mass (which for each of the theologians cited meant the Mass of Ages) is no longer just a matter of mere speculation thanks to the rise of the Novus Ordo – a bastard rite that all self-identified “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) recognize as evil.
For this reason, though it may offend the weaker among us, I feel no need to tiptoe through the tulips on this matter. What Steve Skojec wrote, even though offered in an effort to make a valid point concerning the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo, is repugnant and offensive to Catholic sensibilities.
Ironically, it only served to undermine the very point he wished to make, confirming in their error those who are hyper-focused on the idea that Jesus is made present on the altar no matter how evil the rite may be; even if it should cease to be the Mass at all.
The Faith is a whole, seamless cloth. It is always internally consistent. The ruse of “Jesus” being in every physical church which is nominally “Catholic” is used to keep people attending the most terrible mortally sinful, sacrilegious, blasphemous, heretical shows, mocking and disdaining God and the Holy Faith, invoking Satan and his fellow demons, and pulling people into mortal sin and away from the unchangeable God and His unchangeable Holy Faith. God, being All Truth cannot change. Viva Cristo Rey!
“Speaking for myself, I can assure readers that I most certainly did attempt to do so, but even after spending literally hours searching for reliable pre-conciliar sources on this subject, I was unable to find much of value. It is a matter of genuine difficulty for those of us seeking nothing more than to be truly Catholic in our understanding.”
And this is why Novusordowatch is such a valuable resource. And they provide links to much of their resource material so you can read it yourself.
That would be putting it mildly. NOW and the resources they pointed to were the reason I was able to finally reconcile the problem of Vatican II vis-a-vis the current state of the Church: namely, that to call someone the Pope comes with consequences about a faithful Catholic’s obedience.
As such, contradiction could only come from an invalid authority.
While you said you were limiting yourself to two of NOW’s citations, I would be interested to read your analysis of NOW’s first citation (first two, actually), especially in light of your reference to the Novus Ordo as “a bastard rite that all self-identified ‘traditionalists’ (aka Catholics) recognize as evil.” Since your position is that legitimate popes of the Catholic Church promulgated this evil rite, how do you reconcile that with the Council of Trent and Pope Pius XII as cited by NOW?
Quote from NOW article:
Such an idea is gravely injurious to the traditional Roman Catholic Faith, for the Church teaches: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7; Denz. 954). And further: “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children…” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, n. 66). But then, the recognize-and-resisters rarely allow actual traditional Catholicism to interfere with their “traditional Catholic” position.
“…an attempted consecration outside of Mass (which for each of the theologians cited meant the Mass of Ages) is no longer just a matter of mere speculation thanks to the rise of the Novus Ordo – a bastard rite that all self-identified “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) recognize as evil.”
The Novus Ordo rite isn’t a bastard rite. The Novus ordo rite and it’s counterfeit catholic religion has a father and it’s the devil.
Thank you for asking. As I have written in this space in the past, I do not believe for a moment that the Novus Ordo came to us from our “loving Mother,” the Church. She could never hand to her children such a rite, one that is most certainly “an incentive to impiety,” contains doctrinal error in its official text, and leads to a loss of Catholic faith – all of which is plainly evident to all with eyes to see.
Clearly, this awareness gives rise to more questions, the answers to which I am presently seeking through prayer and study. May it please God to give me the grace to find them, embrace them and disseminate them! If anyone should wish to join me in that prayer, I would be most grateful.
..and the mother was “Pope” Paul VI? Lee, your comment makes a lot of sense.
Thanks for that honest reply. I agree with most of what you say. I agree that the Novus Ordo did not come from our loving Mother, the Church.
But while that may give rise to questions, there are also some inescapable conclusions that must follow. Because there can be no doubt that the Novus Ordo was imposed and promulgated by the institution that claims to be our loving Mother, the Church, and by those who claim(ed) that they were acting with the authority of the Church.
They (“St.” Paul VI and the bishops and hierarchy in union with him) gave us the Novus Ordo, and the Novus Ordo was not given to us by the Catholic Church, therefore, they are not the Catholic Church and do not possess the authority of the Church that comes from Christ. It is the only conclusion that does not require a denial of Catholic doctrine.
I would say John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I are the Novus Ordo’s mistresses. Apocalypse 18: 4-5 “…Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven: and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.” The Catholic Church is suffering and has been reduced throughout the world because of it.
“your position is that legitimate popes of the Catholic Church promulgated this evil rite,”
Since Fr. Hesse says the N.O. was not promulgated but only recomended by Pope Paul VI, and he was not a Sedevacantist, your are simply guilty of making a false accusation.
“Fr.” Hesse is wrong. Paul VI said this on Dec. 8 1965 at the closing of the Council “We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… we have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect…” The Novus Ordo “popes” starting with John XXIII is a counterfeit catholic religion based on Vatican II.
It really doesn’t matter which word you use. You are trying to let him off on a technicality, which isn’t the core issue. The “ceremonies used in the celebration of Masses” in the church under the leadership of Paul VI became those of the Novus Ordo, which he himself approved/recommended/imposed for use in the church. In whatever verb you want to use, it was given to the church by Paul VI. If those ceremonies are evil, or “incentives to impiety” then the church in which they are “used in the celebration of Masses” cannot be the Catholic Church according to the Council of Trent.
Paul VI also said on May 24, 1976 when he addressed the distortions and disobedience of Archbishops Lefebvre and his followers with respect to the Second Vatican Council.
“There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ….It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!”
This means if Vatican II is of the Catholic Faith it’s not only binding on all the faithful, but Paul VI must be obeyed if he were the pope. Since all the popes after him follow Vatican II faithfully, they also must be obeyed if they are popes. “St.” Paul VI made that clear.
Louie, I agree with your position about NOMass unless you insist that NOM can not validly consecrate. I can not agree with what you said:
Fr. Augustine left absolutely no room for doubt whatsoever in the very next sentence when he stated, “The priest would certainly not perform that action in the person of Christ, nor according to the intention of the Church…”
First of all, Fr Augustine’s words are just an opinion. Second, first sentence in Fr Augustine’s quote we read:
To consecrate outside the Mass would not only be a sacrilege, but probably also an attempt at invalid consecration.
This means that there is a chance that such consecration can be valid. I don’t want to calculate chances, just pointing out that, at least this is open question, but absolutely there is room for doubts. Church did not stated, to my knowledge, that consecration outside Mass can not be ever valid.
I remember Fr Hesse in one of his talks was giving an example of priest consecrating at wedding table or/and in the bathroom. I don’t remember details, just situations, I will try to find this recording.
Now, re Mr Skojec. I think, as one reader noticed before, he made up situation in the bar as an illustration. We can discuss what “drunk” means but that will miss the main point. Lets agree that drunk priest can not consecrate. What with the sober one?
We may have different opinions. Just tell me what is missing from conditions for valid consecration I mentioned before (priest, matter, intention, form). I told you about Eucharistic miracles happened to priest without faith. EOrtodox don’t have Church’s faith and still Church recognizes their Mass as valid. Do you have any tool to measure anybody’s intentions? What about badly educated priest who tries to consecrate outside the Mass, being (as measured by your tool) 100% intentionally aligned with the Church? Even if there is slightest possibility that we are dealing with the Body, we should take that possibility seriously.
Now, if you share opinion that NOM can not be valid at all, please, tell us why. (I don’t think so, but asked in any case.)
Some thoughts about NOW.
To answer your question or rather to attempt to answer: I suspect that Fr Hesse is “oddball” because he rejected sedevacantism.
I also oppose to term “traditional Catholics”. Someone is Catholic or is not. There is not traditional Catholicism and some other kind. I understand intentions but, after reading NOW, it can be taken as putting red line somewhere in 1958 (or anywhere else) to discern what is catholic and what is not. I hope you don’t fall for that.
Lee, with all respect, can you show your reasoning that led you to this conclusion after reading P6’s quote from your post?
This means if Vatican II is of the Catholic Faith it’s not only binding on all the faithful, but Paul VI must be obeyed if he were the pope.
I think it is false conclusion.
How is it a false conclusion? If Paul VI is pope and he is saying Vatican II is binding on all Catholics then that means he has the authority to say that as pope (if he was the pope) and a Catholic would have no choice but to give assent and obey.
To prove my point listen to Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Episola Tua 1885
“By certain indications it is not difficult to conclude that among Catholics – doubtless as a result of current evils – there are some who, far from satisfied with the condition of “subject” which is theirs in the Church, think themselves able to take some part in her government, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. A misplaced opinion, certainly. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Church of God, in which, by the manifest will of her Divine Founder, there are to be distinguished in the most absolute fashion two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme Shepherd of all.
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path. ”
Also in 1950 Pope Pius XII shot down any attempt to say encyclical letters aren’t to being given consent to when he said said “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority…” (Humani Generis, n. 20).
I do not believe Paul VI was a pope because if I did I would have to believe in Vatican II which is what the Novus Ordo is based on.
Hope that helps.
AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV
APPEALING FOR PEACE
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN THE PATRIARCHS,
PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS,
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.
Venerable Brethren,
Greeting and Apostolic Benediction.
22. The success of every society of men, for whatever purpose it is formed, is bound up with the harmony of the members in the interests of the common cause. Hence We must devote Our earnest endeavours to appease dissension and strife, of whatever character, amongst Catholics, and to prevent new dissensions arising, so that there may be unity of ideas and of action amongst all. The enemies of God and of the Church are perfectly well aware that any internal quarrel amongst Catholics is a real victory for them. Hence it is their usual practice when they see Catholics strongly united, to endeavour by cleverly sowing the seeds of discord, to break up that union. And would that the result had not frequently justified their hopes, to the great detriment of the interests of religion! Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.
23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline – in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See – there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.
24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
Given at St. Peter’s, Rome, on the Feast of All Saints the first day of November, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen the first year of our Pontificate.
BENEDICT XV
Couldn’t agree more with Benedict XV.
Question: If somebody asks you what religion you belong to and you say you’re a Catholic and the person happens to also be a Catholic and says “Oh I just love Francis because he is so open minded, humble, and inclusive. I think it’s just wonderful how he is for open borders, not judgmental towards the LGBT, treats all religions with respect, makes progress in the Amazon and may allow priests to get married and even have women ordinations since altar girls are already are on the altar, declared Paul VI a saint because I’ve been wanting to pray to him for years and now I can officially, along so many more wonderful things.” what would you say in return as a fellow Catholic to that person?
Fathers can cooperate in the birth of bastards unfortunately.
I might be one of the few to say this, as I have said before but Pius the XII has to be included in this list of mistresses for he was according to what I have been following on The Tradition and action websites writer Dr.Carrol that Pius XII was the very first Pope to tamper with the liturgy when he began, with Bugninis suggestions, for change in the Easter Holy Liturgy. And, sorry to have to beat this drum again, but he also was the first Pope to ever put in writting that one could plan to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children for economic and or social and or genetic reasons.
I am confounded as to why everyone seems to stop at John the XIII. He might have said a lot of orthodox things but he also did help usher in NFP and changes to the liturgy.
In the NOW article, the words “oddball canon lawyer” are a link to another article which explains why they view him as an oddball. Oddball or not, though, (I had never heard of him so I have no opinion) why is he being quoted by several here as some sort of authority? NOW quotes popes, council documents, pre-VII approved theologians, church fathers, doctors of the church, in other words, Catholic teaching authority or Magisterium. What authority does this Fr. Hesse have that he is quoted as though something he said should have weight for a Catholic?
Did you even try to research NOW’s position on “Fr” Hesse?
Is there anyone else who claimed that Pope Paul VI gave the Catholic Church a “schismatic rite”? Hence, oddball.
Yes, here is that link ATR:
https://novusordowatch.org/2015/03/poison-novus-ordo-mass/
Lee, I followed some links and found this article: https://novusordowatch.org/2015/03/poison-novus-ordo-mass/. Not sure what is your relation to NOW but I’m interested in line of argumentation not about NO. I just need time to digest it.
As quick response to:
If Paul VI is pope and he is saying Vatican II is binding on all Catholics then that means he has the authority to say that as pope (if he was the pope) and a Catholic would have no choice but to give assent and obey.
By Trent, only infallible statements are unconditionally binding for Catholics. For other statements they also are, as per your quote, but with lesser degree of certainty (so to speak, not proper wording but I think you know what I mean). Otherwise you put yourself into the corner not only with NO popes bu with preV2 as well. This is especially true in regard any statements that goes against Tradition and Magisterium, obviously.
P6 did not bind you with V2, moreover V2 itself says it is not binding you (just ‘pastoral’). What P6 did, this is my opinion, is he created impression of V2 being obligatory. I listened to some of his speeches especially regarding NOM, and his intentions are rather clear (btw this is basis for, at least some, lawyers to recognize Roman Rite being suppressed).
I think mistake you and Semanticists make, is not allowing pope to make any mistake. This is incorrect. P6 did not bind you with V2 and this include his quote you brought up. That was my point.
As said, I’d like to read this lengthy article. If you have something better to suggest, please do.
You might as well lump Pope Pius XI and Pope St. Pius X in there too. Pius XI’s Casti Connubii agrees with Pius XII and Pope St. Pius X changed the liturgy more so in his day than Pius XII. No the problem isn’t the changes of the liturgy or the Rythem method. The problem is you
Well, you may throw in St Peter as well…
@M.C. I would suggest this article (including the articles linked within it from Canon Smith, Msgr Fenton, and Fr. Benard). They all refute the too-common error that only infallible statements require our assent. https://novusordowatch.org/2019/07/doctrinal-value-papal-magisterium/
Looks like I hit a cord. NFP always seem to do that.
“Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience.”
Now if we only had “legitimate authority.”
Lee, your mention of Pope Leo XIII is appropriate. It is a fact of Church history that PL13 composed the St. Michael Prayer after experiencing a horrifying “dream” or “vision”. I believe that PL13 was allowed to foresee the Catholic Church after the devastation of V2. Notice how the St. Michael Prayer was somehow quickly removed by the enemies of Christ. If the Novus Ordo “church” is an “unholy false mother church” than the children who follow her are orphans. Our Lady is Our Mother who never abandons Her children.
@As The Rain. Thanks. I will read this as well. For what you said I have no problem. We are obliged to follow not only inflatable statements but we are also obliged to reject any teachings contradicting Magisterium. If the same applies to inflatable as to other papal statements why Trent bother to distinguish them?
Anyway, I will read. It will be, hopefully, over next weekend. Probably this place will be closed but I believe we will have occasion to exchange thoughts, especially if Louie bring Sedevacantism topic up. I’m not proponent to discuss everything possible in comboxes.
Anastasia. No you did not hit the cord. I don’t treat attempts to deprive popes from papacy seriously. I’m aware of P12 starting changes in liturgy, Fr Hesse (again him) even traces start of this process to L13, when he allowed for prayers after Low Mass to be said in vernacular while priest still wears liturgical vestments.
I don not know what NFP is.
MC, we are obliged to assent to Holy Mother Church teaching, not because what She says is infallible, but because only She has the Authority from Christ Himself to teach. Contradiction is impossible from an infallible source operating with the Authority of Christ. So if there is a contradiction, there is only one logical conclusion, it did not come from Holy Mother Church.
Louie, You have my prayers.
I’m enjoying the debate here. We are so often having trouble with polite discourse and debate, so unfortunate. Disagreements don’t have to get personal. I hope to be a grownup someday and not respond to insults with my own insults. I’m still working on it.
I don’t think it was right for Fr. Hesse to be called “oddball” anything. What a rude thing to say. Why are we like this, frustration?
As much as I enjoy the debate and am glad people hash these things out, or at least try to, I’m grateful I can rely on the simple discernment God gave me as well as the warning to consider anathema anyone who came preaching a different gospel. Bergolio and Rome are preaching a different gospel, that’s for sure, so they’ve made it fairly easy. As far as we can tell the Catholic faith can still be found in the Latin Rite and that is a lifeline I hope hurting Catholics find.
“Does it belong to this group [SSPX at that time], and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!” – Paul VI
In other words, get thee self to your local Novus Ordo parish.
@MC: LOL….your auto correct is hilarious.
I can’t say in what way NOW was using the term “oddball” in the most recent blog entry. However, in the blog entry that that it links to, the author wrote:
—
“….a video of a 2-hour talk given by the colorful “Fr.” Gregory Hesse (1953-2006), a ONE-OF-A-KIND Austrian traditionalist “priest” who always managed to sound convincing while he dished out the craziest pseudo-theological theses that were usually quite UNIQUE TO HIM and certainly did not represent the (Vatican II) Church in which he claimed to be an authority.”
—-
If one looks at the definition of oddball, it says “a person or thing that is atypical, bizarre, eccentric, or nonconforming, especially one having beliefs that are unusual but harmless.”
—
This seems to jibe with NOW’s comment that he was “one of a kind” and that his beliefs were “unique to him” (at least at that time).
M.C.: Lower down you say (sorry I can’t figure out how to reply in the correct spot), “By Trent, only infallible statements are unconditionally binding for Catholics.” I’m not sure where Trent says this, but Vatican I certainly disagrees with you, especially with regards to the “only” bit. The following is from “Pastor Aeternus”:
“by divine and catholic faith *all those things are to be believed* which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment *or in her ordinary and universal magisterium*.”
And
“this *jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate*. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this *not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world*.”
Even if Paul VI were a true pope, he cannot change the nature of an ecumenical council, i.e., that they are infallible, and even in the parts where they are not infallible, they are nevertheless binding. He cannot just say “don’t worry, it’s just pastoral”. There’s no such thing as a non-dogmatic, non-binding, pastoral ecumenical council. The question is, was Vatican II a true council or not? If it was, those who aren’t “semanticists” have to follow it. 🙂
NFP is natural family planning. It is contraception when it teaches that one can plan to exclusively had recourse to the infertile period of a woman’s cycle in order to avoid having children.
Tom, I agree.
What I don’t agree is that everything that comes out from pope’s mouth or action is automatically Church teaching. I let popes to make mistakes.
Hello again, TomA,
Simply read again what you quoted, as that which we are bound to obey for all time and unto the end of time: ‘ “Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command,…” ‘. You have listed in this infallible teaching, that which you are required to know and to submit to. The key words, ‘ “…WHENEVER legitimate authority has ONCE given a clear command,…” ‘. “Whenever” and “once”, as Truth does not change in time nor into eternity. Truth cannot one day bind and then the next day somehow unbind, as it could never have been Truth thus. Papal disciplinary authority of course can change, never having bound the faithful to error though, as protected by the so called, “negative charism of infallibility”, but disciplinary authority can change only by the hand of the Vicar of Christ, and according to the election law and Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, 1945, in an interregnum (and no time limits given), NOTHING can be changed by any man or men and all that was once promulgated remains in full force until/unless changed, as it may be, by a duly elected Successor of Saint Peter. Period and end. God bless you and yours. In caritas.
I was replying to Lee.
2Vermont. I’m glad I managed to make you laugh.
Can you explain. I did not correct myself yet. If you get such an impression it must be my bad explanation. Anyway, I don’t know what caused your laugh.
Popes don’t merely “recommend” something, they order it.
And if the Novus ordo was only “recommended”, why did the Modernists kick priests out of their parishes for refusing to say it? I know of one who was made to undergo electric shock treatment because the heretic bishop thought he was mad by sticking to the traditional Mass. This poor priest eventually died a vegetable. What would your Fr Hesse say about that?? Because he wouldn’t go along with a “recommendation”?? Give me a break!
Let’s stick with solid Church teaching rather than personalities like Fr Hesse.
MC, of course not every word out of the Pope’s mouth is official “teaching.” But the problem is not limited to just a Pope’s off the cuff remarks. Ask yourself what has the V2 NO Church taught the last 5 decades? They have taught a false Ecumenism, a false Religious Liberty, and have given us a Protestant liturgy. They teach a dogma free humanism. If they have the Authority from Christ to teach, then we have he duty to assent. It is that simple. The problem is that the conclusion is very inconvenient to most folks.
@Liborum.
You are correct, I made mistake. I was thinking Vatican I.
We are drifting away from main topic. I try to answer very shortly risking that what I want to say wont be understood. I’m not at liberty to join leghtly discussion. Time wise.
Re “Pastor Aeternus”
no objections.
Yet, place where we seem to disagree is what to do if what to do in case we hear from pope something that is contrary to ” word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed”. It happens from time to time.
For what I know I’m obliged not to obey. My understanding is that you are willing to get rid of this pope because of your believe that true pope can never be wrong. If I misunderstood – please forgive me.
This go also for matters regarding “the discipline and government of the church”. This is obvious, I don’t contest this.
Rest of your comment refers to V2. This is yet another topic I don’t want to start now. I only say that if you expect me to defend V2 you are at wrong address.
Sorry if I disappointed you. I’m mostly interested in what Louie started. Is consecration outside the Mass possible at all or not. Not in Skojec’s case but in general.
M.C.
The actual acts of Vatican II are to be considered. The constitutions, declarations, and decrees of Vatican II determine the authority that it intended to act. Paul VI made his own solemn approval and promulgation in his Apostolic brief In Spiritu Sancto. Why else would Paul VI start out his closing In Spiritu Sancto 1965 like this: ” The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit…Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII…” and end with “all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.”
My point was if he (Paul VI) were a true pope then a Catholic has to believe it. It’s not merely pastoral in the sense that it’s not binding. It’s impossible for a heretical Council to bind heretical teachings on the entire Faithful as Vatican II attempted. The conclusion is he and his successors are either Popes of the Catholic Church and you obey them without question or they are not popes because they automatically severed themselves from the Church and therefore nothing they say is binding because they are not even members of the Church. It’s not recognize and resist.
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.” St. Antoninus
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” St. Alphonsus Liguori
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.” Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943
Anastasia,
So are you going to lump all the popes I mentioned in there with Pius XII or does that hit a cord with you too?
The other issue directly related to this is the new Ordination Rite of 1968. If Paul VI imposed a new mass that did not come from the Church, whether he was the Pope but imposed it illegally, or he wasn’t the Pope at all, then why ought we trust that the changes he made to the rite and the form itself transmit the Grace it purports to? Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t.
“In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure ; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential. And this sound method is that which the Catholic Church has always followed.”
– A Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae.
Hello In Caritas. Long time no hear. I will ask again, to whom do we approach if we need a dispensation? In the end we leave it up to our own conscience for dispensations because in the practical order there is no obvious authority.
@MC: I was referring to a couple of your posts where it seemed like your auto correct selected the wrong word: for example, your use of the word inflatable. Did you mean infallible?
@2Vermont
🙂
Got it. Sometimes I catch such mistakes, sometimes not. This is result of being short in time.
Sorry for that.
@Tom A and Lee
As I said in other lace, I don’t want to engage in discussion about V2. No because I don’t think it is important but because it is way out of Louie’s topic, also because my focus is on the Mass (also NOM – how to deal with it) and also due to lack of time. I think I see mistakes in your reasoning about popes, but am not absolutely sure.
I will study both links from NOW – there is a lot materials there (my intentions are not necessary to learn).
For now I’m not in V2/sedevacantism discussion.
ABS would respond by changing the subject -maybe note the weather
It is indeed humbling to submit to those whom you disagree with but there can be no doubt that Francis is Pope.
Our Pope and Our Cross has never ordered ABS to do anything sinful and ABS is grateful he can still assist at Mass even if it is the Lil’ Licit Liturgy in which Jesus Christ is both priest and victim.
There may soon come a time when the faithful are not even permitted that in public.
You’re deluded, ABS, in saying that “there can be no doubt that Francis is Pope.” Because of the toxic heretical sewage flowing from his mouth, pen, and actions every day, sane people can’t help but severely doubt whether he’s pope.
Also, we’re to avoid singularity. Ditch the ridiculous singularity of referring to yourself in the third person.
M.C.
Understood. Remember the Novus Ordo Mass and whether it’s invalid or not is the result of the effects of Vatican II.
Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Conubii did not promote NFP. When Casti Conubii says that people who are knowingly infertile through no fault of their own, i.e. Old age or infertility due to circumstances not of their own doing, they do not sin if they have conjugal intercourse because they are not planning in thought word or deed to subordinate the primary purpose of procreation to the secondary purpose of unity in order to avoid having children. As to Pius X and his changes to the divine office, I don’t beleive this is an act of heresy .Pius XII ‘s opening the doors to new novelties in the Holy Week liturgy with Bugnini in the background along with his promotion of contraception is a huge red flag in my book.
I am not hear to debate the topic that is so dear to Sedevacantists, i.e. Who was the last Pope, I am just pointing out how perplexing it is that Novus Order Watch is adamant about Pius XII being squeaky clean when it comes to Catholic doctrinal integrity.
Joseph Michael Ibrini, a Sedavacantist from his website called Saint John the Baptist comes to mind, in this never ending quest by the Seds to convince us of who exactly was the true last Pope. Joseph Michael Ibrini has had to keep changing and to roll further and further back in time as to who was the last true Pope. I beleive he now after many years down this Sedevancatist path puts the last true Pope during the year 1000.
LOL ABS. Well if there is no doubt that Francis is pope as you said below why change the subject about the weather? Why not be happy with that person? That person is Catholic isn’t he/she? Are you ashamed of the office that Francis claims to represent? Are we to believe in the blasphemous teachings of those like Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer’s who says St. Peter himself was a heretic or Peter Kwasniewski who wrote an article last year saying St. Peter was an example at conniving towards heresy so that everybody can sigh for relief that they need not worry about Francis (as if it’s normal)? What was the point of the Church to fight heresy all the past centuries if it’s guilty of teaching heresy? What about the “bishops” united with Francis? Is there one that totally rejects Vatican II along with it’s new Mass, new catechisms, new evangelizations, new ways to cover up pedophilia/sodomy?
It’s an impostor Church clothed with the name Catholic. It’s impossible for it to be the Catholic Church because while horrible sins can exist in the Church the sin of heresy cannot exist in the Church or otherwise the purpose of the Church would be no different than any other religion.
Anastasia, where on earth did you ever get the idea that any sedevacantist thinks Pope Pius XII is “squeaky clean.” He made some horrendous blunders in judgment when it came to governance of the Church. But he never taught error or heresy. Your pet peeve about recourse to the infertile periods is a broken record. The Church has always taught the legitimacy of voluntary abstinence between married couples. It never put a timeframe on these periods of abstinence. This notion of Pius XII teaching error fits in well with your preconceived conclusion that Popes can teach error therefore we just have to “sift” what Popes teach.
I think most truth seeking Catholics would agree that full voluntary abstinence is quite different from planning in thought, word or deed to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. Complete abstinence does not thwart the sex act NFP does when it tries to have sex while desiring to thwart conception. Scripture from Tobit backs this up, Tradition, the magisterium and countless saints and Church fathers always understood that full abstinence and not Russian Roullette with NFP was the truth and this is the teaching of the true Catholic doctrine. As many readers know I have posted the quotes from Church fathers, Scripture and the magisterium several times on this blog and I do believe you are aware of those quotes . If not I will gladly post them again.
Hello TomA,
Certainly and as infinitely understood, from the Mouth of the Son of God–When the Shepherd is struck, the sheep will be scattered. We live that time and thanks be to God, we have the “perfect contrition”, as the “Thief on the right”. Look to a true Shepherd in union with a true Vicar of Christ, Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, and as such, infallible in his teaching on Faith and Morals. Read the short book, as a compilation of 4 Sermons that he gave, Easter season, circa 1884 or so, as I recall, “The Pope and the Antichrist”. Know it well, dear TomA. Pray for the reception of it properly into your intellect. Amen. In caritas.
Anastasia,
I suggest you read these articles when you have some time:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/07/in-defense-of-pope-pius-xii.html
and
http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html
I’m sure your mind is already made up but for anybody else who would like to read them feel free.
Excellent find, Lee. The CMRI link says it all.
As The Rain, MC, Fleur, Charmaine, Fr. Belland, et al: I appreciate your honest doggedness in expressing reasonable evidentiary opinion’s that reflect reasonable doubt as to many other commenters’ thoughts and evidentiary opinions here in Mr. Verrecchio’s com box. Thank you.
I was watching this interview from American Thought Leaders and Will Witt’s comment about the student body and faculty at Boulder CU brought the overarching tenor of some in this com box to my mind. Check out the Will Witt’s observation at about 4:20, “And I just saw how terrible they were to anyone who had a different point of view.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna–OO8V6U
Dear Alphonus. It is only the church, not individuals like you who exercise the same private judgement as do the protestants. which decided who is and isn[t Pope.
Why would ABS believe that you personal opinions are probative?
You were not sent to teach by anyone
Well if there is no doubt that Francis is pope as you said below why change the subject about the weather? Why not be happy with that person? That person is Catholic isn’t he/she? Are you ashamed of the office that Francis claims to represent?
Dear Lee. Life is too short for ABS to respond when it comes to likes and dislikes about a particular Pope’s personality, preferences, and prejudices.
Franciscus is Pope, he has universal jurisdiction and ABS will obey him in all that he asks ABS to do – short of any sinful act.
Spare us your incessant concern-trolling and virtue-signaling. We’re not a pack of Bogus Disordo pansies.
Uh huh. But tell us more about your absurd habit of referring to yourself in the third person. Why did you adopt this pathetic singularity? And why do you refuse to abandon it?
And you, ABS, exercise your “private judgment” in deciding which papal teachings you will assent to and which ones you will reject. The Magisterium of the post conciliar church teaches a faith contradictory to the one prior to the council. If Francis is your Pope then you must adhere to the new faith and thus are not Catholic.
@ABS
which decided who is and isn[t Pope.
The Law.
If Francis is pope and as you say “has universal jurisdiction and ABS (you) will obey him in all that he asks ABS to do – short of any sinful act” then you nor anybody on here who also believes him to be “the pope” should be questioning the New Mass and whether it’s valid. In fact I doubt Francis would approve of this website or any recognize and resist websites since it attacks almost everything he says and does?
You’re right life is short. One thing you forgot to mention is eternity is forever. If people who call themselves Catholic cannot get the pope issue right then once their short life is over, their long eternity will be miserable for not caring like they should have regarding how they identified themselves as Catholic and what authority they submitted themselves to.
The Vatican II religion is not the Catholic religion. The clergy knows this. I’ve heard two “bishops” admit to it. A priest friend of mine said when people were complaining about him for being too traditional (Catholic) his diocesan “bishop” had a talk with him. The first thing he said to him was “which Church do you belong to Father the Old Church or the New Church?” Another “bishop” when asked whether he was dissenting against the Council of Trent on a point of doctrine because it contradicted Vatican II responded by saying “Vatican II supersedes the Council of Trent.”
Dear Lee. The Lil’ Licit Liturgy is valid.
As to the rest, Catholics can respectfully disagree about various matters as unity does not presuppose unanimity of thought.
Dear Tom A. Not only has Pope Francis not taught any Doctrine that is different from the Original Deposit of Faith – he is literally incapable of doing so.
Vatican 1 – and all of Tradition- attests to that truth.
Dear Alphonsus. ABS began to refer to his own self this way as a lark and now that bird is free
And ABS know this about the validity of the new liturgy how??? Who verified its validity to ABS?
Well end of discussion I suppose. If the conciliar popes are teaching the same Faith as the pre-conciliar Popes, then all this nonsense has been a big waste of time. Lets all get our balloons, put on our sandals and shorts with a Tshirt du jour and go shake hands at the Sign of Peace
ABS, you’re either borderline retarded and thus unaware of the many heresies Bergoglio has spewed, or you’re trolling us. On the small chance that you’re not trolling us, see: https://en-denzingerbergoglio.com/
Fetal infanticide is also legal. Nevertheless it should be rejected. Similarly, the Bogus Disordo MAY occasionally be valid and licit (though this is increasingly less likely as Bogus Disordo seminarians increasingly absorb the diabolism of the Judas Council as pushed by the diabolical Francis). Nevertheless the Bogus Disordo should be rejected. It’s no coincidence that 80% of those who attend the Bogus Disordo reject the Real Presence. This is because the Bogus Disordo is from hell, along with the Judas Council that spawned it.
@AlphonsusJr: Success! You do recognize that you are indeed a pack composed of individuals who together exhibit pack-like behaviors. You are just not a “Bogus Disordo pansy pack”. What kind of pack will you admit to being, I wonder?
ABS: You and Eccles Are Saved!
AlphonsusJr, TomA, et al: Rather I think that in a backdoor way, ABS indicates, albeit very likely unwillingly, that the focal point of examination in this absolutely unprecedented time is not and has never been Francis. The focal point is the “difficult yet triumphant decision” declared on Feb 11, 2013 through the renunciation speech of BXVI in which, as you all know, he renounced the ministerium and not the munus. (Sedes now all rush in to say: not pope, never pope, Pope________ was the last pope and here are all my reasons why)
My valid concern and my intention in stirring your pack (errrr pot) here at aka’s combox is to ask you all to consider that a house divided etc…. and to ask this question: Exactly what does the divisiveness keenly demonstrated here gain against the common Freemasonic, homo-heretical, diabolical enemy that we all recognize and agree holds sway over the Establishment anti-church and thus APPEARS to hold sway over Holy Mother Church? Seriously, what do we gain?
Seriously, what do we gain?
The Truth, the Church.
Your tone-policing, concern-trolling, virtue-signaling, gamma Boomer behavior is unwelcome. Take a hike.
God bless you, Anastasia. you speak the truth on marriage and the marital act and their true nature and purposes. Many are closed to the truth. Understanding of marriage and the Church – understanding of one helps understanding of the other. Long-term mortal sin makes for dimming of reasons and hardening of the heart. Thank you for your witness on these crucial matters over many years; and your love for God and fellow souls. God bless and protect you.
Dear brother in Christ, you’ve a lot of sense for a minor. Your humility too will lead you to wisdom, DV. God bless.
He is a terrible chastisement and a danger to all souls, particularly the young. He preaches an evil, false religion in opposition to God and the Most Holy Faith.
Aye. No man-made (positive) law that infringes God’s Law, the Natural and Eternal Law (attested to by reason), can ever be valid. It is void ab initio as being against objectively- knowable truth, justice, reason. Law is a slave to these. For laws to have any authority they must comply with the eternal laws written in our God-given nature. The true Rule of Law is fixed and unchangeable and commands compliance because it is recognisable as true by person’s of right reason.
Mine too. Thank you, Mr Verrechio, brother in Christ.
Dear Tom. ABS thinks you misunderstand. There is no such thing as new doctrine or a new teaching and so any Pope who tries to claim or insinuate there is new doctrine is not to be followed.
Why does God allow particular prelates to preach such novelties?
God does that to test us to see if we love Him.
All of this, and more, can be found in the indispensable, Commonitory of St Vincent of Lerins in which he treats of novelties and how the faithful must respond.
Despite the truth that some powerful prelates preach novelties does not render their jurisdiction nugatory as even Honorius was not judged too have lost Jurisdiction while alive.
Its is easy to flunk the test God gives each of us if we leave His Catholic Church. Nothing is to be gained by that ever for outside of His Church neither Salvation or remission of sins exist
The Catholic Church.
Dear Alphonus. What do you say to the poor man who has only the Lil’ Licit Liturgy to assist at?
Do you tell him it is preferable to break the Keep Holy The Lord’s Day Commandment?
Rather I think that in a backdoor way, ABS indicates, albeit very likely unwillingly, that the focal point of examination in this absolutely unprecedented time is not and has never been Francis. The focal point is the “difficult yet triumphant decision” declared on Feb 11, 2013 through the renunciation speech of BXVI in which, as you all know, he renounced the ministerium and not the munus. (Sedes now all rush in to say: not pope, never pope, Pope________ was the last pope and here are all my reasons why)
Dear Concerned. ABS has never accepted the argument that he who abdicated did so unwillingly – and he has said publicly, and repeatedly that he was not forced to resign – or in a manner that was rendered illegal by Canon Law – and he has said publicly and repeatedly that the arguments that Francis is not Pope are absurd.
Bullets Barnhardt and her band of unhappy men have been proven wrong by many blogs and experts but as Free Will exists many people will follow her into the fever swamps even though she is not a Canon Lawyer.
Thanks Linda. My sister in Christ. We are not alone.
ABS: Thank you for your reply. Neither have I ever accepted or suggested that Pope Benedict renounced (not abdicated) the ministerium unwillingly. Rather I put before you all for serious consideration that Pope Benedict has recourse to the virtue of Equity/Epikeia which allows “a liberal interpretation of the law in instances not provided by the letter of the law. It presupposes sincerity in wanting to observe the law, and interprets the mind of the lawgiver in supplying his presumed intent to include a situation that is not covered by the law. It favors the liberty of the interpreter without contradicting the express will of the lawgiver.”
In regards to Canon 332.2, I submit that recourse to Equity allows not only a reasonable but far more charitable understanding of Pope Benedict’s “difficult yet triumphant decision”. And there’s the rub…”charitable”.
Why the rub? Because those of “Bullets Barnhardt’s” Teutonic collusion theory (worst pope ever) AND Trads (Francis is pope) and sedes (never pope ever) in general who, from my observations, seem to revel in division and divisiveness in the name of “Truth and Church” and are thus blinded to and by their ‘mob actions’ (“since the last thing any mob likes to be told is that their mobbings–which they typically regard as necessary and virtuous–do more harm than good”); these ostensibly GOOD people will not stand down long enough to even consider the possible validity of Pope Benedict’s recourse to Equity.
We may all agree that these are unprecedented times, but that seems to be the end of agreement. This I submit is the source of ineffectiveness and inaction in our collective and individual duties to Christ’s Bride which, I will add, is not the adulteress that Francis blasphemously claims She is. That Freemasonic, Modernistic, homo-hereitcal adulteress is the anti-church led by him and crewed by the diabolic mutineers dressed in red and purple.
ABS, whether rich or poor, everyone should forever renounce the Bogus Disordo. The Bogus Disordo should not be participated in by anyone under any circumstances. Note: there are no reverent Bogus Disordos, any more than there are compassionate serial killers. As an intentionally Protestantized concoction spawned by the Judas Council, the Bogus Disordo is inherently irreverent. Hence it cannot satisfy the Sunday obligation. Whether it’s committed in Latin, entirely according to its rubrics, validly, and licitly, the Bogus Disordo is inherently irreverent and thus to be entirely and forever avoided under any and all circumstances. Clear?
Unnecessarily capitalizing words is a sure tell that one isn’t the brightest bulb in the bunch.
Here’s some serious “revel[ing] in division and divisiveness in the name of ‘Truth and Church’” for you:
“Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.“
-Jesus Christ at Matthew 10:34-37
Dear AlphonsusJr
You are both clear and wrong and while ABS has no doubt the Real Mass is a superior form of worship that does not mean The Lil’ Licit Liturgy is illicit or to be avoided by those who do not wish to break a Commandment
Dear Concerned. ABS is unable to follow your thinking as you began by asserting that “everyone knows he renounced the minsiterium but not the munus..” but, obviously, many who are Canon Lawyers (notably the well known Dr Peters) disagree with that claim and Fr Ganswwein (sp?) has since retracted his claim concerning that putative intention of Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger.
Now, ABS anticipates you confessing you are not a Canon Lawyer but may desire to enter into a My-Canon-Lawyer-Can-Beat-Up-Yur-Canon-Lawyer exchange but such disagreements could only be settled by the Catholic Church which you think has no authority insofar as ABS can determine.
In any event, The Barque of Peter set out into the deep after the conclave and it is piloted by Franciscus and so the Catholic Church has decided he is Pope and a small gathering of refuseniks (shrieking, He ain’t my Pope) gathered on the dock, shaking their fists in anger, is not persuasive.
Dear Alphonsus. Have you ever been to Brompton Oratory in Kensington, England, for the Lil’ Licit Liturgy?
ABS and The Bride have and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the singing by The Oratorians, were solemn and serious and a worthy true sacrifice.
You think The Catholic Church produced a rite of Mass that is harmful and an incentive to impiety whereas The Council of Trent condemned such a judgment.
Trent also condemned the then massive abuses in Mass back in the day – from superstition to all manner of discord; that is, at no time in the church’s history has there been a time lacking discord or disaster.
You seem to be a man without a Church. ABS will remember you at Mass this Sunday at The Lil’ Licit Liturgy in Wellington, Florida.
Trent was constrained to address the vast number of errors, abuses, and superstitious attitudes then prevalent in The Real Mass
CONCERNING THE THINGS TO BE OBSERVED, AND TO BE AVOIDED, IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASS
FIRST DECREE
What great care is to be taken, that the sacred and holy sacrifice of the mass be celebrated with all religious service and veneration, each one may easily imagine, who considers, that, in holy writ, he is called accursed, who doth the work of God negligently; and if we must needs confess, that no other work can be performed by the faithful so holy and divine as this tremendous mystery itself, wherein that life-giving victim, by which we were reconciled to the Father, is daily immolated on the altar by priests, it is also sufficiently clear, that all industry and diligence is to be applied to this end, that it be performed with the greatest possible inward cleanness and purity of heart, and outward show of devotion and piety.
Whereas, therefore, either through the wickedness of the times, or through the carelessness and Corruption of men, many things seem already to have crept in, which are alien from the dignity of so great a sacrifice; to the end that the honour and cult due thereunto may, for the glory of God and the edification of the faithful people, be restored; the holy Synod decrees, that the ordinary bishops of places shall take diligent care, and be bound to prohibit and abolish all those things which either covetousness, which is a serving of idols, or irreverence, which can hardly be separated from impiety; or superstition, which is a false imitation of true piety, may have introduced. And that many things may be comprised in a few words: first, as relates to covetousness:–they shall wholly prohibit all manner of conditions and bargains for recompenses, and whatsoever is given for the celebration of new masses; as also those importunate and illiberal demands, rather than requests, for alms, and other things of the like sort, which are but little removed from a simonical taint, or at all events, from filthy lucre.
In the next place, that irreverence may be avoided, each, in his own diocese, shall forbid that any wandering or unknown priest be allowed to celebrate mass. Furthermore, they shall not allow any one who is publicly and notoriously stained with crime, either to minister at the holy altar, or to assist at the sacred services; nor shall they suffer the holy sacrifice to be celebrated, either by any Seculars or Regulars whatsoever, in private houses; or, at all, out of the church, and those oratories which are dedicated solely to divine worship, and which are to be designated and visited by the said Ordinaries; and not then, unless those who are present shall have first shown, by their decently composed outward appearance, that they are there not in body only, but also in mind and devout affection of heart. They shall also banish from churches all those kinds of music, in which, whether by the organ, or in the singing, there is mixed up any thing lascivious or impure; as also all secular actions; vain and therefore profane conversations, all walking about, noise, and clamour, that so the house of God may be seen to be, and may be called, truly a house of prayer.
Lastly, that no room may be left for superstition; they shall by ordinance, and under given penalties, provide, that priests do not celebrate at other than due hours; nor employ other rites, or other ceremonies and prayers, in the celebration of masses, besides those which have been approved of by the Church, and have been received by a frequent and praiseworthy usage. They shall wholly banish from the Church the observance of a fixed number of certain masses and of candles, as being the invention of superstitious worship, rather than of true religion; and they shall instruct the people, what is, and whence especially is derived, the fruit so precious and heavenly of this most holy sacrifice.
They shall also admonish their people to repair frequently to their own parish churches, at least on the Lord’s days and the greater festivals. All, therefore, that has been briefly enumerated, is in such wise propounded to all Ordinaries of places, as that, by the power given them by this sacred and holy Synod, and even as delegates of the Apostolic See, they may prohibit, ordain, reform, and establish, not only the things aforesaid, but also whatsoever else shall seem to them to have relation hereunto; and may compel the faithful people inviolably to observe them, by ecclesiastical censures and other penalties, which at their pleasure they may appoint; any privileges, exemptions, appeals, and customs whatsoever, to the contrary notwithstanding.
++++++++++++++++=
ABS highlighted the very practice of Vagus Clergy celebrated as salvific in our times
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose
ABS:
Bullets Barnhardt and her band of unhappy men have been proven wrong by many blogs and experts
Can I ask for links, please.
So the Catholic Church gave us the protestant Novus Ordo?
Dear M.C. ABS tried to post the links but they wouldn’t post.
You can find them by googling
Dr. Peters + Can bad Latin save a papacy
Dr. Peters + Francis was never Pope? Call me unpersuaded
Of course what he says compared to the claims of Bullets Barnhardt is unfair because he is a man who has degrees in Canon Law and knows what he is asking about whereas Bullets is a woman whose expertise is Trading Cattle Futures and Tax evasion 🙂
I dont misunderstand ABS. You think there is no discontinuity between pre and post V2. Nothing I say or tell you to read will change your mind. Good luck with Bergoglio as your Pope.
Thanks, I know those links. Dr. Peters did not prove Barnhardt wrong. As I remember he has written those articles way before Barnhardt. His ‘bad latin’ explanation doesn’t hold the water.
To be clear, I also don’t have degree in Canon Law, just try to use common sense.
Do you have anything else? I’m looking for logical argumentation, nothing emotional or ad hominem.
Dear M.C. ABS provided you sound reasoning from a Canon Law expert and you reject that because common sense yet you accept the claims of Bullets Barnhardt who has no training, degree, or expertise in Canon Law.
As the kids say, whatever….
@ABS: I did not think it your style to put words into another’s mouth. Some have reasonable doubts about Pope Benedict’s Declaratio. Reasonable doubts are not opposed to faith and thus requesting an examination by those in the Catholic Church in which rests the authority to settle the matter of the renouncement is reasonable.
Your picture of dock-bound shrieking and waving refuseniks is humorous but mistaken. Reality is that not one soul is left on the dock. Why? Because we get to choose and because unlike any other time in history there is not only a visible Barque of Peter; there is a visible anti-Barque. It is the same anti-Bride that Francis recently identified as an adulteress.
Yes, ABS, you are mistaken. Not one soul is left on the dock because just like Hell where everyone is welcome and there are no rules (just let your conscience be your guide), the anti-barque under the appearance of binding and loosing has generously made room for everyone. The ‘refuseniks’ not on the dock; they are on the Barque of Peter out in the deep with the Keys “always and forever” retained along with the Munus.
Although this is an unprecedented time since a “retired” pope acts and speaks unlike any other previously retired pope, small groups of reasonably doubting ‘refuseniks’ are in keeping with the historical precedent of faithful followers e. g. trusting, obedient Noah and his bunch and the faith-filled five who remained at the foot of the cross.
While persuasion is an orator’s device used to manipulate others into choosing a perceived good rather than the real Good, promises of the Bride Groom to His bride produce certainty born of faith even though it is obscure this side of the veil. Are you desirous of persuasion, ABS, or are you desirous of the gift of faith? That same faith which declares, “I believe these and all the Truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived”? What are you seeking, ABS? Truth?
@AlphonsusJr: Yes, clearly and more clearly we are witnesses of the double-edged sword of Truth acting. It is unprecedented in that never before has there been the visible Barque of Peter as well as a visible anti-barque. Never before has there been a Pope ‘Emeritus’. A bishop emeritus is still a bishop; thus a Pope Emeritus is still pope. Only one pope (or no pope) at a time. Any other pope besides Peter is an anti-pope.
You’re assuming that Francis and Benedict are actual popes. I no longer share that assumption. The sedevacantist position is increasingly making sense to me. They seem to be the one group willing to face the hard truth without engaging in desperate contortions.
In any event, the hydra quality of the Francis/Benedict dual “papacy” comports with the diabolism of the Judas Council. “I am Legion,” said the demon. One. Yet also many.
“Some have reasonable doubts about Pope Benedict’s Declaratio.“
And some have reasonable doubts about Ratzinger ever being Pope in the first place.
ABS, lipstick on a pig. The NO is still protestant if done with reverence or with clowns and balloons.
ABS, thank you for opinions about Dr.Peters, Ann Barnhardt and myself. I appreciate that.
Yet, it was not I questioned about. You said that Ann have been proven wrong by many blogs and experts. I ask for directions to those many proves. So far you presented one site, that is not response to Barnhardt’s. Because A) – it was written before Ann’s claims were publicized so, naturally, it can’t even attempt proving her wrong, B) – only few arguments used by Peters apply to her reasoning, strongest being ‘bad Latin” argument. If you shift your focus from person to argument itself you will find that this is very week, and easy to refute argument. Do it on your own though, you may find some hints in other lawyers opinions.
I do not want to discuss if Ann is right or wrong. I only ask for those “many blogs and experts”. I’m looking for argumentation not opinions, even the most passionate wont do. So, please, be so kind and back up your statement with any leads, if you will.
Dear M.C. It makes no difference that Dr Peters wrote what he wrote prior to the claims of Bullets. What he wrote makes sense because in the question of the abdication and its relationship with Canon Law, Dr Peters studied Canon Law, took a degree in Canon Law, and has a long established record as a reliable expert in Canon Law whereas Bullets has not studied Canon Law, has no degree in Canon Law, but does have experience in trading cattle futures and tax evasion.
For some reason, ABS is frequently unable to post links in here.
If you google
Did Pope Benedict XVI resign because of threats? No.
Posted on July 9, 2019 by Steven O’Reilly
you will be brought to the Roma Locuta Est Blog and Mr.O’Reilly has several posts up about this matter.
ABS will not waste anymore time responding to you as it is quite clear you have a closed mind about this topic and you believe the untutored claims of a cattle futures trader and a tax evader over an expert in the field of Canon Law
@AlphonsusJr: The “hydra quality” of what you and others find to be a “dual papacy” aside, you say, “You’re assuming that Francis and Benedict are actual popes. I no longer share that assumption. The sedevacantist position is increasingly making sense to me.” Very well, AJr. You have made it clear that the sede position is likely your position. Okay, I got it. It still seems to me that my previous response and suggestion does not challenge your likely position of sedevacantism while at the same time my suggestion potentially leads to a course of action that may be a piece of what is needed to resolve the debacle that is Francis.
Again I suggest that specifically and exclusively in regard to Francis, the kind of divisiveness demonstrated in Louie’s and others’ com boxes is the source of ineffectiveness and inaction in our collective and individual duties to Christ’s Bride. Whoever one accepts as pope, what does a sedevacantist (or even a Francis supporter for that matter) lose by requesting an examination of BXVI’s renunciation declaration? Are we not all seeking for and desirous of Truth? I assume that is your motivation, AlphonsusJr. [ABS, on the other hand, just really seems to like to stir things up–in several different languages–just because. (Sounds a little preternatural to me.)]
I do not mean to be obtuse or argumentative in asking this question of you and others or in making what seems to me to be a reasonable suggestion. Having made your likely sedevacantist position clear (a position which btw I do not challenge), what do you lose by making such a request as I suggest? Thank you for your response.
CC: Why would someone who believes that both Ratzinger and Bergoglio are false popes care which one would is the “rightful” (?) false pope?
@MC: I find your responses to ABS reasonable and if you have not yet discovered Mr. O’Reilly at Roma Locuta Est while like ABS is not in support of BiP, is having significant doubts about Francis’ papacy. In fact, Mr. O’Reilly admits that in the future there may be a proper authority in the Church that will declare Francis an anti-pope. Somehow Mr. O’Reilly while willing to admit to a future Church “undoing” the Francis debacle is unwilling at this time to admit that a future pronouncement is simply a verification about what some have reasonable doubts about right now. In other words, I ask Mr. O’Reilly, why delay? What is to be gained by delaying a request for the resolution of this situation? What are your thoughts, MC?
“We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… we have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect…”
By making that statement Pope PaulVI officially engaged the switch act of a bait and switch scam! The bait being the intention of lawmakers to remain pastoral so they could avoid honest discussion on the subjects, which they did when Cardinal Ottaviani asked for a doctrinal discussion during the council, and was refused one. Does the legislation of a bait and switch scam constitute proper use of authority so as to make it valid? I don’t see how that statement can be the promulgation of the N.O. Missal, for it did not even mention it. Nor did it name any specific doctrines to move into the realm of extraordinary universal magisterium. If the decrees contain doctrines that contradict doctrines existing before the council, the new ones are invalid. That being said, non of this prove Paul VI was not a pope.
“There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ….It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!”
The doctrines taught before Vatican II are the traditions that prove Vatican II is heretical and give the faithful the right to disobey Pope Paul VI and follow the 1958 magisterium. Pope Paul VI was wrong and Archbishop Lefebvre was correct! This proves the priests that were kicked out for refusing to say the N.O. were not guilty and those who kicked them out are guilty of their bait and switch scam. Not even a priest martyred proves those statements were acts of promulgation.
@2Vermont: Good question. My short answer is, “Souls.”
I hope you would answer this question which I think is connected to yours. Why would a Catholic (whoever his pope of choice is) who sees the devastation in the Vineyard, who wants Truth at all costs, and who out of charity studies and presents evidence of just who is a “rightful” pope not act in such a way that may possibly be a piece to resolving the debacle of Francis? In other words what loss does one “who believes that both Ratzinger and Bergoglio are false popes” suffer should resolution to the Francis debacle cause more souls to come to consider what he in part or in whole embraces?
@TomA: I hope you would consider the same question that I have put to both AlphonsusJr and 2Vermont. In somewhat the same vein as yourself, TomA, 2Vermont asked, “Why would someone who believes that both Ratzinger and Bergoglio are false popes care which one would is the “rightful” (?) false pope?”
I answered: “Souls.”
Next I asked the question that I hope you and others will consider: Why would a Catholic (whoever his pope of choice is) who sees the devastation in the Vineyard, who wants Truth at all costs, and who out of charity studies and presents evidence of just who is a “rightful” pope not act in such a way that may possibly be a piece to resolving the debacle of Francis? In other words what loss does one “who believes that both Ratzinger and Bergoglio are false popes” suffer should resolution to the Francis debacle cause more souls to come to consider what he in part or in whole embraces?
I’ll be completely honest with you CC. I don’t see how determining that Ratzinger didn’t really abdicate makes a difference. If it shows that he never did, we still have a false pope! If I’m truly concerned for “souls”, then I should be showing them how all of the false popes started with Vatican II. Ratzinger’s abdication/resignation is chump change. The fact that you can’t see that is the reason why you’re still asking me the same question.
CC, as I continue to study novusordowatch.org and the new book Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism by the Radecki brothers, I must increasingly agree with 2Vermont in wondering what diff it makes which false pope we embrace. Rather, it’s becoming ever clearer to me that the Judas Council did indeed inaugurate a new, satanic religion. I appreciate the SSPX critiques of the Judas Council I’ve read over the years; but I increasingly suspect they haven’t taken the next logical step, which is this: the conciliar “popes” cannot be actual popes.
CC, I believe the highest charity for souls is Truth. The Truth does not contradict, so I serve the highest charity by warning others that the NO V2 sect is not Catholic.
2Vermont: Thank you for being completely honest. I do appreciate that.
Very well, AJr. I too appreciate your reply as well as your list of references.
Ah, TomA. We agree on another point, that the highest charity for souls is Truth. Thank you for your time and your response.
I checked Mr. O’Reilly post you mentioned and also skimmed through other of his posts he linked inside this article. Nowhere I found any mention of Ann Barnhard’s ideas thus even not slightest attempt to prove her wrong. Mr. O’Reilly creates his own ideas about why he thinks people believe B16 is the pope, and then refutes those ideas with his thinking, that is not based on facts but on his thinking. True, general subject is the same or similar to Barnhardt’s but that’s all. No prove whatsoever.
ABS you were not able to provide anything to support your claim, instead you produced quite a lot personal offenses. I try to avoid such situations especially when being short in time, thus I welcome your promise not to answer me anymore. I try to apply the same to your comments. I reserve freedom to answer when you say something extraordinary stupid or harmful.
ConcernedCommenter. Not sure what you are asking exactly for. I answer shortly what I thing you may have in mind.
If you are asking about ABS. I’m disappointment. I hope I don’t have to expand on that.
If you are asking about my opinion about what Mr. O’Reily wrote. I’m not impressed. There really is no substantial argumentation. He shares his thoughts about the subject and is quite selective what he writes about.
I may be wrong. I read him quite quickly and some parts might escaped my attention. I don’t blame him but am not very interested in following.
In particular case: “What is to be gained by delaying a request for the resolution of this situation?” I think plenty is to be gained and lost by interested parties, but I’m not concerned about that very much. Truth is what I seek.
If you are asking about my opinion about who is the pope. This topic is pretty high on my list. I’m almost sure that B16 is the Pope. I wrote “almost” because I admit that I can be mistaken. That is why I want to read argumentation of opposite site. Unfortunately (or fortunately) arguments I hear are easy to refute – rarely, or are of emotional nature – often. This is just psychology in action, imo.
I don’t want to write much about it. This place, combox, is not suited for such discussions. I’m already lost – over 100 posts without chronology, very hard to find new entries, probably I missed some of them, but this is ok, main subject, validity of consecration, is no more priority. I wrote something lately about BiP on non veni pacem blog on this subject, (relatively lately), when subject of papacy popped out. I don’t force you to go there and find it :), if you wish I can mail it to you or repost here, but latest seem to be inappropriate. I seriously think of creating some Slack group to discuss those subjects, but hope somebody else will do it first :).
MC: I will look for your comment on Non Veni Pacem. Thank you for your time and clear articulation of your opinion.
Here’s Novus Ordo Watch’s response last November:
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/benedict16-mysterious-resignation-reply-barnhardt/
M.C.
AUGUST 10, 2019
I checked Mr. O’Reilly post you mentioned and also skimmed through other of his posts he linked inside this article. Nowhere I found any mention of Ann Barnhard’s ideas thus even not slightest attempt to prove her wrong.
Dear MC. ABS identified a particular post by Mr. O’Reilly which contained several internal links. ABS, mistakenly, assumed you’d be curious enough to read the internal links teeming with responses to the false claims of Bullets.
OK, ABS made a mistake thinking you actually were curious and so he will now post a few of the internal links and maybe you can bestir yourself to do some of your own work;
Against the Arguments that Claim Benedict XVI is STILL Pope
Posted on November 25, 2018 by Steven O’Reilly
Benedict is Still Pope and Other Errors
ABS you were not able to provide anything to support your claim,instead you produced quite a lot personal offenses. I try to avoid such situations especially when being short in time, thus I welcome your promise not to answer me anymore. I try to apply the same to your comments. I reserve freedom to answer when you say something extraordinary stupid or harmful.
Hahahaha Were the “personal offenses” noting the well known public record of Bullets?
You know, the fact that she traded cattle futures; the fact that she is a tax evader who doesn’t live in the US and has had her property and money seized by The IRS??
If this woman, whom you obviously admire and trust as a source of factual information, is so brave, then why did she leave the US after telling her followers not to pay taxes?
This weird woman, who has no training in Canon Law, who has taken no degree in Canon Law and is not an expert in Canon Law is your definitive source that Francis isn’t Pope.
The sad thing is that you do not even begin to realise that the last sentence you wrote to me is psychological projection.
Benedict is Still Pope and Other Errors
Posted on January 15, 2019 by Steven O’Reilly
January 15, 2019 (Steven O’Reilly) – It is unfortunate that the Benedict-is-still-Pope (BISP) theory, for some, has moved beyond a mere “theory” or hypothesis to be now treated as an undeniable fact, known with moral certitude. While I share the concerns over this papacy (NB: concerns that led to the foundation of this blog) which have led some to find the BISP theory an ‘attractive’ explanation of Francis, I just don’t believe there is any credible evidence for the BISP theory. I wish I could say otherwise. I do. However, the evidence is simply not there.
I have addressed various aspects of the BISP theory in a number of articles (see Thoughts on Free Will and Hypothetical Papal Plots, Benedict is NOT pope; Benedict is STILL not Pope; and Benedict is really, really still not pope! Really!, Against the Arguments that Claim Benedict XVI is STILL Pope). Frankly, I am about BISPed out by now…and try to avoid the subject if I can. This post was prompted by reading a recent article advancing the idea that Pope Benedict XVI–while still theologian Fr. Ratzinger–held heretical opinions about the papacy (e.g., that three man could hold the papacy, as in a triumvirate). The article in question may be found on Ann Barnhardt’s blog, here.
….
Against the Arguments that Claim Benedict XVI is STILL Pope
Posted on November 25, 2018 by Steven O’Reilly
November 24, 2018 (Steven O’Reilly) UPDATED 11/26/2018; 11/28/2018 and 11/29/2018 –
Objection 2:
In Ann Barnhardt’s video at 20:07-27:18, the argument is made that Benedict XVI’s address in his final audience shows he intended to keep part of the Petrine ministry [NB: In fairness to Ms. Barnhardt’s argument–i.e., that she be allow to state it, I urge the reader to watch her video, especially the time stamp window provided above, specifically related to this objection]. Since, one cannot keep a part of the Petrine ministry, Pope Benedict was in “substantial error” (cf Canon 188) in his resignation, therefore his resignation is invalid (e.g., thinking he could give up the “active” ministry, while retaining the “passive” ministry”). Consequently, Benedict XVI is still Pope. Ms. Barnhardt refer to this portion of Pope Benedict’s final audience where he speaks of his resignation (emphasis added):
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. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.
The “always” is also a “for ever” – 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 do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. 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 Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God. (excerpted from the last general audience of Pope Benedict XVI, February 27, 2013)
According to Ms. Barnhardt, Pope Benedict XVI demonstrates his mistaken notion of the Petrine ministry, thinking he could remain within the “enclosure of St. Peter.” This, according to Ms. Barnhardt is Pope Benedict XVI’s “substantial error”.
Reply to Objection 2:
Some say Benedict’s comments in his last audience prove he intended an expanded Petrine office comprised of an “active” pope and a “contemplative” pope. It is here, these folks suggest – such as Ms. Barnhardt, that Benedict XVI exhibited his “substantial error” which demonstrates his resignation is invalid. I have read this final audience many times over, and I cannot help but conclude that those who think it demonstrates “substantial error” have instead fallen prey to a case of pareidolia, i.e., seeing something that is simply not really there.
The main difficulty with Ms. Barnhardt’s overall argument is her interpretation of Pope Benedict XVI’s address at his final audience. Her argument does not even attempt to address or refute simpler and more plausible interpretations that do not require the great assumptions she must make to support the claim Benedict XVI is still pope.
I have already provided the complete relevant text under “objection 2” and include it again below with my running commentary in RED, which will be followed by a summary of my interpretation of what it appears Pope Benedict XVI was more likely saying (emphasis added):
“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. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated.”
O’REILLY Comments: It must be remembered, the resignation (see Reply to #1) is manifestly clear: Benedict intends to vacate the Chair of St. Peter, and he calls for a conclave to elect his successor. Here, in his final audience, Benedict speaks of what his life will be after he steps down. He speaks of anyone who is elected pope losing privacy. As he says of him who is elected a pope: “He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church.” It is because of this, he says “in a manner of speaking“, his privacy is eliminated. In other words, Benedict is speaking of the private dimension of his life being always lost, but only in a sense – not due to some indelible mark of papal office or ministry he cannot lose or freely surrender.
“I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.”
O’REILLY Comment: Earlier, we see what Benedict XVI describes to be any pope’s loss upon election–the private dimension of his life. Here, he speaks not of what he loses, but of what he gains–or what any pope gains. That is, a Successor of St. Peter gains the love of the whole Church: “he belongs to all, and all belong to him.” He “truly has brother and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world.” But let us look as Benedict explains his meaning regarding the ministry not being revoked (emphasis added):
“The “always” is also a “for ever” – 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 do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. 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 Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” (excerpted from the last general audience of Pope Benedict XVI, February 27, 2013)
O’REILLY COMMENTS: Benedict has already talked about election to the papacy as eliminating, in a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life – but then what this loss gains for him (i.e., belonging to all, and all to him). Now, he wants to assure us that his resignation does not change this, i.e., he will not lose this belonging, this loving of those who had become his daughters and sons, sisters and brothers as pope. Thus, Benedict tells us: “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 Saint Peter.” Benedict tells us, again, he will no longer be pope, but even though he no longer is our pope, that his life will be devoted to praying for the whole Church, i.e., for all of those who became his sons and daughters, sisters and brothers as pope, and it is in this way – “so to speak” – he remains in the enclosure of Peter, praying for the whole Church. But again note, here he says he remains “in the enclosure of Peter” only in a sense (“so to speak”), i.e., not in fact.
Therefore, what seems clearly to be Benedict’s logic may be briefly summarized as follows: (1) one who is elected pope belongs to the Church and the Church to him, the private dimension of his life in a “manner of speaking” is lost; (2) yet, one (a pope) receives ones life when one gives it away in this manner, that is to say, he truly gains in return brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world; (3) a Pope loves them and truly feels secure in their embrace because he “no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him;” (4) however, resigning the papacy does not revoke this loving attachment or this bond of love the pope has felt (i.e., I may be gone, but I still love you), and thus the resigning pope (Benedict) will always retain his love for all (i.e., for we the Church, his brothers, sisters etc.), and thus (5) he will in love continue to pray in service for the Church; and it is in this qualified sense – “so to speak” – he remains in the “enclosure of Peter,” but not in fact.
That is, Benedict sees himself figuratively still in the enclosure, not in a legal, ecclesiastical or literal sense. Benedict is saying he is no longer actively pope, but in a manner of speaking-‘so to speak’–remains in the “enclosure of St. Peter” (i.e., figuratively so) doing what he can do ‘passively’…i.e., prayer in service of the Church–prayers for those he loves…us the Church.
This is far simpler and more plausible explanation of Benedict’s words, and it has the benefit of not requiring us to forget he was a good theologian and had familiarity with Church history. Nor does this explanation require us to make Benedict a heretic who proposed there could be two popes or two men sharing the papacy.
Objection 3:
In the above referenced video at 27:18-41:12, Ms. Barnhardt comments on an address given by Archbishop Ganswein wherein he lays out the mind of Pope Benedict XVI with regard to his resignation, i.e., along the lines of Ms. Barnhardt’s interpretation of Pope Benedict XVI’s final audience (See Objection 2 above). Further, there are eyewitness who say that Pope Benedict XVI apparently approved Ganswein’s speech and gave it his “blessing”– demonstrating that Ganswein’s speech does reveal the mind of Benedict regarding his resignation. In this speech, Ganswein speaks of an expanded Petrine office with an “active member and a passive member,” etc. Thus, taken all together, this proves Pope Benedict’s invalid intent.
Reply to Objection 3:
I grant, Archbishop Ganswein, Benedict’s aide, did make some confusing statements that helped fuel the theory we are rebutting. However, I would say the following.
We should understand Benedict XVI through his own words first, and not Ganswein’s. Doing so, we have already seen he declare his intent to vacate “the See of Saint Peter” (see Reply to Objection #1) and that his words from his final audience explain how Benedict XVI views himself ‘in a manner of speaking’ still within the enclosure of St. Peter (see Reply to Objection #2).
However, even if the doubters prefer to read Benedict through Ganswein, it seems clear enough that Ganswein’s statements are consistent with the rebuttal (see reply to Objection #2), i.e., a less provocative understanding of an expanded ministry is possible, one that is expanded in a ‘manner of speaking.’ For example, Sandro Magister writes of Ganswein: “And most recently the archbishop in closest contact with him, Georg Gänswein, has told us that Benedict “has by no means abandoned the office of Peter,” but on the contrary has made it “an expanded ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member,” in “a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a shared ministry.” But, these words of Ganswein (in bold above) quoted here by Magister can be understood in a figurative sense (see Reply to Objection 2). Indeed, Ganswein says it is “almost a shared ministry” but to say in this context that someone is “almost” something is to also imply clearly the same someone is not that something; e.g., just as Hillary Clinton might say “I was almost president”…yes…but the fact remains she is not. Therefore, Ganswein indirectly tells us that Benedict does not share the papal ministry with Francis.
Also, it must be remembered Archbishop Ganswein’s now controversial speech was given “at the presentation of a new book by Roberto Regoli entitled Beyond the Crisis of the Church — The Pontificate of Benedict XVI” (see here). On such an occasion, it is not unexpected that flowery or panegyrical language, praise and compliments might be over the top. If Ganswein might be criticized now for unguarded panegyrical praise of Benedict, he might be forgiven for being taken quite so literally on such an occasion. But, for those who want to interpret Ganswein’s talk of an “expanded ministry” literally, how then do these same folks interpret Ganswein who says of the book’s author (Roberto Regoli) at the end of the same address: “Thus, this book once again throws a consoling gaze on the peaceful imperturbability and serenity of Benedict XVI, at the helm of the barque of Peter in the dramatic years 2005-2013. At the same time, however, through this illuminating account, Regoli himself now also takes part in the munus Petri.“ Where are our “Benedict is Pope” interpreters on this? Is Ganswein speaking literally or figuratively of Regoli taking “part in the munus Petri?” What they might say, they must say it…but it is clear to me that Ganswein is speaking figuratively of Regoli, obviously, and it was in this same sense Ganswein spoke in the same speech of Benedict’s post-resignation role.
Furthermore, Ganswein has since clarified he never meant to suggest Benedict maintained any part of the office of the papacy (see here).
Objection 4:
In the above reference video at 41:13- 55:58, Ms. Barnhardt quotes canon 188 wherein it is said that “a resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or made out of malice…” is invalid. Ms. Barnhardt relates how sodomites, satanists, etc., all hate and hated Pope Benedict XVI because he had taken active steps to clean up the filth in Church. Ms. Barnhardt in her video describes how Pope Benedict was an obstacle to them, and that his enemies wanted him out, e.g., St. Gallen mafia.
Reply to Objection 4:
I do not dispute Ms. Barnhardt’s description of the situation of the Church, or the state of mind of Pope Benedict XVI’s enemies. As I have previously indicated, I think we both would agree on quite a lot. However, while Ms. Barnhardt’s description of the state of the Church is quite on target in my opinion, she does not provide what is necessary for her objection to qualify as a proof that Benedict XVI was forced to resign or did so out of fear.
She gives us reason to think there were folks who hated Benedict, and wanted him gone. However, she has not produced evidence to date that this actually happened. I am not saying it did not happen, only that she does not provide evidence it happened. After all, while there may have been many cardinals and others in high places who wanted Benedict gone, it could also be true at the same time that Benedict resigned freely without being subject to fear or coercion. Therefore, objection 4, at least as enunciated by Ms. Barnhardt fails–until actual proof is provided.
NB: I have previously commented on questions regarding the St. Gallen Mafia and Benedict’s free will regarding the question of his resignation: Thoughts on Free Will and Hypothetical Papal Plots).
Objection 5:
In Ms. Barnhardt’s video starting at 55:59, certain visual evidence is pointed out as proving Benedict XVI still thinks of himself as pope, such as he “continues to wear the papal white and the papal ring” and he “retains his papal name and papal style (Holiness)” and he “continues to reside in the Vatican and make public appearance.” To this, Ms. Barnhardt displays Archbishop Ganswein’s words:
“From the election of his successor, Pope Francis — on 13 March 2013 — there are not then two popes, but de facto an enlarged ministry with an active and contemplative member. For this reason, Benedict has not renounced either his name or his white cassock. For this reason the correct title with which we must refer to him is still “Holiness.” Furthermore, he has not retired to an isolated monastery, but [has retired] within the Vatican as if he had simply stepped aside to make space for his Successor, and for a new stage in the history of the Papacy, which he, with that step, has enriched with the centrality of [prayer] and of compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.” (Archbishop Ganswein as quoted by Ann Barnhardt in her video, The Bergoglian Anti-Papcy, accessed 11/24/2018 at time stamp 1:01:21)
Reply to Objection 5:
It cannot be denied that Benedict XVI’s wearing of the papal white, etc., is unprecedented. Further, as I believe is noted by Ms. Barnhardt, Benedict’s stated reason for this choice–he did not have a black cassock on hand(!)–is simply bizarre. I agree with her. There are clerical outfitters within yards of the Vatican, and certainly he had time to order one before his resignation was effective–and certainly since that time! On top of that, Ganswein’s explanation (as quoted by Ms. Barnhardt) is at variance with Benedict’s earlier explanation. Odd, to say the least.
However, oddities duly granted, this does not constitute evidence Benedict XVI is still Pope. We must remember, as is clear enough from my Replies #1 and #2; (1) that Benedict XVI understands he vacated the “the see of St. Peter” and (2) that he only remains within the “enclosure of St. Peter” in a manner of speaking (“so to speak”), through his continued prayers in service of the Church and (3) that Ganswein denies he ever meant to suggest there are two popes. Granting the oddity of it all, it appears the answer rests somewhere here, i.e., speculatively, that being ‘in manner of speaking’–but not in fact–in the enclosure of St. Peter by serving the Church through prayer for all, Benedict may have thought retention of the papal white made sense.
Further, it may also be Benedict thought to set a modern example of the retirement option for future popes; by setting a precedent of ‘how to do it’–perhaps thereby making it an easier choice for others–as if to break a taboo against resignation. That is to say, seeing how ill and weak John Paul II was in his final years, perhaps Benedict XVI wanted to make the retirement option more concrete for future popes so that the Church is not in a state of suspension during the enfeebled years of an old pope. That is just my speculation–but this only shows there are other plausible speculations for the retention of the papal white without jumping to the extreme speculation that therefore, Benedict is still pope.
As to titles used, Benedict as Emeritus attempts to explain his choice to retain the papal style to Cardinal Brandmuller. I discussed their correspondence in Benedict is really, really still not pope! Really!. Thus, I will not go into detail here, other than to point out that in one of the letters, Benedict XVI is squabbling with Brandmuller over his use of titles as former pope and “Papa Emeritus”, not over the fact of whether he is still pope. Benedict stated he wanted to be inaccessible to the media so that “it is completely clear that there is only one Pope” (see the linked article above).
So, while I grant the unprecedented nature of Benedict’s choice, he still maintains — despite it all — “it is completely clear that there is only one Pope.” The wearing of the papal white, continuation of papal style, etc., are choices which are undoubtedly intended by Benedict — these are not accidental. However, since he says of himself he is a “former pope” and that “it is completely clear that there is only one Pope” we must conclude — whatever the reasons for or merits of these choices, he has not made them because he believes himself pope. Therefore, the objection that holds Benedict still thinks of himself as pope because he continues to wear papal white, maintain the papal style, etc., fails.
Objection 6:
Ms. Barnhardt refers directly and indirectly to various prophecies (1:02:46 to 1:05:20), such as those referring to apostasy beginning at the top, to a time of “cardinal vs. cardinal and bishop vs. bishop”, etc.
Reply to Objection 6:
I have great respect for Catholic prophecy as well, and believe it quite likely some or all of those mentioned by Ms. Barnhardt pertain to our time. However, I do not believe that any of the prophecies–or all of them together–to which Ms. Barnhardt alludes demonstrate her conclusion, that Benedict is still pope. The prophecies may appear consistent with that opinion, but that is no proof. The prophecies are consistent with other theories, too. For example, even if we were to hypothesize Francis is not a valid pope, there are various ways that might happened without assuming Benedict is still pope.
Bullets caught red-handed attributing to Ratzinger the works/ words of others:
Benedict is Still Pope and Other Errors
Posted on January 15, 2019 by Steven O’Reilly
January 15, 2019 (Steven O’Reilly) – It is unfortunate that the Benedict-is-still-Pope (BISP) theory, for some, has moved beyond a mere “theory” or hypothesis to be now treated as an undeniable fact, known with moral certitude.While I share the concerns over this papacy (NB: concerns that led to the foundation of this blog) which have led some to find the BISP theory an ‘attractive’ explanation of Francis, I just don’t believe there is any credible evidence for the BISP theory. I wish I could say otherwise. I do. However, the evidence is simply not there.
I have addressed various aspects of the BISP theory in a number of articles (see Thoughts on Free Will and Hypothetical Papal Plots, Benedict is NOT pope; Benedict is STILL not Pope; and Benedict is really, really still not pope! Really!, Against the Arguments that Claim Benedict XVI is STILL Pope). Frankly, I am about BISPed out by now…and try to avoid the subject if I can. This post was prompted by reading a recent article advancing the idea that Pope Benedict XVI–while still theologian Fr. Ratzinger–held heretical opinions about the papacy (e.g., that three man could hold the papacy, as in a triumvirate). The article in question may be found on Ann Barnhardt’s blog, here.
In this article, Ms. Barnhardt references a theological collection of essays entitled “Dienst an der Einheit.” As described by Ms. Barnhardt in her words: ““Dienst an der Einheit”, which means, “Service to Unity”, is a collection of papers edited by…wait for it… JOSEPH RATZINGER.” Ms. Barnhardt then goes on to write:
“One of the contributuions (sic) to “Dienst an der Einheit” is a paper written by Joseph Ratzinger himself, titled “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes” which is in English, “The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God.””
Ms. Barnhardt then goes on to blockquote both the original German and an English translation provided by a “fully bilingual German reader…of the opening section of this paper, found on pages 165-167.” From the text found on Ms. Barnhardt’s site I provide the English translation below, only taking the liberty to modify some of the formatting (NB: I retained Ms. Barnhardt’s underlining and red highlighting used by for emphases):
The Primacy of the Pope and the unity of the People of God.
(The spiritual basis of primacy and collegiality)
The topic of the papacy is not one of the popular themes of the post-conciliar era. It had a certain measure of implicitness as long as it corresponded to the monarchy in political space. At the present moment, when the idea of monarchy has practically died out and been replaced by the democratic idea, the doctrine of primacy lacks the frame of reference in our general presuppositions. So it is certainly no coincidence that the First Vatican Council was dominated by the primacy idea, but the Second by the struggle for the concept of collegiality.
It should, however, be immediately added that Vatican II sought to rewrite the idea of collegiality, with which it received incentives from today’s attitude to life, in such a way that it contained the idea of primacy. Today, as we have gained a little experience of collegiality, of its value, and also of its limits, we need to start again at this point in order to better understand the unity of seemingly contradictory traditions, thus preserving the richness of the Christian expression.
1 Collegiality as an expression of the we-structure of the faith
In connection with the conciliar debate, theology had tried at that time to grasp collegiality beyond the merely structural and functional, as the expression of a fundamental law reaching back into the innermost essence of the Christian, which therefore presents itself in different ways on the individual levels of the practical realization of the Christian: It could be shown that the we-structure belongs to the Christian in general. The believer, as such, never stands alone: Believing means stepping out of isolation into the We of the children of God; the act of devotion to the God revealed in Christ is always also devotion to those already called.
As such, the theo-logical act is always an ecclesial act that also lends itself to a social structure. The initiation into the Christian is therefore always concrete socialization in the community of believers, is We-Formation, which is beyond the mere self.
This corresponded to the fact that the disciples’ calling by Jesus is represented in the figure of the Twelve, which takes up the cipher of the old conception of God’s people, to whom it is once again essential that God creates a common history and acts on his people as a people.
On the other hand, as the deepest reason for this we-character of the Christian, it has become apparent that God Himself is a We: The God, whom the Christian Credo professes, is not solitary self-thinking of thought, is not absolute and indivisible in a self-contained ego, but is unity in the Trinitarian relation of the I-Thou-We, so that We-Being, as the divine basic form, precedes all worldly We’s, and the likeness of God finds itself referenced from the outset to such a We-being.
In this context, a previously largely forgotten treatise by E. Peterson on “Monotheism as a Political Problem,” again attracted attention, in which Peterson had attempted to show that Arianism was a political theology favored by the emperors, because it provided the divine equivalent of the political monarchy, whereas the triumph of the Trinitarian faith shattered political theology and overturned theology as a justification for political monarchy.
Peterson had broken off his analysis at this point; now it was taken up and continued into a new analogical thought, the basic idea being that the We of God must correspond to ecclesiastical agency according to the We model. This general, multi-faceted approach has occasionally been advanced to the point that according to it, the exercise of primacy by a single man, the pope in Rome, actually follows an Arian model.
According to the triune nature of God, the church must be led by a triumvirate, whose three occupants together are the pope. It was not lacking in resourceful speculation, which (somewhat following Solovyov’s story of the Antichrist) found that, in this way, a Roman Catholic, an Orthodox and a Christian from the Reformation confessions together could form the Pope-Troika.
Thus, directly from theology, the concept of God, the complimentary close of ecumenism, seemed to have squared the circle, through which the papacy, the chief annoyance of non-Catholic Christendom, must become the definitive vehicle for the unity of all Christians.*
*FOOTNOTE (This was occasionally heard in oral remarks, which sought to refer in an unrefined manner to H. Mühlen’s work, especially in his work Entsakralisierung, Paderborn 1971, 228 ff.; 240 ff.; 376-396; 401-440.Although Mühlen’s own expositions are impressive and advanced, they do not seem to me to be free from the danger of a new analogical thought which overstretches the ecclesiological applicability of the trinitarian statement.)
Now, of this English translation of Fr. Ratzinger’s text, Ms. Barnhardt said (emphasis added by me):
“So, he (SIC) we have proof of Joseph Ratzinger, like his German and Nouvelle Theologie colleagues and peers of the day, positing RADICALLY SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS IDEAS about the Petrine Office, casually referring to it as an “annoyance”, and echoing Kasper’s words that the papacy suffered a “crisis of legitimation”. The driving point was that the papacy MUST be “radically and fundamentally transformed” by some sort of expansion into a “collegial, synodal office”. He we see Joseph Ratzinger taking this SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS MADNESS so far as the say that the Petrine Ministry could eventually include NON-CATHOLICS and thus become the “definitive vehicle for the unity of all Christians.” But first, it has to be “expanded” into a “collegial, synodal ministry”.
Regarding Ms. Barnhardt’s conclusion above, I would say the following. First, I would love to see the rest of this essay fully translated into English. That said, as to my second point, unless the as-of-yet translated essay says something quite different from what has already been translated, I see nothing here. Absolutely nothing. That is to say, in fairness to Joseph Ratzinger, it is rather apparent the thoughts of others are incorrectly being attributed to Ratzinger by Ms. Barnhardt in her commentary. Perhaps this is a quibble over the use and meaning of “posit“….but it is clear Ratzinger is not “positing” his own ideas or theory of the papacy (i.e., he is not positing a multi-person papacy). My response below presupposes this is what Mr. Barnhardt intends, i.e., that Ratzinger is stating his own ideas about the papacy (NB: if Ms. Barnhardt doesn’t believe he is doing that either, my apologies in advance…but in which case, Ratzinger’s essay–as translated thus far–still would not help her BISP argument).
Now, all we have to go on is the portion of Ratzinger’s paper so far provided. But, even in what we have above, it appears Ratzinger’s essay was outlining the spiritual basis for the primacy and collegiality, as the title suggests, by discussing various presuppositions and theories regarding these concepts. That is to say, he is not necessarily describing his own position–and it does not appear we have his full paper (yet). At the outset, he mentions the impact of various presuppositions impacting the understanding or expression of the primacy or collegiality. He says, for example, “At the present moment, when the idea of monarchy has practically died out and been replaced by the democratic idea, the doctrine of primacy lacks the frame of reference in our general presuppositions.”
His brief discussion then leads into a discussion of the ‘we structure’ of the faith, and of the Christian, i.e., which is based on a Triune rather than an Arian understanding of God. This leads to his discussion of the thoughts of someone else, i.e., E. Peterson. Ratzinger outlines that E. Peterson believed that Arianism was favored by the emperors “because it provided the divine equivalent of the monarchy, whereas the triumph of the Trinitarian faith shattered political theology and overturned theology as a justification for political monarchy.”
But, note, this introduction of Arianism is related to the thoughts of E. Peterson. It is clear enough that Ratzinger–as a theologian–is describing the thought of E. Peterson whose analysis, Ratzinger notes, had broken off “at this point” (i.e., describing the political Arianism of the emperor) and then Ratzinger says this line of Peterson’s thought now “was taken up and continued into a new analogical thought” which suggested the “We of God must correspond to the ecclesiastical agency according to the We model” (i.e., Trinitarian model). Ratzinger says it was “taken up”…he does not say he–Ratzinger–takes it up.
Ratzinger is describing what others have done in continuing E. Peterson’s analysis, i.e., developing the political Arian analogy of the emperor to suggest a single-man papacy was likewise Arian. At this point in his essay, he is simply tracing one line of thought that led to a conclusion that “According to the triune nature of God, the church must be led by a triumvirate, whose three occupants together are the pope.” Nowhere does Ratzinger say he accepts, agrees or identifies with this analogy! Even Ratzinger’s translated footnote clearly indicates he sees the danger of overstretched Trinitarian analogies applied to ecclessiology: “…they do not seem to me to be free from the danger of a new analogical thought which overstretches the ecclesiological applicability of the trinitarian statement.“). I can’t imagine anything more “overstretched” than a papal triumvirate! Therefore, personally, I hope the rest of the document is translated. I am confident it will not bear out Ms. Barnhardt’s conclusion, i.e., that it demonstrates Joseph Ratzinger thought the papacy could be a triumvirate.
But, for now, regarding Ms. Barndhardt’s assertion that in the above quoted material “we have proof of Joseph Ratzinger, like his German and Nouvelle Theologie colleagues and peers of the day, positing RADICALLY SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS IDEAS about the Petrine Office“, we can say that, based on what Ms. Barnhardt provided in her article, this assertion is (1) without any substantial foundation in fact and (2) an unfair reading of Joseph Ratzinger’s words that incorrectly attributes to him the theories of others.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Dear M.C. No wonder you trust her- She satisfies all of your ideological an dtheological bias
According to a Bullets vid on You Tube
The Economy Is Going To Implode Pt.2 of 8
she claims (beginning at the 5 minute mark) that anyone who says Usury is wrong is Antisemitic.
Who says Usury is wrong?
Well, just the Bible and Catholic Doctrine
Vix pervenit is Catholic Doctrine but to Bullets it is anti semitic evil
Well, she is your guru so drink some more Kool Aid
As NOW once said, if Ratzinger erred in resigning the papal office because he has an erroneous opinion as to the nature of the office, then likewise this erroneous opinion would have prevented him from assuming the office in the first place.
M.C. On the use of “doubtful matter or form” in the confection of a Sacrament: From “A Manual Of Pastoral and Moral Theology” Fr. Henry Davis S.J. Vol IV: “In conferring the Sacraments (as also in Consecration in Mass) it is never allowed to adopt a probably course of action as to validity and to abandon a safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely, an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether “ex officio” or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments, there is no doubt about the triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary, there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion. The same is true for one who uses a probable opinion in the reception of a sacrament, in respect of its matter or form, for his action exposes the Sacrament to invalidity.
So even if there is “a chance” that the Consecration outside of Mass could be valid; it would be a grievous sin to either attempt to do so or even to receive such a Sacrament.
Re. The validity of Orthodox Sacraments: the Orthodox use Catholic rites; and have the minimum intention of doing what the Church does.
Re. “Badly educated priest”; that is why the Church insisted on its priests to be properly trained, in order to avoid such scenarios.
Re. “Interior dispositions”; the Church or anybody else cannot judge the interior dispositions; so she sets up rules to prevent invalid sacraments from being confected; when these are ignored, a Catholic has the duty not to use or receive such Sacraments, because of the dangers these represent.
2Vermont. Thank you. I know this article. I this is the only one that addresses AB video directly. I see couple mistakes in logic presented there, but don’t intend to deliberate on that, at least not now.
There is only small paragraph that refers to what I’m mostly interested in, namely invalidity of resignation based on Canon Low that can be proved. AB in her video goes with wide range of arguments and mixes those that are based on facts with those based on speculations. Of course speculations have to be proved, at least to some degree, to have real value.
In this paragraph article makes mistake (imo) of the same kind as Dr. Peters in his “bad Latin” argument did.
But thank you for link anyway.
Michael Wilson. Thank you, what you quoted confirm what I, and others, said, both re. validity of NOM (can be valid) and re. attendance (can not be attended even if there is probability that it is valid. Leaving licity matter out, it can not be attended because you can not be reasonably sure that NOM is valid).
Of course Church forbids any actions stated in your post, that is logical, obvious and natural. I focus on looking at this matter from perspective of laity, your post looks more from Church-consecrated person relation perspective, but both points of view give us the same picture.
ABS. Thank you for quotes. I read them all.
I distrust her simply on the basis of her wearing that ridiculous tie. This indicates catastrophically bad judgment.
Dear Alphonsus. Yes. She has bad and ridiculous judgment – from tax evasion to her foray into Canon Law.
She stopped paying her taxes and began to attack her supporters who were wise enough not to drink that particular Kool Aid
You’ll recall Ann Barnhardt closed her brokerage business because government thieving has made markets unsafe. Now she’s on tax strike as well, unwilling to support Obama’s “cult of child sacrifice.” It’s a hard nugget of open rebellion. The IRS notice threatening her is posted on her website. Now she’s laying the lash on those supporters of hers who have tried to dissuade her from taking on the IRS and risking imprisonment. She says they are nominal Christians who have no concept of Christian martyrdom.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 10, 2012 11:01 AM
ABS just looked these few items up the last several days to help others decide is this is the type of woman worthy of trust.
It is interesting to note re her charge that others have no concept of Christian martyrdom that she now, apparently, lives outside the United Staes to avoid the IRS taking anymore of her property and income.
ABS knew of Bullets and her activity back when he was a reader of Free Republic and Mr. Auster’s, From the right.
There can be little doubt she is intelligent but intelligence does not equal wisdom or even sanity.
Dear M.C. You’re welcome
Did you even read the links I posted or is your mind already made up despite what the Church taught about it?
I’m delighted to see ABS cite Lawrence Auster, author of that priceless essay on immigration entitled “The Path to National Suicide” http://jtl.org/auster/PNS.pdf
Also see: HOW I CAME TO WRITE “THE PATH TO NATIONAL SUICIDE” http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024324.html
Dear Alphonus. ABS was a regular reader of Mr Auster and it was happy surprise to learn he had converted to Catholicism prior to his unfortunate death.
Prior to that, he was quite opposed to The Catholic Church and The Papacy which tends to show that those most opposed to The Catholic Church are often also closest to it
I assume ABS is also a reader of the excellent Vdare and Unz sites as well?
M.C.
thanks for your response. I totally agree.
Dear Alphonsus Yes
An ignorant Catholic or a mistaken Catholic can believe or say something heretical without being a heretic. Heresy is when someone says the Church says this, but I say something else, that’s actual heresy. When a ignorant Catholic or a mistaken Catholic says something heretical, it’s called material heresy. So if an erroneous opinion does not make you an actual heretic, how in the world could it prevent someone from becoming a pope?
Ratio, please do not tell me you honestly believe that all the post conciliar “popes” merely held or hold “erroneous opinions.” The list of their professed heresies is long, extensive, and well documented. If you do not see this, it may be because you yourself do not know the Catholic Faith as taught prior to the disasters of the 2nd Vatican so called Council. Read Pascendi to understand the defined heresy of modernism. Then compare that definition to the V2 NO sect. Your only honest conclusion can be that the V2 NO sect fits Pope St Pius X’s authoritative definition of the modernist heresy.
Apparently popes-to-be/cardinals shouldn’t be expected to know what it means to be pope/to know Church teachings regarding the papacy.