On the heels of Archbishop Gänswein’s stunning confirmation concerning the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI; namely, that by his “resignation,” he intended to “expand” the Petrine Office in such way that he and his successor would each have a share – one as “an active member,” the other as a “contemplative” – it hardly seems necessary to provide documentation in order to demonstrate that such an intention is invalid.
The proposed division of duties is so utterly incompatible with the nature of the Office of Peter as established by Christ, that those with even the most modest degree of sensus Catholicus just know in their gut that it is entirely impossible.
Even so, there do appear to be some Catholics who as yet remain sincerely and legitimately confused as to why it is beyond the power of anyone, including the pope, to so “expand” the Petrine ministry.
To these, I offer the following, beginning with a look at the First Vatican Council.
In the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Session IV), Pope Pius IX, “with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record,” reiterated the long-held conviction that the Petrine Office is the “divinely laid foundation” whereupon Our Lord “set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles.”
Furthermore, the Holy Father speaks of the Petrine Office as “the permanent principle” of unity “upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends,” the doctrine concerning which “is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.”
Already, it is should be clear that the intended “expansion” of the Petrine ministry of which Archbishop Gänswein spoke is an impossibility.
How so?
Simply because it is a novelty that in no way whatsoever accords with the “ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church;” the same that “is to be believed and held by all the faithful.”
Gänswein himself admitted as much when he said, “Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before.”
The Sacred Council went on to speak (in the manner of the “ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church”) of the Office of Peter in ways that repeatedly stressed the reality that in Peter and his Successors alone (i.e., in a most singular way) has primacy been divinely given; i.e., there is no suggestion whatsoever that it is, or can be, shared with another.
It was to Simon alone… (Session IV, Ch. 1)
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying, “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.” (ibid.)
If Archbishop Gänswein’s presentation accurately reflects Benedict’s intentions, and there is every reason to believe that it does, it would seem that he desired to retain the Petrine ministry of “feeding” by way of “contemplative” service, while in some way relinquishing “the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler.”
It is clear, however, that the ministry as given by Christ admits of no such division.
The unity of the duties and privileges committed to the one person of Peter, and likewise his individual Successors, was once again made plain in Chapter 3:
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. (Session IV, Ch. 3)
Benedict, it would seem, imagines that he could open the way for another to “rule and govern,” while somehow retaining the Petrine ministry of “tending” the flock in a spiritual sense, but again, it is clear that the “ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church” allows for no such division.
In Chapter 4, the Sacred Council sees fit to repeat the definition of the Council of Florence:
The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church. (Session IV, Ch. 4)
Again, we see that the roles of “father” and the ministry of “tending,” along with that of “ruling and governing,” are committed to Peter alone, in a singular and “full” way, with no hint given that they may somehow be separated and shared.
Can one man be “Holy Father,” even as another, at one and the same instance, tends the flock in the same Petrine ministry?
Certainly not!
One may, at this point, be disappointed that the Council did not specifically anathematize those who might seek to divide the Petrine ministry as Benedict intended, but the reason is simple:
As the Vatican Council met, the unity of those duties and privileges committed to Peter and his Successors was not under attack; i.e., there was none so bold as to propose, as Benedict apparently did, that two men may in some way participate simultaneously in the one munus Petrinum.
That doesn’t mean that the error has never been condemned, mind you.
On January 24, 1647, by way of a Decree of the Sacred Office, Pope Innocent X specifically condemned, get this…the “Error of the Dual Head of the Church.”
The most holy … has decreed and declared heretical this proposition … “there are two Catholic heads and supreme leaders of the Catholic Church, joined in highest unity between themselves”; or, “the head of the Catholic Church consists of two who are most divinely united into one”; or, “there are two supreme pastors and guardians of the Church, who form one head only.” (cf Denzinger 1091)
As for the background, the Decree was written as such propositions were apparently being put forth by those who justified their impious opinions by arguing in favor of what they erroneously viewed as a precedent:
“an exact equality between St. Peter and St. Paul, without subordination and subjection of St. Paul to St. Peter in supreme power, and in the rule of the universal Church: St. Peter and St. Paul are the two princes of the Church who form one head.” (ibid.)
How does this relate to the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI?
Quoting Archbishop Gänswein once more:
He [Benedict] has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis”, which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”
While there is no indication that Benedict likewise looks to a false understanding of the relationship between Peter and Paul as justification for the novelty of “co-workers” in the one Petrine ministry, the novelty itself is, in its essence, the same “Error of the Dual Head of the Church” that the Sacred Office “has decreed and declared heretical.”
Here’s the bottom line:
The Church has ever had but one pope at a time, and until someone can convince me that the witness of the “ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church” concerning the Petrine ministry is an unreliable guide in the present case (good luck with that!), I repeat after Antonio Socci, Non È Francesco.
Now, Jorge Bergoglio may sincerely believe that he is Holy Father, but if we’ve learned anything about him at all over the last three or so years it is that he believes many things that simply are not true. Indeed, he has demonstrated all-too-well that he is severely lacking, if not entirely devoid, of sensus Catholicus.
As for Benedict XVI, before you decide that following him is a safe path to follow, remember who he is:
This is the same modernist who ventured to divide what Pius IX called the “divinely laid foundation … upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends,” and he did so (whether under pressure or not) by promoting the heresy that is appropriately called the “Error of the Dual Head of the Church.”
It was Benedict, not the invalid conclave of 2013, but Benedict who ventured (though in reality he could not) to toss the Keys to the Kingdom to the blasphemous Argentinian heretic Jorge Bergoglio; the same who has been “making a mess” of the Church ever since.
Lord, deliver us!
Just look at what the modernists have written and said regarding their plans to” transform the papacy” over the last fifty years. It’s all part of the new ecumenism. And that, my friends, is the diabolical movement toward the new dogma-less one world religion that this whole darn mess is geared toward.
We’re getting closer to the end, thank the Good Lord. Closer to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Much appreciate your back-up research and sound reasoning on this matter. You’re right about gut-reactions, too. I mentioned this situation to a fellow Catholic yesterday, and the immediate response was:
“Thou art Peter, and upon these rocks I will build my Church?”
Friday (May 27th) is the Traditional feast-day of Ven. Bede, who wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse, I find riveting -especially considering these current events. His vast knowledge and reverence for unadulterated Truth and the teachings of the Church Fathers, make it a rare treasure.
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/bede/untitled-31.shtml
God bless you for all you contribute to the same worthy cause.
From more peaceful times…when the emphasis was to focus our attention on God…
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Vatican Basilica Tuesday, 1st January 2013
——
For sacred Scripture, contemplating the face of God is the greatest happiness: “You gladden him with the joy of your face” (Ps 21:7). From the contemplation of the face of God are born joy, security and peace.
—–
But what does it mean concretely to contemplate the face of the Lord, as understood in the New Testament? It means knowing him directly, in so far as is possible in this life, through Jesus Christ in whom he is revealed.
—-
To rejoice in the splendour of God’s face means penetrating the mystery of his Name made known to us in Jesus, understanding something of his interior life and of his will, so that we can live according to his plan of love for humanity.
—–
In the second reading, taken from the Letter to the Galatians (4:4-7), Saint Paul says as much as he describes the Spirit who, in our inmost hearts, cries: “Abba! Father!” It is the cry that rises from the contemplation of the true face of God, from the revelation of the mystery of his Name.
—–
Jesus declares, “I have manifested thy name to men” (Jn 17:6). God’s Son made man has let us know the Father, he has let us know the hidden face of the Father through his visible human face; by the gift of the Holy Spirit poured into our hearts, he has led us to understand that, in him, we too are children of God, as Saint Paul says in the passage we have just heard: “The proof that you are sons is that God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts: the Spirit that cries, ‘Abba, Father’” (Gal 4:6).
—–
Here, dear brothers and sisters, is the foundation of our peace: the certainty of contemplating in Jesus Christ the splendour of the face of God the Father, of being sons in the Son, and thus of having, on life’s journey, the same security that a child feels in the arms of a loving and all-powerful Father.
—–
The splendour of the face of God, shining upon us and granting us peace, is the manifestation of his fatherhood: the Lord turns his face to us, he reveals himself as our Father and grants us peace.
—–
Here is the principle of that profound peace – “peace with God” – which is firmly linked to faith and grace, as Saint Paul tells the Christians of Rome (cf. Rom 5:2). Nothing can take this peace from believers, not even the difficulties and sufferings of life. Indeed, sufferings, trials and darkness do not undermine but build up our hope, a hope which does not deceive because “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (5:5).
—–
May the Virgin Mary, whom today we venerate with the title of Mother of God, help us to contemplate the face of Jesus, the Prince of Peace. May she sustain us and accompany us in this New Year: and may she obtain for us and for the whole world the gift of peace. Amen!
Don’t forget to look for “Team Bergoglio” at the “From Rome” blog for many details about the shady “election.”
There’s more to the Secret as you probably knew, but I’m just a contemplative, please speak to Pope Two.
The Catholic Church is no longer ONE. Does anyone see any resemblance between the pre-Conciliar Church and the post-Conciliar “church”? If the Catholic Church can be split in two, dualism is now a part of her character. That is why there is no place for Latin in the Modern “church”. Doublespeak is so much more appropriate. That is why I hate the term “traditional-minded”. You are either Traditional (aka Catholic)or not Traditional. Pick your side.
Sorry but that’s just bad theology. The Catholic Church (i.e. the Church of Christ) is one and can only ever be one. That doesn’t mean Satan cannot raise his counter-church to deceive souls; but just because this counter-church has some of the outward appearances of the Catholic Church, it doesn’t make it Catholic.
Fulton Sheen was quite correct, I believe, when he wrote:
“The False Prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit church. Christ’s Church will be one. And the False Prophet will create the other. The false church will be worldly, ecumenical, and global. It will be a loose federation of churches. And religions forming some type of global association. A world parliament of churches. It will be emptied of all divine content and will be the mystical body of the Antichrist. The mystical body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from among our bishops.”
(Ven. Fulton Sheen, 1950)
“The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise he would have no followers. He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrowed tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has helped the Devil convince men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes, the more power he exercises. God has defined Himsel as “I am Who am,” and the Devil as “I am who am not.” Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven, as “the Prince of this world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world. His logic is simple: if there is no heaven there is no hell; if there is no hell, then there is no sin; if there is no sin, then there is no judge, and if there is no judgment then evil is good and good is evil. But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect – and certainly no devil ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect. How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion?
The pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves. … The third temptation in which Satan asked Christ to adore him and all the kingdoms of the world would be His, will become the temptation to have a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion – one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s. In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one: he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counter-church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ.”
(Ven. Fulton Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West)
As far as I am concerned, the Novus Ordo “church” and the Holy, Roman Catholic Church, as established by Christ, are two different religions. I am not a theology by any means, but that is how I see it. There is no resemblence one to the other. The Novus Ordo “church” IS the counter church. Sheen had it right!
What Archbishop Gaenswein said is preposterous – supplanted on a situation which is truly perverse.
It may be a futile hope but perhaps, just perhaps, what Gaenswein said has been misreported? Otherwise for Benedict or Gaenswein to propose this concept is really nothing short of heresy. Truth is in short supply, even in the best of times. We have princes of the church trying to reconfigure the very particles and design of the structure instituted by Jesus. These guy are trying to tamper with things which God incarnate has commanded upon. They can’t plead ignorance therefore the onus for what they’re proposing becomes heavy, as will be the penalty.
God help us.
“As for Benedict XVI, before you decide that following him is a safe path to follow, remember who he is:
This is the same modernist who ventured to divide what Pius IX called the “divinely laid foundation … upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends,” and he did so (whether under pressure or not) by promoting the heresy that is appropriately called the “Error of the Dual Head of the Church.”
It was Benedict, not the invalid conclave of 2013, but Benedict who ventured (though in reality he could not) to toss the Keys to the Kingdom to the blasphemous Argentinian heretic Jorge Bergoglio; the same who has been “making a mess” of the Church ever since.”
…and we’re still peaceful and focused on God.
Pope Saint Pius X warned us of: “a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.”
My suspicion is that this can only be accomplished if the papacy is somehow neutralized (not killed, not eliminated, for that’s impossible). Hence, what we see going on before our eyes.
Just watch what Francis does. Things are ramping up and their time is short. Watch and pray.
In my humble opinion I would suggest the following, to make things very simple: anything that came before vatican 2 treat as if it came from God…anything that came after vatican 2 treat as if it came from Satan. If you follow this common-Catholic-sense view of matters you will never go wrong. We are spending way too much time on trying to decipher the words of those who speak for the vatican 2 anti-church. They are not of the Catholic Church and almost certainly are already damned, so who cares what they babble on about? People like ratzinger and bergoglio have NOTHING to say to Catholics. The only thing they need to worry about is how they will defend their evil deeds before God at their judgement.
If you want to come where I am going, that is, to glory, you must come this road, that is, through thorns
St Philip Neri
Let’s call a spade a spade. Bergoglio is not the Pope.
Rich, I am in agreement because I see things in very simple terms. The Novus Ordo “church” does not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. No one could convince me otherwise. Therefore, the N.O. church is based on a lie. Say you believe but behave like you don’t believe. That is why the church is dual. The world sees pre-Vat2 and post-Vat2 as One. It isn’t. Thanks for your comment.
I hope this is not true ?????
Cardinal Muller: SSPX Will Accept Religious Liberty & Ecumenism!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odLn8cK-KhU
Citation?
You’re welcome. It just seems to me that a lot of good people are twisting themselves into knots trying to make sense of the craziness when in reality sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one. Of course this doesnt mean that people who know better should not keep pointing out wrong, as most people are truly clueless and need direction. My little opinion is basically geared towards those of us who already do know better.
Well, precisely. The Novus Ordo is an entirely different religion. So the Catholic Church is still and always only one. (If some Protestant sect, or any other false religion, tried to pass itself for the Catholic Church, it wouldn’t mean the true Catholic Church has been split into two or into many. They are just usurping the name, and the buildings, but they are not the Catholic Church.)
Here’s the text of the letter St. Athanasius wrote to his flock (when the churches were occupied by the Arian heretics and the faithful Catholics had to gather in the desert to celebrate Mass):
“May God console you!… What saddens you… is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the True Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The True Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way…
You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, they more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ.”
Dear ock,
Although your info may be accurate here, I wanted to warn you about the fraudulent owner of that website – TradCat. His name is Eric Gajewski, and he has unscrupulously “bought” pretend viewers for his website so that he could claim that his is the most frequented traditional website.
–
This woman claims that Gajewski —- “was copying my posts and pasting them onto his site as though they were his own, with no attribution to me at all.”
–
http://www.returntofatima.org/tag/eric-gajewski/
–
I just stay away from anything that says “TradCat” on it.