Did Father Z. just endorse the Mazza Thesis of Pope Benedict cleaving the Vicarship of Christ from the Bishopric of Rome?

Yesterday, 22 February, was the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter. Father Z. used the occasion to set out some interesting observations regarding the Petrine See, and how it began at Antioch (or one could even say Jerusalem). Emphasis mine:

“…Peter spent about 7 years in Antioch, guiding the church as its bishop, before he pulled up stakes, and… I guess… cathedra… and went to Rome.  He wouldn’t have taken a literal chair, but he did take his office and authority, given to him by Christ.   He had this office and authority before he went to Antioch, while he was at Antioch, when he left Antioch, when he got to Rome and when he died in Rome.

Because the Petrine Ministry is necessary for the Church, Christ made it obviously a “hereditary” office, just as the Davidic stewards enjoyed with the conferral of keys.  After Peter, another man held the Petrine Ministry and so on down to our day.   That would have happened whether Peter had stayed in Jerusalem, stayed in Antioch, or had gone to Luoyang in China of the Han Dynasty.

Based on Peter’s move from Antioch to Rome, there are those who say that there is nothing which absolutely connects being the Successor of Peter with being Bishop of Rome.  He was, after all, The Rock, when he was in Antioch.  For all practical purposes Petrine Ministry and office of Bishop of Rome now seem to be fused together.  Most authors think they are inseparable.  But… they weren’t, unless one thinks that Christ gave Peter His authority in view of Peter’s future in Rome.   Possible, but there’s no Biblical evidence for that.  On the surface, it looks like one could be Successor of Peter (who can be anywhere) and someone else Bishop of Rome (who should be in Rome).

One supposes that, in time of need, some Successor of Peter could move his see to, say, Texas.https://wdtprs.com/2021/02/wdtprs-22-feb-feast-of-the-cathedra-of-peter-2002mr-antioch-or-rome-or-somewhere-else/

Or, perhaps to the Vatican Gardens remaining with us always in the enclosure of St. Peter?

The idea that Pope Benedict may have split the Romanitas from the Vicarship was first raised as a possibility by our friend Dr. Ed Mazza: the so-called “Leave the Bishopric, Take the Vicarship” scenario. Along with the Substantial Error theory, where Benedict’s resignation was invalid due to it’s violation of any number of Canons, particularly #188, we also have the possibility of Benedict severing the See of Rome from the Vicarship. Since Benedict never resigned the Vicarship, nor his Office, the possibility arises that he could have resigned as Bishop of Rome, while yet remaining the one true Vicar of Christ, with Bergoglio being elected only as bishop of the diocese. In either scenario, Pope Benedict retains the keys.

If you think this sounds far-fetched or desperate, think again. This scenario has a lot of evidence in support, including, in their own words, Pope Benedict, Archbishop Ganswein, and even Bergoglio.

Following are the concluding paragraphs from the section of Dr. Mazza’s thesis dealing with this question:

Benedict just might have separated the Primacy of Peter from the See of Rome: “The papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation which Benedict XVI has profoundly and permanently transformed…” (+Ganswein) In such a scenario, Benedict still retains Peter’s Primacy—but is former bishop of Rome, ceding the sede to Francis.

“Though it is admittedly a minority position in the history of theology, we know from the official documents of Vatican I that it is not against the teaching of the Church to argue that a pope has the power to remove the Petrine Primacy from the See of Rome, especially in a situation of grave and unprecedented danger to the Faith. Gänswein used the German word “Ausnahmezustandes” or “state of exception” to describe Benedict’s novel and ongoing munus of Peter/Petrine ministry. A state of exception is defined by Wikipedia as “a concept in the legal theory of Carl Schmitt, similar to a state of emergency (martial law) but based in the sovereign’s ability to transcend the rule of law in the name of the public good. This concept is developed in Giorgio Agamben’s book State of Exception…” (Agamben also wrote a book on the resignation of Benedict!)Or as Archbishop Gänswein (quoting Scotus on Mary’s Immaculate Conception) said: “Decuit, potuit, fecit.” It was fitting…God could do it, therefore he did it. In this case, so did Pope Benedict. If he truly separated the Vicarship of Christ from the Roman See, then Gänswein’s gushings over Benedict’s maneuver, at last, appear apt: “profoundly transformed,” “extraordinary courage,” “daring,” “spectacular,” “unexpected,” “a new phase,” “turning point,” “historic,” “entirely different,” “never been a step like it,” “unprecedented,” terms that fall flat describing simply a bishop’s retirement—even the bishop of Rome.

Dr. Mazza highlights that Benedict himself, in several interviews with Peter Seewald, insists he did not plainly step down:

…in Last Testament: In His Own Words, Seewald pointedly asked Benedict: “Is a slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?”

Pope Benedict: “One can of course make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The follower of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office enters into your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion.”

“What “accusation”? What “misunderstanding”? A simple “yes,” would do. 

“But Benedict does not give a “yes” or “no” answer to this straightforward question. All the more bizarre, since his answer, in fact, must be a “yes,” or otherwise he is contradicting the very reason he gave for stepping down in his official resignation speech:

Pope Benedict: “I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine office… strength…has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason…I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter… “

“But in his answer to Seewald, Benedict explains that a physical “slow-down” only affects the “functions” or “ministry” of a pope, his day-to-day tasks like any other official. But being Pope, Benedict insists, is not fundamentally about doing this or that, it’s about being. His answer is an ontological one: “the office enters into your very being,” not the “function” or “ministry,” but the office [munus]. Or as Benedict tells Seewald in 2020, the “spiritual dimension…is alone still my mandate.””

Dr. Mazza wields the sword of inductive reasoning to now explain what Benedict means by all this:

“His Holiness admits that a see cannot have two bishops. Neither is the Petrine munus divisible into one active and one contemplative member. So perhaps the solution to the “emeritus enigma” is not to conclude that Benedict has divided the Petrine munus—but that he has divided the Petrine munus from the episcopal See of Rome?

“It is of Faith that Christ conferred on St. Peter the Keys of the Primacy—but nowhere is it recorded in Scripture that Christ made him bishop of Rome. As a matter of fact, Peter first made himself bishop of Antioch before Peter made Peter bishop of Rome. As Fr. Thomas Livius wrote in his 1888 work St. Peter, Bishop of Rome: Or, The Roman Episcopate of the Prince of the Apostles:

“To say, then, that the Popes are St. Peter’s true successors, and have the Primacy by Divine Right, is to assert a Catholic truth that has been defined by the Church and belongs to her faith. But…[Christ] did not determine what were to be the conditions in concreto of such [Peter’s] true succession, but left all this to the determination of St. Peter and his successors…Even granting that the union of the Primacy with the Roman See is jure divino, the particular question may still be raised: whether a Pope, in some evidently most grave and urgent necessity, could validly separate the Primacy from the See of Rome. The solution here is not an easy one, and grave theologians may be cited on either side…”

Lastly, let us not forget Bergoglio’s own insistence of repeatedly calling himself merely Bishop of Rome, from the very beginning, on the Loggia, 13 March 2013:

“You know that it was the duty of the Conclave to give Rome a Bishop. It seems that my brother Cardinals have gone to the ends of the earth to get one… but here we are… The diocesan community of Rome now has its Bishop. Thank you! And first of all, I would like to offer a prayer for our Bishop Emeritus, Benedict XVI. Let us pray together for him, that the Lord may bless him and that Our Lady may keep him.

And now, we take up this journey: Bishop and People. This journey of the Church of Rome which presides in charity over all the churches. A journey of fraternity, of love, of trust among us. Let us always pray for one another. Let us pray for the whole world, that there may be a great spirit of fraternity. It is my hope for you that this journey of the Church, which we start today, and in which my Cardinal Vicar, here present, will assist me, will be fruitful for the evangelization of this most beautiful city.

And now I would like to give the blessing, but first – first I ask a favour of you: before the Bishop blesses his people, I ask you to pray to the Lord that he will bless me: the prayer of the people asking the blessing for their Bishop…”

15 thoughts on “Did Father Z. just endorse the Mazza Thesis of Pope Benedict cleaving the Vicarship of Christ from the Bishopric of Rome?”

  1. “… he has divided the Petrine munus from the episcopal See of Rome”.

    Or, another way of saying it: he kept who he is, but gave away what he does – in the Catholic Church’s version of a Deep State coup; a mutinee; a state of exception; an emergency.

    In the past I used the analogy of a sea mutinee.

    A ship Captain, was given rank and orders to direct His Majesty’s Ship toward goals established by the King. While at sea, the crew mutinees and takes control. For a time, the Captain is still giving orders on the Bridge. The crew is not listening while he “jabbers” in the corner. They stop going his way and start going their way.

    The Captain has the rank (Munus). The crew has the ship (Ministerium).

    The King is still the King in some distant land. The ship on the high sea is still the King’s. The Captain still has the authority of the King to sail the ship according to the King’s objectives. But the crew has current, active control over the helm and the engines and the munitions, even though legal authority is lacking.

    So, the Captain, recognizing his position, retires to his quarters below deck, unseen, still wearing his rank. He gives them the ship, but he does not transfer to them the King’s commission. The “hidden reality” is he is still Captain. The “practical reality” is the ship chef is giving orders.

    One day lawful order will be restored, the Captain or his replacement will be restored to command by the King and the mutinous chef and his fellows will be put in prison and then hung by the neck. But not yet.

  2. It is time for these theocratic arguments to be put aside. The plain fact is that NOBODY, not even the Pope, can bifurcate the Papacy. There cannot be two Popes nor a division of that Office to which one man is consecrated as successor of St. Peter & Head of the Apostles’ successors. PBXVI, who is still pope but inactive, may have considered what he did was clever but it has split the CC into factions & allowed Satan full control in a worldly sense.

    The OHCA Church to-day is in tatters & all we get are personal opinions as to whether or not PBXVI or Francis is Pope. This must stop & the wicked usurper suspended until a quick council is convened to rectify the situation with both PBXVI & Francis in attendance. If PBXVI accepts his responsibility as Pope & Vicar of Christ then he must act accordingly as Head of the CC. It would be his duty therefore to charge Francis with the usurpation of the PO & excommunicate him & his cronies on the spot. If he doesn’t, then he must be asked to resign in accordance with Canon Law which sees the Bishopric of Rome & the Papacy as one Office in conjunction with the title Vicar of Christ, so there can never be separated roles. The fact that he hasn’t resigned according to the rules of Canon Law & still considers he holds the Munus (Office) despite not wielding its power must be transparently clarified, as the title Bishop of Rome could then become no more significant that the Bishop of any other Diocese.

    The election of Francis that also did not conform to Canon Law nor the Rules pertaining to papal elections as set out by JPII & took place before the above question on the validity of BXVI’s resignation was resolved, is plainly invalid & has brought ignominy & condemnation to the Bride of Christ. While all this point scoring goes on interminably nothing is being achieved – we still have not been told the full Third Secret of Fatima & the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary has not yet been carried out in accordance to Her wishes. Both of these tasks are needed in order to retrieve our Unity & bring the OHCA Church back to Tradition. When this is achieved Our Lady will begin Her Triumph by trampling on the head of the serpent (Satan) & bringing forth a humble Prelate to lift the spirits of the clergy & direct the Church in accordance with Divine Authority.

    1. Ana Milan – obviously no one knows what Pope Benedict XVI thinks about what he did. He is why I came into the Church and I have followed him closely ever since. And so I speculate from a most respectful position of veneration for the Holy Father. I saw him up close, once, in St. Peter’s Square. I will never forget that.

      I don’t think he sees what he did as “clever”. He is a serious, meek and learned man. He has not ever done “clever”. I believe what he did was done in recognition of a state of exception, an emergency at the highest possible level of the Church, a coup by an extremely powerful cabal of satanist, freemasonic, globalist one-world usurpers. And he saved the Papacy and defended Christ’s highest Office of Vicar from desecration. He is the one, true Pope. There is no other. Others are governing as if *they were* the Pope and of the Pope. But they are nothing more than satanist, Freemasonic, globalist one-world usurpers … doing what such people do.

      And all we Faithful are called to do is pursue and hold on to timeless truths with vigor and faith. And support the cause of God, in any small way we can, against those who commit violence against Him. And one of those things is clearly stating the obvious about what happened to our beloved Papacy and our currently reigning Pope. Evil cannot tolerate exposure and light.

  3. There was also that Avingon papacy period. It should be obvious the city of Rome and the papacy have strictly little to do with each other.

    The thing I have trouble accepting about the Mazza and Barnhardt hypothesis is how can a pope be bound by non-divine elements of Canon law when he is the source of Canon law’s authority. If a pope can just re-write canon law as it pertains to elections and resignations then it seems odd that he cannot validly resign due to him not following some tittle of said law. To be sure a pope cannot violate divine law, but of course divine law says nothing of resignation and election of offices. It seems to me that when Benedict said he resigned as being “successor or St. Peter” he meant it and that a pope had that kind of power…to vacate his office if he wants to. I think we are perhaps in a state of sedevacante not of the pope being captive. Of course when Ratzinger dies we will obviously be in such a state rendering this moot.

    1. Of course the pope has the power to change non-divine elements of canon law. Like in 1983 when the term “Office” was inserted into Canon 332.2, probably by Ratzinger himself. However, we know that a pope is bound to the law as written, because there are canons, such as this one, which pertain ONLY to popes.

  4. If b16 erred in his attempt to separate the Munis of ‘the vicar of Christ’ from the ministry of the governing of the Church of Rome, then he is still pope.
    Recall the number of coadjutor bishops appointed by B16. Including the author of that book … archbishop Miller
    Could bergoglio be regarded as a coadjutor bishop of Rome if b16 erred in his ‘resignation’ ??

  5. Hi Aqua – IMO the Papacy has not been saved by the action of bifurcating the Office. Archbishop Ganswein said at the time that we now have two popes, one silent & giving his life to prayer, the other taking on the active/administrative role. That can never be as the role of the Pope is for life & PBXVI knows this as he said he only relinquished the Ministerium, not the Munus (Office). However, by holding an invalid conclave (illicit because PBXVI still lives) & not consulting with PB on issues of grave importance to the OHCA Church, Jorge Bergoglio has shown himself to be a usurper & squatter in the PO obtained by the corercion & tyrannical action of the St. Gallen Group. While PBXVI did not appoint him (an invlid conclave did) he is complicit by his silence, along with all our prelates, in allowing JB to trash the Bride of Christ. Anyone with eyes to see must admit that the action taken by PBXVI has led to the False Prophet beingi in total control over Christendom so whatever Benedict thought he was doing at the time of his so-called resignation has swiftly backfired on us all. Papal Resignations & Elections are governed by Canon Law &, in the case of Papal Elections , they must also comply with the Rules set down by PJPII which JB’s did not.

    Those red-hatted prelates must face-up to this Apostasy which is by far more serious than the Arian crisis as it is worlwide & is devastating the OHCA Church & do what’s necessary even if that means personal suffering. As JB is an illegal tenant/squatter it should not even be necessary to hold a council to rid us of him – he & his fiend friends must be excommunicated by PBXVI & shown the door.

    1. “Usurper”. “Squatter”. “Coercion”. “Tyrannical”. Sounds like the mutineers in my example above.

      No, they don’t have any right to command the ship, yet command the ship they do … for a time, illegally, committing the gravest possible violation of maritime law.

      I don’t know *why* he did what he did and the way that he did it. That is between him and God. I do know *what* he did. That is clearly seen to anyone who can read and reason.

      Making sense of it, while maintaining respect for the Papal Office, is essential to keeping the Faith. I personally made sense of it as described in my analogy above. It fills all the squares for me.

      But, acting on *what* happened is essential and not the false narratives of the pirate mutineers.

    2. “Usurper”. “Squatter”. “Coercion”. “Tyrannical”. Sounds like the mutineers in my example above.

      No, they don’t have any right to command the ship, yet command the ship they do … for a time … illegally, committing the gravest possible violation of maritime law.

      I don’t know *why* he did what he did, in the way that he did it. I am one of a billion Catholics, how can we all know that. That is between him and God. I do know *what* he did, and I know what *they* did. That is clearly seen to anyone who can read and reason.

      Making sense of it, while maintaining respect for the Papal Office, is essential to keeping the Faith. I personally made sense of it as described in my analogy above. The ship was taken by malign forces we can’t possibly understand, (they showed themselves perhaps in the banking crisis and the Vatileaks papers) except by seeing their *immensity and malignity* …. *now standing exposed* …. *because* of the actions of Pope Benedict XVI.

      Acting correctly, personally, on *what* happened, even though we may not know *why* it happened, is essential – and not based on the false narratives of the pirate mutineers – if we wish to keep the Faith against ongoing attacks of the Devil and his allies. Pope Benedict XVI. Not Pope Francis. That’s all I need to know.

  6. Yes, I have. The cauldron was about to explode in any case as Truth will eventually be made known. However, Benedict is a cowardly man & couldn’t face the consequences without great support from his Cardinals which wasn’t offered, as the numbers of prelates physically involved in this crime &/or of enabling it were too great.

    The paedophiles within the CC should have been handed over to the police as these are civil crimes as well as horrendous sins. Not to do so with the excuse of causing a schism is demonic, as the schism had already occurred many decades ago with VII & its triumphant destruction of the Mass of Ages, reinterpretation of the Holy Sacraments, bringing the Ten Commandments up-to-date, introducing Protestant elements e.g. extraordinary ministers of HC, lay readers, sign of peace etc. & abandonment of the Great Commission in favour of a False Ecumenism. Everything went haywire since that time but to suggest that the imposterJorge is now a validly elected pope is exceedingly incongruous as PBXVI still lives & has publicly stated he retains the Munis. Whether by substantial error or plain unwillingness to deal with the apostasy the fact remains that Pope Benedict resignation is not valid & he therefore remains our pontiff, making Jorge Bergoglio the un-canonically elected Destroyer that St. Francis warned his community about before his death.

    Jorge Bergoglio & his cronies should be handed over to the police who have sufficient cause to have them locked-up for the rest of their lives & PBXVI should carry out his God-given duty as Pope & excommunicate him & his posse of demons immediately. If he then wants to resign in accordance with Canon Law he may do so but I believe he knows that he accepted the titlke of Christ’s Vicar on Earth for his lifetime & I wouldn’t expect he would backrack on that decision.

    1. With all due respect, I would never refer to the Pope (any Pope) as a “cowardly man”, especially given that we don’t know everything that he knew prior to his decisions. He may also be, in the end, among the bravest Popes who ever lived.

      He is not an ignorant man, nor is he a “clever” man. He is perhaps the greatest theological mind with the greatest knowledge of Church history and Doctrine to ever occupy the Office. What he did was in the fullest possible knowledge (because of his great intellect and faith) of the eternal, spiritual and secular implications of what he was about to do, given his further (likely) apocalyptic knowledge of Fatima’s Third Secret. We have to start with that. Frivolous? Serve serving? Nah.

      There is so much we don’t know, but can certainly read all the signs with our intellect and our faith. There is an immense evil within the Church that no single man (even the Pope) can *declare* expelled. We see it now, with no one standing with the Pope; almost all following the evil paths set by mutineer Fr. Bergóglio.

      The evil must be expunged. And as with personal redemption, there is a process: Illuminating Grace. Conviction. Repentance. Confession. Absolution. Penance. Sin No More. Nothing happens until the process begins, and it must be completed and in that order. And, thanks to the illuminating actions of Pope Benedict XVI, we are still just in the initial process of Illuminating Grace (knowledge, awareness of evil).

      May the members of Holy Mother Church not follow the path of the impenitent but in humble penitence, be convicted of our collective and individual sins so that we can be forgiven, and “our land healed”.

Leave a Reply

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