“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”

That headline was the response given by Abp. Ganswein to the question of certain irregularities in the papal abdication. Pope Benedict had supposedly decided to resign, yet had chosen to retain his vesture, retain his title as pope, albeit with ’emeritus’ added (which is impossible), retain his residency within the Vatican enclosure, and his form of address as remaining “His Holiness”. HERE
The press questioned, “Why?”
The answer, “He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”
In Pope Benedict’s mind (“he considers”) that the title “Pope (Emeritus)” and the formal address “His Holiness” corresponds to reality.
But hey, I’m the crazy one for pointing out obvious stuff. Just go ahead and try to suggest on the interweebs that Pope Benedict thinks he retained some portion of the papacy. YOU’RE TWISTING HIS WORDS! YOU’RE NOT A MIND READER! After all, we clearly had a conclave, and “Francis” was clearly elected, and this result seems to have been clearly greeted by peaceful universal acceptance by the cardinals, right?
Do you know what is coming up this Saturday? Everyone is talking about it… The Royal Wedding! Harry and Meghan! It will be televised all around the world, and tens of millions of people will watch. It will look spectacular. All the rituals will play out, the ceremony will unfold, vows exchanged, and the prince and princess will be husband and wife.
Except they won’t be. You see, Meghan is still married to her first husband, because divorce doesn’t exist. Divorce is anti-reality. So all that will take place on Saturday is the appearance of a wedding, but in reality is simply fancy formalized adultery and fornication. Even though everything will be done correctly according to formula, nothing will actually happen. It doesn’t matter that all the attendees and everyone watching on television will believe that a wedding just took place. The metaphysical reality of the situation is that nothing happened, because a prior event (her actual wedding) nullifies the “result” of Saturday’s proceedings. In the words of Louie Verrechio, an act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.“ HERE
Which is exactly why the 2013 conclave didn’t actually happen. It looked like it happened, everyone believed at the time it was real, but now we know that the weight of the evidence points towards a prior event nullifying its occurrence: Pope Benedict intending to hold on to at least part of the papacy. And if that is true, which I believe with moral certainty to be the case, then he didn’t resign any of the papacy, because Canon 188 says he didn’t. No resignation, no conclave.
“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”
Out of error, truth.

“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.” – Pope Benedict

Archbishop Gänswein…said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.” “Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “…before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’. (Not in its “Office”, the governance of the Church in the world, but in its “essentially spiritual nature”, through prayer and suffering.) “He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

And lastly, Professor de Mattei: “Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry. This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.”

14 thoughts on ““He considers that this title corresponds to reality.””

  1. The fundamental error of Faithful Catholics was to accept the bifurcated Papacy, just because it was presented to them by a supposedly “traditional and beloved Pope” and validated by the resulting Conclave. The resignation BXVI offered was partial and invalid. The Conclave was thus illegitimate, based on a heretical foundation. They presented a bifurcated Papacy to the Church. It is up to us to accept or reject it as valid; according to Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition rules. Not a heretical conclave. So far 99% of all Catholics accept it.
    By accepting this paradigm, it has become the new norm. It will remain the norm, and expand, until some generation braver than our own rises up and says, “No More!”.
    “Pope” Francis, Cardinal Bergoglio, is now speculating publically on his future “retirement”. “He will be Pope Emeritus Of The People”. These people in the hierarchy are changing everything and the revolution starts with an altered Papacy. This all began with that mistake. There will be more retirements and multiple Emeritus Popes residing around the world, indefinitely, sharing portions of the Petrine ministry with each other. They altered the “Rock”. That is the game most faithful Catholics do not understand.
    Restore the Papacy to its proper nature. Emeritus Pope is a damnable heresy. It is a bedrock mistake. Fix that. Reject that. Send Pope Benedict away, or restore him fully to the Papal Throne. Then, and only then, go back and fix the mistakes under the leadership of a valid Pope.

  2. In a joint papacy where Francis takes care of the active part and Benedict the contemplative part, does it mean Francis does not need to pray at all?

      1. And that is the crux of the matter. The reality we see is different than the reality God sees. It cannot be. Yet it is clearly claimed to be so by our Pope(s). It all starts with that claim – every deviation that has occurred.
        A Bishop can retire from Office. But a person cannot retire from being that person; or more accurately, retire from the physical, difficult, active *portions* of being that person. Peter is Peter, complete and whole, for better or worse, until Peter dies and his successor is chosen; or … Peter turns his back and walks completely away from his Lord. He cannot retire from active ministry because he is tired, and choose the portions of Peter that are still feasible.
        I cannot retire from being a father, no matter how tired and aged I become (I am quite tired lately). I am still a father to many children late in life: well, too bad. Age and declining health do not allow me to walk out on my title of Dad, or the most physically challenging portions in my declining health. My wife doesn’t get to bring in a younger man to play with the kids, fix things around the house and earn the money, while I read, study, pray, and walk in the garden, and have dinner in my study when called. I get all the roles of Dad, better or worse. Until my death. Or until I quit.

        1. Be careful here. A bishop can retire from the office of bishop, in other words, he can retire from the specific bishopric that he holds. But he never retires from being “a” bishop, because the episcopate is a degree of Holy Orders, which means it’s indelible. The papacy is different, because the papacy is strictly an elected office, with no indelible character. If you validly resign the papacy, you are no longer pope in any way. It’s this distinction that is the crux of the matter.

  3. i agree with you. but i am confuse. who is to declare the invalidity of PBXVI resignation, conclave of 2013 & the existence of an antipope in the vatican? lay or the college of cardinals? or, is there no need whatsoever of any such declaration of invalidity as the very words and acts of PBXVI so called resignation declare it so?

    1. It’s complicated. Cardinals would need to declare it in some way. A confession from Pope Benedict would be most helpful. It seems to me his words and actions demonstrate his intent, but it needs to be formally declared juridically. Pray.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.