Yesterday’s post elicited an enthusiastic response, most especially from supporters of the “dogmatic certainty” argument.
Before I address some of their comments, I want to share with you an amusing anecdote that comes to us courtesy of our beloved friend John Vennari, buon’anima!
In October of 2014, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Fatima Conference held in Deerfield, IL. The first night of the weekend conference began, as usual, with a dinner and an address given by Fr. Nicholas Gruner.
Toward the end of his roughly hour-long talk, Fr. Gruner made mention of the vision attached to the Third Secret of the “bishop dressed in white” of whom Sr. Lucia wrote, “we had the impression that it was the Holy Father.”
Drawing a contrast between this “impression” and the actual pope who, according to the vision, is killed, Fr. Gruner stressed that they are not one and the same person.
The former, he said, is not the Holy Father, he just looks like it.
At this, Fr. Gruner turned his attention to the fact that Benedict, by his own resignation statement, did not resign the munus, or “office” of Peter.
This led Fr. Gruner to suggest that whatever Benedict intended to do, he wasn’t actually resigning the papacy.
Now, bear in mind, this was more than a year-and-a-half before Archbishop Ganswein essentially confirmed as much, saying in in his infamous presentation of May 2016:
“The key word in that [resignation] statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry.”
It was clear that Fr. Gruner’s comments took many if not all in attendance by surprise; in particular the Fatima Center staff members who were on hand.
When the presentation concluded just minutes thereafter, with a palpable uneasiness still hanging in the air, John Vennari took to the podium to dismiss the gathering.
With the sharp wit that was ever his hallmark, John broke the tension by quipping in reference to Father’s comments something to the effect:
“I suppose that makes Benedict the man in the munus!”
Needless to say, the room broke out in laughter. The air had been cleared; at least for a time. [Note: As far as I know, Fr. Gruner never distanced himself from his comments.]
Returning now to yesterday’s post, I would offer the following thoughts in response to counterpoints made by certain of my interlocutors.
First, on the matter of those venerable theologians of the past who expounded upon the “dogmatic certainty” that follows the peaceful, universal acceptance (by a moral unanimity) of a new pope:
It is crucial when looking to such writings for support that one first discerns, What question, doubt or concern is being addressed by the author of the text?
In the present case, I have never encountered a citation wherein the specific question that we are moved to ask today (among others) is being addressed. It is essentially this:
If the College of Cardinals is sufficiently deceived into believing that an invalid papal resignation is truly valid (i.e., they are convinced that the See of Peter is vacant when it is not), and they assemble in conclave to elevate a replacement, what is the status of the man they elect?
This question concerns a very unique set of circumstances that merit specific consideration.
It is not enough to cite treatments broadly discussing “canonical irregularities” when those writings give every appearance of having as their starting point the presumption that the Chair of St. Peter was truly vacant when the conclave met.
Now, one may argue that the peaceful, universal acceptance of a new pope serves to validate the invalid resignation of his predecessor, but thus far I’ve not encountered anything convincing to that effect.
If, however, this is true, Canon Law, in order to be consistent should include something along the lines of the following:
A papal resignation not freely made is invalid, as noted, but only until such time as a new conclave elects a replacement that is universally and peacefully accepted as pope.
It is noteworthy that Canon Law foresees the possibility that a papal resignation may be forced and therefore invalid (which has never happened as far as I know), and yet somehow it doesn’t include any such disclaimer; even though a forced resignation by its very nature is a secretive affair.
All of this said, the claim that Francis was peacefully and universally accepted strikes me as dubious in itself.
For one, even before the day the resignation was supposed to take effect, Canon Law professor Fr. Stefano Violi (a man with considerable credentials) and others were questioning its validity.
From my own limited experience alone, to say that a great number of persons both lay and ordained have had misgivings about Francis from the day he was introduced is an understatement, and those reservations only increased in the days and months ahead.
I suspect that most here can say the same.
Among my friends who argue in favor of “dogmatic certainty,” even some of them will plainly admit to as much as well.
Moving on, a comment was offered to the extent that the acceptance of a man as pope by a moral unanimity of the Church has as its cause the dogmatic fact of his election.
In the present case, however, the presumption that the Chair of Peter was empty as the election was held (i.e., the resignation was valid) necessarily comes first and is indispensable in creating the atmosphere of acceptance.
If the presumption upon which the acceptance is based is false, would that not render the acceptance itself of no regard?
Lastly, our friend and contributor Fr. José Miguel Marqués Campo raised a good question for those on the “dogmatic certainty” side to consider:
What if Benedict comes forward and admits that he was pressured into resigning; i.e., that the act was not freely made as required for validity? What then?
To add to this, I would also ask:
What if Benedict had made this admission one month, three months, or one year into the Bergoglian Occupation? Does time play any factor? If so, how much time?
Some folks are very uncomfortable with the fact that much of this discussion centers on “what if” scenarios.
These, however, are not only fair questions; they are relevant questions based upon the unique circumstances in which we are living.
Dismiss them as sheer nonsense if you wish, but know that in the process you are also dismissing the concerns of men far brighter and holier than most of us combined; Fr. Nicholas Gruner, to name just one.
It is my impression also that Fr. Gruner entertained the idea that Pope Benedict’s resignation was flawed. There is a Q&A video on the topic of Pope Francis and Fr. Gruner remarks something to the effect that he wonders if Pope Francis was ever Pope.
It depends how one defines “manifest heretic”, by his writings and public comments did Ratzinger assure Catholics he was one before he got elected in the conclave?
If I saw the pope in a vision, I probably would never mistaken him for a bishop dressed in white although possible it is very likely that such ambiguity would have been clarified by Our Lady. Such an important vision as this, concerning the pope would have been made clear to Sr. Lucia, by the words of Our Lady. Fr. Gruner may have been on the right trail.
I will answer Louie V’s objections.
Louie V: “In the present case, I have never encountered a citation wherein the specific question that we are moved to ask today (among others) is being addressed. It is essentially this: If the College of Cardinals is sufficiently deceived into believing that an invalid papal resignation is truly valid (i.e., they are convinced that the See of Peter is vacant when it is not), and they assemble in conclave to elevate a replacement, what is the status of the man they elect?”
JPeters: What you are really asking is whether one of the *conditions* required for a valid papal election was met. The specific condition to which you are referring is whether the papal office was truly vacant at the time of the conclave, since, if it wasn’t, the election of the new Pope would be null. The theologians have indeed addressed and answered the question.
They explain that because we have infallible certitude that a man who is recognized as pope by the entire Church is, in fact, the true Pope, so likewise we also have infallible certitude that the necessary *conditions* were met. The certitude that the conditions were met is a theological conclusion that follows from the infallible certitude of the pope’s legitimacy. John of St. Thomas explained it this way:
John of St. Thomas: “whoever is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a Pope in her name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is in fact Pope. This latter is what the definition of Martin V, related above, as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about. BUT FROM THE DE FIDE TRUTH THAT THIS MAN IS POPE, IT FOLLOWS AS A CONSEQUENCE THAT ALL THE REQUISITE *CONDITIONS* MUST HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. (…) because it is de fide that this man in particular, accepted by the Church as canonically elected, is the Pope, the theological conclusion is drawn that there were genuine electors, and a real intention of electing, as well as the other requisites [such as a vacant papal office], without which the de fide truth could not stand.”
Cardinal Billot likewise explains that the adhesion of the Church to a man as pope provides infallible certitude that all the necessary *conditions* were met.
Cardinal Billot: “[A]t least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, AND THEREFORE ALSO OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALL THE *CONDITIONS* REQUIRED FOR LEGITIMACY ITSELF. … Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election OR A POSSIBLE LACK OF ANY *CONDITION* WHATSOEVER NECESSARY FOR LEGITIMACY.”
This is also how to refute the sede-vacantist claim that the recent popes were all public heretics prior to their election, which, they say, prevented them from validly acquiring the papal office. We know this is false because they were accepted as pope by the entire Church, and one of the CONDITIONS required for such acceptance is that they are not public heretics.
Louie V: “Lastly, our friend and contributor Fr. José Miguel Marqués Campo raised a good question for those on the “dogmatic certainty” side to consider: What if Benedict comes forward and admits that he was pressured into resigning; i.e., that the act was not freely made as required for validity? What then? To add to this, I would also ask: What if Benedict had made this admission one month, three months, or one year into the Bergoglian Occupation? Does time play any factor? If so, how much time?”
JPeters: I have a better “what if”. What if Pope Benedict publicly responded to the controversy surrounding his resignation by issuing a public statement saying “there isn’t the slightest doubt about the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry,” and then adding that “speculation about its invalidity is simply absurd”. Would the testimony of Benedict himself, who alone truly knows if his resignation was forced, satisfy those who believe that it was? The answer, of course, is no, since Benedict did issue such a statement yet it too was rejected on the basis that it too was forced.
But to answer the question that the good priest raised: we know that Benedict’s resignation was valid because Francis was elected and accepted as Pope by the universal Church. Just as we have infallible certitude that Francis is the Pope, so too we have infallible certitude that the necessary conditions were satisfied, including the condition that Benedict’s resignation as valid. Based on this, we can rest assured that the hypothetical “what is” will never happen, and that Benedict will not contradict what he has already said publicly.
“What if Benedict comes forward and admits that he was pressured into resigning; i.e., that the act was not freely made as required for validity? What then?”
—
You don’t get it, Louie: This has already been spoken to. Francis’ papacy is already a dogmatic fact. As the theologians teach, *even if there was a canonical problem with his election* – such as Benedict’s resignation being coerced – these were “healed in the root” by his acceptance of Pope. It is always Christ who severs a man from the papacy, in the end. He is in control. The public good of the Church requires that we know who is pope, *unless* there was never morally unanimous acceptance, which is not the case here.
—
This is a unanimous opinion of the theologians (no contention), for which you have no response, so you resort to your own judgement and your own will.
—
By the way, the phrase “dogmatic certainty” is of your own making.
—
I could share my own comments regarding Mr. Vennari’s opinion on both sedevacantism and francisvacantism, by I will not do so, as they were conveyed privately.
Fr. Kramer also claims that God killed Fr. Gruner – for recognizing Francis as pope (along with the rest of the Church)!
—
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch-fr_14.html
“What you are really asking is whether one of the *conditions* required for a valid papal election was met.”
.
Not exactly.
.
The treatments to which you referred speaks, as you said, to the conditions of a papal *election;* i.e., as it pertains to the activities of a conclave.
.
At issue here is not the condition of the election (the conclave) itself, but rather the condition of the Petrine Office. The difference is considerable.
.
If the Petrine Office is occupied (as it would be in the case of an invalid papal resignation), a conclave that impeccably meets every condition would be of no avail.
.
John of St. Thomas (in the work you quote) makes it clear that he is focused exclusively on the conclave itself. He even makes specific note of the kinds of conditions he has in mind; e.g., “the intention and genuine identity of the electors” and the conditions for the one being elected.
.
In other words, a close reading of John of St. Thomas (and also Louis Cardinal Billot) on this topic make it clear that they are not in any way entertaining questions concerning the state of the Petrine Office and the possibility that it may not be vacant as a conclave assembles.
.
Billot writes:
.
“For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault *in the election* and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”
.
NB: He is not talking about healing an invalid resignation.
.
Again – it seems rather obvious to me that both Cd. Billot and John of St. Thomas assume, as a starting point in their treatments, that the See of Rome is vacant.
Paul – see my comment above.
.
Billot is specifically addressing “healing in the root” the (possible) deficiencies of a given conclave and the process of election.
.
“Healing in the root” or “radical sanation” is a process by which deficiencies or impediments are “healed” in order to (retroactively) elevate something (like a marriage) to its proper condition.
.
Do you honestly believe that Billot wished to suggest that the “healing” of a forced papal resignation would be to make it valid and binding? The very idea is absurd. Clearly, that is not what he is addressing as healing such a situation would entail restoring the pope to his rightful place; not sending him on his way.
I am following with interest this exchange, and Louie’s position seems to make most sense for this reason:
There are clear conditions spelled out for a valid resignation. What would be the point of having such conditions, if an *invalid* resignation did not negate the subsequent election? In other words, if any election that produces the effect of general acceptance of a new pope can negate an invalid resignation, then there would appear to be no point at all in distinguishing between a valid and an invalid resignation. And yet, we do have these criteria.
“Billot is specifically addressing “healing in the root” the (possible) deficiencies of a given conclave and the process of election. ‘Healing in the root’ or ‘radical sanation’ is a process by which deficiencies or impediments are “healed” in order to (retroactively) elevate something (like a marriage) to its proper condition.”
—
It is canonical impediments *in general* that are healed, by Christ. Let’s look at the quote from Cd. Billot, the context of which is much broader than you suggest, in full:
—
“…***the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself***. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ ***For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith***, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
—
Therefore, ***from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy***. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions” (emphasis mine) (Cardinal Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Vol. I, p612-613, as quoted in John Salza & Robert Siscoe, True Or False Pope? (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2015) p382-383).
—
It seems you are reading into the text restrictions you wish to be present. The point of the protection the theologians speak of is to prevent the Church cannot be deceived into following a false pope, which is exactly what you claim is now occurring.
—
—
“Do you honestly believe that Billot wished to suggest that the ‘healing’ of a forced papal resignation would be to make it valid and binding? The very idea is absurd. Clearly, that is not what he is addressing as healing such a situation would entail restoring the pope to his rightful place; not sending him on his way.”
—
I think you are again missing the meat of what elevation to and removal from the papacy really entails. The legal (canonical) issues are not paramount because the tail (canon law) does not wag the dog (the Faith), but serves it.
—
When the Church proposes matter (a man) via an election, Christ binds him to the form of the office. The latter is an action only Christ, the Head of the Church, can perform, and this is not in dispute.
—
Likewise, if it comes to pass that a Vicar is to be severed from the papacy, it is Christ that performs this action (in response to the actions of the Church Militant in the case of a deposition). This, again, is not a contested matter of theology.
—
With that background, what we can say is that Christ does not *need* to make a resignation *canonically* valid! He can indeed (for the good of the Church, as taught very plainly by Cd. Billot above) sever the matter from the form regardless of the letter of the law. He can do this as He pleases, and according to the spirit of only the quote above, He will indeed do exactly this. (Never mind the fact that there is actually no evidence that Benedict’s resignation was coerced, or is otherwise invalid, and that that contradicts the repeated public testimony of the subject, on which public judgements must be made.)
—
The notion that the Lord’s hands are tied by canon law is the absurdity here.
The criteria exist because canon law serves a purpose even if it is not supreme. Your position simply contradicts directly the position of the theologians that canonical impediments can, in fact, be “healed” in certain circumstances (for the public good of the Church, the mission of which is the salvation of souls, not legal jot & tittle).
Louie V: “The treatments to which you referred speaks, as you said, to the conditions of a papal *election;* i.e., as it pertains to the activities of a conclave. At issue here is not the condition of the election (the conclave) itself, but rather the condition of the Petrine Office. The difference is considerable. John of St. Thomas (in the work you quote) makes it clear that he is focused exclusively on the conclave itself. He even makes specific note of the kinds of conditions he has in mind; e.g., “the intention and genuine identity of the electors” and the conditions for the one being elected.”
.
JPeters: You are missing the point. The argument applies to “ANY condition whatsoever” as Billot said. That explains why, after listing a few examples of conditions, John of St. Thomas specifically said “as well as the other requisites.” It doesn’t matter what the condition is. If a man is accepted as Pope by the entire Church, it proves that each and every necessary condition was satisfied. It is a matter of basic logic.
.
Louie V.” In other words, a close reading of John of St. Thomas (and also Louis Cardinal Billot) on this topic make it clear that they are not in any way entertaining questions concerning the state of the Petrine Office and the possibility that it may not be vacant as a conclave assembles.”
.
JPeters: Of course they are, since the vacancy of the Petrine office is one of the necessary conditions for a valid election. It is not a surprise that they did not mention this condition specifically, since it is not one that had ever come up, but it is obviously included since it is a necessary condition.
Billot wrote: “from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of ANY CONDITION WHATSOEVER necessary for legitimacy.”
.
“Any conditions whatsoever.” If you concede that a vacant petrine office is a condition for a valid papal election (and you do), then you must also concede that it is included in “any conditions whatsoever.”
C’mon Louie, this is not confusing or difficult to understand.
“I am following with interest this exchange, and Louie’s position seems to make most sense for this reason: There are clear conditions spelled out for a valid resignation. What would be the point of having such conditions, if an *invalid* resignation did not negate the subsequent election?”
JPeters: Your missing the point. The debate is not whether an invalid resignation negates and subsequent election. The point is that we have infallible proof that the election was not invalid due to the fact that Francis was accepted as Pope by the entire Church. The latter proves that the resignation was NOT invalid.
Louie’s entire case is based on the notion that a *condition* for a valid election was not fulfilled, when the acceptance of the man as Pope by the Church proves that it was.
Moreover, Benedict himself publicly denied that the resignation was invalid and referred to speculation that it was as “absurd”.
So I guess that with all the now public, corroborated facts now out about the outright violation of the provisions laid out by John Paul II in his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Gregis Dominici (which outlines how a valid papal conclave/election happens and what makes the election invalid as well), which Cardinal Danneels and company openly flaunt (read: St. Gallen Mafia), that we should believe that Bergolio is a validly elected pope? Sorry, but it is very apparent with those who have eyes to see that Benedict’s resignation is invalid as the St. Gallen Mafia coerced it. As a consequence of JPII’s UDG, the St. Gallen Mafia cardinals also invalidly elected Bergoglio. Do I believe that Benedict is still pope? You bet I do. However, we will most likely not see the Church clarify all of this until well after our deaths.
“There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry,” Benedict, 86, who now has the title “pope emeritus,” said in a letter to the Italian website Vatican Insider published on Wednesday.
“The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculation regarding its validity is simple absurd,” he wrote in answer to a request by the website for comment on recent Italian media reports.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Now, of course, one could say he was pressured to say that, right?
IOW, we wee Catholics can’t take anything at face value anymore, not even the public proclamations of a former Pope many want to believe really is Pope.
As for Fr Gruener. He was suspended a divinis and he was obviously disobedient although there are not a few who defend his disobedience in the name of some putatively higher good.
Fr Gruener’s suspension
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4086
“The point of the protection the theologians speak of is to prevent the Church cannot be deceived into following a false pope…”
—
Drat that I let slip this typo. But, the meaning is clear.
—
Since I’m posting an addendum, the phrase “…all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…” is what is especially operative here. ALL THE CONDITIONS, not merely of the conclave itself, but of the “legitimacy of a determined Pontiff.”
—
Since the new pontiff could not possibly be legitimate if the Chair was still occupied by another, indeed such matters are a part of such “conditions” that are “healed” by the fact of general acceptance.
—
“…from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election ***or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.***”
—
No longer permitted… to raise doubts about… ANY condition whatsoever…
Al, JP2 kissed a Koran and allowed a budha to placed on top of the tabernacle. How can he be a Pope? He also promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law which allows non-catholics to recieve communion. In addition his teaching in FC, supports Humanae Vitae in teaching the heresy that the first purpose of marriage is something other than the procreation and raising of children. JP2 was an objective heretic and not protected by the promise of Christ therefore he could not have been a Pope.
This introduces another potential ‘what if’ scenario…
What if…
that same cosensus of the ‘entire Church’ that initially accepted Francis as the Pope, then due to various statements made by clerics, including Francis and examinations of what Benedict XVI meant when he said he was still within the enclosure of St. Peter and holding onto the novel ide of an indellible mark of the papacy and spiritual component on retiring the active ministry etc. etc…
What if… that same consensus of the ‘entire Church’ a few years into the Francis ‘papacy’ then begins incresingly to develop and hold severe doubts about Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ holding of the office.
Does the ‘acceptance of the entire Church’ have some time limit to contest the election in light of new evidence or proliferation of the same doubts incresingly coming to be held in the minds of most Catholics, and heck, even Protestants and non-Christians?
What then?
And if you ask me, that ‘what if’ scenario is probably very likely to become an actual reality as this papacy goes on…
Amateur Brian Surgeon, Fr. Gruner’s ‘suspension’ was bogus and you’ve fallen for fake news.
Please see C Ferrara’s treatment on this bogus rumor here:
http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/notsusvir.asp
Actually Mr. Amateur, Benedict nowhere in that statement addresses what anybody was actually asking – what the heck he was talking about when he referred to himself as only retiring from the ‘active ministry’ of the Papacy. That he continues to hold on to the “prayerful, contemplative, spiritual ministry of the papacy” the Papacy leaving some indelible permanent mark on him like the sacrament of Holy Orders, a total novelty never before heard of in the Church’s history, and what Benedict meant when he states likewise that he is not ‘abandoning the Petrine Ministry (by virtue of maintaining the split spiritual aspect), but continues to remain “within the enclosure of St. Peter.”
Golly Gee! it’s like Mr. Amateur Hour over here himself doesn’t read at face value ALL of what Benedict said and that somehow all this confusion surrounding his resignation just sprung up out of the ground, even with the likes of Benedict’s own personal secretary Ganswein also saying that Benedict created something new in the Papacy, changing it forever, and having some new mysterious connection, alongside the likes of the Prefect of the CDF, Meuller, who once also poo-pooed the idea of Benedict being any sort of double Pope, only a month or so later, we presume after speaking to Benedict himself, coming out and whistling the same tune as Ganswein, though we all have a taste for Meuller’s consistency given his before and after attitudes concerning Amoris Letitia.
But carry on then Amateur… Keep trusting the same sources that give you the bogus Fr. Gruner ‘suspension’ fairy tail… or more like the ‘threat of suspension’, a threat never followed up btw. Even more amusing because nobody even knew where the source of that threat of suspension came from. But if Mr. Brain Surgeon over here has some actual credible info we’d love to hear it!
Louie,
Have you ever read this?
https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/ockhams-razor-finds-benedict-still-pope-francis-is-false-pope-universal-church-in-state-of-necesity-since-24-april-2015/
Food for thought for everyone… More at the link. But I believe a another friend of mine put it best, “If Benedict actually went out of his way to do this, then he has fully vindicated the actions of the SSPX and their state of emergency!”
——————————————————————————————-
Did Pope Benedict XVI declare a State of Necessity in the Catholic Church?
The reason that we are asking this question is that if the answer is in the positive, supporting our earlier position, then the REALITY that Catholic Church finding itself in a State of Necessity brings with it a whole host of consequences, both intended and unintended. Please see here and here. So below, we will try to pin down the SPECIFICS and highlight some of the resulting consequences.
So let’s get cracking.
Supporting Evidence that BXVI declared a State of Necessity in the Universal Church
From the evidence presented in the Guido Ferro Canale analysis of the Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the answer to the above HYPOTHESIS is in the affirmative.
Proof comes from both Archbishop Georg Gänswein (AG) and from Guido Ferro Canale.
With respect to AG, the following are the pertinent passages:
AG titled his speech “Benedict XVI, the end of the old, the beginning of the new.” [DP3]
AG identified “the new” as being “precisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates”. [DP6]
AG identified “the new” as follows: He (AG) also uses – although in a much less evident way – another category: the state of exception. [DP8]
AG stated that: “Many continue to perceive this new situation even today as a sort of state of exception intended by Heaven.” [DP10]
And naturally, the “state of exception” is the same as the State of Necessity as we demonstrated in our post titled “NECESSITY HAS NO LAW” And The “Resignation That Wasn’t”? (see here)
With respect to what “the new” is not, and contrary to what AG claims, the following is the case:
The “new” does not, and cannot mean, is any manner or form a “dual papacy” with one active pope and one passive pope. The reason that the “new” CANNOT be referring to the dual papacy is that a “dual papacy” DOES NOT EXIST, since it is contrary to the Papal Office as Our Lord founded it. As George Weigl explains: [DP1] (see here) (emphasis added)
The papacy would seem to be one of these you-are-or-you-aren’t realities.(Ed Note: binary opposite) According to the law of the Church, a man becomes pope the moment he accepts election (assuming he’s a bishop; if not, he becomes pope after he’s immediately ordained to the episcopate). A man ceases to be pope when he dies or when he abdicates the office by a clear and free manifestation of his will to do so. So there are never “two popes.”
That there is no such thing as a “Pope Emeritus”, the following is the pertinent passage:
Whatever else a “pope emeritus” may be, he is emphatically not “the pope.”
And Weigl follows up with this:
Archbishop Gaenswein’s reference to title and vesture confirms what many of us thought three years ago: the decisions about these matters made in 2013 were mistaken. Yes, the former bishop of a diocese is its “bishop emeritus” while he lives, for he retains the indelible character of episcopal ordination; but there is no such character to the Petrine office. One either holds the Office of Peter or one doesn’t. And it thoroughly muddies the waters to suggest that there is any proper analogy between a retired diocesan bishop and a pope who has abdicated.
Quick question. Who believes that the “decisions about these matters (Ed note: to create a “pope emeritus”) made in 2013 were mistaken”? Implying that Benedict “made a mistake”? Yet the following appears in the text: (Benedict was) capable of evaluating difficult texts and books in a brilliant way [DP32].
I will leave this question open for now.
More supporting evidence that “the new” is not a “duel papacy” is that a “dual papacy” would, by definition constitute an INNOVATION. Benedict in turn, even as a neo-modernist was the antithesis of an INNOVATOR. This was the reason why he was hated by the Team Bergoglio cabal. Support for this observation is provided in the following passage: Gänswein does not see the “beginning of the new” in any of Benedict XVI’s many acts of governance or magisterium [DP5]
Further evidence that “the new” refers to the State of Necessity comes from Guido Canale. Here are the pertinent quotes:
GFC: The analysis seems fairly clear: that of Benedict XVI becomes a “pontificate of exception” precisely by virtue of the resignation and at the moment of the resignation. [DP16]
GFC: his (AG) mother tongue makes it clear that Gänswein has no such banality in mind, but rather the category of “state of exception” (Ausnahmezustand).[DP18]
GFC: A category that any German with an average education immediately associates with the figure and thought of Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). [DP19]
I think the point is made.
Next questions that are answered are:
Who can declare a State of Necessity?
According to AG,“The sovereign is the one who decides on the state of exception. [DP20]
When did the State of Necessity become “visible” (declared)?
GFC: Gänswein does not see the “beginning of the new” in any of Benedict XVI’s many acts of governance or magisterium, but precisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates. [DP6] This is also confirmed by [DP4] that speaks about the “demarcation” between “old” and “new”.
As to consequences, OBJECTIVELY speaking, of the declaration of the State of Necessity, the following is the case:
“Aus-nahme” literally means “out-law.” A state of things that cannot be regulated a priori and therefore, if it comes about, requires the suspension of the entire juridical order. [DP22]
An “Ausnahmepontifikat,” therefore, would be a pontificate that suspends in some way the ordinary rules of functioning of the Petrine ministry, or, as Gänswein says, “renews” the office itself. [DP23]
The consequences that the above entail is that under a State of Necessity, as per St. Thomas Aquinas:
“The Church (Sovereign) may, for instance suspend the application of a positive law like some aspect of canon law.” and in extraordinary situations, acquire extraordinary duties and therefore extraordinary means”.
What this means is that a Sovereign (read pope), in this case Pope Benedict XVI, provided that he still is the Sovereign (POPE) can suspend the ordinary rules and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own, as per Herr Schmitt and referenced by Archbishop Ganswein.
Let that sink in for a second.
Now let us return to the Weigl passage: “decisions about these matters (Ed note: to create a “pope emeritus”) made in 2013 were mistaken”. The specific decisions that were made in 2013 were as follows:
Title of Pope Emeritus was created for Benedict,
Benedict became the Pope Emeritus,
it was decided that the Pope Emeritus would live in the Vatican,
and it was decided that Pope Emeritus would continue to wear a white cassock, i.e. a form of the vesture proper to a pope.
And why is the above important?
Here is George Weigl to explain:
“In a world of images, the white cassock and zucchetto worn by the man who is no longer pope sends the wrong signal.” (Ed note: maybe yes, or maybe no!)
Summa summarum
Given the above, let us return to the original Magister post titled A “Pontificate of Exception.” The Mystery of Pope Benedict (see here) and examine the following passage (given according to a apparent FORMULA) in light of what we have established above:
Gänswein – with the weight of one who is in the most intimate contact with the “pope emeritus” in that he is his secretary – had said that Joseph Ratzinger “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.”
The above passage appears to be an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT statement, in light of the fact that, 1) the title of Pope Emeritus is not real, “a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.” (sound familiar – Benedict’s revenge?) , 2) was created for Benedict, whereby Benedict became is the Pope Emeritus, 3) lives in the Vatican and continues to wear a white cassock, i.e. a form of the vesture proper to a pope.
And the reason that the above is most likely an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT statement is that Pope Benedict XVI, by his actions, “precisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates” [DP6], FORMALIZED “a situation in another category: the state of exception” [DP8]. Furthermore,“Many continue to perceive this new situation even today as a sort of state of exception intended by Heaven.” [DP10]. This “state of exception” describes the same “state” which, according to St. Thomas Aquinas “HAS NO LAW”.
This “new situation”, a “state of exception”, “intended by Heaven” is what is defined as a STATE OF NECESSITY.
To sum up the above ^ :
“And now concluding.
What the Pierce/Ockham pragmatic methodology is finding is the following:
Benedict XVI is still the reigning Pope
BXVI’s resignation enacted a formal State of Necessity.
The 2013 Conclave was invalid since there was no vacancy in the See of St. Peter. (Here one can say that the 2013 conclave was as REAL as Benedict’s appearance at Assisi III. Once again, “necessity has no law”.)
The State of Necessity allowed BXVI to effective keep the Petrine Office while creating a “pseudo-pope” to manage the day to day operations of the See of St. Peter.
Proof of this is the FORMULA (“active” and “contemplative”) used by BXVI’s secretary, Archbishop Gänswein acting on behalf of BXVI,
Maintained the visible vesture proper of a pope, along with the proper residence,
Benedict explicitly demonstrates that he maintains the papal teaching office. (see here)
2. Francis is a False Pope in that he was never able to ascend to the throne since Benedict, through the imposition of the State of Necessity, never relinquished the Petrine Office. Francis being pope is as REAL (in this scenario) as the 2013 conclave and Assisi III. Please recall, “necessity has no law”.
Besides, Francis requested that he be referred to as bishop of Rome. How many still remember?
3. The Universal Catholic Church has been put under a State of Necessity by Benedict XVI at the time of his ascension to the Throne of St. Peter, i.e. April 24, 2005. The State of Necessity was “formalized” by Benedict’s “resignation that wasn’t”. The current state is that the Catholic Church is under Benedict’s “pontificate of exception”.
4. And finally, the evidence above suggests that this issue will be decided at a time in the future when the NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ reaches its conclusion.
The Council of Econe has a nice ring to it!”
Good Thursday afternoon JPeters,
Your continued assertion that the “entire Church” has “accepted” the servant of the diabolical, in the human person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a murderer of Christ as Truth Himself, in the likeness of his father, a murderer from the beginning, would be utterly laughable, should this time in the True Church and as thus in the world, not be so immanently darkened, in such a likeness and image of the diabolical himself, in the existential now, unlike any other time but for perhaps the Deluge. In caritas.
Walter Sobchak in “The Big Lebowski”: Has the whole world gone crazy?!?”
Lund Cathedral Speech by Pope Francis
“Certainly, there was a sincere will on the part of both sides to profess and uphold the true faith, but at the same time we realize that we closed in on ourselves out of fear or bias with regard to the faith which others profess with a different accent and language. As Pope John Paul II said, ‘We must not allow ourselves to be guided by the intention of setting ourselves up as judges of history but solely by the motive of understanding better what happened and of becoming messengers of truth’”(Letter to Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, President of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, 31 October 1983).
John Vennari writes: “Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the eminent American theologian, rightly observed that Martin Luther’s alleged Reformation of the Church ‘consisted in an effort to have people abandon the Catholic Faith, and relinquish their membership in the one true Church militant of the New Testament, so as to follow his teaching and enter into his organization.’[8]
“Luther, an ordained priest and consecrated religious, wantonly broke his vow of celibacy to God, and married a nun, also under a vow of celibacy. Of Luther’s debased teachings, Goldstein observed:
“Luther’s writings regarding matters of sex are the opposite of things decent. Only in Socialist free-love writings have we seen commendation of them. There Luther’s lewd writings have won for him distinction as the ‘classic exponent’ of ‘healthful sensualism’ (Bebel, Woman, p. 78, NY, 1910). Too many times through the centuries, immoralities have disgraced the Christian ministry, but Luther has the unenviable distinction of having defended sex sins as ‘necessary’.”[14]
“Saint Teresa of Avila called Lutheranism ‘that wretched sect,’[29] and established her first Carmelite foundation of nuns at Avila to help ‘cure this terrible evil’ by bringing ‘some comfort to our Lord.’
“’Thus,’ said Saint Teresa, ‘being all of us employed in interceding for the champions of the Church and the preachers and theologians who defend her, we might, to our utmost, aid this Lord of mine Who is attacked with such cruelty …’”30 http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/5ae7de14f0fb304f7bb78d6243389368-91.html
St. John Fisher: “We may be sure that Martin Luther does not have this Spirit, since he teaches us against the truth that has been taught us by this Spirit. For he cuts away the traditions of the apostles and refuses the general councils and condemns the doctrine of the holy fathers and doctors of the church and labors to subvert all the ordinances of the church, namely the seven sacraments, and takes away the freedom of human will and affirms that everything happens by necessity, contrary to all the doctrine of Christ’s church.
“We may be sure, therefore, that he has some other wretched spirit, some spirit of error and not the Spirit of truth. St. Paul says: ‘In the last times some people will depart from the faith and pay attention to spirits of error and to the doctrines of demons’ [1Tim 4:1]. Note this word, “depart,” for St. Paul says in another place: ‘The departure will come first’ [2Thes 2:3], that is to say, before the coming of the Antichrist there will be a conspicuous departing from the faith of the church. And it is not unlikely to be caused at this very time by this most dangerous heretic.”
When I pray for the Pope, from day 1 of Pope Francis, I have always prayed for Benedict and Francis. I had no theological reason for doing so, it just seemed appropriate. How many more have doubt and confusion about this. This seems to come down to a numbers game. Everything is “healed” if the poll numbers win. And btw, whenever I read the phrase…God would not allow such and such to happen…I tune out and disregard the point being made. God is not bound by Canon law and He is not bound by what we think he would not do or allow.
Not only laughable, but extremely offensive as well, In Caritas.
He in no way, shape or form speaks for my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I do NOT recognize that voice and I renounce this entire “operation of error” with my entire being, and have since very early on as I have an ear and desire only for Truth, whose name is Jesus Christ. Come Lord Jesus.
One might do well to read and meditate on the Baptismal vows we pronounced, and ask whether or not one is truly rejecting Satan, and ALL of his pomps and works.
All stand in grave, grave peril at this very moment.
For you, the personal opinion of a layman trumps the Highest Court in the Catholic Church.
Ok.
One does not need to be any sort of a professional to understand the former Pope was responding to all of the claims he was forced to resign.
He says the idea is absurd. Period.
You disagree. Ok
It would also fit with the Sede Vacante thesis.