BOOM. CRASH. HIDE THE GOOD CHINA. Edward Pentin breaks the internet with Benedict is Pope report

Happy Saturday!

Edward Pentin has just blown the doors off the Benedict is Pope (BiP) story. He presents his essay at his personal blog, I’m assuming because his employer EWTN/National Catholic Register wouldn’t touch it. Too much at stake, you know. We can’t let the truth get in the way of the cash flow, see?

The essay is not an opinion piece, but rather a balanced presentation of viewpoints on the situation. So balanced, in fact, that it is frankly outrageous that they wouldn’t publish it. It took a lot of courage for Mr. Pentin to put this out there, because he has risked his livelihood in doing it. Please join me in offering prayers for him.

I am not going to block quote any of it; you need to go read the whole thing.

There is much more to be said, and much more evidence to be introduced, if Mr. Pentin chooses to do so. The doctoral dissertation from Archbishop J. Michael Miller is absolutely critical, as it is the ultimate repository of Twentieth Century Teutonic tinkering with the “demythologizing” of the papacy: Dissolving the divinely-instituted papal absolute monarchy with universal jurisdiction into a shared ministry where the various functions are performed by various (two or more) members.

Perhaps the best summary of the various positions held by the various confused German theologians of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s is summed up in this one sentence from a confused Cardinal Dulles in 1955:

“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”

Sound familiar? How about a situation where a reigning pope sets aside or delegates the governance aspect of the Petrine function to his “successor,” where the new “pope” assumes the active governance role, while the old pope retains the contemplative, supernatural aspect of the papacy, almost hoping to turn himself into some sort of “uber pope”… retreating or perhaps even imprisoning himself in the Vatican Gardens to concentrate on the heavy-lifting, as the suffering servant?

Well, none of that is possible, because the papacy was divinely instituted. No pope can alter the intrinsic ontological structure of the papacy. Even if it were possible, Benedict STILL would have retained the Office, per Canon 131.1, which states that delegation of governance does not confer an Office. But since it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE to change the structure of the papacy, per divine law, and since the concept of a papal diarchy clearly rises to the standard of Substantial Error as envisioned/anticipated in Canon 188, the ENTIRE abdication is thereby rendered invalid and null. Which means Benedict remains the pope, the whole pope, and no one else is pope. There was no conclave in March 2013, because the cardinals had no authority to convoke a conclave, per Canon 359. And then we have this elephant-sized breadcrumb: Benedict never bothered to resign the Office in the official act of renunciation, choosing to only renounce the active ministry, rendering the entire act invalid per Canon 332.2.

If you are new to this space, here are my recommendations. Study the canons. Study everything from Ann Barnhardt at since her declaration of 19 June 2016. My own declaration of moral certitude on this matter was published here on 3 July 2017, and hundreds of posts have followed. A really good jumping off point would be to get a pad of paper, a pencil, and watch this two-hour time-stamped video, which explains everything: (The link isn’t pasting correctly in this pane, but it works)

The balance in Mr. Pentin’s essay means it will have much more traction than if it were a one-sided opinion piece. Above all, the value of this first volley can be measured by this: The notion that the BiP theory is only followed by some insignificant handful of crazies is DOA, as of today.

DOA. Dead. Ed killed it. BiP has been MAINSTREAMED in Rome, and now everyone knows it.

Overton Window, as Hank Williams would say, Move It On Over.

7 thoughts on “BOOM. CRASH. HIDE THE GOOD CHINA. Edward Pentin breaks the internet with Benedict is Pope report”

  1. Hopeful for sure–BiP is a matter for serious discussion. However, Pentin does not support BiP. Please see Br. Alexis (From Rome blog)
    ‘Pentin marshals straw men to the fight’
    March 7, 2020 From Rome Editor 2 Comments

      1. Hello, Mr Docherty. I look forward to either you or Miss Barnhardt going through Br. Bugnolo’s From Rome post mentioned by Mr Dowd and discuss those parts which are slanderous and incorrect. It would be a matter of fairness to the whole Catholic world and especially those like me and Mr. Dowd who are requesting an investigation into ALL things surrounding the renunciation and the conclave of 2013. To this same end of FAIRNESS I posted the following comment at Mr. Pentin’s article to which you link, but I may be the only one who can see it there.

        07/03/2020 AT 5:38 PM
        Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        Mr. Pentin: In October of 2018 when you made the report on Msgr Bux calling for an examination into the renunciation, I thought, “How wonderful! Finally someone with a voice and some clout who with stood the onslaught of the German cardinal who’d dismissed and demeaned the African Cardinals at the Synod on the Family. FINALLY, I thought, someone who will be fair.” As you have shown in this article, not so much, Mr. Pentin. Not so much.

        As Fr Hannon recently said in his youtube video, “I’d like to see FAIRNESS!” That is why The February 28 Proposal exists: Basic, decent FAIRNESS. Please, Mr Pentin in the spirit of FAIRNESS, address the substance published by Marco Tossatti in Russo’s presentation and not straw men. I and many others look your future fairness.

        1. Pentin did not write an opinion piece. He reports the opinions of others. Perhaps you didn’t like his giving certain opinions greater exposure than others. I don’t agree, because the net effect of the overall essay was to put BiP opinions on a level playing field with the others. I will take that as a win, six ways to Sunday, after years of being called a crazy schismatic for daring to look at the evidence.

          As for refuting the From Rome rebuttal and Russo via Tosatti, yes, I will be taking a stab at both of those.

          1. Thank you. I appreciate as always the opportunity and pursuit of open discussions that you provide in your comment box. It is here as well as at Steven O’Reilly’s Roma Locuta Est, From, and most recently at Mr Shane Schaetzel’s blogsite, Complete Christianity, that I have consistently experienced fairness of input and openness of discussion without condemnation or condescension. This is key to being able to seek the Truth. Thank you.

  2. The main driving point at the end of the day is Benedict’s refusal to come out and openly clarify anything. And, NO, we will not accept anything he allegedly whispers to 3rd parties selectively quoting him any more Francis’ silence after each Scalfari interview, and I honestly believe Scalfari is the more honest one of this lot!

    Why has it been so long and difficult for Benedict to clarify? Has he himself discovered the hole he’s dug?

  3. Why should you worry? Faith Hope and Charity is all we need. The fact is Benedict didnt resign the office. End of. BiP. The rest is prayer. Benedict is answerable to God, not you

Leave a Reply

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