“In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church, or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament – possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like”

The headline quote, from American Cardinal Dulles, is from 1955. So we know for a fact that the idea of an “expanded petrine ministry,” as glowingly described by Abp Ganswein in his speech at the the Gregorianum, is at least 63 years old. We also know that the Germans ran with this idea, led by Rahner, Kung, Neumann, and yes, Ratzinger. HERE.
So Pope Benedict did NOT dream up the idea of a papal diarchy in 2012-2013. Nope. Instead, he was part of an a elite team of theologians who came up with it and developed it. Each of them had particular slant on it, if you will.
It’s important to understand the false premise which is necessary to arrive at such bad theology. At the time, there was a strong undercurrent, described in Abp Miller’s book, where the ontology of divine structures were called into question. Specifically, the question was this: Can structures within the Church change to meet the changing needs of the faithful, even if said structures were directly divinely instituted, either by God the Father or by Christ.  And yes, this would include structures as important as the papacy itself. A further question was whether the structures could merely be changed, or could they be entirely eliminated… as part of an ecumenical effort to over come stumbling blocks, of our “separated brethren.”
Said another way, these men were proposing the God of Surprises. There is always the possibility (sarcasm) that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity might swoop down and abrogate or alter things, EVEN THINGS THAT WERE DIRECTLY INSTITUTED BY THE FIRST OR SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY. This means everything goes, everything is on the table, nothing whatsoever can be looked at as rock solid, not even Matthew 16:18.
These men knew they were flouting the doctrine of immutability. So they had a plan for that too.
Sorry folks, I just started a new job and I am super short on time. Click on the link, go read what Ann had to say, buy the Miller book and do your own research.
We just sprinted past the tipping point. Toothpaste is out of the tube, and it ain’t going back in.

166 thoughts on ““In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church, or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament – possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like””

  1. Canon 188: A resignation made out of “substantial error” is invalid by the law itself.
    If intent to *redefine the Papacy* is not substantial error, then just cross that silly line out of Canon 188 with a pen. It means nothing.
    Nothing else will ever meet the bar of “error” if this does not. And then just let Popes do whatever they want with their Office. They rule. Accountable only to themselves.

      1. They are attempting to subsume divine positive law (ius divina) under canon law (ius humana). This is blatant heresy.
        One might as well claim the words of Consecration can be changed by canon law.

      2. Just wondering if the name Dulles raises anyone else’s eyebrows? Son of SOS, nephew of head of CIA. I see a very dangerous, tangled web.

  2. Also, I’d like to add:
    3. It is understandable but somewhat inaccurate to call him “Antipope Bergoglio”. A much more useful designation of this entirely new and unprecedented situation would be “Vice-Pope Bergoglio” or “Petrine Minister Bergoglio” or “Pope Benedict’s Prime Minister.” This also gives a clearer indication of our own position. To call him Antipope is a bit much seeing as neither Ratzinger nor Bergoglio themselves seem to consider him to be Pope in the traditional and proper sense. “Antipope” usually refers to a man claiming to be Peter’s Successor in direct opposition to an authentic Pope; whereas in this situation the authentic Pope (which Benedict still presumably is) is entirely complicit in the ruse.

    1. Wrong. To call Bergoglio anything other than antipope confuses the ontological reality of the situation. Vice-Pope does not exist, expanded Petrine Ministry doesn’t exist. It’s doesn’t matter if Benedict is complicit in the whole mess. Reality is Reality.

      1. Agreed. Jesus did not assign to Peter a vice pope, an assistant pope, or for that matter a pope emeritus. Good grief! What did our Lord say/do regarding the head of the church? Not two heads, not a head and an assistant head.

    2. I agree with you. What they are doing is redefining the Papacy, not just making a false claim to it.
      I like Pastor Jorge. I think I’ll go with that. Pastor J. That is more fitting to what they are trying to accomplish here.

        1. Not to worry Madame.
          Neither pope, prophet nor pastor applies to Anti-Pope Possible False Prophet Forerunner Francis applies. Anti-pope means not pope. False Prophet means he’s not a prophet.
          As to pastor that’s a patent absurdity applied to Card. Bergoglio.
          Pastor means shepherd, and having known good ones I can say you Card. Bergoglio are certainly not a shepherd.
          He has evinced nothing but hatred for the sheep. Remember, he told us there is no Hell. God made homosexuals that way. He’s denied Sanctifying Grace. These are lies to mislead scatter and ultimately destroy the flock.
          Poor man, he can’t seem to bear our smell.
          This New Year we all ought to pray for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, Who will surely cleanse Her Son’s Church.

    3. You are accepting the claim that two men are pope. The only correct title for Bergoglio is “anti-pope.”

  3. My biggest question is: “What can we do?” I’ve been trying to follow the contagion of this idea, but It’s just not picking up the speed I hoped it would–admitting even that I know I am prone to wishful thinking. So the Schwerer Gustav has been found billowing smoke: What do we do now? I feel like something should be done. I can’t think of anything besides pray and maybe write letters and share these articles.
    Absent any other options, we are truly in Gods hands now.

  4. Canon212 linked to a site which says that if PB resigned with the intent to recreate the Papacy, he then becomes a formal heretic…..and we are now all sedevacantists. Any thoughts?

    1. Were we sedevacantists when JP2’S died and the seat was vacant? No.
      Just because B16 became a formal heretic by publicly rejecting and trying to change a divinely created office, the Papacy, doesn’t mean that WE did something wrong or separated ourselves from the Church when we hold onto what the Church has Always and Everywhere taught.

      1. Formal heretic? Benedict?
        There we go again, ‘64. Let’s do try to stay on point.
        Don’t know about that, whether Benedict is a “formal heretic,” least of all in the context of fleeing the wolves.
        For all his errors the man’s still pope best as we can all tell. None would deny Benedict despite his flight has charity—and despite whatever led him to this juncture (again the “why”)—unlike Francis, who has only love of power, and hatred of the flock at large and the individual sheep, and the Church and our Lord and open disdain for the Immaculate Conception.

  5. I posted p. 191 from Miller’s book. I posted it in a group and someone responded that it doesn’t indicate Ratzinger had any weird ideas about the papacy. But I’m not so sure. What do you think? Also when will we be seeing more direct translations of Ratzinger’s original writings on this topic?

    1. Miller’s citations prove that the idea of a synodal papacy were very popular with the German elite of the period. It proves the idea would have been in Ratzinger’s mind since that time. We await the specific writings from him to be translated. Whether or not he subscribed to the theory at the time, we now know that he was well aware of its endorsement by very prominent colleagues, including his mentor, Rahner. It’s a big discovery.

      1. I agree. I think it’s big. But those who are looking for ways to disprove that Benedict could still be pope are now basically saying that unless Ratzinger himself actually wrote that he himself wanted to bifurcate the papacy, “still nothing to see here., folks. “ But come on people! The idea that this is all just some big coincidence? I don’t buy it.

        1. Again, even if he didn’t believe it at the time, the idea has been in his head for fifty years. So when the time came that he saw he needed to “flee from the wolves”, but yet *not really* flee… Bingo.

      2. Yes, it proves that Ratzinger was very familiar with the idea and may have written on it ( awaiting the translations), but it’s not, as Ann put it “a smoking gun”. It’s pretty good circumstantial evidence.
        My thought is this: as the idea that Bergolio is an anti-Pope spreads, we need to be diligent in being scrupulously accurate. And to avoid hyperbole, ad hominems, working above our competencies and motivational speculations.
        As brotherbeowulf says below: “Why” is not as important as “That”.
        IOW, “Just the facts, ma’am”. Provide less traction for the nay-sayers.
        I know this is hard, but we should try.

        1. You’re not wrong. I too used the term smoking gun, but I think Ann and I both meant it in a different way than it’s being received. While not in itself proof of the overall theory, it is in itself proof that we didn’t invent this idea out of thin air, and neither did Benedict/Gänswein, and we didn’t twist their words to come this conclusion. It’s a smoking gun of vindication against those who called us liars, intellectually dishonest, sedes, and crazy. The gaslighting ends now.

      3. Technically, a smoking gun IS circumstantial evidence. As are fingerprints, DNA, witnesses placing you at the scene, etc. Direct evidence is someone physically observing you commit the act – everything else is circumstantial, and that usually accounts for 99% (if not 100%) of the evidence resulting in conviction.

  6. The Truth is that these evil Prelates in the Vatican dont care a dam about the niceties of any particular situation in the Church because they have got the power and control.Bergoglio ,and his cohorts,are the enemy of Christs Church and they are under the influence of Satan.I am 66 yrs of age and have been through the destruction of Vat 11 and i find the present Pontificate deplorable.God Bless to Non Veni Pacem and Ann Barnhardt-i read your writings every day!Tradition will win out despite the fumbling evil of The Bergoglio!

  7. Bravo to Ann for uncovering this she really did it!
    I’ve been wavering between her hypothesis and sedevacantism (sp?) as they are the only two positions that make sense at this point. The arguments against both seem to be the difficulties it causes and the gates of hell and all that.
    Keep up the good work truth will out!

    1. I’ve thought about this for a while, using primary teaching documents of the Church as the rule, not what bloggers think.
      The main thing that tips me towards a vacant See of Rome is that one must be Baptised AND profess the true Faith to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. (Pius CII, Mystici Corporis, 22).
      If one is not visibly a member of the Church due to public heresy, whether material or formal, one cannot hold any jurisdiction over the Church.
      We cannot wait for a “filial or fraternal correction”, because we would have to know that the ones making the correction are themselves members of the Church, based on the standard criteria – Baptism and profession of the true Faith. Since the ones people are hoping will make some sort of correction are themselves public heretics, then they both cannot and will not do so.
      The Church must be visible down to the man and woman in the pew. Visibility depends on the outward profession of the Apostolic Faith by all the members of the Church.
      Therefore, you and I are able to know if someone is a member of the Church based upon whether or not someone professes the Faith, and not heresy.
      Both Ratzinger and Bergoglio are public heretics, and by Divine Law, neither of them are or ever were Pope. This also includes Paul VI and JPII.

      1. If I may make an observation, Papal Subject:
        There is one problem with this thinking, but it is a HUGE one. It’s probably the fundamental mistake that sedevacs make. It’s that Christ instituted a Church that has *authority* in it. The Church is visible precisely because there is an authority to decide who is and who is not to be considered a member of said Church. Lay pewks like you and I have NOTHING to say about it, and less so when it comes to judging whether the authorities themselves in the Church are members of the Church or not.
        The notion that profession of heresy, *by itself*, excommunicates a person, is tantamount to saying that the Church is invisible, because then every Tom, Dick and Jane will be “excommunicating” all those whom they *think* are in heresy, and clearly no one will be able to enforce their personal opinion on everyone else.
        And that’s the case even if we are talking about formal (conscious, sinful) heresy. Formal heresy, by definition, means that one *knows* that the Church teaches X, while professing Y with full consent of the will. In other words, as with any other mortal sin, there must be sufficient knowledge and full consent of the will. But what one knows is not fully knowable even by oneself, only by God. And one’s intentions are even less knowable to others. Even the Church authorities, in canonical trials, do not pretend to assuredly know souls. Witness the classic legal dictum: De internis ecclesia non judicat (the Church does not judge internal things). Even when the Church legally excommunicates someone for heresy, there is no absolute certainty that the judgment is correct in the eyes of God. All that judgment does is state, as a public matter, that, in the eyes of the Church, such a person is no longer a member, and must be treated accordingly.
        As to material heresy, which is to be in error by mistake and not by sin, to say that this excommunicates someone is the same as saying that God deprives souls of salvation just because they’re stupid or ignorant.
        In that case, we’re ALL going to hell.
        In brief, sedevacs think that they are God; they think that they know every last detail of the internal state of soul of those that they privately judge to be heretics.
        “Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matt. 7:1f)
        This is not, as the homos and “Mercifuls” would like to think, to say that we can’t judge the externals. We can. We can recognize false teaching or belief. It’s to say that only the Church has authority to judge the culpability, and to punish if necessary, and even then the Church’s judgment is not infallible.
        It’s a difficult book, but everyone capable of understanding it should read True or False Pope? In this case, specifically Chapters 2 and 3.

      2. Dear Smith, thank you for taking the time to reply. I believe you are incorrect about what you say is the HUGE mistake that sedes make. It has to do with two things: the visibility of the Church, and her divine mission to teach.
        The Church is visible because all the members outwardly profess the same Faith which comes from the Apostles. Inside the church there is a division of laity and clergy, the learners and the teachers. The Church is the congregation of the Faithful.
        Vatican I teaches that there are two bonds which give the Church her visibility. These are Faith and Charity. (They are not to be confused with the three theological virtues)
        First and foremost is the bond of Faith. All the members of the Church outwardly profess the Faith. One breaks this bond by public heresy, and thereby leaves the Church. This is the foundation.
        The second visible bond is the bond of Charity. This is the edifice built on the foundation. It is the bond of peaceful communion between the laity and the clergy. The visible bond of Charity *depends* on the bond of Faith at the foundation.
        You’ve turned your own argument against yourself. “We don’t judge internal matters”. That’s true, which is why *public* heresy severs one from the Church. Secret heresy is a mortal sin known only to God, but the external profession of heresy puts one outside of the congregation of the Faithful.
        You are saying that no one can know if a person is Catholic or not. If that were true, then the Church is invisible. You say that you have to waist for a declaratory statement from the Church authority on whether any individual is a Catholic or not.
        How do you know that the one making the declaration is himself a Catholic and not a heretic? By another declaration? That leads to an infinite absurdity.
        Further, since the Church’s mission is to teach all nations, not to teach a few canon lawyers or a few theologians, then the doctrines she teaches must be intelligible to anyone with the use of reason. In teaching with divine authority, God and the Church expect us to apply the teaching to our everyday life and make right judgements on all manner of things.
        I think in your position, and that of Salza and Siscoe, you are straying from the visibility of the Church, and her ability to teach.

      3. Dear Papal Subject,
        Your objections are thoughtful, and certainly worthy of a careful response.
        I intend to make one, but in order to do justice to what seems to me to be your genuine concern for truth, some time is necessary, and that also because, in process, I need to seriously consider what you have proposed, and with the same concern for the truth.
        That being said, I must add in advance that we do seem to be off-topic, since this forum is for discussion of the Substantial Error theory. Beyond the answer which I intend to give, in deference to the Moderator, I cannot guarantee a continuation.
        If in the end it seems useful to continue, we may look into some way of continuing the discussion off-site.
        Christus natus est: gaudeamus!

      4. That is a good idea Smith. I agree that this is getting off topic. It does naturally branch off from the “papal subject” of the Bennyvacantist/Bergoglian issue though. What a time of history! This is not easy for anyone. Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

      5. Dear Papal Subject,
        Here is the promised reply to your objections.
        “I believe you are incorrect about what you say is the HUGE mistake that sedes make. It has to do with two things: the visibility of the Church, and her divine mission to teach.”

        “The Church is visible because all the members outwardly profess the same Faith which comes from the Apostles.”
        Next point:
        You claimed that Vatican I says certain things about Faith and Charity, and how they are involved in the bond that makes one a member of the Church. Unfortunately, you did not give a specific citation. Without reference to the actual text of Vatican I, I cannot respond to your assertions.
        But you then say:
        “You’ve turned your own argument against yourself. “We don’t judge internal matters”. That’s true, which is why *public* heresy severs one from the Church. Secret heresy is a mortal sin known only to God, but the external profession of heresy puts one outside of the congregation of the Faithful.”
        <Thus the following statement is incorrect:
        "You are saying that no one can know if a person is Catholic or not."

        “How do you know that the one making the declaration [that someone is a heretic] is himself a Catholic and not a heretic? By another declaration? That leads to an infinite absurdity.”

        “Further, since the Church’s mission is to teach all nations, not to teach a few canon lawyers or a few theologians, then the doctrines she teaches must be intelligible to anyone with the use of reason. In teaching with divine authority, God and the Church expect us to apply the teaching to our everyday life and make right judgements on all manner of things.”
        Thank you.

    2. To elaborate a bit on why I’m wavering between the two positions is that while I am certain in rejecting Bergolio as Pope (It’s hard for me to explain it: I can sense his lack of the charisma, he is not my master’s voice if that makes sense) it is possible that his predecessors were not true Popes as well, since the rot goes way back. As the pundits point out the differences between Bergolio and the other post V2 is more of degree. Maybe in this age of social media it is more obvious so I have no way of knowing if Pope Paul the 6th would have set off my baloney detector the way Bergolio does, assuming he was a true Pope I ought to have been able to “sense” it, right? (Maybe my “sense” is wrong? Another possibility) I wish I could go back in time to a historically bad pope and see if I can sense their validity as pope for a comparison. That is why I’m wavering, because I have no way to compare what I am certain about Bergolio. Maybe V2 itself and the NO constitutes error in teaching faith and morals?

      1. Dear Hester,
        A man’s heart has to go out to you, and so many others in your position.
        But, for God’s sake, *please* do not “trust your feelings, Luke”.
        Feelings, senses, or whatever we want to call them, are easily “blown about by every wind of doctrine” — or even no doctrine at all, but just other, newer feelings.
        One very pleasant feature of the Substantial Error theory is that it does not, in itself, even require an answer to the old bugaboo questions of whether a true pope can be a heretic, what kind of heretic he can be, how to establish that he is a heretic, if that means he loses his office, and how he loses his office if he is one.
        That feature of the Substantial Error theory feels very good to me — and it has NOTHING to do with me supporting that theory. I support it because it jives with Catholic doctrine, as far as I can see. (And BTW, although I have been hammering hard to build up that theory, I am ready to drop it like a hot potato if I ever see that I have missed some critical fact that logically collapses the building).
        That said, if it turns out that Bergoglio’s election is officially overturned by the Church, based on substantial error, it remains true that BXVI (and JPII before him, at least) are/were, at least materially, heretics, so the heresy question will eventually come into play anyway. I don’t have any problem with this, however, because my studies have convinced me that the famous Petrine Promise does NOT protect a pope from being a heretic, even a formal/sinful one, *except* when he is speaking ex cathedra, and moreover, that a pope can be both materially and formally heretical *and still be pope* until the CHURCH removes him, and that the Church CAN remove him, and finally, even if the Church does not remove him, the Church remains the Church, and Her doctrine remains immutable, and the elect will still be saved.
        There in NOTHING to worry about, really.
        To elaborate on one point; that the Petrine Promise does not protect a pope from being a heretic, even a formal/sinful one, *except* when he is speaking ex cathedra:
        I challenge anyone to produce definitive, that is dogmatic, statements to the contrary. Most people who would try will run straight to their go-to authority: Vatican I’s dogmatic definition of papal infallibility.
        I have bad news for such people: That dogma does exactly the opposite of what they claim.
        Don’t believe it? Read on — but love the truth more than yourself and your opinions when doing so.
        Here is the famous Vatican I dogma, verbatim:
        Dz 1839: “We…teach and explain that the DOGMA has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, WHEN he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of pastor and teacher of ALL Christians in accord with his SUPREME apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals that HAS TO BE HELD by the UNIVERSAL CHURCH, *through the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter*, operates with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in DEFINING doctrine on faith and morals, and so, such DEFINITIONS [and nothing but such definitions] of the Roman Pontiff, from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”
        Dz 1840: But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid, let him be anathema.
        The caps, brackets and asterisks are of course mine. We need to unpack this.
        1) Dz 1840 declares, in no mistakable terms, that Dz 1839, IN ITS ENTIRETY, is a dogmatic definition; it is infallible, and all the faithful are obliged to hold it under pain of heresy and falling away from the Catholic Faith. (The very word ‘anathema’ means ‘cursed’ or ‘cast out/rejected’)
        2) The asterisks indicate with perfect clarity that this Dz 1839 has, as its very purpose, to precisely define that very Petrine Promise which some think protects the pope from ever becoming a heretic. It should be obvious that “protected from heresy” and “infallible” are convertible terms; ‘infallible’ means unable to err, and being protected from heresy means being protected from error. Therefore, the pope is only protected from heresy when he “operates with that infallibility” THE *CONDITIONS* OF WHICH ARE HERE *ALSO* DOGMATICALLY DECLARED.
        3) Those conditions are:
        a) He must be invoking his *supreme* authority
        b) To explain and *define* a doctrine
        c) Of faith or morals ONLY
        d) To which he intends to *bind* ALL of the faithful
        (BTW, this is not my “interpretation”. It’s just a condensation of the words of Dz 1839 itself. Moreover, if it were an interpretation, that same one can be found in Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.287, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Infallibility, and in many other Pre-Vat II manuals and sources. Even the wiki article on infallibility states this.)
        4) Now then, since infallibility only operates under these conditions, so does infallible protection from heresy only operate under these conditions. In the short and sweet: THE POPE IS ONLY INFALLIBLY PROTECTED FROM HERESY WHEN HE SPEAKS EX CATHEDRA.
        Of course, the pope may be, and often is, aided in avoiding heresy at other times. He gets all the graces necessary to fulfill his duty of state. But beyond this there are no guarantees. And *everyone* gets such graces of state. And everyone quite often fails to comply. Because of the importance of his position, the pope most probably most often gets more graces than other people. *But beyond the Petrine Promise as defined above, there are no GUARANTEES*.
        Remember, Dz 1839 is dogma, anathema sit and all. Anyone refusing to accept and believe ALL of it himself becomes a heretic. Because remember also that the very word ‘heretic’ means a chooser; someone who selects out parts of what the Church teaches, while rejecting the rest.
        The incredible thing that has happened in the past 100+ years is that everyone seems to have forgotten that only the smallest part of Vatican I’s dogmatic definiton of papal infallibility has to do with declaring that he is infallible. By far the greatest part is a statement of the LIMITATIONS of papal infallibility; the limitations of the Petrine Promise.
        In a stupidly simplistic way, the run of human history since Vatican I has distilled Dz 1839 down to the easily comprehensible statement: “The pope is infallible”. We are totally ignorant that, in doing so, we choose to ignore the limitations of papal infallibility. But the limitations are just as much a part of the dogma as anything else. If we choose to ignore them, we are just as much heretics as if we had ignored the infallibility.
        Don’t be a victim of the heresy of UPI (Universal Papal Infallibility).
        Don’t even be a victim of EPI (Exaggerated Papal Infallibility).
        Both are falsehoods, and will therefore *eventually* lead to irreconcilable contradictions.
        In Veritate Sola Securitas

      2. Not hearing the Master’s voice in Bergoglio (and the others since Vatican II) is right on the money. I assume you are alluding to the Good Shepherd discourse in John 10?
        The difference between a bad Pope and a non-Catholic “Pope” is one of kind and not just degree.
        If a Catholic commits a mortal sin – unless that sin is public heresy, schism or apostasy – he is still a member of the Church; however, he is a dead member. A Catholic in the state of Grace is a living member of the Church. A public heretic, schismatic or apostate are non members of the Church.
        The Vatican II iteaching is that all the Baptised are members of the Church, some in “full communion”, others in varying degrees of “partial communion”. These are our “separated bretheren”. This is blasphemy and heresy. They have simply defined a new religion made up of Catholics and heretics while retaining retain the name “the Catholic Church”. In one fell swoop, they get to profess heresy but keep the infrastructure and real estate of the Catholic Church!
        So now that they have an essentially different religion, but have kept many of the accidentals of the true Church, they can destroy souls.
        “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
        Due to this conditioning and masterful bait and switch tactics, it’s normal for people to think of public heresy as nothing these days, and not realise that it it seperates one from the Church. This, I believe is the only way in which the elect could be deceived. The elect are the chosen, the ones who are of good will and only want to live and die in the Church. The only way to deceive them is by a counterfeit Church which has many of the accidentals of the true Church, but professes heresy and infects those who subject themselves to it.

      3. @Smith and @Papalsubject, thank you for your insightful replies. I’m reading and rereading them, not easy on a cell phone, even harder to type. (I meant charism not charisma—thank you autocorrect!/s)
        The thing is I’m at the limit of what *I* can know via my “feelings”, reason, logic etc.
        I can barely follow your academic discussions.
        Re infallibility, heresy, gates of Hell, Petrine Promise, Latin verbs, Canon law supersedes Pope or vise versa, etc etc … if you say so I guess. Truth will out eventually, likely too late for me though.
        As a convert of almost 15 years (I was promised clarity of doctrine among other things—actually everything I was taught is under question now and I have boxes of books that are now worthless to me) I never understood everyone’s horror of the sede position, esp not now in these confusing times when it’s become plausible?
        I’m not in danger of becoming sede (relax) don’t have the energy for that. Far more likely to become a cynic. I recently rewatched Primal Fear after many years and found it even whitewashed and tame, compared to how I’d dismissed it the first time boy was I naive back then. Sorry for the rambling, the only place I can vent is here. Prayers appreciated God bless!

        1. Hester Keep Trying!
          Do not despair, my dear. That’s exactly what Bergoglio and his master are trying to produce and elicit. That is no less than the sun against the Holy Spirit. The sede vacantist position is baseless—I am glad to see NVP cut off that line of attack—and the very phrase ‘Benevacantist’ is itself a slanderous lie aiming to distort and confuse. The position that Benedict is pope—from which it ineluctably follows that in fact he still “seated”—is not a statement the seat is empty. Alas, these are obviously mutually exclusive positions and only unscrupulous and tendentious folk would so dishonestly misrepresent a position they oppose. Don’t be gaslighted buy them don’t take their blue pill.
          That said, you hit the mark with your plea for prayers. Right back at ya!
          Prayer is the antidote to many things including despair as well as ridding ourselves of the Anti-Pope and purifying the Church—and ourselves.
          When has a man of prayer ever said that prayer has failed him?

      4. Thank you Brother Beowulf!
        Re what to call the theory I agree with whoever coined Benesedism or was it Sedebenism in can’t remember which forum or Twitter.

        1. You’re welcome Hester. You must get note the utter disdain Bergoglio the Anti-Pope has for the Blessed Virgin Mary—Jersey st this Christmas denying her Immaculate Conception and that she is the Immaculate Conception.
          As prophesied by Simeon and recorded by St Luke a sword too shall pierce your heart so that the thoughts of many will be laid bare.
          Pull out and peruse some G. K. Chesterton (“The Dumb Ox” or “Francis if Assisi” for example) or Hilaire Belloc (Estonia Perpetua or Path to Rome), and then your Rosary.
          The Faith is eternal. The Reign of the Anti-Pope is not.
          Happy Tenth Day of Christmas!

      5. Dear Hester,
        We aren’t all academics, and in fact the majority of us aren’t born with that inclination.
        God has ways to save souls that account for every kind of soul He has made.
        In my view, there is one very simple strategy — difficult to apply of course, as anything worthwhile is difficult! — that every single soul that has ever been born or that ever will be born can use, and it will absolutely guarantee salvation:
        Persevere In Love Of The Truth
        No one needs to see every truth, but everyone needs to love every truth they see. God is Truth is God.
        I second the thoughts and sentiments about mutual prayers.
        Dear Papal Subject,
        It turns out my researched reply of Jan 1 to your comment of earlier got completely garbled. It bears no relation to my actual thought, and doesn’t make any sense at all even to me. Not sure how that happened, but I would like the Moderator to simply delete it if the original did not meet with his approval. As it stands it is just white noise. Besides, it makes me look like a confused, incoherent dork — and I can’t have that! :o)

  8. All Francis has is raw human power. Let’s see how that works out in the end. “Do not put your trust in princes.” Or the strength of the leg of man or horse.
    All that Benedict has on the other hand is sole claim to be Pope and mystical protection and divine favor. He’s hanging on by a thread. And the Lord can puff Bergoglio off the world stage in an instant.
    Like all heresies and heresiarchs, “The wind has blown them all away.” (Belloc)
    Why he did it—resign as he did; perhaps declare a state of necessity; & attempt to expand the papal ministry and office or rather retain the purely spiritual side of said minist Y—is anyone’s guess.
    “Why,” however, doesn’t really rank compared to “that.”
    Looks like Our Lady of Fatima and Her Immaculate Heart will have to perform the labor of Hercules in cleansing these Augean Stables of Rome and our fem Bishops.
    Holy Innocents Pray for Us !
    Our Lady of Fatima! Pray for us.

  9. Finally, What do we do? Good q. (up above).
    Joan of Arc. Check.
    Thomas More—work like all depends on you and pray as if all depends on God. Check.
    In addition, among other things: Simply speak the truth.
    Francis is an Anti-Pope.
    Anti-Pope Francis.
    Define terms. Speak clearly.
    You know it drives the Bergoglio crowd into a rage. Why would that be?
    Shockingly simple.
    And I would suggest we all: Raise the issue with whatever good priests you know. Maybe even a decent nonfem or nonfag Bishop. We have to peel off one by one from the herd mentality that can’t compute the possibility much less reality of an antipope despite the daily evidence and his own stated intent of his ripping apart Holy Mother Church.

    1. Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, wanting to transform the Peter’s Office into a synodal two-headed hybrid, he dissolved – by virtue of power given to him [Mt 16, 19] by Jesus Christ – the same office on Feb. 28, 2013 at 20:00 [CET], so no he may already be a Roman pope neither himself nor anyone else. The dissolution of the papacy does not mean that the gates of hell have overcome the Church [Mt 16, 18] that the Lord Jesus would not speak about the Roman Catholic church.
      By the act of Feb. 11, 2013, B16 released the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (effective as of Feb. 28, 2013). These Keys are the Apocalyptic Woman and the Paraclete; only now the Church will shine on the whole earth with full splendor.
      The end of the papacy in Rome is precisely described in the Prophecy of Saint Malachi, archbishop of Armagh:
      Gloria Olivae – Benedict XVI; the glory/finial of the Roman Catholic church are two olive trees [Revelation 11, 4], which will blossom only now at the end of times – the Paraclete and the Woman of the Revelation.
      In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit – this is the phenomenon of Jorge Bergoglio, the destroyer of the Roman Catholic church. Jorge Bergoglio, aside from the BXVI’s dissolution of the papacy, as an apostate, could not be the vicar of Jesus Christ, and therefore Saint Malachi does not name his name among the Pontifex but only characterizes the effects of his actions.
      Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur & Iudex tremendus iudicabit populum suum. Finis.
      Saint Peter the Apostle was not a Roman (citizen of Rome). Peter the Roman is the Son of a Roman Catholic church (means a Roman) and is identical to a terrible Judge, the same as the Paraclete.

      1. Peter the Roman will be a real and good Pope. He is coming soon. Anti-Pope Bergoglio is not mentioned in St Malachy prophecy. And the end means the Second Coming is nigh. We live in the time of the great apostasy.

  10. Feast of the Holy Innocents
    Happy Feast, gentlemen.
    By way of a plan of action I would humbly propose two concrete courses in addition to what I said already by way of practical action.
    First, why not start a 54-Day Rosary NonVeniPacem Novena for the Downfall & Expulsion of AntiPope Francis, who styles himself ‘Pope’ Francis.
    Second, why not join in James Larson’s beautiful Rosary event, the Rosary to the Interior for the Purification of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.
    This intention can be prayed at any Rosary, yet culminates in a worldwide Rosary to be prayed on the day: Candlemas Day, a scant month away, the official close of the Christmas Season on the Feast of the Presentation of the Child Jesus in the Temple, and the Purification of Our Lady.
    The details are simple and available at the site: RosarytotheInterior.com.
    My peso also theory is that the wheels blew off the Bergoglian Wagon immediately after the first Rosary to the Interior on Candlemas 2018. The Chile-Barros scandal broke at that time followed by one scandal after another, block dying his nose and sending the mad Argentine to the mat over and over again.
    I’d suggest beginning with Jim’s reflection on the Fifth Glorious Mystery. It’s some of his most beautiful and sublimest writing.
    Our Lady of Revelation, Pray for us!

    1. @brotherbeowulf, where can I find Jim’s reflections on the glorious mysteries (who is Jim I’m drawing a blank)
      Merry Christmas to you also!!

      1. Jim Larson. Philosopher and Catholic thinker extraordinaire and behind two sites: WarAgainstBeing and RosarytotheInterior.com. The former is mainly philosophy and a devastating critique of Ratzingerian theology and other forms of modernism. The latter is Jim’s attempt—in which we are invited to join—at “doing something about it.”
        You may find the reflection on the 5th Glorious Mystery the Coronation just below. It’s possibly his best work in a devotional vein and rather mystical.
        Merry 11th Day of Christmas
        “And may the small child Jesus smile on you.”

  11. Great idea about the 54 day rosary. Candlemas is also the feast day of Our Lady of Good Success, by the way. She wants to be invoked at this particular time in history according to her fully approved apparitions.

    1. Yes very good point on Our Lady of Good Success.
      Mary’s predictions there bearing on the 20th & 21st Cc. are quite fascinating. Mr. Larson in the course of his reflections on the Rosary’s Mysteries addresses those predictions particularly here, fittingly on the 4th Joyful Mystery—http://rosarytotheinterior.com/the-fourth-joyful-mystery-the-presentation/.

  12. And if he took the office of the papacy with this same incorrect notion, it means he undertook and accepted his office with ‘substantial error.’ Thereby negating his taking of the office. Or is there some mental gymnastics us plebes and simple folk have yet to master which splains that one away too.
    And the self-inflicted anathemas of kissing korans and praying in mosque and worshipping with heretics? Please explain how those do not apply either to Benedict and JPII.

    1. There are difficulties of course. I don’t think it negated his taking of the office even if he had the Substantial Error in mind at the time, at least not according to canon law. I’m allowing reasoned sede comments on here, but I won’t let it go down a rabbit hole.

      1. Dear docmx, since both the two popes thesis and the no popes thesis are seen by the mainstream as equally wacky, but both have a growing number of sincere adherents, would you consider opening the rabbit hole on the latter as you have on the former?

        1. Sorry, but no. I just don’t have the time it takes to constantly refute the sede position. I have to keep this space focused on the Bergoglian antipapacy.

      2. It’s not my forum but respectfully, I agree with papal subject to allow respectful dialogue within bounds following ground rules as needed as I mentioned before I have some difficulties processing all this and am not yet able to rule it out as the alternative hypothesis. The distinctions matter of course.

  13. Also, the idea that ‘office’ and ‘ministry’ cannot and are never used as synonyms in Latin languages is abjectly ridiculous. How many languages does Ms. Barnhardt speak fluently? Any beside Midwestern American English?
    To us who speak and know several other foreign languages, fluently and intimately, to parse and split hairs between the usage of ‘office’ and ‘ministry’ in the texts that she puts forth, is bonehead-level try-hard. While such words are distinctive, and can be used to differentiate between important roles or responsibilties, even in English they can be used synonymously in the correct context and in informal or even merely relaxed conversation. That’s just in English. In another language? That’s a whole different ballgame. Many words translated literally into English would never be even close to synonymous in our American parlance, but are synonyms or used as such in other languages. Not to mention a language, Latin, that is not even spoken anymore. Which leaves an analysis by a non-native speaker of a dead language trying to split hairs between words that can even be used synonymously in informal conversation in English. Then, to take that English-based parsing, and on and on, it’s ridiculous on the face of it to any real student of languages.
    Who speak and uses Latin more than any other people on earth? The priest class of the Roman Catholic Church. And Ratzinger is the one to know how informally he wanted to be speaking, or not, and how synonmous those words are, or not. And no, language is not entirely a set of hard and fast rules you can go look up in a book and then conclude the person was saying “A” when he had affirmed (re; La Stampa, 2014( that he most definitely meant “B.”
    Considering this is not even a spoken language, then the only people who know how many of these words are NOW being used in their documents… are the people using it on a daily baiss. Not a mere grammar book.
    Hyperbole alert: not synonymous in ANY language? Puhleze. Many words are not EXACTLY, legalistiically synonymous but are used as substitutes for one another, even if only for the sake of a desire to not use the same word over and over. “Feline” and “cat” are not EXACTLY the same thing, but in regular conversation, even formal ones, but not strictly scientific parlance, we would know what the person was saying in the context and othe conversation and know that he or she was not desiring to communicate any real difference or distinction between by using ‘then the grumpy feline cuddled up in my lap” rather than using “cat.”
    It’s try-hard, for realz. And that Ms Barnhardt is so zealous in that one post on this one “ministry-office” issue is… telling.
    These are very real and serious critiques, not meant for trollling. If the Benevacantists cannot rationally, and calmly, articulate sufficient responses to these critiques, I can guarantee that your theory will go nowhere. It will go nowhere with the laity, and much less so with the completely corrupt Romanist hierarchy.

    1. The parsing of Benedict’s Latin in the Declaratio comes into sharp relief when judged in the context of what has recently come to light.
      You obviously haven’t bothered to read any of the source material from 1960s Germany where the separation of the Office and Ministry, with the Ministry becoming a synodal function, was the topic du jour. Your laziness turns your otherwise learned observations into what you claim it isn’t: trolling.

    2. “Also, the idea that ‘office’ and ‘ministry’ cannot and are never used as synonyms in Latin languages is abjectly ridiculous.”
      Give us a cited example of the two terms ‘office’ and ‘ministry’ used as synonyms in Latin. And then cite for us this synonymous use specifically defined in the context of the papacy.

    3. “Even in English they can be used synonymously in the correct context and in informal or even merely relaxed conversation.”
      Yes, because a formal resignation of the Papacy every 800 years is just like a very informal and relaxed conversation. I mean, it’s not like Latin used to communicate precise and formal declarations.

  14. @pelayo1683
    For someone who tries to produce the impression that you are conversant in several languages, we can say that your English, at LEAST, is terrible.
    As a random example, in…
    “but in regular conversation, even formal ones, but not strictly scientific parlance…”
    You failed to make agreement of number with ‘conversation’ and ‘ones’.
    You left out a needed preposition in the second clause. It should be “but not IN strictly scientific parlance…”
    What can we say?
    At the very least, you are quite lazy.
    Why should anyone take you seriously?

    1. How many Rosaries should I say as penance for not going back to add “in” even though any intelligent reader can understand, with ease, what was being said?
      Again, language.

    2. It’s a serious conversation, the points raised were serious critiques of a serious issue, and Smith here really raises the bar with a missing ‘s and possible a missing preposition neither of which were necessary to attain the meaning of the post.
      This. Is the level of argumentation at which the average Roman finds himself. Barnhardt, the gentleman or lady running this website, and oh, maybe 50-100 other people TOTAL in the Roman Church in the USA can put up decent and serious argumentation. Even theirs falls flat when they run up to these kinds of critiques. But, at least they’ll not waste people’s time with acting cute about a missing ‘s.’
      I have come to expect this from the laity of the Roman Church. Sad.

      1. For a self-designated linguistics expert in all things pedantic to grammar-Nazism, you’ve quickly become very sensitive and sarcastic when your own alleged “expertise” is found lazy and wanting.
        Oh but you’re certainly not here to be “quarrelsome” – as evidenced by your juvenile sarcasm. So go ahead, oh physician to the unwashed rubes of the common laity – heal thyself.

      2. Dear Pelayo,
        Did you choose to miss my point?
        It wasn’t a matter of one missing ‘s’ or one missing preposition. Your post was chock full of basic errors in English. I only pointed out a couple, so as not to bore everyone. IF you think these were the only ones, that only shows that you’re not aware of all the others, so that it wasn’t just your being in a hurry that was the cause of them. (And in passing it should be said that we are discussing very important matters here. As you yourself said, “It’s a serious conversation”. No one is ALLOWED, before God, to be in a hurry, or to be careless).
        And BTW, I did not want this to be a personal attack. The thing was, you just put forth your personal opinion, with no supporting facts or authority, so I simply responded in kind.
        You speak of “arguments” that you have offered, but there actually weren’t any, just assertions.
        Oh, and if you think your language was clear enough even with the errors, I can tell you that among the errors I did not mention were a few that made what you were trying to communicate almost completely incomprehensible.
        I will be the first to share your disrespect for “the laity of the Roman Church” — and for myself in particular. :o)
        What I will not do is apologize for telling the truth. And if you will not accept the truth, then that only means it is YOU who should be disrespected.
        Peace, brother.

        1. I would give my left arm for the majority of the commentariat to understand the distinction between and argument and an assertion. Especially loathed are the ones who cite their own previous works as proofs in support of their current assertions.

          1. Patience Brother—you’re riding herd on an ornery lot myself included.
            Loathe the sin of course, be it grammatical, logistical or otherwise but not the poor sinnerman.

    3. Well, anyway, I have posted my critiques, concerns, and questions. They are legitimate. Name-call, do whatever, but I’m not here to be quarrelsome, but to challenge you to sufficiently respond to and answer those very real and undeniable critiques and questions. I will refrain from responding to anything outside of answers to those critiques and questions.
      Thank you. Merry Christmas, Christ is Born. Godspeed.

  15. Pelayo1683:
    The last Papal renunciation was 700 years ago. There have only been a handful in the history of the Church. So, when Pope Benedict XVI composed the most important page of writing in his life; the most impactful page of writing perhaps in the history of the Church; every word matters. He chose every word carefully, precisely and used Latin, the eternal language of the Church, so there could not possibly be a misunderstanding in time.
    Munus – The complete Office
    Ministerio – the administrative portion of the Office.
    Office and Ministry are the crux of this matter. *The Munus*, (Office) is what Popes must renounce: the total Office in whole. The *Ministerio* is what Pope Benedict XVI renounced: a *portion* of that Munus (Office).
    He specified in his partial resignation the *Dual Nature* of the Papacy: (1) Speaking/Acting (2) Suffering/Praying. *Munus*.
    He acknowledged only his incapacity to administer the “ministerium”. He resigned that same ministerio. He *did not* renounce the Munus which also includes suffering and prayer. He specifically said since then that he *retains* that capacity. So, *Ministerio is the word he chose*: an accurate, precise description of bifurcated reality. Pope Benedict XVI renounced governance. Bergoglio now governs. Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce the Munus of prayer and suffering. And Bergoglio clearly does *not* share in that.
    Words and actions aligned. Bifurcation in the resignation announcement. Bifurcation of the Papacy ever since.
    The words you say don’t matter define exactly the reality I see with my own eyes. They are precise words. They are descriptive words. They are cardinal words: hinges upon which everything changed. And the Papacy does.not.change.

    1. Aqua: this is all quite right, except when you say “bifurcated reality” and “Bergoglio now governs.” These are merely appearances resulting from Benedict’s actions. They do not correspond to reality. The governing of Bergoglio is a usurpation and thus null. The nature of the papacy cannot be altered, and Benedict retained all of it when he tried to resign part of it. I know you know this.

      1. “Governing” is not a matter of mere subjective appearances, but rather, an observable cause and effect of objective reality. In other words “actions”. That is reality itself. There are no alternatives to this. One either governs by actions – or he doesn’t govern at all. Period. And unless you can produce evidence that Benedict is still “governing” in this objective tangible manner, then the papacy has in fact been “bifurcated”.
        After all – that is the entire basis of the “bifurcating” paradigm of the papacy in this first place.

        1. Nope. Bergoglio’s “governing” is fake news. Benedict did not succeed in bifurcating anything, and the power to govern still resides with him, even if said power is unexercised. The “observable cause and effect” that you call Objective Reality is nothing more than appearances being deceiving, and deception can never alter the reality of a situation.

      2. Retired pope says governance wasn’t his gift, but Francis is good at it:
        “My weak point perhaps is a lack of resolve in governing and making decisions,” he said. “Here, in reality, I am more a professor, one who reflects and meditates on spiritual questions. Practical governance was not my forte and this certainly was a weakness.”
        – (Pope Benedict XVI In a book-length interview with the German author Peter Seewald in Sept 2016)

      3. You are right. I do know this. I agree. With a caveat.
        In the eyes of God is what you refer to. The physical reality of our situation is what I refer to. God gives us bodies so that we choose spiritually by acting physically.
        We live in the physical world, in which Man frequently chooses sin (disconnect from what is true and intended). Ex: A divorced and remarried man is still married to his first wife in the eyes of God. That doesn’t do the kids any good, however, who are being forced to call a concubine mother. Their physical reality is governed by a woman who has made an improper claim to marital status and parental rights. Dad needs to make it right. Concubine needs to go home. The physically deformed marital reality is harming the inner spiritual reality of many, in ever-widening circles.
        Our current physical Papal reality is deformed and detached from God. The physical deformed false reality of a bifurcated Papacy with multiple actors performing multiple roles must be brought into alignment with the spiritually straight and true reality of One Vicar Of Christ with all the Grace necessary to act in his single person bestowed and guaranteed by God.
        The two Popes are asking us to accept an unreality. We must insist they (and all future deviations) are wrong, repent, return, rebuild, make it right.

      1. (“Nope. Bergoglio’s “governing” is fake news. Benedict did not succeed in bifurcating anything, and the power to govern still resides with him, even if said power is unexercised. The “observable cause and effect” that you call Objective Reality is nothing more than appearances being deceiving, and deception can never alter the reality of a situation.”)
        Are you insane? Not only is Benedict’s governing power “unexercised” – but also – Bergoglio’s governing power in the Church has BEEN “exercised” for nearly 6 years now. And THAT IS the objective reality.
        All you’re citing is your own subjective opinion based upon no objective reality whatsoever. You’re merely citing that it isn’t so because you’re saying that it isn’t so.

        1. Your position violates the law of non-contradiction. You cannot hold both that a pope does not have the power to bifurcate the papacy and also hold that a pope did bifurcate the papacy, and his “successor” is now governing. If the bifurcation was impossible, then the objective reality is that it didn’t happen.

      2. (@ pelayo1683 “Popes can change the papacy. They have through the ages.”)
        Site for us the divine papal power that allows the pope to rebuild Christ’s Church upon bifurcated pebbles instead of The Rock. And then list *ANY* theological limitations you think the pope has after that.

      3. And again SturmundDrang, you’re correct in making the distinction. No doubt Benedict yielded—or attempted to yield—the power of governance. And did in fact as a matter de facto—but not de jure. The transition was and is extrajudicial extralegal and not according to canon law due underlying mistake of fact nullifying the whole.
        No one’s denying the Anti-Pope is ruling. The sad tragic and pathetic effects of that surround us. We’re just pointing out that that rule like the man himself is illegitimate.

  16. Rather unlike Bergoglio most past Popes hew to the Catholic Faith. No pope has spewed heresy upon heresy like Anti-Pope Francis. With whom it’s a heresy-du-jour. Perhaps a heresy a day keeps sound doctrine and grace away.
    There have been antipopes before. So perhaps you shouldn’t be so shocked by one now, Don Pelayo. The difference is that unlike Bergoglio the antipopes who preceded him were at least Catholic.
    Like Benedict XIII, Pedro de la Luna, your countryman, for example. A better man by far than the psychotic near lunatic Urban VI—who’s personality calls to mind Anti-Pope Francis. He went down swinging after a long run of several decades, excommunicating the entire Council of Constance in 1417 that deposed him.
    His last act three days before he died in isolation in Spain was to make theee new cardinals.
    Good at admire his pluck.

  17. (@ docmx001 says: “Your position violates the law of non-contradiction. You cannot hold both that a pope does not have the power to bifurcate the papacy and also hold that a pope did bifurcate the papacy, and his “successor” is now governing. If the bifurcation was impossible, then the objective reality is that it didn’t happen.”)
    That’s not my position. My position is the objective reality that a pope does not possess the *LICIT* power to bifurcate the papacy – however, like all sinful humans including St Peter – he does have the temporal power of human freewill to commit heresy and violate his own papacy.
    Bifurcation is not only possible (as a heretical act) it is also currently observable as an objective reality. And if not – then the entire observable basis of this entire bifurcation paradigm is imaginary – and as such – there is no controversy to the this current co-papacy whatsoever. And there is no purpose or even a basis to this entire pointless thread.

    1. Bifurcation is not possible, even as a heretical, illicit act. He can’t change the nature of the thing. It’s an illusion.
      Let me ask you something. Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman? He changed his name, his clothes, altered his physical body and appearance, and nearly the whole world calls him Caitlin. What is the ontological reality in this case?

      1. What exactly is your problem? I didn’t say he changed “the nature of the thing” – I clearly indicated that he VIOLATED the supernatural nature of the thing.
        Hence *ILLICIT* – yes?
        Hence *HERESY* – yes?
        Now let me ask you a something or two – if Bruce Jenner’s *ACTIONS* don’t change anything – then what exactly are your objections to his actions?
        Then riddle me this: Does sin have an ontological reality that is observable in objective reality?

      2. Gentlemen,
        Are you not needlessly at loggerheads?
        1) Bifurcation *of the papacy* is indeed not possible, neither de jure, nor de facto.
        2) But Francis IS governing the Church, de facto but not de jure. Bifurcation of the *governing power* IS possible, de facto but not de jure. (It’s a moot point though, because BXVI is not doing any governing).
        3) Because Francis governs, however, does not mean he actually IS the pope in any way, shape or form. History is full of examples of leaders, even “popes”, who stole power, and actually used it to govern. They did so illegally, that’s all. Because they were able to grab and use the power did not mean they actually held the office.
        This leads to a consideration.
        I have noticed that a number of people correctly deny that the office of the papacy can be held by any more than one man. However, they seem to have sucked up a basic principle of BXVI’s that makes the idea actually seem possible, at least in theory. That is the idea that “suffering and prayer” are part of the office of the papacy.
        THEY ARE NOT.
        Here is why, IMHO:
        From BXVI’s resignation speech:
        “…ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.
        “Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando.”
        Very literal translation (mine):
        I have arrived at the certain knowledge that my powers, with age growing heavy [on me], are not now apt to fairly managing the Petrine office.
        I am well aware that this [Petrine] office, according to its SPIRITUAL essence, has to be executed not only by doing and speaking, but NOT LESS by suffering and praying.
        First of all, it is beyond doubt that the office he is describing the “spiritual essence” of is the Petrine office, i.e. the papacy.
        But there is no such thing as a “spiritual” essence to the papacy. As Catholic philosophy (not to mention any good old catechism) will tell you, a spirit is a being having intellect and free will. The adjective ‘spiritual’ therefore means having to do with intellect and free will. For instance, the “spiritual life” is the life of our intellect and free will. But the essence of a thing is simply that by which a thing IS what it is. It is expressed in words by a definition. If one were to define, or give the essence of, the Petrine office, one would say something like: That task imposed by Christ upon Peter and his successors; to wield the supreme authority in the Church of teaching and ruling. In itself there is nothing “spiritual” in the *office*, or the job, of teaching and ruling. Of course, the teacher and ruler, as a *person*, has intellect and will. But the office and the job do not. There is simply nothing in the office and job description of the papacy *as such* that includes suffering and praying. And if there were, those things would not, by virtue of being “papal”, be of any greater value than that done by any of us lay schmucks. The value of suffering and prayer is measured by the clout you have in your friendship with God, which is your personal holiness; it has nothing to do with your state in life.
        So not only does the “spiritual essence” of the Petrine office NOT have “not less” to do with suffering and praying, it has *essentially* NOTHING to do with it. Suffering and praying can and should be involved in the Petrine office, but in no way are they *essentially* involved, and if they were they most certainly would not be even *equally* involved with the doing and speaking part.
        It really comes down to this:
        This is a substantial error of BXVI, which has to be added to the other one: that he thinks more than one man can hold the papacy.
        This looks like another one of Benedict’s “meaning moments”. He seems not to be aware or to care about the objective meaning of the papacy (i.e. WHAT the darned thing actually IS), but only what it subjectively “means” to HIM. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word ‘papacy’. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

        1. I think Smith may have nailed it. The notion of getting the essence of the office wrong has profound implications. It reminds me of that other trendy thing going on in Germany in the 50s and 60s: Phenomenology, whereby the essence of a thing is not about the nature of the thing itself, but rather how the thing is experienced, and hence its essence can change.

      3. Bifurcation is the physical expression of a soul that has departed from Truth. Ex: A Tranny is bifurcated outwardly just as their soul is bifurcated inwardly. Inner choice. Outer expression. That is the human drama in a nutshell.
        Sin is departure from reality by degrees. We see this inward deformation by the outer physical expression of a Tranny neutered man with silicone in his chest. In the eyes of God, they are as they have ever been: male and female He created them. But the Tranny, like this Papacy, has clearly chosen to depart from God and transcendent reality into the hell of rebellion and unreality.
        Bifurcation is not ontologically true (one Pope at a time – theologians don’t get to vote). But it is no doubt the field of battle upon which this conflict is being waged. We must recognize the claim and oppose it as such.

  18. Awe Hell Sturm. Look at Bergoglio’s eyes. Or, the dead eyes of McCarrick.
    Sin although spiritual has effect physical too.

    1. Nowhere have I ever claimed that Bergoglio is the pope. Nowhere have I ever state that “Bifurcation” of the Papacy was a licit reality. On the contrary – “Bifurcation” of the papacy is pure outright heresy.
      However, the heretical “Bifurcation” of the papacy as a *practical matter* (objectively acted upon) is not only possible – but NECESSARY for it to be an actual HERESY (ie ILLICIT)
      Now all of this should be blatantly obvious to even the most dense of Catholics. And the fact that docmx001 has made this a ridiculous non-point of obnoxious contention is beyond annoying at this point.
      Oh but hey, let’s apply this same stupid pedantic reasoning of insanity to ALL sins – ergo:
      Homosexuality is NOT a reality because homosexuality is a violation of the natural order of our objective reality. Therefore there is no such thing as homosexuality.
      we must also apply this stupidity to – Contraception.
      and – Abortion.
      These intrinsic evils simply do not exist because their “nature” is not possible.
      Now let the insanity rule us all.

    2. ( @brotherbeowulf said
      “Awe Hell Sturm. Look at Bergoglio’s eyes. Or, the dead eyes of McCarrick.
      Sin although spiritual has effect physical too.”)
      Thank you for making my point. Oh but docmx001 says such sins aren’t possible because they are contrary to our nature – therefore they don’t exist.
      Because reasons……

      1. (docmx001 says: “I think Smith may have nailed it. The notion of getting the essence of the office wrong has profound implications. It reminds me of that other trendy thing going on in Germany in the 50s and 60s: Phenomenology, whereby the essence of a thing is not about the nature of the thing itself, but rather how the thing is experienced, and hence its essence can change.”)
        Good God – could your reasoning be more convoluted in sophistry?
        The “essence” of the thing? How exactly is that different than the “nature” of the thing? And how is the “experience” any different than either obeying that “nature” – or sinning by ignoring and disobeying that “nature”?

  19. (@docmx001 said “You realize I’m not endorsing Phenomenology, yes?”)
    Yeah – I DO realize that – that was actually the rhetorical premise of my entire point.
    Now conversely, *YOU* DO realize that *I’M* not endorsing papal “Bifurcation”, nor Bruce Jenner’s unnatural gender confusion – yes?

  20. Well we did have a Grand Triumvirate with the office of the Roman emperor, remember? Caesar Augustus, Marc Antony, and Pompey I believe.
    yeah. let’s do that with the papacy.

  21. In follow up to Smith’s comment,
    Objection: Since Ratzinger clearly did resign the ministry of the Papacy, and since the ministry is the essense of the office of the Papacy, it would seem to follow that Ratzinger resigned the office itself by resigning from its essential attributes.

    1. That’s a very good objection, TF.
      Just my opinion, but I would answer that, although in this case Ratzinger did indeed intend to resign the ministerial part of the papacy, and that part is the ONLY part of the papacy, his decision was, or at least could very well have been, *conditioned* by his false thinking that the “passive” part of the “papacy” would remain to him.
      In other words, if he had really understood that resigning the active ministry was to resign the entire papacy, he might not have done so.
      Let’s take an analogous example:
      Suppose that the President of the U.S. were to think there was some sort of “passive” element in the Presidency. Suppose that, on account of some illness, great political unrest, or whatever other reason, he deemed it advantageous to the nation to resign the active part of the Presidency (the actual ruling part), but yet he thought that he would still have some moral influence, like that the new President would have to take his advice into account, that he would hold the title President Emeritus, or even simply that his “prayers and sufferings” would have some special value for the nation over and above the value that any lay schmuck’s prayers and sufferings would have.
      Knowing the full truth of things, that his advice would be ignored, that he would have no real title, that even his prayers and sufferings would have no special value, would he have then resigned?
      No one knows.
      But there is grave doubt, at the very least, that he would have made the same decision.

  22. Bought the GooglePlay book, which is the only place I could find this piece of work. However, those who “own” this book that they have “bought” have to log into Google to view and read their own property.
    Anybody know where I can get a PDF, doc, txt, or something I can put on my hard drive to read without requiring Net access.

    1. Paperback available via Amazon, but temporarily out of stock. Apparently there was a sudden rush on the existing inventory LOL. You can still order it though, and they will deliver when more inventory is received.

      1. Thanks docmx. I have now ordered an Amazon copy, just in case they ever get one.
        Anyone else with experience with how they obtained a personally controlled copy of this book, either on paper or software?

  23. Here’s another aspect of Ratzinger’s error. His suggested division of functions is that Ratzinger does the “contemplative” aspects of the papacy such as prayer and suffering, while Bergoglio does the “active” aspects.
    Let’s do a thought-experiment. Say we have 2 Would-Be Popes to share the work on Ratzinger’s lines. Call them WBP-1 and WBP-2. WBP-1 will do the prayer, theology and contemplation of Christ’s suffering. WBP-2 will do the administration and the public meetings, wherein he receives the public’s adulation. What do you think will happen to WBP-2?
    Implicitly, WBP-2 is NOT going to spend much time on prayer or suffering. He is going to wield power and receive adulation. Thus, WBP2 is deprived of the gift of humility. Being thus deprived, WBP2 *MUST* become arrogant, willful and worldly. It’s inevitable. Does it sound like the current situation?
    In summary: It takes only a little logic, and a little understanding of human nature, to see that Ratzinger’s diarchy idea is inherently erroneous, unworkable and unchristian.

    1. A Pope’s connection to Christ in contemplation, prayer, suffering is the essential essence of the Papacy.
      The Pope’s administrative ministry is merely the fruit of his relationship to Christ his King. It is not the most important thing by a long shot. He is administratively productive to the extent his relationship with God is close. But it is the spiritual connection Catholics see first and revere.
      Pope Benedict XVI kept that connection. That is clear by the language of his resignation, explanations, actions. Jorge Bergoglio has never had it. That is also clear; abundantly.

    2. Very sharp insight, Jeff C.
      @ Aqua
      More assertions; as such worth absolutely nothing. Show us some arguments from reason and/or authority to support this.
      Firstly, “essential essence” is a tautology.
      If the prayer side of things were the essence of the papacy, then I’m the pope.
      If the administrative ministry were merely the fruit of a relationship to Christ the King, then I’m the pope in that respect too.
      This is all just pious, holy-sounding MYTH.
      Through all history NO theologian (and Modernists are not theologians) has ever suggested what you assert.

      1. It seems by Christ’s own words, the grant of the keys (authority) and confirming the brethren (teaching) are the essence of the Papacy. Sounds more like the administrative ministry than the contemplation, prayer, suffering part.

    1. People said the same when Paul VI closed Vatican II, permitted “for you and for all men” in the Consecration of the chalice, and promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae – in 1965, 1968 and 1969 respectively. Bergoglio is an amateur.

  24. Ann’s “German contact” here. I have an extract by Rahner in German which I translated to English. Rahner essentially claims that episcopal authority is not identical with the individual bearers of this authority and extends this reasoning to the papacy.
    Can you give me an email address I can sen it to you. Cheers.

  25. Here is some authoritative confirmation of the Non-Bifurcatable papacy.
    Vatican I, Sess. IV, Ch. I (Denzinger 1822)
    St. Pius X, Lamentabili (Denzinger 2053)
    St. Pius X, Pascendi (Denzinger 2091)
    St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter “Ex Quo” (Denzinger 2147a
    There are numerous other quotes that would help to show that the Church was indisputably founded *by Jesus Christ Himself* as a monarchy. These quotes use the word ‘monarch’ in reference to the pope. The very word ‘monarch’ means ‘lone ruler’, for its Greek antecedents are ‘monos’ (alone) and ‘archein’ (to rule). I restrict myself to these four quotes only, simply because they make clearer reference to the fact.
    Dz 1822:
    “So we teach and declare that, according to the testimonies of the Gospel, the primacy of *jurisdiction* [nothing about prayer here, folks] over the entire Church of God was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed Apostle Peter by *Christ the Lord*. For the *one* Simon [Unum enim Simonem], to whom he had before said: “Thou shalt be called Cephas, after he had given forth his confession with the words: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Lord spoke with these solemn words: “Blessed art thou [etc.]”… And upon the one Simon Peter [uni Simoni Petro], Jesus after His resurrection conferred the *jurisdiction* [nothing about prayer here, folks] of the highest pastor [= shepherd/guide] and rector [= ruler] over His entire fold… To this teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, *so manifest as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church*, *are opposed openly the vicious opinions of those who perversely DENY THAT THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN HIS CHURCH WAS ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST THE LORD; that to Peter *alone* [solum Petrum], before the other apostles, *whether individually or all together*, was confided the true and proper primacy *of jurisdiction* [nothing about prayer here, folks] by Christ; or of those who affirm that the same primacy was not immediately and directly bestowed upon the blessed Peter himself, *but upon the Church*, and through this Church upon him as the *minister* of the Church Herself.”
    Important: The word ‘one’ in the above passage is to be understood in the sense of the official Latin (as always), which uses the *cardinal* number ´unus,a,um’. That number ‘one’ does not mean ‘first’. Nor does it mean ‘one’ as in ‘someone’; it means the numerically one, single (person) Simon. I’ve taught Latin for over 15 years, but you should not trust me on this. It will be a matter of minutes to look it up in a basic Latin grammar. You don’t even need to know any Latin to verify this.
    The word ‘alone’ in “to Peter alone”, is in the Latin the adjective ‘solus,a,um’. The words ‘alone’ and ‘solus’ are exact synonyms.
    Otherwise, the English translation given above of Dz1822 is quite literal, and speaks for itself. Anyone who does not see that Vatican I here condemns the idea of a bifurcated papacy is wilfully blind, or incapable of understanding plain language, or, worse yet…a Modernist whose intellect, even if perfectly functional, is corrupted by false philosophy…like…mmm…Ratzinger’s intellect is corrupted.
    Next up:
    Dz 2053 (Syllabus of Errors, or Lamentabili, of St. Pius X):
    *Condemned* proposition: “The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable, but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.”
    Dz 2091 (Pascendi, St. Pius X): It is a little long to quote, but in sum it condemns as a Modernist error that authority emanates from the Church itself, as a *collectivity* of consciences. It affirms that the authoritative structure of the Church is autocratic, and was given as such by an external mandate of God.
    Dz 2147a: “…[It is] an error, long since condemned by Our predecessor, Innocent X…[cf. Dz 1091 — quite interesting], in which it is argued that St. Paul is held as a brother entirely equal to St. Peter…[also an error] that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a sovereignty of *one person*, that is, a monarchy…”
    Now it occurs to me that all the above is a sort of dialogue with a lunatic.
    Up until the supposed bifurcation of BXVI, the *very idea* that anyone should *need* to prove to the public at large that the papacy is
    1) A *jurisdictional*, non-sacramental, revocable office, with NO “spiritual essence”; no integral component, or munus, of “prayer and suffering”.
    2) A monarchy; an office that only one man can hold.
    3) That this one man holds the entirety of the office, and cannot share any part of it with anyone.
    …the very idea, I say, of a *need* to prove to the public at large that the papacy is such as the Church has always understood it…would have been considered bat**** crazy.
    But here we all are, engaging in an exercise that actually dignifies this insanity with serious consideration — all because of the colossally arrogant posturing of kooks like Rahner, Ratzinger, Neumann and all the other Mad Modernist Muckrakers, who think they know better than the Church’s +two thousand years of experience, better than all previous popes, better even than Jesus Christ.
    May God do with them as He sees fit…but do it quickly.

  26. I would like to know the thoughts of those who believe that Bergoglio is an antipope regarding the following:
    Suppose I believe and profess everything that Ratzinger believes and teaches without exception. Every idea that he has ever made public – including a bifurcatable Papacy and the notion that Christ gives Himself to us in the bread and the wine at mass etc – I wholeheartedly also believe and profess as my own.
    Am I to be considered a Catholic?

      1. Ok. I hear you.
        Let’s back up a bit. The sede horse is back in the stable.
        When Benedict made his resignation announcement he clearly said that at 8pm on such and such a date the See will be vacant.
        Everyone accepted it at the time, including myself. Everyone with the use of reason presumed the same intention on Ratzinger’s part. No one was either bound nor able to know that he’d continue to live in Rome in a white cassock. No one thought that by his words he was speaking with a forked tongue. Archbishop Lefebvre said that “Ratzinger was a serpent”, so perhaps if he had been alive he might have doubted something. But on the whole, it was accepted. So they proceeded to hold a conclave, and Bergoglio walked out as the winner.
        If *anyone* can be the pope, then Bergoglio is the pope. I hope that doesn’t get me banned

        1. @thepapalsubject “No one thought that by his words he was speaking with forked tongue.”
          Wrong. There were several voices in Rome within 48 hours of the Declaratio pointing out deficiencies in the formulation and also pointing out the impossibility of a Pope Emeritus, the extremely dubious retention of address as His Holiness, wearing white, remaining inside the Vatican. The whole affair has been extremely irregular and executed in a way “never been done before.”

      2. It must have been very quiet at the time. I never heard of any dispute until Ann B and Louie V brought it up, and it seems that all the commenters here and elsewhere didn’t either.

      3. Interesting. Why is it only now that this is gaining traction, however small?
        The thesis is still as wacky and “fringey” as Paul VI through to Francis sedevacantism and flat earthism in the eyes of the mainstream.
        If Benedict dies there’ll be a few thousand more sedes in the world.
        If Francis dies while Benedict lives a little longer, and they elect a youngish candidate as pope who reigns for thirty years, what then?
        What if, by some strange turn of events, that man was Bishop Fellay of the SSPX? Just say he revokes Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, the new rites of the Sacraments, and orders every cleric to be conditionally ordained in the old rites just to be safe? Just say he’s another Pius X or something. Would you still refuse him submission?

        1. If elected while Benedict is still alive, Fellay would obviously be an antipope. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the orthodoxy of the candidate.

      4. That would be a real shame, wouldn’t it?
        It’s quite a situation to be biting one’s nails wondering which of two certain men will die first.

          1. The Benesedist or Substantial Error thesis is gaining traction because people are investigating it, and the collected research seems to make more and more sense of the realities we face.
            It is not helpful to ask all the “But if Benesedism is true, and X happens, what then?
            Except in the case that the question leads to revealing a *logical* absurdity in the Benesedist thesis.
            Our questioning needs to be along the line of looking for that logical absurdity.
            Like *this* would be the useful, first and general question: “Is there anything in the Benesedist thesis that leads to denying a Catholic dogma (especially), or any other doctrine generally held as true by Tradition?”
            And there would be specific questions as to specific teachings. For instance: “Has the Church ever taught that if a supposed pope is, by a moral unanimity of the hierarchy and faithful, recognized as a real pope, he is by that very fact proven to be a real pope?”
            If the Church HAS taught that, and I mean at least with the authority of a common opinion among approved theologians, we have a problem that needs to be resolved.
            But the line that goes “Well, Benedict is a Modernist too, so we don’t want him as pope anyway” is totally, totally valueless. Ann fully addressed this false attitude in her vid. That is the way that Liberals think; always worried about whether the world around them is suiting their personal preferences, AND trying to force it to submit to them. For the Liberal, a possible consequence smacks of absurdity only to the extent that they don’t like it.
            Reality doesn’t give a hopping hoot in hell what we want or think; it just goes on being Reality, and it completely ignores us. WE ignore Reality at OUR peril. God is the source of Reality; ignoring Reality is the same as ignoring God. Worse yet is trying to dictate to Reality how it needs to conform to our petty wills. That will call for a major spanking.
            I have met and discussed issues with many sedevacantists. I have NEVER met one who was not infected with Liberalism of this sort.
            Just sayin’…NOT making any judgments of the intentions of present company. :o) I don’t know anybody here well enough — and it’s not my job anyway.

      5. So as not to waste an opportunity, let’s hope that if Francis dies while Benedict lives on, that some fine youngish candidate like Cupich wins the conclave. You’ll all be sedes for the next twenty or thirty years saying “I told you so”.

        1. If Francis dies first there can be no conclave. You just don’t seem to get it at all, Papal.
          No valid conclave til Pope Benedict dies. Or actually resigns, like by saying I resign this office. Doff the Whites. Say in essence: Call me Peter of Morrone (as Celestine V did on December 13th, 1294). And get the hell out of Dodge.
          As to who dies first, well God’s call, but ….
          Seems neck and neck on that race. I’m betting in Bergoglio by a nose. Being an Anti-Pope does take a toll—as someone pointed out that anger and psychopathy is eating him away.
          By the way what papal are you subject to anyway? As a good sedevacantist maybe you can clear up your misnomer as there should be no pibble pabble in Papal’s camp.

      6. By The Papal Subject I mean that if or when there is a pope, I am completely subject to him. Even during an interregnum, or a time when there is confusion surrounding who occupies the See of Rome, all Catholics are Papal subjects, are they not?
        The name The Papal Subject also refers to the most important subject in the world – the Papal one.
        There might even be a third meaning in there somewhere, but I haven’t spotted it if there is.

      7. I do get the dilemma about timing by the way. I emailed Ann B when she first went public on this a couple of years ago, then left the issue. Now it’s gaining wider traction (and with Bergoglio obviously not operating under the protection of the Holy Ghost regarding filthy heresy, it’s understandable that people are asking the question) I thought I’d test out the idea among more recent adherents to the thesis to see if tgevthinking is consistent.

        1. Dear Papal Subject,
          I’m sure some of us don’t know what you mean by consistent thinking.
          But I, for one, can certainly see one thing that you might *consider* to be inconsistent thinking. It’s this:
          ASSUMING that protection of the Holy Ghost = the pope can never be a heretic, then the logic works like this:
          M: A pope can never be a heretic
          m: But not only Bergoglio, but also BXVI (at least) are heretics
          cc.: Therefore, even if the Substantial Error theory is true, BXVI is not the pope
          You are a VERY smart guy, PS. Not only that, but very subtle.
          But be careful. Even for those whose thinking *processes* are computer perfect, the adage applies:
          Garbage In, Garbage Out. The DATA has to be correct.
          The fact is that a pope CAN be a heretic, and still be pope. Therefore the syllogism above does not mean that EITHER Bergoglio or BXVI is the pope…or not. It’s just not germane to the Benesedist theory…because the whole thing is false, since the major premise, and therefore the conclusion, are totally false.
          The particular data point that I assert; that a pope can actually be a heretic, makes for a totally different syllogism:
          M: A pope can be a heretic, and still be pope
          m: Bergoglio and BXVI are both heretics
          cc.: Therefore, either Bergoglio or BXVI *could* be a pope
          The logic is not stated in the cleanest possible way, but I trust it is understandable.
          The position is that the pope is protected by the Holy Ghost, as all of us are, *when* we cooperate with actual grace. But, *by virtue of his office*, the pope, in particular, is only *guaranteed* protection against heresy when he speaks ex cathedra. Read Dz1839 very, very carefully.
          What sedevacs have to prove is the major to their syllogism; that a pope can never be a heretic.
          So, PS, I challenge you to show that YOUR thinking is consistent. Prove the major.
          Of course, this blog is not for the purpose of arguing sedevacantism. Apologies to the Moderator if I have already crossed the line. So the challenge is not to a public debate, but to you, PS, to justify your position to yourself.
          I DO wish it were otherwise. :o)
          God bless you, PS!

      8. I enjoy your posts very much Smith.
        Is Benedict a Modernist?
        Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies”.
        Modernism is the sum of all heresy, so it is the very worst to ever attack the Faith.
        A Modernist is therefore a heretic.
        A heretic is outside of the Congregation of the Faithful, and not a Catholic.
        So, to ask again, is Benedict a Modernist?
        I’m not pushing any contrary thesis here docmx, just asking questions of the Substantial Error thesis (Bennyvacantists if you like 😉) proponents to see where the edge lies. Smith is one of the most esteemed it seems.

  27. Treading very carefully here! The owner and moderator has been very gracious with me. I like to ask hard questions, and do do the others here on this blog.
    I do not wish to advocate a controversial thesis that takes lots of time and effort to refute.
    I understand that many people have looked into both the Benefict’s Error thesis and the Vacancy of the Holy See thesis in recent times because of the ridiculous heretical blathering of Francis Bergoglio. People are asking, how is this guy the pope.
    The question regarding the occupancy (or otherwise) of the Chair of Peter started in the mid 1960’s by men like Patrick Omlor. It seems to have stayed a relatively small and fringe group of people for many decades.
    Now with Francis, more ordinary Catholics without much training are asking the question instinctively.
    If he’s not the pope, who is? Benedict? Cardinal Siri? No one? Seeking answers to these while being guided by Faith is our right and duty as laity. Since we don’t appear to have any clear and direct answer from a reliable authority, all we can do is look at prior Magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary) and try to apply it. Submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation.
    While the various theses each have merit to more or less degree, one cannot insist that those who hold a different opinion are condemned.
    Thanks to the moderator again for allowing this discussion. It seems to have attracted many thoughtful and sincere Catholics from a variety of angles.
    My question Smith should have been more broad. The to and fro over ex cathedra, can a pope be a heretic etc goes round and round.
    The clergy are a subset of the Mystical Body of Christ. That is certain.
    All clergy (including the recipient of the most votes in a valid conclave) are Catholics, but not all Catholics are clergy.
    The laity are the other subset of the Mystical Body of Christ. All laity are Catholics, but not all Catholics are laity. Some are clergy. Forgive the repetition. This is so simple however, that it is worth repeating!
    The Church is the congregation of the Faithful.
    This excludes both schismatics and heretics.
    Schismatics are not congregated, and heretics are not faithful.
    So, the question, instead of being “can a pope be a heretic?” should be “Can a Catholic be a heretic?”
    Vatican II changed the game after two thousand years by saying “yes”when all of Christendom before it said “no”.

    1. Subject to the Moderator’s approval:
      Ultimately, PS, you are correct that the real question is whether a Catholic can be a heretic.
      True, the pope has to be Catholic to be pope, just as any member of the Catholic Church has to be Catholic to be…er…Catholic.
      But I asked for a proof that a pope cannot be a heretic and still be pope, because Benesedism is the topic of this forum. We can admit that I am simultaneously asking if a supposed Catholic can be a heretic and still be a real Catholic. I could have asked: Prove that a Catholic can never be a heretic.
      For the reason I stated, however, I don’t see any need to change the question, and I simply repeat it:
      Prove that a pope can never be a heretic.
      In answer to YOUR question:
      Modernism is a heresy
      BXVI is a Modernist
      Therefore, BXVI is a heretic
      There are distinctions to be made, of course, but that’s the base fact as I see it.
      Oh, and a disclaimer: No one has appointed me an official apologist for the Benesedist thesis. In fact, I don’t think it’s possible there could be one, since this intellectual movement is not under the auspices of any Church authority. Of course, it doesn’t have to be. It’s just us laypewks rappin’ :o) We’re allowed to do that. But for the record, I am sure that many, if not most, Benesedists would DENY the minor of my syllogism above.
      Now, if you don’t mind, you can give that proof that a pope can never be a heretic — if indeed that is your position.
      I enjoy your posts too, BTW.
      Happy Feast of Epiphany.
      May we all have the one we need.

        1. Dear PS,
          You aren’t afraid of where this discussion might go are you? ;o)
          If you want to put the onus back on me, I’m up for it.
          In fact it’s already on the agenda.
          I promised docmx001 that I would address this issue, which came up in another post.
          So by all means let’s call this a wrap here.
          In a few days I should have have arguments collected to show that a Catholic can be a public heretic; i.e. that one can be a public heretic — in a specific sense of the term — and still be a member of the Church.
          As to what anyone thinks in regard of me being an apologist for the Benesedist thesis: not interested.
          Don’t give a damn about anyone’s opinion simply as opinion…least of all my own.
          Persevere In Love Of The Truth
          One finds that this means learning to hate mere opinions, especially one’s own.
          It even means learning to hate one’s Self, when the Self stands in the way of Truth.
          Deus benedicat omnes

      1. This is going to have to be a wrap on this discussion, because I can just as easily ask you to prove that Catholics *can* be public heretics.
        I do believe firmly that an heretical Catholic is up there with married bachelors and square triangles, based upon the clear teaching of the Catholic Church.
        I hope I don’t get banned for saying the above. It’s not my intention to derail the conversation. I think it is very much a necessary part of it, and I am grateful to the gracious host of this fine blog and comments section. I have now bookmarked it.

        1. @papalsubject: “I do believe firmly that an heretical Catholic is up there with married bachelors and square triangles, based upon the clear teaching of the Catholic Church.”
          That would mean “heretic” is synonymous with “apostate”, which isn’t true.

      2. Dear docmx, thanks for allowing this to be further clarified.
        Pius XII made the distinction between schismatics, heretics and apostates in Mystici Corporis Christi, but did clearly say that all three are in no way members of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Catholic Church.
        The question is whether anyone with the use of reason can distinguish a person in one of these three unhappy categories from an ordinary Catholic, without any declaration from the Church.
        One group says yes; the other says no.
        Dear Smith, thanks for your reply also. I look forward to your upcoming contribution you mention.
        It would be so much better to all be able to be face to face. There is much lost between an idea one wishes to communicate, and the person on the internet receives. Perhaps if I’d made the Ann B joke in person it would have come off better.

      3. Smith: “Don’t give a damn about anyone’s opinion simply as opinion”.
        That is an amazing thing to say, since you clearly have your own. We all do. And by this statement, you do what so many do in Catholic blogs: shut off debate if it doesn’t meet your parameters. It is a very un-Catholic way to teach, instruct, build up in the Faith. As a decade-long Catholic (seems longer than that) really struggling to keep the Faith and make sense of things right now, I find your method of dialogue really discouraging, (I’ve seen it a lot) in which everything must be reduced down to source material (you may have the time and skill, others do not), and no time is actually spent considering points carefully made.
        I responded to your request for source material in the “gold” post. I included the best source material available which is the Scripture reference (Matthew) and the Words Of Christ Himself that established the Papal Office. I noted you didn’t respond to any of it. You wrote it all off with the same dismissal: don’t give a — about your personal opinion. Likely didn’t read and consider it.
        And again, isn’t the point, ref the Spiritual Works Of Mercy, to counsel the doubtful; instruct the ignorant? Conversation is not always between academics and doctoral experts with a lot of time on their hands and a library full of books. There are those who read “don’t give a —” and, given all that has happened and is happening, just walk away, for good.

        1. Dear Aqua,
          There’s been some serious misunderstanding here. Let me try to clear up what I can.
          “Don’t give a damn about anyone’s opinion simply as opinion”.
          I say “simply AS opinion”, because what I am looking for is the truth in any given question.
          Now oftentimes a person’s opinion is true. In that case I care about it a great deal.
          Then too, a person’s opinion is not the person. Because I don’t care about opinions as such does not mean I don’t care about the persons who have the opinions (even if they are false ones). Quite the contrary.
          It is a part of human nature to identify oneself with one’s opinions.
          That is why people talk about “winning” or “losing” arguments. If they impose their opinions they think they have won. What have they won? They didn’t gain anything except an ego stroke. That is of less than no value, so who wants to “win” that? The “loser” on the other hand, assuming the “winner” was telling the truth, has gained truth. Fallen human nature shows its perversity here as in so many other ways, by getting things not merely wrong but completely backwards.
          So I am neither shutting off debate nor setting any parameters for it — at least not parameters for anyone else. We all set our own parameters. As you see, one of mine is to never sacrifice the truth to anyone’s feelings. Sometimes our parameters clash with those of others. Well, we try to work around that. Just so you know, one of the reasons I don’t care about opinions is that, as such, *they don’t do anyone any good* (unless they are true, but of course, even then, it is the truth that does good, not the opinion).
          Regarding the Scripture reference (Matthew) and the Words Of Christ Himself that established the Papal Office, if I have not acknowledged that contribution I am sorry. I’ve been very busy working on my next, and I may not even have seen that post of yours. Believe you me, I do think there are few things that could be more important. As chance would have it, I have actually addressed that matter, but it would be very difficult to notice where, as it was not done directly. Search this page for my post of Jan. 2. There’s the text of Dz1839 in there, and in that text are the words “through the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter*, [the pope] operates with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed”
          I don’t see how to read this except that Dz1839 is defining how the *Church* understands Christ’s words, so far as His promise to protect a pope from heresy is concerned. And so it seems to me that the interpretation of Matthew, or any other Scripture that speaks to this issue, has already been definitively settled.
          Now, you’ve given us another post of January 8, 2019 at 1:40 am. I will certainly look it over carefully, but right now I’m swamped, just so you know.
          Otherwise, my friend, feel free to castigate me for my harsh nature. Somebody has to slap me around a little and try to keep me in line. :o)

      4. Here is a good reference for your question:
        And this, extracted from Crisis magazine, Jacob Wood, March 4, 2015 (quote):
        “The two most important answers came from sixteenth-seventeenth century Jesuits: Francisco Suarez and St. Robert Bellarmine.
        Suarez took it as a given that a pope could be a formal heretic. He then considered two possibilities for what happens next:
        First possibility: The pope loses his office as a consequence of the sin of heresy, because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church. (Suarez, De fide, 10.6.2)
        Suarez rejects this possibility for two reasons. First, falling out of a state of grace might mean that you aren’t a member of the Church in the way that you’re supposed to be, but it doesn’t mean that you’re not a member of the Church—otherwise you’d be kicked out of the Church every time you committed a mortal sin. Second, if Catholics are supposed to believe that God deposes popes, then Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, and the pronouncements of the Magisterium ought to have said something about it—but they haven’t. Besides, if God deposes popes, you could never be sure if the pope was really the pope—what if he was a secret heretic and God had secretly deposed him? How would you ever know? (Suarez, De fide, 10.6.2-4)
        Second possibility: The pope keeps his office if he commits the sin of heresy, but loses his office if he is convicted of the crime of heresy. (De fide 10.6.6)
        Suarez thinks that, just like Christ bestows the papacy on the man whom the Church elects, so also Christ takes away the papacy from the man whom the Church convicts (De fide 10.6.10). So, if a pope commits the sin of heresy, all the other bishops of the world have the right to try him for the crime of heresy, even against his will (De fide 10.6.7). If they were to convict him, he could be considered deposed from the papacy by Christ, and the Church could elect another pope.
        Bellarmine was more hesitant about the whole question. Unlike Suarez, he did not take it as a given that the pope could be a formal heretic. Actually, Bellarmine considered it “probable” that God would prevent the pope from ever being a formal heretic (he says it twice: De Romano Pontifice 2.30 and 4.2). Nevertheless, Bellarmine was willing to consider what would be the case if the pope could fall into formal heresy.
        If we assume that the pope could be a formal heretic, Bellarmine thinks Suarez’s opinion is wrong. Suarez allows the bishops to judge the pope. But one of Gratian’s basic rules is that no one can judge the pope. Sure, Suarez has Christ carrying out the judgment, but it is only because the other bishops of the Church have pronounced the judgment first.
        Instead, Bellarmine adopts the position that Suarez rejected: the pope loses his office immediately by committing the sin of formal heresy, because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church. It’s true that the bishops could still get together and make a declaration that God had deposed the pope, but their declaration would not be a judgment in any real sense, only an acknowledgement of what God had already done. (De Romano Pontifice 2.30)
        Suarez and Bellarmine both have good points, but I think they each show how the other misses the mark. Suarez is right that, if Catholics are supposed to believe that God deposes popes, then Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, and the pronouncements of the Magisterium ought to have said something about it. But Bellarmine has something important to contribute, too: if God doesn’t depose popes, then no one can, because no one can judge the pope. And besides, it’s not even agreed that the pope could ever be a formal heretic, anyway.”

  28. My computer failed to boot a few days ago. Up and running now, but I lost a day’s work, and now an obligation is upon me that will take several days to handle. So the investigation into whether a Catholic can be a public heretic and still remain Catholic is delayed.
    In the meantime, it seems good to clarify something about the four citations I gave from Denzinger that show that the Church teaches that the papacy can only be held by one man, and that the hierarchical constitution of the Church is Divine Law, given by Christ, and is therefore immutable.
    In using these citations, their authoritative weight, or what is called the ‘theological note’, has to be considered.
    Before even doing that, though, some very pertinent facts.
    1) It is beyond dispute that BXVI’s action of the attempted papal bifurcation is directly contrary to the teaching of Vatican I and St. Pius X.
    2) It is another question entirely as to whether BXVI *believes* that bifurcation is possible.
    3) BXVI can only be accused of heresy on this point if
    a) It is shown that he actually believes in the bifurcatable papacy. Actions may come from beliefs, but the action itself says nothing certain about what that belief is. For instance, some have suggested that the whole bifurcation thing was a fraud, done by BXVI for various possible reasons, like to stay alive, to give the Homafia the slack rope to hang itself with, etc. In that case, not only is the action of attempted bifurcation not heresy (because no action – except that of believing falsely – is a heresy), but even the speeches justifying it would be fraudulent, thus not evidence of belief, thus not heresy, but fraud. And
    b) It is shown that belief in a bifurcatable papacy is indeed a heresy. It is not a heresy unless the teaching of Vatican I and St. Pius X (or other sources) can be shown to be, not merely official Church teaching (as they unquestionably are), but real articles of divine Faith, i.e. dogma.
    Don’t get me wrong. Vatican I and St. Pius X’s teaching are real and authoritative teaching, and cannot be ignored or contravened. I’m just saying they haven’t been shown to be dogma, such that an accusation of heresy could be made against anyone denying that teaching.
    If no one else beats me to it, I will be looking into this.
    One initial and tentative observation is this:
    Vatican I (Dz 1822) does not seem to be dogma. This is because it is the explanatory/preambulatory text of the actual dogmatic canon which follows. That canon reads:
    Dz1823: “If anyone then says that the Blessed Apostle Peter was not established by the Lord Christ as the chief of all the apostles, and the visible head of the whole militant Church, or that the same received great honor but did not receive from the same Our Lord Jesus Christ, directly and immediately, the primacy in true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema.”
    This at least means that it is a dogma that Christ Himself established the papacy, and thus the papacy is of immutable divine law, which no power on earth, not even the pope himself, can change.
    Now obviously Dz1822 has great authority as the official Church teaching concerning how the actual dogmatic canon of Dz1823 is to be understood. However, I don’t know yet exactly what theological note Dz1822 should be given.
    But it seems to me that the final take away from all this is that, at minimum, BXVI’s action of the attempted papal bifurcation is directly contrary to the teaching of Vatican I and St. Pius X.
    And that’s even just looking at the attempted bifurcation with tunnel vision directed solely at the citations of Vatican I and St. Pius X that I gave.
    Considering also the mere fact that such a thing has never even been thought in the Church before, let alone done, it’s already abundantly evident just from these two viewpoints that BXVI’s attempted bifurcation was, at the very best, illegal, and, with maybe 98% certainty, invalid.

Leave a Reply

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