Thesis 14: In order to fulfill its specific mission, the Petrine ministry has assumed many different forms in the past and will continue to do so in the futureBecause the people of God are on a pilgrimage, the pope must have the freedom to respond to new challenges, thereby revealing new facets of the Petrine ministry. We must be on guard, therefore, lest we too quickly identify contingent forms with what is dogmatically essential to the papal office. (Do you see here how the ministry is obviously distinct from the office?)
Seewald: “Do you think that the papacy will remain as it is?”
++Ratzinger: “In its core it will remain. In other words, a man is needed to be the successor of Peter and to bear a personal final authority that is supported collegially. Part of Christianity is a personalistic principle; it doesn’t get vaporized into anonymities but presents itself in the person of the priest, of the bishop, and the unity of the universal Church once again has a personal expression. This will remain, the magisterial responsibility for the unity of the Church, her faith, and her morals that was defined by Vatican I and II. Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change, when hitherto separated communities enter into unity with the Pope. By the way, the present Pope’s (JPII) exercise of the pontificate—with the trips around the world—is completely different from that of Pius XII. What concrete variations emerge I neither can nor want to imagine. We can’t foresee now exactly how that will look.”
Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, Peter Seewald book-length interview, 1997, page 257
“I neither can nor want to imagine.” Oh man, how unknowingly prophetic is that? Then again, if you self-fulfill your own prophesy, is that cheating?
“Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change”
He’s not exactly on the fence about it, is he?
Now let’s move to the following year, and another document written by Cardinal Ratzinger in his official role as Prefect of the CDF, The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, 18 November 1998:
At this moment in the Church’s life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation”…
“The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing”.44 For this reason too, the immutable nature of the primacy of Peter’s Successor has historically been expressed in different forms of exercise appropriate to the situation of a pilgrim Church in this changing world…The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit’s voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.
Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff… (ahem, you mean like delegating the Governance role without relinquishing the Office, per Canon 131.1?)
In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church’s concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,Prefect, CDF, Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church (published in L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 18 November 1998, page 5-6) HERE
But wait! There’s more:
It’s 2008 and Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. This collection of essays, in various forms, goes back to 1987. The 2008 edition was translated by our new friend, Archbishop Miller. Turn straight to page 38 to read Benedict waxing poetic about the idea of not one, not two, but THREE members in an expanded Petrine ministry. He literally uses the term “papal troika.”
Talk about shifting the Overton Window. How about having a book published after you’ve become pope, introducing the radical idea of a papal troika as being plausible, and then pulling back to the slightly less radical idea of a diarchy, making the latter seem positively moderate by comparison.
But remember, there is absolutely zero evidence that Pope Benedict ever once, even for a moment, considered the idea of altering the structure of the papacy, you stupid layperson.
55 thoughts on “Ratzinger: “The Petrine ministry…while preserving its substance as a divine institution, can find expressions in various ways according to the different circumstances of time and place.””
Thanks for all your hard work Mark. This was hard to read…but so necessary.
Our Lady Undoer of Knots, come to our aid.
Question: Is the Ratzinger position on multiple forms of the papacy right or wrong? My guess is the latter.
Multiple forms is one thing. Attempting to alter the intrinsic nature of the office is quite another.
“Multiple forms is one thing. Attempting to alter the intrinsic nature of the office is quite another”.
Reply: My understanding is that only one form is permissible. The one that’s been in existence for 2000 years.
God bless you Mark. I have a question though. Isn’t the office a “being” with the exercise of the power and responsibilities done through various ministries proper to that office? Then it seems Pope Benedict is referring to the various forms meaning the way the ministries are executed.
I would be nice to know exactly what he would say about it today. I believe that he may very well be held prisoner with some sort of coercion.
You can “be” the pope and not exercise your power. A pope in exile, in coma, or a prison does not exercise power, but he remains pope.
Yes, I believe that Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope and that antipope Bergoglio is an imposter. The question remains, is “forms” referring to the ministry? If so, it what he said makes sense. If Benedict is referring to the office, then it does not make sense to me. In any case, there can only be one Pope.
Lord Jesus, touch Pope Benedict with your love. More love more power more of you in his life. And more strength too.
The ‘B&B16’ Duo
The confusion that can be seen in the Roman Catholic church is not a crisis but an epochal breakthrough.
The last papal decision of Benedict XVI led to the transformation of the Saint Peter’s Office into a synodal two-headed hybrid. Actually he dissolved – by virtue of power given to him by Jesus Christ [Matt 16, 19] – the same office on Feb. 28, 2013 at 8 p.m. (CET), so no he may already be a Roman Pontiff neither himself nor anyone else. This decision is irrevocable.
The dissolution of the papacy does not mean that the gates of hell have overcome the militant Church [Matt 16, 18]. The Church will be reborn with the power of God as it was when the Mosaic religion degenerated into the form of the synagogue of Satan and Jesus Christ appeared to breathe new life into the Church of God and raise it to a higher level thrugh the Holy Sacraments.
By the act of Feb. 10 (11), 2013, B16 released the keys of theGod’s Kingdom. 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 (+ 1148), the archbishop of Armagh:
‘Gloria Olivae’ – Benedict XVI; the glory/finial of the Roman Catholic church are two olive trees [Rev. 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’ – ‘S.R.E [Sancta Romana Ecclesia] is in a period of extreme persecution’ – this is the phenomenon of Jorge Bergoglio, the destroyer of the Roman Catholic church (especially of the College of Cardinals, the very top of the Church hierarchy). Bergoglio, aside from the B16’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’. (“Peter the Roman will feed his flock in the midst of many persecutions, and when it ceases, the city of seven hills will be torn down and a terrible judge will judge his people”.)
Saint Peter the Apostle was not a Roman (citizen of Rome). Peter the Roman is a Son of the Roman Catholic church (means a Roman) and is identical to the terrible Judge, the same as the Paraclete.
The papacy in Rome was abolished definitively and irrevocably. What now? The fulfillment of this request addressed to God the Father for nearly 2,000 years: ‘Come Thy Kingdom, thy will be done, as in heaven so also on earth.’ The Kingdom of God on the earth, finally!
How can a man, even if pope, dissolve an office which was divinely instituted?
The Epochal Breakthrough
The Pope is not an ordinary man but a vicar of Jesus Christ.
Similarly, the high priest in the Old Covenant was a representative of God the Father. How did the Mosaic religion end? When High Priest Joseph Caiaphas condemned Jesus Christ, the Son of the same God who established this religion. However, before issuing the verdict, Caiaphas first prophesied [John 11, 45-53]: “Many of the Jews who came to Mary, seeing what Jesus had done, believed in him. Some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus So the chief priests and Pharisees called the High Council and said, “What are we doing in the face of this man making many signs? If we leave him like this, everyone will believe in him and the Romans will come and destroy our holy place and our nation »Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was the high priest in that year, said to them:” You do not understand anything and do not take it into account that it is better for you when one man dies for the people than to die the whole the nation. “However, he did not say this himself, but as the high priest in that year he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation and not only for the nation, but also that scattered God’s children to gather into one. That day they decided to kill him. ” The verdict was carried out by the hands of the Romans. When the Savior died on the cross, at the same time the veil was torn apart on the Holy of Holies: God the Father left this shrine irrevocably. It was the end of the Mosaic religion, and at the same time the beginning of the Church of Christ.
To rule his Church, Jesus established his vicar in the person of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors. The last in this succession, Benedict XVI, pontifex maximus, or high priest, sentenced the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ to death. He did the will of God the Son Himself, because His mystical bride took on the features of the repulsive Great Whore. He [B16] began with himself, the visible head of the Militant Church: he broke it in two! This broken head cannot be glued back and therefore the last decision of the last pope is irrevocable. When will the Mystical Body die? At the same time when the daily altar sacrifice ceases! Pontifex Maximus, Benedict XVI (name of birth: Joseph), repeated exactly the act of high priest Caiaphas (name of birth: Joseph), only this time this One Man is not Jesus Christ in his own person, but his Mystical Body. For what purpose did God the Son, through his vicar, pass judgment on himself? In order to “… gather dispersed children of God into one.” Where will He gather them? In God’s kingdom on the earth under the scepter of Paraclete! The awaited era of God the Holy Spirit will come true.
As a Catholic, do you miss animal sacrifices on the altar of the Jerusalem Temple? Do you think those elect to the Kingdom of God will regret any of the sacred rites of the Militant Church? In the history of salvation, God with every epochal change brings man to a higher level of spiritual life!
Nov. 8, 2019, on the feast of Santa Maria della Vittoria (Rome, Italy) and Four Crowned Martyrs
Are you saying that Benedict XVI is the last Pope and that any claiming to be Pope following him are wrong?
I take this to be your meaning—a personal opinion, of course.
If this were my personal opinion, I could forget about Catholic bloggers and go quietly to my garden to prune trees.
If it wasn’t for all the prophecies that the Blessed Virgin had allowed me to know and understand, I could be silent.
If the Great Whore had not settled in Rome, I could be silent.
However, the prophecies are fulfilling, the Great Harlot sits on seven hills, so I have to say what I know about changing eras.
4:35 a.m.?! Michael, if it’s time in your town, then you probably can’t sleep well because of the fall of the Roman Catholic church!
“4:35 a.m.?! Michael, if it’s time in your town, then you probably can’t sleep well because of the fall of the Roman Catholic church!”
I get up between midnight and 2am. Go to bed at 6pm. The wee hours of the morning are the best time of the day. Peace and quite prevail–a heavenly time for sure.
“The last in this succession…” If he was the last, then he was the only one. If he is STILL a Pope then there couldn’t have been a conclave since it needed to be vacant.
Again, if that was the thought it was an invalid resignation because he didn’t “fully” resign.
“Surely by now, everyone reading this space has purchased their copy of (now archbishop) J. Michael Miller’s The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development and Mission of the Papacy.”
Surely by now, everyone reading this space has purchased HIS copy of (now archbishop) J. Michael Miller’s The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development and Mission of the Papacy.
Idk, wouldn’t the phrase “has purchased” show the transfer of ownership? Not being snarky, just asking.
“surely by now, everyone reading this space has purchased their copy of the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible.
As I understand the quoted text, PBXVI is explaining what Mr. Peterson’s treatise stated and its various interpretations. One of those interpretations is “a way to square the circle” through “the papal troika”. I do not see PBXVI saying he agrees with the proposal in this specific portion of the assay. Maybe he does, but it is not obviously proved with just this quote.
I don’t think he agrees with it either, but he presents the idea as plausible. His very mentioning of it lends it weight as a viable option.
I agree with Cristina, but I am not so sure about the plausibility or viability given the idea just by mentioning it. He seems to present the idea in more of a historical context rather than as an idea for consideration.
What does bug me a bit is, “ingenious speculations.” I’m not sure what he meant by that.
As to MyronM while I think the trees need some pruning, thanks for the prophecies. I certainly see a Francis as the false pope noted in the unofficial Third Secret.
Now, Francis denies Christ’s divinity and resurrection. (Scalfari in these new bombshell revelations—all of a piece w the dataset “Francis qua Antipope”—is clearly telling the truth: he’s never been caught out in a lie yet, particularly about any of his conversations with Francis.)
Francis’s point in letting his assertions go public and stand uncorrected is intentional and has a twofold purpose—to undermine people’s faith and Holy Mother Church.
Antipope Francis the Apostate, a false pope, thus leads as many people to Hell as possible in accord with his Mandate, the antipope’s a Great Commission, you might say.
Folks had better wake up and smell the sulphur. Now, rather than later.
Mark, have you read my paper yet?
Could you send it to me again please?
Mr. Docherty and Miss Barnhardt: What is to be gained by speculatively asserting intent to PPBXVI’s words? Either he renounced the Papal Office or he didn’t. The. End.
This seems to me a reasonable question to ask of you and I am neither calling names nor casting aspersions in presenting it. In fact It seems to me an especially good question to ponder when it comes to unifying the laity in addressing the evidence of BiP while at the same time recognizing that for various and even mystifying reasons many people continue to claim FiP amidst what we face today.
In considering your joint answer to my question, I present the following series of Canon’s with which you are already familiar:
—Canon 21, in doubt as to the revocation of power one does not presume the revocation
—Canon 33 §1 Even if a decree be published in official records, if it violates the law it has no effect
—Canon 38 All administrative acts which are contrary to the law even those given motu proprio by one with jurisdiction are null if they do not contain derogatory clauses which cite authority of one who can grant a derogation.
—Canon 36 Every administrative act must be understood according to the proper sense of the words used in the act itself, and laws which restrict the liberty of action of a person must be understood according to the STRICT interpretation of the terms.
—Canon 332 §2 restricts a pope’s “power to renounce” to the renunciation of munus; therefore the act must contain a renunciation of munus otherwise it has no effect. Thus, since Canon 332 §2 says nothing about intentions, and since the Code of Canon law expressly requires an act of renunciation of munus, and since in the code ministerium does not mean munus, a renunciation of ministerium (which is in fact what Pope Benedict did) is null.
Are you like others who appeal to the need to establish intention but are likely acting on their own limited experience of the law in annulment cases? The code in regard to renunciations does not regard intentions unexpressed as having any force for or against validity.
As your past work and latest blog posts show, you both recognize and communicate well to others that there is no common sense in which ministerium has ever meant office, and yet you mystifyingly and unnecessarily insist on asserting intent. An intent that is gained by means of speculative interpretation and possibly hearsay–neither of which has solid standing in law. Moreover, those intentions and motivations that your assert do damage to the Law of Charity for people who already suffer from long-standing dislike/distrust of Ratzinger/Benedict.
What traction is gained in informing others of BiP when at the same time you unnecessarily assert intention?
Offering different angles on intent isn’t the same thing as saying intent is a determining factor in a juridical act. All I’m doing is presenting the realm of possibilities as I see them.
Very well, offering different angles on intent is indeed one thing and you have been generous in allowing free discussion in your combox. Thank you for acknowledging that intent is not a determining factor in a juridical act.
Would you also acknowledge an awarenes of the practical sedevacantism practiced by several groups of Traditional-minded Catholics? Those who apparently Recognize post Vatican-II popes but reason (and are taught) that they are obliged to Resist them; thus anti-pope Bergoglio is just one more in the line who must be resisted? And, btw, “who wants Ratzinger/Benedict for a pope anyway?” Are you aware of this mindset?
Coupled with the majority of NO attendees who are ‘asleep in the pews’ again I ask, “What is to be gained by ‘offering a different angle on intent’ that opposes the Law of Charity?” Especially when trying to gain traction with the BiP-position, what is to be gained?
There is absolutely no violation of charity when one simple reports the plain words that the man wrote. Benedict’s mind was flooded with ideas of an altered papacy, and his own words bear this out. Whatever situation he found himself in, this is the way forward he thought best.
Yes, of course I am aware of the Recognize and Resist crowd, and the subset who think Bergoglio is “no different” than Benedict. I don’t see how reporting facts on the ground relates to this.
Ah, but to report the plain words, the “bread crumbs”, is one thing. To lace the bread crumbs with potentially poisonous speculation is another especially when you are aware of the R&R crowd’s long-standing existence.
Could it be that your own thoughts are so flooded with personal speculations about Pope Benedict’s intent that you can not see how presenting assertions that you admit are based on speculation feeds into the ugly lack of charity so evident in the Recognize and Resist, practical sede crowd?
Thank you for diligently reporting facts but please consider that to report factual ‘bread crumbs’ is one thing; to poison them with speculation is another.
Thank you, once again, for your open combox.
You’re going to have to cut and paste the ugly poisonous uncharitable speculation here, because I’m not following. And if what you are saying is that the only interpretation is that Benedict orchestrated all this on purpose, which I would love to be true, but I can’t see how to conclude that based on the currently available evidence.
I will get to work on the copy and paste, but up front in my mind is the refrain of Miss Barnhardt used frequently enough to almost be a call to battle when she’s referred to PPBXVI in her videos and writing as Worst. Pope. Ever.
No, Mark, no. My position on ANY assertion of intent–good or bad–is that it just needs to STOP. NOW.
Since finding intent is not only unnecessary it seems to me that asserting intent grinds the impetus of much needed traction for the BiP-position in the laity (R&R’s included) to a halt.
I’m not Ann, and I’ve never written that.
Yes, I’ve engaged in speculation on intent, while always clearly delineating between facts and possibilities. But I have tried to maintain focus on facts pretty exclusively. That is, I really have tried to avoid speculation as a general rule.
True and very true, you are not Miss Barnhardt and you yourself admirably lean away from spicy even biting possibly non-charitable ‘zingers’.
However, you clearly knowingly and willingly collaborate with Miss B through generous reposting of her works. Please don’t get me wrong, it is of much value on the ‘innerwebs’ for gaining traction within the BiP-minded laity and clergy to repost fellow BiPpers’ works, even when we don’t totally agree with them. (Yes, this is a direct reference to your ‘management level’ decision to disallow links to From Rome who btw has some very good commentary on Cdl Burke’s recent call to, FiP!!!! Everybody now, follow me and “FiP!– definitely and not in the least bit extreme–FiP!!!!” Whatever, Eminence.
Anyway, if the copy and paste you await is from your works alone, then there won’t be any. However, since you collaborate with Miss B, shall I proceed with at copy-and-paste of her likely offenses to the Law of Charity in her works that you have re-posted here?
No need for that. I do see your point.
May God bless you and Miss B. So what is a BiPper to do now that the treachery of FiP has been so prominently displayed for all to see?
For example, when asking a young traditional-minded priest the question: “When the definition of Schism is to not be in union with Jesus and His Bride because one is not in union with His Vicar on Earth, beyond prayer and sacrifice, how is a Catholic who holds the Apostolic Faith whole and entire to respond when those in authority do not examine ‘Ground Zero’?”
His reply thus far: “the best way we can help our beloved Church, while maintaining peace of soul and working out our own salvation is simply to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus and Him crucified… And pray. If we were bishops or cardinals, perhaps our task would be different, but we’re not, thank God. I think it can be easily deduced from that article that Cardinal Burke feels a responsibility before God to speak the truth. If he thought that Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid, he would say so or at the very least would not make assertions like he did in this article. Canon Law is more than just connecting the dots with canons. Otherwise, one wouldn’t spend at least 3 years attaining a degree in it. A layman’s reading of the Code would suffice. I’m perfectly at peace leaving the interpretation of such weighty matters to arguably the best canonist in the Church and turning my gaze back to Jesus. To get sucked into the endless vortex of toxic discourse is, at least for my spiritual life, a ploy of the enemy to turn my gaze from Jesus. As our Lady of Fatima said, prayer and penance. It’s not our responsibility to solve all the world’s problems.”
Perhaps you should pose to this “tradition minded priest” the three questions I proposed in the blog post prior to this one.
Bless you, I will. I also have a meeting pending with a local pastor who is on the marriage tribunal and is admired for his ability as a Canon Lawyer. I will bring both your questions and the presentation on Ministerium vs Munus at the recent PPBXVI conference in Rome. Thank you for this suggestion and for your work.
I have to admit that as much as Cdl Burke’s firm FiP-stance has been a let-down it is also a great blessing to know that I can shake the BiP-dust off my sandals and move along. How cool is that?
I don’t see how Canon 38 applies since Benedict XVI’s act in the Declaratio was not an administrative act.
Hello, Mr La Rosa! Thank you for all your own superb work and for cooperating with grace amid much Resistance. Mr. Docherty’s article here may explain the significance of Canon 38 better than I can. https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/15/words-matter-in-law-and-in-actions-canon-131-1-and-the-retention-of-office/
Even there, I don’t see how Canon 38 applies since Benedict XVI’s act in the Declaratio was not an administrative act.
Not being a canonist, I suspect that Canon 38’s pertinence would be in a general way to the necessity and rules of derogation for any act whether administrative or not. BTW, an act of resignation falls under which category of acts? Anyone?
Mark, if you could please allow me to get this off my chest in hopes to clear the air of what has been truly bothering me ever since the aggressive postings began with the discovery of the Teutonic discussions from the ’60s and ’70s, both on your blog and Ann Barnhardt’s; especially now that I can see that they continue to be pushed to the forefront once again (this post in particular has quite a haughty tone to it), I would appreciate that.
How do such statements by Miss Barnhardt not go beyond mere plausibility of intent, to outright judgment with a near hubristic certainty of Pope Benedict’s motives in his resignation attempt; and by extension, an overall judgment of his character based on her *own* formulated, yet unsubstantiated, speculations of the Teutonic discussions?
“I’m afraid that we all severely underestimate the role of PRIDE in the heart of Pope Benedict XVI in this massively erroneous mess.”
“As a German, I think Joseph Ratzinger wanted to be nothing less than the man who “fixed” the German schism, that is to say, the Lutheran schism. And, if you bring the Lutherans back in, the Anglicans will eventually follow, because both schisms revolved around the Papacy. And so, in one of the most massive displays of pride the Church has ever seen, Pope Benedict Ratzinger decided that he could change that which is IMMUTABLE – that he could change the unchangeable.”
“He is a known quitter.”
“He’s the worst pope ever for what he has done.”
“Pope Benedict XVI is indeed a heretic and is now the worst pope in the history of The Church.”
Read her: “Letter to an Absentee Father to His Children” and determine if the Law of Charity applies therein.
And just for the record, Mark – in your combox here on 2/11/19, you stated: “Now the fact remains that nowhere has it yet to be found that Ratzinger explicitly endorsed these ideas at the time, but he can be seen presenting them as plausible in open discussion. The point being that the idea of a bifurcated or even synodal papacy is not something he himself dreamt up — on the contrary, this was a high concept and something that’s been in his mind for 50 years.
Keep in mind, it could also be a ruse. Benedict could have done this knowing that he would fully retain the papacy. He left us enough other clues in terms of remaining in the Vatican wearing white and being addressed as His Holiness, and of course he knows the contents of the Third Secret.”
Well, I certainly stand by my quote from February that you pasted here. I’m totally open to the idea that Benedict did this with the knowledge that he would retain office. If that’s true, I suppose he must be waiting for some specific sign before he pulls the rip cord.
As for the continued publication of Ratzingerian transformational papacy quotes, just how much more is it going to take until people understand this was a huge topic of discussion, not some conspiracy theory?
As for Ann’s writings, I’m allowing these comments here because it’s sort of a shared combox. I don’t always agree with particular details of her convictions, even if I do agree on overall conclusions.
Shared combox and “conspiracy theory” accusations re: the Teutonic Transformation aside AND knowing well that establishing intent is unnecessary, my question still stands, “What is gained by re-posting the ample examples outlined by Charmaine?”. I admit that I might be missing something and that is why I have asked this question to both you and Miss Barnhardt. “Is there a strategic reason that allows for opposing the Law of Charity?”
I utterly reject your notion my postings, Razinger in his own words, constitutes a sin against charity. As for “What is to be gained?” the answer is “getting the word out” about this aspect of the story. It plays a role in the reality of the situation, even if your version of events turns out to be 100% true. Do you understand this? These writings are getting a total Trad Inc deep state news blackout. If it helps to keep people from losing their faith, to see that something else might be going on here, well, that’s the whole reason I write this blog.
Tell me, why are you so convinced this is all four-dimensional chess on the part of Benedict? isn’t it all circumstantial evidence?
I apologize Mr Docherty, but no, I was unaware. I tend to be a bit obtuse; so, no, just as I had no idea until very recently about R/BDS and the practical sede-ism of R&R-ers, I had no idea that the impossible Teutonic reformation of the Divinely Instituted Monarchy (THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN ’cause Jesus won’t let it happen in HIS Church) is “getting a total deep state news blackout.”
I hate to use a Hillary Clinton sound-bite but, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Since the subject of import around which we can rally is the objective, totally non-speculative, black-and-white juridical fact that ministerium is not munus, AND PPBXVI declared his intent to renounce “administering the Petrine Munus and not the munus itself, can we not distill the matter down to this point for the ‘nuts-n-bolts’ pew sheep and begin to gain much needed traction in opposition to the mystifying Clergy of FiP? Is it not in the end just that simple?
As I have said in the past it is important to know our enemies and thus this diabolical strategem of the Teutonic Modernists is well-noted by me if not by Trad Inc, but how does presenting and re-presenting it help promote BiP-unity and thus gain BiP-traction?
As intent does not matter, it does not matter why my convictions concerning intent are different than Miss B’s. To this end, establishing intent is a distraction and a non-unifier and why I will firmly re-state that it needs to STOP. NOW.
IiI: “Since the subject of import around which we can rally is the objective, totally non-speculative, black-and-white juridical fact that ministerium is not munus, AND PPBXVI declared his intent to renounce “administering the Petrine Munus and not the munus itself, can we not distill the matter down to this point for the ‘nuts-n-bolts’ pew sheep and begin to gain much needed traction in opposition to the mystifying Clergy of FiP? Is it not in the end just that simple?”
I’m not so sure about that. The body of evidence that Benedict did not resign the Office goes far beyond the Declaratio. In fact, had he really resigned, and acted that way, no one would have even examined the Declaratio for defect. It was his decision to so visibly STAY PUT that caused the initial “two popes” chatter. If was in the days and weeks following, 13 Feb – 18 Feb, where he gradually leaked news that he wasn’t leaving, wasn’t giving up the white cassock, wasn’t giving up the title or form of address, wasn’t allowing his Fisherman’s Ring to be smashed… this is all material evidence that greatly supports the central claim.
True that there is a greater body of evidence; however, in trying to think ahead to more and more simple Catholics waking up, in large part because of the anti-papacy, what is the simplest not necessarily the completest but the simplest distillation to present to people with the caveat that “of course there’s more to it, but the words alone should at least warrant an examination.”
Also this: https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/22/would-it-have-been-possible-for-pope-benedict-to-resign-properly-without-using-the-word-office-in-the-declaratio/
Thank you for noting this past post. I will read it, too.
Mark, I agree with the logic of this post: *the text* of the faulty resignation, the short, concise, precise text is what determines the “ontological reality”; the subtext of past writings and public speech is what gives context to our ability to understand what happened and why – the framework within which the strange events unfolded.
I don’t think one (subtext) needs to exclude the other (text). The subtext does not determine the fault, but it does help us explain it and understand it.
Aqua: You say, “the subtext of past writings and public speech is what gives context to our ability to understand what happened and why – the framework within which the strange events unfolded…The subtext does not determine the fault, but it does help us explain it and understand it.”
Would you agree that the logic of this post, the Teutonic *subtext*, is very likely only a part of the possible pieces of “the framework within which the strange events unfolded”? Also, I think you would agree that we will never, ever know beyond speculation the totality of those pieces which formed that same framework. Am I counseling that we ignore the reality of the Teutonic Transformation Plan? No, I simply (although admittedly unrelentingly at this point) question the wisdom of putting it in the forefront for the task at hand: getting it right and unifying around the duly elected pope, PPBXVI.
Being made aware of the Trad Inc. blackout does give me a greater level of understanding on the one hand; yet the foundational question remains, is it the best course toward “Uniting the Clans”?
Islam_Is Islam: I see what you’re saying. Perhaps it clouds the issue. Since everyone has their own pet theory it is important to focus on the one true thing: *the words of the resignation statement itself*. Otherwise everyone is going down various rabbit holes and the one true thing that is driving the clown show is lost in the confusion. The words of the resignation statement render the resignation invalid. Period. End of story. Focus on that, nothing else. Valid.
However, most people reading Mark’s fine blog, I suspect, are well familiar with all the nuance and will not be thrown off track. Material like this, to that kind of reader, (myself for instance), is helpful.
Aqua: Agreed that most people at this time who read Mark’s fine blog are likely familiar with nuances etc… However, it is always good to have resources to direct BiP-newbies to in order peruse on their own, IF they want. They may not have the background, time, or other resources to NOT get off track. Those are my thoughts on the subject of disseminating BiP as the anti-church is revealed more and more widely; especially regarding so very many NO-Mass attendees who are basically somnambulists–sort of Christ-eating ‘zombies’ who are Asleep in the Light: “How can ya be so dead when you’ve been so well fed?” Keith Green https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik-XOVZcwow at 2:25.
Islam_Is Islam: That link made me smile; brought me right back to my early Protestant days when I was a Proddie rock and Roll “star” (in my own mind – good times), drummer in bands, imitating the likes of Keith Green. I wanted to express my love for God as a missionary, a musician, passing out Bibles and tracts to the lost. I remember all that. The fervor has never left. It is what caused me to look beyond Protestant limitation and error. That fervor has always been the engine that prods me along every day – until the end I hope.
One thing I am confident of is that God will not abandon those who remain faithful, to their best ability, to what has always been true. It may get messy – like Frodo in Shelob’s lair God may seem extremely distant and all that is good just a distant, almost forgotten memory; betrayers, traitors, enemies, demons all around us; but as long as we take one step and then another … one goal in mind: Christ, His Mother, Angels, Saints, Tradition, the Holy Bible, Heaven; then darkness will not prevail.
Aqua: Are you familiar with Fr Gabriel’s Divine Intimacy? I’ve been meditating on the entry entitled Passive Purification and the fruit is like Galadriel’s Light, just as you describe: “one step and then another with one goal in mind…”