Cut and pasted from their site. Link at the bottom.
Of the 700 physicians responding to an internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), nearly 60 percent said they were not “fully vaccinated” against COVID.
Neither survey represents a random sample of all American physicians, but the AAPS survey shows that physician support for the mass injection campaign is far from unanimous.
“It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an ‘anti-vaxxer,’” states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. “Virtually no physicians are ‘anti-antibiotics’ or ‘anti-surgery,’ whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested.”
The AAPS survey also showed that 54 percent of physician respondents were aware of patients suffering a “significant adverse reaction.” Of the unvaccinated physicians, 80 percent said “I believe risk of shots exceeds risk of disease,” and 30% said “I already had COVID.”
Other reasons for declining the shot included unknown long-term effects, use of aborted fetal tissue, “it’s experimental,” availability of effective early treatment, and reports of deaths and blood clots.
Nonphysicians were also invited to participate in the survey. Of some 5,300 total participants, 2,548 volunteered comments about associated adverse effects of which they were aware. These included death, amputation, paralysis, stillbirth, menstrual irregularities, blindness, seizures, and heart issues.
“Causality is not proven. However, many of these episodes might have resulted in a huge product liability or malpractice award if they had occurred after a new drug,” stated Dr. Orient. “Purveyors of these COVID products are protected against lawsuits.”
“For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”
Romans 11:29
Why did Pope Benedict XVI choose to become “pope emeritus”? Why does he still issue Apostolic Blessings in his own name? Why is his proper form of address still “His Holiness?” How is it possible to “still” be “pope” in any sense of the word, eight years after his official renunciation? To answer these questions, we must first investigate how His Holiness understands Sacred Power.
In the history of the Church, the Sacred Power (potestas sacra) of the clergy has been divided into two categories indicating two separate origins of that one power: 1) Power of Order (potestas ordinis) and 2) Power of Jurisdiction (potestas iurisdictionis, also known as missio canonica, or potestas regiminis).
The Power of Order is received at Priestly Ordination and gives power to a man to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and other sacraments. It changes a man ontologically: once made a priest, he can never be unmade a priest. His being receives a sacramental character that is indelible. As Rev. Pius Pietrzyk, O.P. writes: “although the Church acts as the medium through which a man is ordained, it is Christ who does the ordaining. The Church cannot undo what Christ has done.”[i]
The Power of Jurisdiction, on the other hand, is traditionally understood as authority flowing from the Vicar of Christ and granted to bishops to govern specific dioceses.[ii] As Pietrzyk writes: “The whole reason for the developed distinction of the potestas iurisdictionis was that, unlike the potestas ordinis, it could be lost. Since sacred character cannot be lost, but potestas iurisdictionis may, it must have a different proximate source.”[iii]
To licitly exercise the Power of Order a man must first be in communion with the Pope and bishops. Vatican II states: “Without hierarchical communion the sacramental-ontological munus [potestas ordinis], which ought to be distinguished from the canonical-juridical aspect [potestas iurisdictionis], cannot be exercised.”[iv] Passing over the issue of hierarchical communion, let us focus instead on the “buried lead” highlighted above: the Council affirmed that ordination gives a “sacramental-ontological munus” to the priest/bishop quite apart from any juridical/legal power of office/administration. Munus, in a strictly sacramental-ontological sense means gift that allows service; three gifts/services, to be precise, Christ’s own munera: priestly: to sanctify, prophetic: to teach, and kingly: to govern.
By adopting the language of “sacrament” over that of “statecraft,” the Council fathers were taking their lead in part from Pope Pius XII, who in 1947, issued a new document on the rite of ordination. None other than Joseph Ratzinger, in his 1987, Principles of Catholic Theology contrasts the change in theology between that magisterial document and previous ones:
The rite that Pius XII decrees represents a return to the form used in the early Church. It is pneumatologically oriented in terms of both gesture (since the imposition of hands signifies the conferral of the Holy Spirit) and word: the Preface is a petition for the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the key word is now ministerium or munus: service and gift;[v]
The significance of this passage cannot be overestimated for anyone who has been following the controversy over Benedict’s own use of “munus” and “ministerium” in his February 2013 “resignation,” especially given his personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s words of May 2016:
The key word in that statement [Benedict’s renunciation] is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry [munus].” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry.[vi]
Benedict and Gänswein were roundly criticized by Catholic experts for this explanation, distinguished Church historian Dr. Roberto De Mattei among them:[vii]
If the pope who resigns from the pontificate retains the title of emeritus, that means that to some extent he remains pope. It is clear, in fact, that in the definition the noun [pope] prevails over the adjective [emeritus]. But why is he still pope after the abdication? The only explanation possible is that the pontifical election has imparted an indelible character, which he does not lose with the resignation. The abdication would presuppose in this case the cessation of the exercise of power, but not the disappearance of the pontifical character. This indelible character attributed to the pope could be explained in its turn only by an ecclesiological vision that would subordinate the juridical dimension [potestas iurisdictionis] of the pontificate to the sacramental [potestas ordinis].
It is possible that Benedict XVI shares this position, presented by Violi and Gigliotti in their essays,[viii] but the eventuality that he may have made the notion of the sacramental nature of the papacy his own does not mean that it is true. There does not exist, except in the imagination of some theologians, a spiritual papacy distinct from the juridical papacy. If the pope is, by definition, the one who governs the Church, in resigning governance he resigns from the papacy. The papacy is not a spiritual or sacramental condition, but an “office,” or indeed an institution.[ix]
“An ecclesiological vision that would subordinate the juridical dimension [potestas iurisdictionis] of the pontificate to the sacramental [potestas ordinis] is precisely how Benedict understands Sacred Power. Benedict is, in fact, diametrically opposed to De Mattei’s dictum: “The papacy is not a spiritual or sacramental condition, but an ‘office,’ or indeed an institution.” Expressing his sympathy for the view of the Orthodox churches of the East, Ratzinger writes:
Precisely this difference in the concept of authority grew steadily more intense and reached its climax in 1870 with the proclamation of the primacy of jurisdiction: in one case [traditional Orthodox view], only the tradition that has been handed down serves as a valid source of law, and only the consensus of all is the normative criterion for determining and interpreting it. In the other case [traditional Catholic view], the source of law appears to be the will of the sovereign, which creates on its own authority (ex sese) new laws that then have the power to bind. The old sacramental structure seems overgrown, even choked, by this new concept of law:the papacy is not a sacrament; it is “only” a juridical institution; but this juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order.[x]
Listen, furthermore, to Ratzinger’s scathing criticism of the Church’s traditional understanding of the Power of Jurisdiction and “office” in contrast to the Power of Sacramental Order with regard to the bishop:
While the medieval text…saw the ordination as resulting from the indicative of the conferral of power, ordination is accomplished according to the 1947 text…in the manner…of a prayer. Thus, it is apparent even in the external form that the true conferrer of power is the Holy Spirit, to whom the sacramental prayer is addressed, not the human consecrator.
The medieval rite is formed on the pattern of investiture in a secular office. Its key word is potestas…[however, since 1947] the key word is now ministerium or munus: service and gift;
The most crucial event in the development of the Latin West was, I think, the increasing distinction between sacrament [potestas ordinis] and jurisdiction [potestas iurisdictionis], between liturgy and administration as such…
I think we should be honest enough to admit the temptation of mammon in the history of the Church and to recognize to what extent it was a real power that worked to the distortion and corruption of both Church and theology, even to their inmost core. The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite was continued for reasons of prestige and financial benefits;[xi] (emphases mine)
Did Benedict just condemn the Church’s theology of potestas iurisdictionis? Did he just characterize her traditional understanding of power of governance through office as something distorted and corrupt to the core? For Benedict, the teaching of Vatican II, on the other hand,
breaches the wall that separated the Middle Ages from the early Church, and hence the Latin West from the Churches of the East. We see the reason why future references to Peter Lombard, Albert, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas will no longer be meaningful in this issue.
This passage consists in the inconspicuous little statement that membership in the college of bishops is attained through sacramental ordination and communion with the head and members of the college [Lumen Gentium 22]…This statement gives episcopal collegiality a double basis but in such a way that these two roots are inseparably connected.
The rigid juxtaposition of sacrament and jurisdiction, of consecrating power and power of governance, that had existed since the Middle Ages and was one of the symptoms marking the Western separation of the Churches from the East, has finally been eliminated…Our century’s liturgical and theological renewal has removed the basis for this division. We know again today that the sacramental and mystical body of Christ do not exist as parallel separate realities, but have their existence both from and with each other…In the eucharistic office, both the sacrament and the “ruling power” interpenetrate one another, and it becomes at once clear how inappropriate the words “rule” and “power” are with regard to the Church. We have no more right to speak of a quasi-profane ruling power, neatly separated from the sacramental ministry, than we have a right to speak of a separation between the mystical and eucharistic body of Christ.[xii]
Benedict, as it turns out, represents one of two schools of thought with regard to the ontology of Sacred Power. According to Msgr. Fredrik Hansen:
The first current [of thought] emanates from…K. Rahner, J. Ratzinger and Y. Congar…They all support the view that potestas sacra comes from the sacrament of orders [potestas ordinis]. In the case of the potestas sacra of the Bishop they advocate its complete origin in episcopal consecration [potestas ordinis]…Further this position teaches that also the power of teaching and governance comes from episcopal ordination although its exercise must take place within hierarchical communion. The missio canonica [potestas iurisdictionis] as the juridical determination for the two latter powers [teaching and governance] renders this potestas sacra available for its exercise…The Primacy of jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff (cf. can. 331, PAE chap III, LG 18b) becomes difficult to explain in relation to this current. On a sacramental level (the power of order) there is no difference between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops of the Church. The difference in jurisdiction comes from a non-sacramental source…The power he then acquires comes directly from Christ, not from the election, and not from the College of Cardinals.[xiii]
“The Primacy of jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff” does indeed “become difficult to explain in relation to” Ratzinger’s nouvelle theologie! Tradition teaches the Power of Jurisdiction can be lost! In which case, the justification for “pope emeritus” vanishes. Hence, De Mattei’s filial correction of Benedict and Gänswein for subordinating the Power of Jurisdiction to the Power of Order. The unfortunate truth, however, is that Benedict is unconcerned about accounting for the Primacy of Jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff:
[Orthodox] Patriarch Athenagoras when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI in Jerusalem, 1964 exclaimed]: “Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’…”[xiv] It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the West. Rather he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church—and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the “primacy of jurisdiction” but confesses a primacy of “honor”(τιμή) and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position Rome occupies in the Church—“holy courage” requires that prudence be combined with “audacity”: “The kingdom of God suffers violence.”[xv]
In one audacious sentence, Ratzinger completely side-steps the De Fide definition of Vatican I regarding the Supreme Power of Jurisdiction of the Pope![xvi] The Pope’s Power of Order suffices, it seems, to account for the essence of Who and What he is! He does not occupy “an office of jurisdiction,” which comes and goes, so much as a spiritual “office of rite” which is irrevocable:
The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than the care and [personal] responsibility for all the Churches…attachment to the Word and will of God because of the Lord is what makes the sedes [throne] a cross and thus proves the Vicar [the Pope] to be a representative [of Christ].[xvii]
But the witness is not an individual who stands independently on his own. He is no more a witness by virtue of himself and of his own powers of memory than Peter can be the rock by his own strength. He is not a witness as “flesh and blood” but as one who is linked to the Pneuma, the Paraclete who authenticates the truth and opens up the memory and, in his turn, binds the witness to Christ…This binding of the witness to the Pneuma and to his mode of being-“not of himself, but what he hears” -is called “sacrament” in the language of the Church. – Sacrament designates a threefold knot—word-witness, Holy Spirit and Christ—which describes the essential structure of succession in the New Testament. We can infer with certainty…that the apostolic generation already gave to this interconnection of person and word in the believed presence of the Spirit and of Christ the form of the laying on of hands.[xviii]
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision [to accept the Papacy] was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church…The “always” is also a “for ever”[xix]
Benedict “left the throne,” but “not his participation in the Petrine Ministry [munus].” In the Power of Order, it is not the Church, but Christ Himself who makes a man a priest. Thus, he cannot be unmade a priest. Likewise, Benedict seemingly argues, since it is Christ Himself and not the Church who makes a man a pope, he cannot be unmade a pope in the deepest sense:
I had to…consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy …Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign…a number of bishops…said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop… He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such… If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function… one comes to understand that the office [munus] of the Pope has lost none of its greatness [xx]
Benedict went so far as to tell Seewald that the “office enters into your very being.” In fact, he once criticized Martin Luther precisely for misunderstanding the difference between office as jurisdiction (or function) and office as rite:
[For Luther] the priest does not transcend his role as preacher. The consequent restriction to the word alone had, as its logical outcome, the pure functionality of the priesthood: it consisted exclusively in a particular activity; if that activity was missing, the ministry itself ceased to exist…There was purposely no further mention of priesthood but only of “office”; the assignment of this office was, in itself, a secular act;[xxi]
Benedict does not see the priesthood, or better yet, the papacy as “consisting exclusively in a particular activity, so that if that activity is missing, the ministry [munus] itself ceases to exist”:
My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this…I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance [potestas iurisdictionis] of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter [potestas ordinis].[xxii]
And in Seewald’s latest interview released in German in May 2020, Benedict doubles down on his “Petrine” status:
This word “emerito” meant that he was no longer an active bishop but was in the special relationship of a former bishop to his seat…the spiritual connection to his previous seat was now also recognized as a legal quality…It does not create any participation in the concrete legal content of the episcopate [potestas iurisdictionis], but at the same time sees the spiritual bond as a reality. So there are not two bishops, but there is a spiritual mandate [potestas ordinis], the essence of which is to serve from the inside, from the Lord, in praying with and for his previous bishopric.[xxiii]
Seewald then directly asks His Holiness: “But does that also apply to the pope?”
It is not clear why this legal figure should not be applied to the Bishop of Rome either. In this formula, both are given no specific legal power of attorney anymore, but a spiritual assignment that remains – albeit invisible. This legal-spiritual form avoids any thought of a coexistence of two popes: a bishopric can only have one owner. At the same time, a spiritual connection is expressed that cannot be removed under any circumstances.[xxiv]
But is Benedict’s ontological vision of the papacy an accurate one? As Hansen maintains, the other school of thought opposed to Ratzinger has centuries of tradition—and contemporary canon law behind it:
The second current of thought…makes a distinction between the episcopal consecration [potestas ordinis] on the one hand and the missio canonica on the other. The result is a position diametrically opposed to the first [Ratzinger’s] school of thought, holding that the power of governance comes from the missio canonica [potestas iurisdictionis] by which an office is entrusted…it allows an explanation of the difference between the Pope and the Bishops as regards jurisdiction…this second line of thought is echoed in the canonical doctrine found in the 1983 Code [of Canon Law] and the post-codal papal and curial documents, whereas the first [Ratzinger’s] is not: neither CIC 1983 nor Pastores gregis, or Apostolorum successores speak of power as the first current [Ratzinger’s] does…It is, therefore, important to underline that the distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction was by the Council or Code neither negated nor suppressed, it remains a part of canonical doctrine.[xxv]
Or as De Mattei writes:
This doctrine [the distinction between Power of Order and Power of Jurisdiction]…has also been the common practice of the Church for twenty centuries, can be considered one of divine law, and as such unchangeable.[xxvi] Vatican Council II did not explicitly reject the concept of “potestas,” but set it aside, replacing it with an equivocal new concept, that of “munus.” Art. 21 of “Lumen Gentium” then seems to teach that episcopal consecration confers not only the fullness of orders, but also the office of teaching and governing, whereas in the whole history of the Church the act of episcopal consecration has been distinguished from that of appointment, or of the conferral of the canonical mission. This ambiguity is consistent with the ecclesiology of the theologians of the Council and post-council (Congar, Ratzinger, de Lubac, Balthasar, Rahner, Schillebeeckx…) who presumed to reduce the mission of the Church to a sacramental function, scaling down its juridical aspects…
Ratzinger…distanced himself from tradition when he saw in the primacy of Peter the fullness of the apostolic ministry, linking the ministerial character to the sacramental (J.Auer-J. Ratzinger, La Chiesa universale sacramento di salvezza, Cittadella, Assisi, 1988).[xxvii]
Benedict would counter that Vatican II taught that “collegiality is not based on a papally conferred jurisdiction, paralleling the sacrament of ordination as though that sacrament were merely an individual gift; rather, collegiality reaches into the very essence of the sacrament, which as such carries within it an intrinsic correlation to the community of bishops.”[xxviii] Or again, “the sacramental-ontological munus…ought to be distinguished from the canonical-juridical aspect.” This is why Benedict went to great pains NOT TO RENOUNCE THE PETRINE MUNUS AS SUCH in his 2013 “Declaratio.”[xxix]
But Vatican II was referring to the episcopacy, not the papacy.
Ultimately, what Benedict proposes regarding his ongoing Petrine status is, to use his words, audacious and violent. And if Benedict is objectively wrong, then when he renounced the throne thinking he could still keep the Petrine Ministry [munus], he committed a substantial error, invalidating his renunciation. Canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law (1983) mandates that: “[i]f it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his munus, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested…”
The ultimate question then is whether what was subjectively in Benedict’s mind was an accurate or erroneous understanding of the objective reality of the munus Petrinum in the Church’s ecclesiology. If one’s will acts on an erroneous appraisal presented to it by one’s reason, the WILL DOES NOT CHOOSE FREELY. Mistakes of this kind are most frequent in attempts at marriage. Marriage is an objective state of being that does not come into existence except from a free act of the will, which is dependent upon accurate knowledge:
error invalidates the act if it is an error concerning the substance of the act…Error affects consent, for the will in an act of consent elects an object presented to it by the mind. If the mind is in error, the object is imperfectly or incorrectly presented and choice made upon such a premise is not always the same choice that would have been made if the object were correctly known.[xxx]
And we might add in closing, that according to the Church’s law, a resignation must also be “properly manifested” in order to be valid. But since objectively Benedict renounced “the ministry” of Bishop of Rome, and not the “munus,” there is ambiguity—not clear manifestation. In fact, even if ministry meant the same thing as munus in canon law (which it does not), or even if Benedict had explicitly mentioned “the munus” of Bishop of Rome, we could not be sure whether he meant munus as office [potestas iurisdictionis] in accord with canon law and centuries of tradition or if he meant munus as rite [potestas ordinis], which he has argued for decades is irrevocable:
The ministry [munus] of the bishop is not an externally assigned “administrative power,” but rather arises from the necessary plurality of the eucharistic communities (i.e., of the Churches in the Church) and, as representing these, is itself sacramentally based. The ruling of the Church and its spiritual mystery are inseparable. Only by dealing with this issue in such depth does the text [LG 22] make possible a “decentralization” of the Church that will progress beyond a merely opportunistic organizational change and move into the sphere of genuine spiritual renewal
[i] Rev. Pius Pietrzyk, OP, The Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction: A Theological and Juridical Examination, (Rome, 2014),
[ii] Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, OP, Summa Theologica, 2-2ae, q. 39, a. 3; Ad Gentes IV c. 7.
[v] Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, M. F. McCarthy, Trans. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p, 241.
“that the [medieval] crucial sacramental formula is as follows: ‘Receive the fullness of power to offer sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ (DS 1326). Following the ancient tradition, the text of 1947, by contrast, declares that the actual sacramental formula is the consecratory Preface, the ordination prayer modeled on the High Prayer of the Mass, that also bears the character of an epiclesis; Pius XII defines as the central words those spoken at the consecration by the bishop: ‘Send forth upon him, O Lord, we beseech thee, the Holy Spirit, by whom may he (the ordained) be strengthened to perform faithfully the work of thy service with the help of thy sevenfold gift’‘Emitte in eum, quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum, quo in opus ministeriitui fideliter exsequendi septiformis gratiae tuaemunere roboretur.’ [wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.] (DS 3860) [AAS 40-5; Cf. Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution, 30 Nov., 1947 Cf. Periodica, pp. 37-9 (Hurth): Commentarium pro Religiosis, 1948, p. 4 (Pujoiras).]
[vii] “Benedict…has engaged in gestures which seem to encourage this impervious work of substituting the new Pope with the old one. The princeps argumentation is however the distinction between munus and ministerium, whereby it seemed Benedict wanted to keep for himself a sort of mystical papacy, leaving Francis with the exercise of government. The origin of the thesis goes back to a discourse by Monsignor Georg Gänswein of May 20, 2016 at the Pontifical Gregorian University, wherein he stated that Pope Benedict had not abandoned his office, but had given it a new collegial dimension, rendering it a quasi-shared ministry(«als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst»)…“ Roberto de Mattei, “The Unknowns at the End of a Pontificate,” Rorate Caeli Blog, July 1, 2020.
[viii] Stefano Violi, “The Resignation of Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience” Rivista teologica di Lugano, XVIII, February, 2013, pp. 155-166.
[xii] Ratzinger, J. (1966). Theological Highlights of Vatican II (Rev. ed., pp. 186–189). New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1966) pp. 188-189.
[xiii] Msgr. Frederik Hansen, The Unity and Threefold Expression of the Potestas Regiminis of the Diocesan Bishop, pp. 25-26.
[xiv] St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistola “Ad Romanos”, PG 5, col. 801, prologue.
[xv] Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 217.
[xvi] Ratzinger: “When the Patriarch Athenagoras…designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.” p. 198.
Cf. Vatican I, SESSION 4: 18 July 1870; https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
[xvii] Ratzinger, October 1977, during the symposium “On the Nature and Commission of the Petrine Ministry” marking the 80th birthday of Pope Paul VI; Cf. “The Primacy of the Pope and the unity of the People of God,” published as “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes” in a book Ratzinger edited, Dienst an der Einheit (Service to Unity); it has also been republished in books by Ignatius Press and in Communio Spring 2014.
[xviii] Ratzinger, Called to Communion, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996), p. 68.
[xix] Ratzinger, Last General Audience, February 27, 2013: http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130227.html
[xxvi] If Ratzinger taught against a position that the Church has declared to be of Divine Law, he would be a heretic and would ipso facto have lost not only the Papacy but his episcopacy; “the mediate origin from God of the jurisdiction of Bishops” has yet to be defined with any theological note of certainty:
This question was raised in the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, but it was not decided. Several authors with Victoria and Vazquez held that the jurisdiction is given immediately by God to the individual Bishops; but generally Catholic authors with St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez hold that jurisdiction is given to the Bishops immediately not by God but mediated through the Roman Pontiff. Pius XII teaches this opinion positively in the Encyclical, “Mystici Corporis,” 21. Joachim Salaverri, S.J. Michaele Nicolau, S.J. Translated by Kenneth Baker, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ/On Holy Scripture (BAC, 1956; Keep the Faith, 2015), pp. 144-145. Originally published in Latin by the bishops of Spain.
Nevertheless, the fact that centuries of tradition and both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law hold against Ratzinger, his position is arguably an objectively incorrect one.
Cf. also Mazza, “’It’s nothing business, it’s strictly personal’: The Psychic Powers of Pope Emeritus,” March 12, 2021, https://www.edmundmazza.com/2021/03/12/its-nothing-business-its-strictly-personal-the-psychic-powers-of-pope-emeritus-part-one/
[xxx] William F Cahill, “Fraud and Error in the Canon Law of Marriage,” The Catholic Lawyer, April 1955, Vol. 1, No. 2.
…as it WAS in the beginning, IS NOW, and EVER SHALL BE.
“Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever.” Hebrews 13:8
“For I am the Lord, and I change not.” Malachi 3:6
But yeah, tell me more about how Jorge is totally enjoying the Petrine Promises of negative supernatural protection from error, due to Jesus Christ personally ensuring that his faith not fail, and having been converted, confirms his brethren. (Luke 22:32)
Tell me, Honorable Congresswoman Bush, how do you sleep at night, after spending all day governing this stolen land? How do you square that circle? And if black people still aren’t free, why haven’t you freed them, and also how did you get elected, and also how did a black man get elected President, twice?
Two years later, and coming at us even faster. “Deadnaming” will be a crime before the end of Not President Biden’s first fake administration.
Do you have the courage to say these two words: “Bruce Jenner”
Originally posted
How much longer do you think it’s going to be before there are laws, with jail time attached, for so-called “mis-gendering,” “mis-pronouning,” or “trans-hate?” You know I’m not kidding, and you know I’m not wrong. Are we really destined to fight a war over this? Well, if you remember back to last week, Our Lady of Fatima, Sr. Lucia, and Cardinal Caffarra all had something to say on the matter, which I summed up thusly:
In a nutshell, Satan’s battlespace is anti-reality itself. All of these attacks coming at us from all sides are his attempt, since he is incapable of creating anything himself, to replace God’s creation, that is, REALITY, with an anti-reality. HERE
If you think we have hit peak wokeness, think again. Until you start to understand that for the now totally unhinged left, departure from reality IS NOT A BARRIER. In fact not only is it NOT a barrier, departure from reality is A FEATURE, NOT A BUG.
Out this morning on the website of the local ABC affiliate, as it’s lead story, is the headline, “Foster mom heartbroken after transgender son turned away by Payson summer camp.” HERE
PHOENIX — A Valley foster mother says she’s heart broken after her transgender son was told he could not attend a summer camp in Payson despite receiving a scholarship to go.
“I think summer camp is really a place where foster kids can go to simply be kids,” said Amber Checky. The foster mom says her son was supposed to go to Tonto Creek Camp in Payson.
Her nine-year-old transgender foster son was, as most children would be, excited beyond words to attend camp. “My child was looking forward to doing archery and kayaking and hanging out with other kids,” said Checky, who took the boy in when he was seven years old. With the help of Arizona Friends of Foster Care and the families Court Appointed Special Advocate, her foster son received a $400 scholarship to pay for the camp that began on July 14.
So this (lesbian) foster mom took the girl in 2017, when she was seven years old. Now she is “transgender,” and wants to go to a boy’s camp. I wouldn’t doubt she is a tomboy, which is something you grow out of, but no, she’s def trans, says mom.
Let’s have a look at mom’s LinkedIn profile:
CEO & Founder
Company Name OutMentor
Location Phoenix, Arizona Area
Startup – At OutMentor, our mission is to provide lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth and young adults facing adversity with LGBTQ professional mentors that empower youth to learn, lead and thrive.
Well golllly, Sarge. What a coincidence that mom mentored this troubled kid bouncing around the foster care system, starving for affection and approval, grooming her right into a starring role in Trans Wars. Knock me over with a feather. (LinkedIn says she left the OutMentor job in 2015, two years before taking in the girl)
“He was born female identified but feels in his brain and his heart that he is a boy,” said Checky. She says she and her partner have always embraced the person he wants to be, supporting him in every way.
The nine-year-old has become an advocate for the LGBTQ community and has thrived on every front.
He’s educated classmates and teachers about being transgender. Started recycling drives at his small charter school as well as excelled as a student.
But last month, just a few weeks prior to camp, Checky was informed her child would not be allowed to attend.
“We get an email from the chief executive officer saying sorry he’s not able to attend anymore and that the camp staff that they had, that has a degree in this, is no longer able to attend, so they would be refunding us,” said Checky.
The camp at first offered to keep him in a completely separate tent from everyone else attending, something Checky did not feel comfortable with.
Click the link to read the rest. The camp was clearly caught off guard and tried to make it work, confusingly. Trying to deal with Anti-reality can be a real bitch.
John Zmirak had a column back in March, re-posted on Independence Day, titled, “Freedom is the Freedom to say, ‘Bruce Jenner.’ If That is Granted, All Else Follows.” It is a really good piece and I encourage you to click and read it all HERE.
My title takes off from a famous passage in Orwell’s 1984, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.” Winston Smith doesn’t say it out loud, of course. He scribbles it in his journal. And makes sure that the telescreen which monitors his apartment cannot see him.
But of course, the Inner Party finds out his secret. In fact, when he’s caught and tortured, his inquisitor O’Brien makes it a point to force Winston to deny precisely this point. O’Brien tortures Winston until he’s willing to say that two plus two makes five. But that isn’t enough. An old-fashioned tyrant might settle for that, for mere compliance.
The totalitarian wants more. In fact, he needs it. He needs those whom he dominates to really believe the lies he has fostered. Of which he has first convinced himself. That’s because modern ideologies are something much more and worse than tribal bigotries or misguided political systems. As Eric Voegelin, a refugee from the Nazis, taught us, they are “ersatz religions.” To prosper, they must make the same kinds of demands as real creeds.
They must demand more. Religious faith based on sincere belief in the supernatural taps into profound, deep-seated impulses built into man. We are made, it seems, to believe in and order our lives by something both higher and older than nature. That’s true even of creeds that you and I know to be false, such as Islam. Even they evoke a kind of faith that works in harmony with our natures. It’s simply misdirected.
This is what is meant when we say it was never about tolerance. It was never about acceptance. It was never about celebrating it. It was in the beginning, is now, and forever will be (until we win the war) ABOUT PARTICIPATION. You WILL be made to participate in the madness, or else. They NEED you to believe it the same way they do. What exactly is so puzzling about Revelation 13:16?
We Must Believe Because It Is Absurd
This, my friends, is the future the Left has in mind for us. Whether individual leftists realize it or not. And this is what lies behind the sudden and absolute demands of the Transgender movement. No, I don’t mean that it’s what motivates people who mutilate and poison themselves in pursuit of “gender reassignment.” Those people are mentally ill, as psychiatrists admitted until five minutes ago.
The truth is much more sinister. The left has taken up Transgender ideology not just despite the fact that it’s absurd and contrary to nature. They’ve chosen it because of that. Saying and meaning phrases like “female penis” and “pregnant men” is the absolute equivalent of asserting that two plus two make five — or whatever other number The Atlantic, the Harvard faculty, and the EEOC have most recently said that it makes. They don’t just want you to repeat that, of course. Like O’Brien, they need you to believe it.
Click the link and go read the whole thing. It’s going to get so much worse. Fast and pray.
Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.
Count me in: Moral Certitude and the invalid abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, still reigning
Originally posted on
I’ve long been on record as doubting the invalid resignation of Benedict by way of “Substantial Error” theory. I supported my case by quoting several public statements from Benedict from his actually announcing his intent, through to his last days in office. I wrote a detailed post about it one year ago, HERE. That post also includes an excerpt from yet another post where I explain the utter impossibility of the Petrine Ministry being split into a diarchy, to say nothing of the level of hubris demonstrated by Benedict if in fact this was his intention. Let’s put it this way: If it turns out this was his true intent, the failed attempt at creating a diarchy would be the single greatest SUBSTANTIAL ERROR in the history of the Church. PLEASE click that link and go read it all, so you can see how I laid out the evidence, because now it’s about to get complicated.
Or perhaps not complicated at all, depending on how you look at it.
It turns out that I missed a huge piece of evidence that seems to directly contradict all the statements where Benedict claimed he was “renouncing”, “leaving”, and would then be Pontiff “no longer, but a simple pilgrim”.
In his final general audience, 27 Feb 2013, he said this: (emphasis mine)
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.
The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God. HERE
Now, combine those words with his decision to retain the papal title as an emeritus, to retain the vesture, to physically remain at the Vatican, etc etc. This is the evidence that is contemporary with the (supposed) abdication. It doesn’t invalidate the other evidence, where he says he is renouncing, but it sure is a serious counterweight to it.
Now, fast forward to Abp. Ganswein’s comments last year where he dropped the bombshell of the “Expanded Petrine Ministry.” These were not off the cuff remarks, but rather a formal, well-prepared speech on Benedict’s papacy, given at the Greg in Rome on 20 May 2016:
Archbishop Gänswein…said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”
He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.
“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“
“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.” HERE
His words follow EXACTLY the active vs passive elements as outlined by Benedict in his final general audience, and suggest Benedict has in fact been operating under this guise the entire time. It’s nearly irrefutable.
So now we come to the point where I need to explain the difference between Absolute Certitude, Legal Certitude, and Moral Certitude. it’s going to be a little painful.
In order to have Absolute Certitude about something, the proof must be, you guessed it, absolute. Correctly solving a math equation yields Absolute Certitude. Another term for this is Metaphysical Certitude. The rules of geometry are a metaphysical certitude.
In real life situations that don’t involve the hard sciences, Absolute Certitude is a difficult thing. So we need lesser degrees of certainty to guide us in our actions, which vary depending upon the gravity of the subject. In decisions of secular law, the level of certitude required is in PROPORTION to the gravity of the matter. In lesser legal proceedings (civil, rather than criminal), often the required certitude is the “preponderance of evidence”, which simply means the “greater weight”. The evidence could be nearly 50/50, but all that’s needed is for one side to have just slightly greater than 50%, and that’s enough when the stakes of the case are low. You’re probably more familiar with the term “beyond a reasonable doubt”, usually used in criminal cases, which have more gravity than civil cases. This standard still doesn’t require certitude, but that the evidence for conviction must be significant, such that the weight of evidence for the prosecution must be so convincing that any remaining doubt must require a real stretch of the imagination. Sounds about right? Okay, now break yourself away from the secular legalistic mindset that you’ve been brainwashed into because Law & Order teevee.
Moral Certitude is different. Moral Certitude is the point at which a person is obligated to take action in the moral realm, and the level of proof required here is NOT proportional to the gravity of the matter, as in a legal proceeding, but rather the level of proof required is the INVERSE of the gravity. The greater the gravity of the situation, the less certainty is necessary to require action, when said action has a low risk of harm and a high probability of doing good. The gravest of situations, and the question “who is the valid Vicar of Christ” MOST ASSUREDLY rises to the level of the gravest of situations, requires only the slimmest majority of evidence to necessitate action. This is a matter involving the salvation of souls. Millions and millions of souls.
Therefore, I hereby declare I am morally certain that Jorge Bergoglio aka “Pope Francis” is an antipope by reason of the invalid abdication, due to the Substantial Error of Pope Benedict XVI, still reigning.
“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”
Originally posted
That headline was the response given by Abp. Ganswein to the question of certain irregularities in the papal abdication. Pope Benedict had supposedly decided to resign, yet had chosen to retain his vesture, retain his title as pope, albeit with ’emeritus’ added (which is impossible), retain his residency within the Vatican enclosure, and his form of address as remaining “His Holiness”. HERE
The press questioned, “Why?”
The answer, “He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”
In Pope Benedict’s mind (“he considers”) that the title “Pope (Emeritus)” and the formal address “His Holiness” corresponds to reality.
But hey, I’m the crazy one for pointing out obvious stuff. Just go ahead and try to suggest on the interweebs that Pope Benedict thinks he retained some portion of the papacy. YOU’RE TWISTING HIS WORDS! YOU’RE NOT A MIND READER! After all, we clearly had a conclave, and “Francis” was clearly elected, and this result seems to have been clearly greeted by peaceful universal acceptance by the cardinals, right?
Do you know what is coming up this Saturday? Everyone is talking about it… The Royal Wedding! Harry and Meghan! It will be televised all around the world, and tens of millions of people will watch. It will look spectacular. All the rituals will play out, the ceremony will unfold, vows exchanged, and the prince and princess will be husband and wife.
Except they won’t be. You see, Meghan is still married to her first husband, because divorce doesn’t exist. Divorce is anti-reality. So all that will take place on Saturday is the appearance of a wedding, but in reality is simply fancy formalized adultery and fornication. Even though everything will be done correctly according to formula, nothing will actually happen. It doesn’t matter that all the attendees and everyone watching on television will believe that a wedding just took place. The metaphysical reality of the situation is that nothing happened, because a prior event (her actual wedding) nullifies the “result” of Saturday’s proceedings. In the words of Louie Verrechio, “an act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.“HERE
Which is exactly why the 2013 conclave didn’t actually happen. It looked like it happened, everyone believed at the time it was real, but now we know that the weight of the evidence points towards a prior event nullifying its occurrence: Pope Benedict intending to hold on to at least part of the papacy. And if that is true, which I believe with moral certainty to be the case, then he didn’t resign any of the papacy, because Canon 188 says he didn’t. No resignation, no conclave.
“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”
Out of error, truth.
“The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” – Pope Benedict
Archbishop Gänswein…said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.” “Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “…before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’. (Not in its “Office”, the governance of the Church in the world, but in its “essentially spiritual nature”, through prayer and suffering.) “He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”
And lastly, Professor de Mattei: “Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry. This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.”
Full cross-post below from Miss B’s coverage of the Father Z essay from a few days ago. Do go read the whole thing; it is quite the deep dive, and something he clearly took some time in putting together. He doesn’t endorse this or that, but him merely getting all the information out there on his platform has an Overton Window shift feel to it, no?
“Let’s play the mind exercise out a little more and hack through some of the issues which I have heard raised by, for example, Ann Barnhardt, who is without question of the mind that Benedict is still Pope and Francis is a usurper antipope. Along with Ann is a smart fellow with well-articulated arguments, Edward Mazza.
I’ll try to spin out what they have been discussing. I hope I don’t put my foot wrong and mischaracterize their positions. I’m happy to be corrected.
It seems that… in their view…
Benedict did NOT legitimately resign, because the language he used at the time he announced his resignation is confused. The confused language suggests that Benedict intended to resign the active dimension of his role, his ministerium (for example, doing stuff as Bishop of Rome and doing stuff as Pope to the larger world). However, he did not intend to resign his munus as Vicar of Christ. Much turns on the technical term munus.
The fact is that munus and ministerium do not mean the same thing, though they are often bound together. For example, one carries out a certain ministry in the Church because he holds an office, a munus. Canon law says that the Pope has to resign the munus.
Canon 332 §2: Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur. … If it should come to pass that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and that it be properly manifested, but not that it is accepted by anyone.
But Benedict said in his resignation:
Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.… For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Words have meanings. It is not right simply to conflate munus and ministerium as if they are interchangeable. They are closely tied to each other but they are not synonyms. Not even close.”
Not. Even. Close.
Fr. Z later says:
“Remember:
If a Pope doesn’t resign willingly, the resignation is invalid.
If the Pope has in mind some sort of project papacy – like bifurcate it – and that project is in fact impossible, then the Pope is in substantial error and the resignation is invalid.
Can. 188 – A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
Either way, duress or error, Benedict would still be Pope in the sense of being Vicar of Christ, for sure, and perhaps also of Bishop of Rome.”
Yup.
And as we are all getting a good, hard lesson in, the greatest act of violence one can do to the Papacy is not to deny that it exists, but rather to call a man who is not Peter, “Peter”.
Pray for Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger, the one and only living Vicar of Christ since April ARSH 2005, whether he likes it or not, the Papacy, and the Church Militant, infiltrated, occupied, and in terrifyingly visible eclipse.
