I was a little lost at first, because I didn’t realize it was to be a votive Mass, and not the Mass of the Sunday. I knew something was up before it even started, because the color was violet. Also a little lost because it was High Mass, and I still have trouble navigating, as I’ve only attended maybe a dozen times. I don’t always keep up with the choir overlapping with whatever is happening at the altar. Funny, the ten year old girl with Down Syndrome sitting next to me, with a hand missal, didn’t skip a beat.
It turns out the Mass they used today was the Mass for the Conversion of Pagans. In older missals it is called Mass Against the Heathen. Which sounds particularly awesome.
I am traveling and don’t have my missal, and I can’ find the Mass propers for the votive online. If someone could paste them in the combox, I will update the post.
The sermon was mostly excellent, by the way. Except at the end, where he concluded that it was wrong speculate who might be pope. “It’s not our place. We just have to pray for the pope.”
Yes, of course we should pray for him. And Bergoglio too.
Skip to content
Lots to unpack here. Been an SSPX attendee for 24 years. When I first started attending I was labeled as being “outside of the Church” by my Novus Ordo friends because SSPX was being wrongfully maligned as “Schismatic” by prelates who should have known better. In the 24 years, I have found that the biggest joy is my not needing to have my nose in a missal to be in union with the liturgical action of the priest. I usually grab an extra missal from the window ledge at the back of the Church to reference now and then. Today, I did not grab a missal that had an index. Didn’t skip a beat. I knew what the Mass was for. I know the unchangeable parts of the Mass in terms of the prayers that are being offered. Being freed from feeling I have to follow word for word the prayers of the priest, I can follow the many other recommended methods of interior union during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If the choir sequence is long, doesn’t matter. I am in prayer. That is what I am suppose to be doing. The Traditional Mass gives the living water of Grace that has no bounds in subject matter for meditation.
As far as Monsignor’s sermon, I assume you did not discuss this with him afterwards. I did. I told him that what settled it for me the question, “Who is the real Pope?” is what was pointed out by Dr. Taylor Marshall. Pope Benedict, in his letter of resignation, gave a specific day and hour that marked the end of his Papacy and the official start of the “sedevacantist” period during which a conclave can be convened. To which Mnsgr. added that Pope Benedict was only a little better than Pope Francis. Pope Benedict is causing much confusion in the Church by his retaining the trappings of the Papacy. So why are people looking to him as “the real Pope” when he is also contributing to the confused state of affairs? To me, it’s simple. Pope Benedict XVI was the 265th successor of St. Peter and Pope Francis is the 266th.
I was simply admitting that I was a bit out of my element. Of course I was at prayer the entire time, and the entire Mass was excellent. As far as Pope Benedict’s resignation, here’s the thing: He said that on a certain date he was resigning, but then he never did. He stayed. In so many ways, he stayed, and there can’t be two pipes. And yes, I realize this does not solve the bigger problem of the Council.
Dear Mr Docherty,
Alberta Trafficante’s comment reminds me of one detail that I think nobody noticed so far.
In his “resignation” that is not a resignation, Benedict XVI said (in the present tense)
“I declare that I freely renounce etc.” We now he made clear to renounce the ministerium, not the munus. But even if he were to renounce the munus, he was renouncing at the moment of uttering those words.
However, he goes on to say “so that the See will be vacant in 10 days or so”.
So again, if you look at the tenses, he renounced/not renounced.
There are so many hints in that declaration that he is still the pope… (And he never stops reminding us that he is).
“Pope Benedict, in his letter of resignation, gave a specific day and hour that marked the end of his Papacy.”
Well, the letter’s intended to mark the end of something. But is it intended to mark the end of Benedict’s papacy? That is very doubtful:
A) In 2013, Benedict referred to his pontificate as an “always and forever.”
B) He also stated that he “does not revoke” (non revoca) everything about being Pope and is even “remaining” (resto) in some ways.
C) Benedict also stated, not that he no longer bears the Petrine Office, but that he no longer bears the power of the office to govern the Church (la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa).
D) Then there are the numerous behaviors of Benedict, none of which are compatible with the idea that his letter was intended to mark the end of his papacy: he continues to give Apostolic Blessings, sport papal white, respond to the title ‘Holy Father’, etc.
But even if Benedict’s letter does intend to mark the end of his papacy, there is still the problem of whether it represents a valid resignation. Why doubt the validity?
A) Because of the letter’s form: it announces, not that he is resigning, but that he will be.
B) Because of the letter’s language: the letter renounces a ministry, not an office, yet the realities of ministerium and munus are not the same in canon law. Consequently, there’s also reason to doubt validity because of the evidence of substantial error (can. 188).
C) Because of the evidence that Benedict attempted to resign under duress (can. 188).
In any case, I offer here just a brief summary of reasons for why, in good conscience, it’s very hard to believe that Benedict intended to end his papacy and, even if he did, that his resignation is valid. For a good primer on the subject, one can see Antonio Socci, The Secret of Benedict XVI.
“Except at the end, where he concluded that it was wrong speculate who might be pope. ‘It’s not our place. We just have to pray for the pope.'”
That is horribly disappointing. Really, how can we not speculate? Speculating about the Pope is one of the most intellectually honest things a Catholic can do right now. Catholics should have no scruples doubting the legitimacy of ‘Pope Francis’. As Fr. Pacwa recently put it, we’re not stupid. Not only can Catholics spell the word ‘incoherence’, we can even recognize it, and the idea that Pope Benedict is no longer Pope but can still give his own Apostolic Blessings is certainly incoherent. It would be stupid to say it’s not, and even more stupid to say it doesn’t even raise questions. It absolutely raises questions and every Catholic should be asking them.
Even if it might be wrong to speculate, in the strict sense of the term, it is not wrong to read canon law and see what criterion it has for a valid resignation. And just because you are a layman does not mean you cannot read what the Church published to be read by all.
Yes as laymen and women, nothing holds us back from reading Canon Law, but then again, as laymen and women, there is a lot holding us back from applying Canon Law properly. That is why the Church has Canon Lawyers to apply and to argue on a particular point for a particular situation.
For laypeople to argue with vehemence over points of Canon law that has not been settled by those who are trained and better equipped to elucidate the finer points is a waste of time. Some controversies are above the pay grade of the average layperson and thus should be left to the theologians and to Canon Lawyers to hash it out.
And when might they start doing that?
Canon Law was written so all could understand it. That does not mean that all do. But everyone has a right to know who is the true Pope, that is not above our pay grade, that is our DIVINE RIGHT.
Theologians are a joke today. Canon lawyers? Puh-leeze. Or how about the most discredited class in America—the American bishop, who come in predominantly two flavors, fem and fag.
We dumb sheep have one thing. We know the voice of the Shepherd. It ain’t Antipope Francis the Apostate. It is Pope Benedict. And if Francis is a false pope leading people into Hell, we sure as hell has better figure it out and take evasive maneuvers. No canon lawyer or bible lawyer theologian (scribe and Pharisee) is the skipper of your soul Ms. AlbertaFay.
Someone told me this morning after FSSP Holy Sacrifice of the the Mass that we need to wait for a cardinal to declare Bergoglio an antipope. That’d be nice but after seeing the monumental incoherence of H. E. Burke on point—pace Ms Fay but the principle of non contradiction is not the sole province of philosophers canon lawyers and bible-shysters—o pardon me I mean “Theologe-ians”—we need to fight.
As Aqua says, there’s a war on. The Immaculate Heart didn’t wait for the theologians at Lepanto.
I think we need to stop ignoring the historical context. If Benedict was ousted or pressured, then it was because the Cardinals were behind it. If they all agree to get him out, then after the crime they will all say he willing resigned. Do you need a degree in Canon Law to understand that? Is criminality in the Church of a species so different that what we know about Mafia outside of the Church cannot help us understand how to fight Mafia in the Church? — I also want to remind everyone, as a religious who has worked with corrupt clergy and religious for more than 25 years, that they are experts at manipulating your emotions, your understanding, your perception, your morality, etc. etc.. They do this not only to get you to practice non think, but also to avoid risking anything personally in the battle which is raging inside the Church since Vatican II. Some priests are willing to manipulate folks simply because they have not the courage to say the truth. For many reasons, when you hear a priest speak like that and say it is not your business to think about a problem in the Church, you should not listen to what he is saying at all. Jesus spoke openly about the corruption of the clergy of His day, and He is our exemplar. That means it is a virtue to do so today, because nothing Christ did is not virtuous.
None of this “speculation” adds one diddle to our advancement towards heaven. My sanctity does not hinge on the wording of Pope Benedict’s resignation who, by the way, was not a good Pope. Yes, he gave a great grace to the Church by upholding the right of the Mass of All Ages to be said by any priest as long as there is a stable community. But he also promoted other very non Catholic liturgy as well such as Teihard de Chardin’s, the New Catechumen’s and the Charasmatic movements’. He presided over an ecumenical prayer meeting in a Catholic Church to commemorate the first one at Assisi and with that, came the usual array of false religious leaders offering prayers to their false gods. He was the first ever Pope to enter a Mosque while in Turkey. Even removed his red papal shoes before entering. He stood beside an Iman facing Mecca and prayed silently next to him. As a young academic he rejected the precision of thought found in St. Thomas Aquinas for the imprecision of German philosophy with its ever evolving thesis, antithesis towards synthesis. In his thinking, there is no fixed natural order. Everything is in a state of flux. The Papacy included. He asserted “hermeneutics of continuity” but never demonstrated concretely how it is so. He left it to others to square the circle. He was on the Council. He understood the mind of the Council Fathers. He was in a perfect position to state what teachings and implementations were “of the Council” and which ones were not. He abandoned his post after receiving a dossier that contained the extent of corruption in the Church. He did nothing. He left it for a future, younger Pope. So, what consolations are there to see him as the real Pope? I see no problem with the fact that the 265th successor of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, cleared the way for a new conclave to be convened to elect St. Peter’s 266th successor whom I pray for daily as being the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church as unworthy as he may be of his office. But Benedict was no prize either.
albertafay: “None of this “speculation” adds one diddle to our advancement towards heaven. My sanctity does not hinge on the wording of Pope Benedict’s resignation who, by the way, was not a good Pope.”
But if we want to be holy, we must perform our duties, and one of our duties is to submit to the Supreme Pontiff, which can only be done if we know who he is. So, really, inquiring about Benedict’s papal status right now is not irrelevant to our sanctification; it is even demanded by it.
albertafay: “I see no problem with the fact that the 265th successor of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, cleared the way for a new conclave to be convened . . . ”
But if he cleared the way for a new conclave, then he must have fully abdicated. Yet there is a mountain of evidence that he intended no such thing:
– He still wears papal white.
– He still gives Apostolic Blessings.
– He still identifies as ‘Holy Father’.
– He still uses the emblem of a pope (containing the keys of Peter).
All these things, and more, indicate that Pope Benedict never intended fully to abdicate the papacy. But if he never intended fully to abdicate, then in fact the Chair of Peter was not vacant and the 2013 conclave was null and void.