“CJ”2023/10/14 at 3:38 pm: Is there any evidence that Benedict was a proponent of a bifurcated papacy prior to his resignation? (proximity to the Miller Dissertation and its proponents notwithstanding) Just wondering if this was forced upon him by the wolves, or if it was his intent from the outset… which would raise the issue of accepting the papacy in substantial error.
Mark D. in reply to CJ: “The Petrine ministry…while preserving its substance as a divine institution, can find expressions in various ways according to the different circumstances of time and place.” -Cardinal Ratzinger (as Prefect of the CDF), Communionis Notio, 28 May 1992, P.18
From the Latin: “quodque, salva substantia divina institutione definita, diversimode pro varietate locorum et temporum se manifestare potest”
(Link has since been scrubbed by some antichurch quisling)
Also keep in mind, in the book-length version of the Miller dissertation, Chapter 16 is titled, “Facing the Future: 21 Theses on the Papal Ministry.” Twenty-one theses! There was wild and open discussion over different forms the papacy might take.
Miller: “Ratzinger admits that “without a doubt there have been misguided developments in both theology and practice where the primacy is concerned.” A particular way of exercising the primacy might well have been the pope’s duty for the Church’s welfare at one time, without its being so in the future. In the words of Hermann Pottmeyer, “the present juridical and organizational form of the office of Peter is neither the best imaginable nor the only possible realization.””
Lastly, never forget this exchange in Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1997 book-length interview with Peter Seewald, Salt of the Earth, page 257 in the English print:
Seewald: “Do you think that the papacy will remain as it is?”
++Ratzinger: “In its core it will remain. In other words, a man is needed to be the successor of Peter and to bear a personal final authority that is supported collegially. Part of Christianity is a personalistic principle; it doesn’t get vaporized into anonymities but presents itself in the person of the priest, of the bishop, and the unity of the universal Church once again has a personal expression. This will remain, the magisterial responsibility for the unity of the Church, her faith, and her morals that was defined by Vatican I and II. Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change, when hitherto separated communities enter into unity with the Pope. By the way, the present Pope’s (JPII) exercise of the pontificate—with the trips around the world—is completely different from that of Pius XII. What concrete variations emerge I neither can nor want to imagine. We can’t foresee now exactly how that will look.”
“What concrete variations emerge I neither can nor want to imagine.”
“Forms of exercise can change, they will certainly change”
But remember, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Pope Benedict/Ratzinger ever had even once thought about changing the structure of the Petrine Ministry. Shut up, stoopid.
To answer the last part of CJ’s question: Does any of this suggest that Ratzinger’s acceptance of the papacy was invalid, due to these erroneous ideas? I don’t think so, because he never denied anything about the intrinsic nature of the papal office. He wasn’t assenting (in his acceptance) to an erroneous idea of what the papacy is, at its core. His errors were related to FUNCTION: Roles, structures, forms of exercise. The “how it works” not the “what it is.” He makes this distinction over and over.
I hope this helps.