Marco Tosatti yesterday reviewed, and I excerpt here, (original Italian HERE) the new book from Antonio Socci, The Secret of Benedict XVI, Why he is still pope: Forgive google translate, and feel free to post corrections in the combox. Emphasis mine.
“So, for Benedict XVI we must ask ourselves: did he really renounce the Petrine ministry altogether? Is he no longer Pope? ” Socci answers: “From the subjective point of view we can therefore say that his intention – which is decisive to define the act he did – was not to be no longer Pope … It is clear that – despite having made a renunciation on the papacy (but what kind?) he has intended to remain still pope, albeit in an enigmatic way and in an unprecedented form, which has not been explained (at least until a certain date) “.
And in fact we must remember that Benedict said, speaking of the Roman pontiff: “The “always” is also “forever”- there is no longer a return to private life. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this “.
…
“In light of his last speech, one understands why Joseph Ratzinger remained “in the enclosure of Peter “, Benedict XVI is still signed, he defines himself as” pope emeritus “, has papal heraldic insignia and continues to dress as pope”.
So, unlike what happened previously in the history of the Church, today there are de facto two popes; that mutual legitimacy is recognized in a more or less ambiguous way. An exceptional and unprecedented situation. WRONG. No, we don’t have de facto two popes, because that is an ontological impossibility. This is exactly the colossal error of Benedict. Socci and Tosatti both recognize that Benedict only attempted a partial abdication, but then erroneously conclude that he actually pulled it off, and the “expanded petrine ministry” is a real thing.
…
The conclusion of the canonist is clear: “The object of irrevocable renunciation is the execution muneris through action and speech ( acting et loquendo ) not the munus entrusted to him once and for all”.
And “the limited renunciation of the active exercise of the munus constitutes the absolute novelty of the renunciation of Benedict XVI”.
Items confirmed by the Prefect of the Pontifical House, Msgr. Georg Gänswein according to which the “renunciation” of Benedict XVI – who “decided not to renounce the name he had chosen” – is different from that of Pope Celestine V who – after his abandonment of the papacy – “had once again become Pietro dal Morrone “.
And he continued with one of the most surprising and sensational statements: “Therefore, from 11 February 2013 the papal ministry is no longer the same as before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and durably transformed into his exceptional pontificate ( Ausnahmepontifikat ) “.
It is the node of the dual ministry, that is, the point where the “collegial dimension” of the Petrine ministry is proposed, “almost a common ministry”.
A concept that is needed sooner or later to be unraveled. But whoever opposes and wants to challenge this conception of facts – would find himself dealing with the question of the validity of a dubious or partial waiver…
“Whoever opposes and wants to challenge this conception of facts – would find himself dealing with the question of the validity of a dubious or partial waiver.”
Keep pounding this drum brother. You have isolated the main cause of the chaos which you highlight in red.
I’m only astonished that Socci and Tosatti can fail to see the simple impossibility—not to to say lunacy—of the proposed transformation of the Papacy. Poor Benedict. An error of massive proportions “threatening to capsize the Barque of St. Peter.”
Notice recently too how the FSSP is doubling down on its loyalty to the fraud Bergoglio. First there was the priest in Kansas who slandered as “insanity” the position held by many faithful Catholics. Then the FSSP priest in Montreal who told his parishioners if they believe Bergoglio is not the pope then they need not come back to his parish.
This tells us a couple of things. One, an awful lot of faithful Catholics are finally waking up to the possibility, if not the outright realization, that Bergoglio is not their Pope, nor ever was.
And two, the FSSP is afraid of what Bergoglio might do to them and are hoping this show of loyalty will get him off their backs. It won’t,
So of all the issues and questions which confront the Church, we aren’t even sure of who is Pope? We can’t even point to the Successor of Peter?
This is CONFUSION on steroids!! This is a train wreck of epic proportions! A colossal chastisement for a faithless, disobedient Church.
A synodal papacy, perhaps?
An ontological impossibility.
But why, would a man who completely knows the ins and outs of Canon law, who reigned as pope, who headed the CDF, and has been a priest for so long, even attempt such a novel and unprecedented maneuver. Why would he do that. He said at the time he had had a supernatural experience in which God instructed him to resign. I can’t even imagine a man like him making up a falsehood involving God.
I don’t know much about this, but because of the St. Gallen mafia boasts, that Bergolio was promoted from within by political camps, and because of this inexplicable behavior by Benedict, that Benedict is still pope.
Now, who is the powerful group of insiders who will push the point? Without them, this is dead in the water, irrelevant.
It wasn’t necessarily a falsehood. There is strong evidence that Benedict doesn’t believe it’s possible for a pope to fully resign, because he thinks accepting the keys is an irrevocable act.
Nah, that “irrevocable act” equalling an “indelible mark” is some people’s interpretation of what Pope Benedict said. With the qualifications of Ratzinger/Benedict noted by Kate R, it is highly doubtful that he got that “indelible” thingy wrong. So play the Devil’s Advocate (somebody needs to since JPII got rid of that office) think outside of that “indelible mark” box. What else could Benedict have meant by “irrevocable act”?
An action can still be still thought to be irrevocable even if the action did not leave an indelible mark. But these words from Benedict plainly say he’s not leaving, not abandoning, etc. “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.”
Ratzinger is NOT a canon lawyer, and he did NOT carefully observe canon law, at any time in his career. I know an eminent canon lawyer who laughs out loud whenever he sees Ratzinger referred to as knowledgeable, or even careful about obeying, canon law.
I agree with your explanation, docmx001. Unlike you, Miss Barnhardt reasons that Canon 188 is applicable because part of the serious error is that Benedict thinks that becoming Pope leaves an indelible mark. That’s how she seems to interpret his use of “always” and “for ever”. Your explanation even more convincingly shows that Benedict knows he did not surrender the office or even the power to govern that belongs to the office (nor did he create a diarchy). Rather he announced to everyone his de facto situation: I have the office; thus, I have the power to govern and teach. But because of others’ disobedience I am unable to “administer rightly” those powers; so I am going to set them aside.
Benedict understands rightly that the powers to govern and to teach still belong to the office itself and he is reassuring us that he holds the office “always” and “for ever” because he never did and never intends to resign from it. Until he dies, Benedict is Pope. He “retains the keys irrevocably” because he will never resign the office. In order to protect the Spotless Bride of the Lamb, he’s made the “difficult yet triumphant decision” to hold on to the office, even if it kills him. He is the Holy Father that little Jacinta Marto of Fatima saw weeping and praying in the big house.
The rarely referenced vision Sr. Lucia mentions in her third Memoir describes a mysterious scene that no one seems to want to touch. The possibility cannot be denied that Benedict’s residence in the Vatican seems to fit the bill.
“One day we spent our siesta down by my parents’ well. Jacinta sat on the stone slabs on top of the well. Francisco and I climbed up a steep bank in search of wild honey among the brambles in a nearby thicket. After a little while, Jacinta called out to me:
“’Didn’t you see the Holy Father?’
“’No.’
“’I don’t’ know how it was, but I saw the Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house, there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones, others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.’”
Just because the powers to govern and teach have been set aside, someone who does not hold the Papal Office cannot come along and use a power that’s only to be used by the office holder. Even if that someone has been “elected” at an unnecessary conclave. Someone who does that is a usurper. Canon 188 does not apply because there has been no serious error since there has been no resignation.
I would say my position is closer to Ann’s than what you lay out. Benedict seems to think that the office cannot be relinquished, which is a serious error. He has also created a situation where there appears to be two popes, which is an ontological impossibility, and another serious error if he believes it. He’s the one who convoked the faux conclave, which I think you are saying was an intentional deception as part of a broader strategy. i do think Fatima plays into this in a very big way, and I don’t discount that Benedict could be using his knowledge of the Third Secret to drive his actions.
Very well. To judge between what Pope Benedict says and what Pope Benedict thinks about what he says is revealed in his actions. You would agree that we can not know with certainty what he thinks about what he says. We can know with certainty what he says and what he does. To judge his thoughts is beyond us.
Question: In either yours or Miss B’s scenarios, where do you see room for grace? Besides the obvious “blessing in disguise” of the diabolical, utopic network and its individuals gleefully and gloatingly revealing itself. What about the working of grace on an individual level? Say the level of conversion from a modernist to a Catholic? How does grace figure in to Pope Benedict’s “apparent abdication”? Or does it? Will only human reasoning suffice to explain it?
The precise translation of the Latin shows that Pope Benedict did not call for a conclave. He said a conclave could be necessary [if the See of Peter be vacant]. There is a conditional grammatical construct that not many people have caught. Br. Bugnolo at From Rome calls it a “discrepancy”. He almost has it right.
I’m not sure how to answer you question about leaving room for grace. If you are asking if it’s possible that Benedict’s actions are the result of supernatural grace, that God wanted it like this, so that the evils would be exposed for all with eyes to see, then yes, I think we need to be open to that possibility.
Yes, that is part of the action of grace that I ponder, docmx001. I hope others would be equally open to the possibility of the supernatural action of grace upon the individual soul of Ratzinger/Benedict in his journey from modernist to Catholic. Souls can be controlled by diabolical influence either directly or indirectly. Although neither possessed, oppressed, or obsessed directly, a soul will be influenced by those souls around him who are directly possessed, oppressed, or obsessed ie the world-wide network. In this way a Pope was/is “controlled” by the devil.
You see pretty well versed in the different species of demonic influence. Thank you for you contributions here.
Thank you for not “blowing me off” as others tend to do. The points regarding the precise translations of the Declaratio and Ganswein’s book intro, the unnecessary conclave, the action of the grace of conversion, Pope Benedict’s familiarity with the entire Third Secret of Fatima, various prophecies besides Fatima regarding the time of Great Apostasy, and more all taken together give another perspective that is appropriately, mysteriously, and Catholically grace-filled for these times. Thank you for not “blowing off” serious, fact-based, and scholarly considered points. Honestly, however, I kind of feel like your last reply was a “pat on the head” consolation that could be accompanied by, “Now go out and play.” I hope I am mistaken.
You are mistaken on that last point. Mine was a straightforward comment.
Regarding prophecies and the Great Apostasy, I have written several times regarding CCC675-677, the abomination of desolation, if those times had not been shortened even the elect would be deceived, etc.
Good to know. My perception could very well be influenced by past experiences with others. I look forward to reading your other posts regarding these times we have been elected to live in.
FYI Antonio Socci’s book has just been published in English. Socci is emphatic that, yes, indeed, there is only one pope.