Redux and a beauty: “He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”

Miss B. reposted this essay of mine from several years ago (May, 2018). It concerns the mind of Pope Benedict, what role he now believes himself to be fulfilling, and what he was thinking when he… did what he did(n’t). How can we know the mind of Benedict? Because he tells us, over and over and over again. I want you to focus on something as you read through this.

As I’ve oft repeated on the podcast, proving that Pope Benedict was in Substantial Error (Canon 188) regarding his purported resignation, and thus retained the papacy in full, is a very LOW BAR to prove. Why is this true?

Because all that is needed is to show evidence that Pope Benedict intended to remain papal in any way. If he thought he could retain or share any portion of the papacy by only partially resigning, it is game, set, match. Tell me, is there any evidence at all that Pope Benedict still considers himself papal IN ANY WAY?  But remember, Benedict’s mind is not the arbiter of reality. He isn’t still pope by direct causation of his own thoughts, he is still pope because his erroneous notions invalidated his resignation, leaving him not just partial pope but the one and only true pope.


“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.” A NonVeni Mark greatest hit.

(NonVeni Mark wrote this up several years ago, and it can’t be said any better, so I am shamelessly lifting and reposting it. -AB ’22)

“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”

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. (Markle is married to the Hollywood Jew Trevor Engleson, and as both were unbaptized at the time, the marriage is a totally valid marriage and as with any valid marriage, indissoluble. -AB ’22) 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:

… 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,” [Ganswein] said.

“…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.”

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.”

20 thoughts on “Redux and a beauty: “He considers that this title corresponds to reality.””

  1. Now Fancis needs to resign to a contempmative aspect of the papacy and they can elect a third member and have Trinity. lol. Why didn’t Catholics ever think of mimicking the Trinity with a triple papacy before? They must have been Arians the whole time. Benedict XVI contra mundam.

  2. I’ve thought to compare it to any other Bishop in their own diocese in the church.

    For example: Cardinal Dolan can resign as “Bishop of New York.” Some new bishop will take his place as “Bishop of New York.” But Dolan will always be “a bishop.”

    “You’re a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”

    Benedict will ALWAYS be “a bishop” whether he likes it or not. That fact he will take with him to the Final Judgement.

    He didn’t resign the Papacy validly. The Papacy is just a fancy term for “Bishop of Rome.”

    If Cardinal Dolan resigned as “Bishop of New York” but stayed in his official residence, and kept signing documents with that seal, and working intimately with his seminaries in NY, all things he would do as “Bishop of New York”, people would be correctly confused.

    The Bishop of Rome has certain attributes so that people can recognize it among all other bishops in the world. These attributes are by necessity it being “first among equals.” Benedict has kept those attributes, and didn’t give them up upon resigning.

    One example of that could be: “The Bishop of Rome changes his name when he takes the office. I will no longer be called Benedict upon resigning the office. I am simply Bishop Ratzinger now. I will always be a bishop, so keeping that title is no problem.”

  3. One big issue is whether Benedict XV1 was ever validly elected as Pope. If as Novus Ordo Watch argue, he doesn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, or in the real presence, it wouldn’t matter if he did or didn’t validly resign the Papacy.

    1. Well, do we owe obedience to Mario Derkson? Bishop Dolan? Pope Michael? Who would have binding authority if the Church has had no pope for half a century? Why don’t the bishops fix the problem? Is it unimportant?

      1. We owe obedience to the Truth. I would challenge anyone to refute SVism as it is explained by the likes of Mario Derksen, the late Bp. Dolan etc. In fact I begged Catholics here and on other blogs to refute it as I was afraid of the position….to date? Nothing. Only emotional responses like; they’re Protestants, schismatics, schizophrenics, antisemites, flat earthers…. yadda, yadda. I’ve found zero sound, theological reasons refuting SVism to date. If any here has such arguments against it, I’m curious to see it.

        1. I’ll give it a shot. It is one of the many converging lines of evidence that convinces me Benedict is Pope.

          Premise A: The Catholic Church cannot lose any of its four marks without defecting from the faith or mission. The four marks are oneness, holiness, catholicity and apostolic.

          Premise B: The Catholic Church cannot defect in it’s faith or mission.

          Assuming 1958 sedevacantism is true:

          – There is no oneness because there is no one to bind everyone else to any authoritative decision or teaching.

          – There is no catholicity, since any branch of the sedevacantist church can choose or practice anything. For example, the Dimond Bros franchise includes other popes as heretics as well.

          – There is no formal apostolic since no popes gave the mission to sede bishops. In fact, bishops who were given missions by the last known pope are dead. One does not become a Catholic Bishop of one’s voilition, one is called.

          – Even if you were to give them the mark of holiness, for the sake of argument, by premise A we are led to premise B being false, and hence a contradiction.

          1. Thanks T.

            I had a longer response I was working on, but it disappeared. That being said, I will simply ask you the same. Where are the four marks in the NO Church?

            You claim to have a pope, yet there is no unity. SSPX and the traditionalist movement attest to that fact.

            I would encourage you to read this lengthy post from Novus Ordo Watch titled, “Have the Gates of Hell Prevailed? The Papacy and Sedevacantism”.

            Unable to post the link, so you can just go to and search the above title. There is a wealth of information there and the half dozen comments are worth reading too.

  4. Debbie, whether or not the NO Church has the four marks is irrelevant as to whether sedevacantim leads to self contradictions. If you want my own thoughts on it Freemasons who hold positions in the Church are trying to convince people that Catholicism is false by justifying all their heresies and apostasies in the name of Vatican II. Furthermore, they try to make it look like the only way to reject Francis is to reject all the other popes too. I think they removed Benedict because they are about to build a false Church on a false pope.

    For example, take the claim that Benedict is a heretic because he said that the Church is bigger than the visible Catholic Church. My readings on pre-Vatican II theology confirm for me that this is not a heresy. Heretics are not in the body of the Church, but even just pagans are in the soul of the Church, because everyone in heaven is a Catholic. Also baptism incorporates you in the Church and a child of God. Since Protestants still have valid baptism they are somehow related to the Church, even if they are not in the body of the Church.

    There are tons of things like that that can show that Benedict is not a formal heretic and Vatican II did not teach formal heresy. The Freemasons attacking the Church claimed that Vatican II said so. The Freemasons are making it appear that the only way to reject Francis is to go sede, and not many people want to, so they ignore what’s happening in the Church, or others go sede.

    1. T, I’m finding it difficult to follow you on this last post, but I’ll try answering a few things.

      First, it’s very interesting and convenient that you deem it irrelevant whether the NO Church has the four marks, and yet it is THE argument you used to disprove SVism.

      Next you say, “Freemasons who hold positions in the Church….” In reality FM hold zero positions in the true Church, because like heretics, they are ipso facto excommunicated and no longer part of the Body of Christ. The fact they do exist in the NO Church is just more “proof” the NO Church is not The Church.

      To your claim BXVI is not a heretic is just plain ignorance. The most strident American voice for BiP is Ann Barnhardt and even she admits he’s a heretic. How she concludes he’s the true pope is beyond me, but I suspect sedevacantism has something to do with it

      As to the rest of your post, I really don’t understand it, nor do I have the time or energy to try to. I think the real reason most can’t accept SVism is because they can’t accept the reality there are few, if any valid priests, bishops or Sacraments in the VII Church or that it IS the antiChurch. It’s understandably a hard hurdle, but regardless we must follow the truth wherever it leads us, no matter the difficulty.

  5. If Catholicism is true, sedevacantism implies the Church defected. Hence sedevacantism is false. If Catholicism is true, then sedevacantism implies it’s false, given premises A and B.

    The Freemasons who pretend to be part of the Church, if that better?

    I think people embrace sedevacantism because they clearly see that Francis is a heretic and don’t know how else to explain it because of the belief that if you reject Francis you are already a sedevacantist.

  6. To clarify, sedevacantism implies that the Catholic Church defected, and hence is a false Church, and is incompatible with the claim that Catholicism is true. And if Catholicism is false, sedevacantism is definitely false.

    The only way to see this is to delve into pre-Vatican II theology. Same with the claim that so-and-so antipope is a heretic. A heretic is not someone who says and does scandalous things. If Protestant baptisms are valid, then, given that they are Christians, and that they are not in the Body of the Church, where exactly are they? If they are not connected to the Catholic Church somehow, what have they been baptism into? And if they are connected to the Church, why are they heretics? Imperfect communion is the best way to describe it, IMO. Protestants baptism are valid from before Vatican II.

  7. Yes, per Church teaching all Trinitarian Baptisms are valid, but why? I don’t believe the true Church, led by the Holy Ghost, makes all Trinitarian Baptisms valid so that heretics could be united with her in some “imperfect communion”. Imperfect communion sounds like VII double speak to me. Think about who, exactly would definitely benefit from baptism performed outside the Church. Baptized children who die under the age of reason. Japanese Catholics who had no priests for two hundred years and had to baptize their own children/converts. Or any other times persecutions made access to priests nearly impossible, like the French Revolution or even the Cristeros War. God, in His mercy sees to it that His children are not denied The Sacrament which washes away original sin.

    As far as adult protestant baptisms, that’s up to God’s judgement as to their culpability….but I know I wouldn’t want to go to my judgement denying the need to confess my mortal sins, the primacy of the papacy or the sinlessness and perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  8. But the Church teaches that baptism makes you a Christian. How can someone be a Christian and still be a heretic? Either the pre-Vatican II Church erred about what baptism does, or it is not a heresy but an authentic development of doctrine, meaning Protestants are associated with the Church without being formal members of the Body of Christ.

    Or you say that they become Christian and then immediately fall outside the Church due to being heretic?

    I am only saying this because you oughtn’t trust online strangers with dogmatic theology. If there is a traditionalist controversy you are uncertain of you should read a pre-Vatican II manual of moral theology for yourself, available on, rather than trusting people who quote selected passages on the internet. Any viable explanation of apostasy the Church cannot imply it defected. As far as I know, the claim that BiP does not contradict anything, not even the dogmatic fact on who people say is the pope, be cause there are 2 possible popes and a doubtful pope is no pope. Bergoglio’s church can defect all it wants without disproving Catholicism.


    Does a baptized Catholic remain justified after he sins mortally without repenting and confessing? No? Then how can a validly baptized Prot remain justified since he doesn’t hold to the Catholic faith whole and entire? The only way either of these two would stand a chance without reconciliation is through an act of perfect contrition and sincere desire to confess should he be able.

    If this were not true, then what is the point in being Catholic? It’s much, much easier to be Protestant because they don’t even believe in mortal vs venial sin.

  10. The Church teaches that:

    A. The sacrament of baptism incorporates you in the Church.

    B. That even heretics give a true sacrament of baptism.

    These are dogmatic propositions from before VII. Also the Church teaches that doctrine can legitimately develop but never contradict prior doctrine. Heresy puts you out of the BODY of the Church, but VII never stated that they are in the BODY of the Church. Although it is the normal means of salvation, invincible ignorance wouldn’t make sense for non-Catholics, something even many sedes don’t contradict. How can they be saved if these Protestants are completely out of the Church?

    Ignoring what the infiltrators did in the name of Vatican II, where is the heresy? It appears to me to be a legitimate development, even though some trads find it controversial.

    Bergoglio also favors a hermenuetic of rupture so he’ll happily chortle that VII teaches that pachamama is okay, when it did no such thing.

  11. I won’t argue further, but I’ll just say it: be skeptical of Catholic media pundits, no matter how persuasive. Verify is what they say is the whole truth, which is possible with the internet. For example, there is S&S who supposedly have iron-clad proof that Francis is Pope, but neglect legitimate doubt where their dogmatic fact is inapplicable. Then there is Novus Ordo Watch that claims the Church can lose it’s marks without defecting (he calls it a mystery). They all are persuasive but the only way to verify is the Church’s theology manuals.

    1. “They all are persuasive but the only way to verify is the Church’s theology manuals.”

      And that is exactly what Novus Ordo Watch does. Mr. Derksen uses pre and post VII manuals and compares the differences, and links to them. He quotes popes, saints and theologians and links to them. He doesn’t expect one to just believe him or his arguments, but to look for oneself and draw the conclusion.

      Also unlike other Catholic media pundits, NOW doesn’t pump out the podcasts on a weekly or even monthly basis, why? Because he is thorough and wants to avoid any error in such important matters.

      The example I gave in regards to how one is joined to the true Church regarding non-Catholic baptism is sound and doesn’t deny the Church’s perennial teachings of EENS. Your reply that all non-Catholic baptisms somehow graft them into the Church in an imperfect way is just more VII double speak and does not square with EENS. And that is exactly what those determined to destroy the Church intended to do. Destroy the Church’s doctrines is the only way the gates of hell could prevail. So thank God for the few remnant bishops and priests still preserving the faith and doctrines passed down from the Apostles.

      1. Debbie, EENS in its strict Feeneyite meaning, is a condemned heresy. Pope Pius XII in Mystici corporis Christi, 29 June 1943.

Leave a Reply

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