Re-post and commentary from the Tosatti review of Socci’s book

It may be a few days before I get through the Socci book myself, and I have a few other posts that are going to be published first. So below is the Tosatti intervention and book review from the original Italian release of the book, back in November. Enjoy!

———————————-

Tosatti via Socci: “He has intended to remain still pope”

2018.06.28 Concistoro CPF
The ontological reality is that there can only be one

Marco Tosatti yesterday reviewed, and I excerpt here, (original Italian HERE) the new book from Antonio Socci, The Secret of Benedict XVI, Why he is still pope:  Forgive google translate, and feel free to post corrections in the combox. Emphasis mine.

“So, for Benedict XVI we must ask ourselves: did he really renounce the Petrine ministry altogether? Is he no longer Pope? ” Socci answers: “From the subjective point of view we can therefore say that his intention – which is decisive to define the act he did – was not to be no longer Pope … It is clear that – despite having made a renunciation on the papacy (but what kind?) he has intended to remain still pope, albeit in an enigmatic way and in an unprecedented form, which has not been explained (at least until a certain date) “.
And in fact we must remember that Benedict said, speaking of the Roman pontiff: “The “always” is also “forever”- there is no longer a return to private life. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this “.

“In light of his last speech, one understands why Joseph Ratzinger remained “in the enclosure of Peter “, Benedict XVI is still signed, he defines himself as” pope emeritus “, has papal heraldic insignia and continues to dress as pope”.
So, unlike what happened previously in the history of the Church, today there are de facto two popes; that mutual legitimacy is recognized in a more or less ambiguous way. An exceptional and unprecedented situation. WRONG. No, we don’t have de facto two popes, because that is an ontological impossibility. This is exactly the colossal error of Benedict. Socci and Tosatti both recognize that Benedict only attempted a partial abdication, but then erroneously conclude that he actually pulled it off, and the “expanded petrine ministry” is a real thing.

The conclusion of the canonist is clear: “The object of irrevocable renunciation is the execution muneris through action and speech ( acting et loquendo ) not the munus entrusted to him once and for all”.
And “the limited renunciation of the active exercise of the munus constitutes the absolute novelty of the renunciation of Benedict XVI”.
Items confirmed by the Prefect of the Pontifical House, Msgr. Georg Gänswein according to which the “renunciation” of Benedict XVI – who “decided not to renounce the name he had chosen” – is different from that of Pope Celestine V who – after his abandonment of the papacy – “had once again become Pietro dal Morrone “.
And he continued with one of the most surprising and sensational statements: “Therefore, from 11 February 2013 the papal ministry is no longer the same as before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and durably transformed into his exceptional pontificate ( Ausnahmepontifikat ) “.
It is the node of the dual ministry, that is, the point where the “collegial dimension” of the Petrine ministry is proposed, “almost a common ministry”.

A concept that is needed sooner or later to be unraveled. But whoever opposes and wants to challenge this conception of facts – would find himself dealing with the question of the validity of a dubious or partial waiver

“Whoever opposes and wants to challenge this conception of facts – would find himself dealing with the question of the validity of a dubious or partial waiver.”

benedict shirt final 2

Some questions regarding the “alternate title” of English version of Socci book

UPDATE! 1 June 2016 8:16pm Arizona time: It has been confirmed that Antonio Socci himself was against the change in the book title, along with the translator. This answers questions one and two in the post that follows. Question three remains unanswered.
————–
You can’t make this stuff up.
About an hour ago, I received my paperback copy of the English version of the Socci book, “The Secret of Benedict, Why He is Still Pope.” What I noticed right away, which had escaped my attention in the past few days of nonsense, was that they
LITERALLY CHANGED THE TITLE OF THE BOOK.
The English version title reads, “The Secret of Benedict, Is He Still Pope?” Ann B. has since put up a post about it HERE, with pictures of both versions.
I mean, when you don’t like the evidence presented therein, I guess it’s totes legit to deliberately mistranslate a demonstrative statement into an open question in the title of the book. After all, words mean whatever we say they mean. You have no right to claim you know what those words meant. That’s not your realm. It was a question, see? Shut up.
I have some questions of my own:

  • Did Socci know about this? Did he approve it?
  • Was this change the work of “Giuseppe Pellegrino,” who translated the book, or did his bosses at Angelico Press do it without his knowledge?
  • Was anyone at Angelico Press influenced by Dr. de Mattei’s detailed “refutation” (sic) of Socci’s book back in January (for which, wait for it, “Giuseppe” himself was the English translator)? SEE HERE
  • Are there any other shenanigans in the other 170 pages, or is it just the front cover?
  • Did Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, who himself is employed as an editor by Angelico Press, exert any influence in this matter? SEE HERE
  • Did Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, who himself has had several books published by Angelico Press, have an obligation to disclose those entanglements when he left a Five Star review for Socci’s Giuseppe’s work on Amazon?

Before you come in the combox and start bashing me for instigating a Trad circular firing squad, ask yourself if these would be fair questions if it were Fr. James Martin on the hot seat.

Words Matter: Calling a thing X when it is really Y and then equating X with Y is either confused or dishonest

From Dr. K’s fourth and final (maybe) review of the Socci book (emphasis mine):

ADDENDUM 5/30/19: Some are claiming that in my revisions to this review, I am “backtracking” and “sanitizing” my original position. This is not so.

REALLY?
Well, I have all the screencaps. The point of this post is not to discredit the overall reputation of the good doctor. If you read to the end, I think you will agree that I give him a pretty wide berth. But bad behavior needs to be called out, even when it’s someone on “your side” who is engaged in it.
Original review, emphasis mine:

I read this book expecting to be a little skeptical of an author who would argue that Benedict XVI did not validly resign the papacy. After all, it sure looked as if he intended to do that in his famous speech of abdication, and the world seems to have accepted it as such. Socci, however, persuaded me otherwise with his careful analysis of Benedict’s XVI’s various utterances on the subject (and there are a surprising number of them!), Archbishop Gaenswein’s speeches, and, above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers — none of them traditionalists, by the way — who have proved in detail that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity.

Revised review, emphasis mine:

I read this book expecting to be skeptical of an author who would argue that Benedict XVI did not validly or fully resign the papacy. After all, it sure looked as if he intended to do that in his famous speech of abdication, and the world seems to have accepted it as such. Socci, however, gave me much to think about with his careful analysis of Benedict’s XVI’s utterances on the subject (and there are a surprising number of them!), Archbishop Gaenswein’s speeches, and, above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers — none of them traditionalists, by the way — who argue that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity.

No backtracking in sight, am I right? Later in the revised review, he made everything perfectly muddy clear:

I still consider and acknowledge Pope Francis to be the Roman Pontiff

Note well that the wrongdoing is not primarily in changing the review, provided that he really messed up and didn’t mean what he wrote the first time. I’m not sure how that can be, given the clear words he used, but it’s possible. I suspect he was probably struck at some point with the logical inconsistency of signing the Open Letter addressed to a man who isn’t pope. But I digress. The real wrongdoing in the revisions is claiming that it was merely a clarification, and that both reviews are of the same essence.
Either words have meaning, or you’re a Modernist; you can’t have it both ways. There is no harm in saying, “I used to think X, but now I think Y, I changed my mind.”  But there is enormous harm in saying, ‘I used to think X, now I think Y, but it’s the same thing; X=Y.” Honest people don’t do that. Also note, the fact that my own position on the matter is aligned with his original review and I’m mad that he changed it has zero bearing on the rational argument I just laid out.
Let me tell you what I think is really going on here. I didn’t figure this out my own, rather it was suggested to me by two contributors in the combox, and then developed into a bit of a theory. It may come off as sounding condescending, but my intent is to give the good doctor the benefit of the doubt, because everything I read and am told about him is that he’s an honorable man, to a fault. So what immediately follows here is the most charitable explanation for what has transpired in the past two days.
The theory goes like this: The situation in the Church today, where we have two living bishops in white, is itself such a dramatic tear in the fabric of reality that it’s very hard for any serious Catholic to accept as “the new normal.” When presented with fresh information that further disrupts the already chaotic backdrop, the unguarded mind tends naturally toward something between confusion and panic. There are powerful psychological forces at play in situations like this, which I will explain in a moment.
We have to remember that the vast majority of people do not have the kind of situational awareness and tactical information processing skills that many readers of this blog might take for granted. This bearing, let’s call it “Frosty,” comes about through a combination of nature and nurture. However, this trait is lacking in probably 90% of the population, and it has little or no correlation to IQ. For those who lack Frosty, the discovery of a truth that is shocking puts their brain into a short circuit. Instead of switching over to frosty mode and ice cold if-then protocol, they just can’t handle it. It’s a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance (which you can read about HERE) that gets processed into confirmation bias (which you can read about HERE) and eventually ends up as Belief Perseverance, where the person maintains or reverts to a position that has been firmly shown to be false (HERE).
The most spectacular examples can be found in cases of pilot error, battlespace miscalculations, and most recently, 2016 election night video montages (you could say that the entire Resist/NotMyPresident movement is an example of it in the broader culture). But it also sounds to me like a perfect description of what’s going on here with the good doctor, if we are going with the charitable explanation. If it’s true, he bears little or no culpability for his actions, because his actions were the result of subconscious psychology.
Or else he just got scared or threatened, and changed his review out of self-preservation.
Look, it’s easy for me to sit here and criticize someone who has way more skin in the game than I do. I’m certainly thankful that I don’t have any kind of dependence on the institutional Church that would be threatened by what I write here (which I’m now attaching my real name to, if you check the byline). I do have sympathy for those who are caught up in all this with job, friends, family on the line. However, it always comes back to the fact that the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Souls are being lost. Act, and God will act.
I’m afraid I must end this post by calling out the final paragraph added to his final revision, because it contains a really dangerous message:

I think too many people in this debate are expecting (and in some cases, believe they have attained) clear answers where there are none and may never be until we quit this life or until the inexorable progress of events shows, beyond gainsaying, where the truth lies.

“Expecting clear answers where there are none and may never be…” ???
Well yeah, we do expect clear answers, because God is not a jerk. He doesn’t leave us in the dark wondering where to find the Church. This line of thinking veers dangerously close to denying the Visibility of the Church, one of the principle errors of the Protestant Revolt. You can read about it HERE. I’m sure that’s not what the doctor meant to say, yet that is the plain meaning of the words he wrote. Words matter!
The Lord our God is about order, clarity, and truth. Seek these, and you seek Him.
When you find chaos, ambiguity, and deceit, flee. Especially when these are the primary character traits of an antipope.
 

Convergence: Feast of the Ascension, St. Joan of Arc, birthday cake

We take a short break from the madness, as it’s a special day! It’s a day where an unapologetic mixed-rite Catholic such as myself gets to both enjoy two feasts for the price of one (and yes, going to two Masses in one day is an honor, not a burden), as well as… birthday cake!
Two quick reminders. First, the Ascension is also the Second Glorious Mystery, the Fruit of which is the Theological Virtue of HOPE. Take good care not to sin against hope in these trying times, my brethren.
Second, never forget what our Lord and Savior did right before He Ascended… literally the very last thing he did while He stood on this earth. Do you remember? Mark 16:14
HE UPBRAIDED THEM.

“At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart”

These men all died saints, and our Lord thought it best to take their leave by tearing them a new one as a parting gift. How would you say your own lukewarmness compares to that of the Apostles? What message do you think the Lord might have for you today?
Before you go complete that reflection, we need to re-post some highlights from you know who:

The Maid of Orleans, my birthday saint

St. Joan of Arc, convicted of heresy by Bishop Pierre Cauchon, a legitimate prelate of the Roman Catholic Church, along with a corrupt bench of judges. Burned at the stake at Rouen, 30 May, 1431.

“About Jesus Christ and the Church, I just know they are one in the same thing.”
“One life is all we have and we live it as we believe. But to surrender who you are and to live without belief is more terrible than dying – even more terrible than dying young.”
In response to the trick question as to whether she was in the state of grace: “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.”
“It is better to be alone with God. His friendship will not fail me, nor His counsel, nor His love. In His strength, I will dare and dare and dare until I die.”
“You say that you are my judge; I do not know if you are; but take good heed not to judge me ill, because you would put yourself in great peril.”
“Children say that people are hung sometimes for speaking the truth.”
“Go forward bravely. Fear nothing. Trust in God; all will be well.”
“All battles are first won or lost in the mind.”
“ACT, AND GOD WILL ACT.”
“I am not afraid, I was born to do this.”
Upon being chained to the stake: “Hold the Cross high, that I may see it through the flames.”

Her sentence was reversed and annulled by the Church in 1455. Beatified 11 April 1909. Canonized 16 May 1920.
St. Joan of Arc, ora pro nobis

 

“Intellectual dishonesty” and “moral weakness” in the age of antipope Bergoglio

The two detestable behaviors noted in the headline were directly called out by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski in his review of Antonio Socci’s book, wherein the doctor declared that the evidence in the book PROVED that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. He lamented said behaviors in those who would lazily dismiss the evidence or shout down/calumniate those who have helped bring it to light.
After a few hours of his review going viral, the good doctor altered his review, and completely flip flopped on his assessment of the evidence. Suddenly, he is unconvinced, and he pledges his loyalty to “Pope Francis,” who is totally the Pope, obvi.
You can read the latest version of his review at Amazon, of course. But to answer those of you accusing me of slandering the doctor by willfully changing what he really wrote, I offer the original screen grab below, with the money phrase highlighted.
Screenshot 2019-05-29 at 19.36.03

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski converts to BiP via Socci, and lays down the gauntlet for critics

Dr. Peter A. Kwasniewski

May 28, 2019

“I read this book expecting to be a little skeptical of an author who would argue that Benedict XVI did not validly resign the papacy. After all, it sure looked as if he intended to do that in his famous speech of abdication, and the world seems to have accepted it as such.
Socci, however, persuaded me otherwise with his careful analysis of Benedict’s XVI’s various utterances on the subject (and there are a surprising number of them!), Archbishop Gaenswein’s speeches, and, above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers — none of them traditionalists, by the way — who have proved in detail that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity. The argument is not based on the St. Gallen Mafia, but on the inherent actions and statements of Benedict XVI and others, all publicly available. In other words, this is no “conspiracy theory” but a soberly argued case. Even those who think they have a watertight case in favor of validity should, out of intellectual honesty, grapple with what Socci presents here. If they can defeat his arguments, all the better for the defense of truth. If they cannot or will not, however, this would seem to indicate a moral or mental weakness.
That is not the only aspect of this book I would praise. I also find much food for thought and prayer in Socci’s speculations about the prophetic message of Fatima and his spiritual-theological interpretation of the unprecedented situation in the Catholic Church. While I find his interpretation of Benedict XVI’s motivations overly positive, I think the way he tries to place current events in a prophetic and specifically Marian context is extremely helpful.
In short: highly recommended.”
————————
Credit to Frank Walker, canon212.com
Note well, it’s not a conspiracy theory, nor is it Gnosticism, if ALL THE EVIDENCE IS OUT IN THE OPEN.
But shut up, they explained, all the Cardinals accepted an election that never took place, therefore the election was valid even though there was no election. Gotcha.

“The entire situation is contrary to our faith”

So true, Laurence, so true.
Link at the bottom of this post; here is a small taste:

Let us not mince our words. God’s ways are indeed inscrutable, but, (forgive me, Lord, if I speak in presumption) He seems, from what I can see, to be using the evil man we know as Pope Francis to gather all those who will be condemned, together, along with him, into one Hellish tent. We must ask: Would Almighty God use a genuine Successor of Saint Peter to do that, when He has promised the precise opposite, or would that not indeed renege entirely our faithful Lord Jesus Christ’s own promises to Peter, to his Successors and to His Holy Catholic Church? Would that not make Almighty God a liar?

Please do go over to the The Crushed Bones and read the whole thing. It is very well done. Very clear and unambiguous. There is a flow to it that is distinctive of a rational thought process, which lends a certain beauty to the piece.

  1. We know that A is true
  2. We also know that B is true
  3. We also know the law of non-contradiction is true
  4. Therefore, C must also be true

The truth is so beautiful! He is almost unconcerned with the proof set. He knows his conclusion is correct because he has removed the logical fallacy that has befallen the vast majority: He has removed the false base premise. Once you fix that, the rest of it falls into place seamlessly, not a chemtrail in sight. That is, unless your intellectual dishonesty or fear of declining revenue gets the better of you.
READ IT ALL HERE
Hang in there, Bones. Haters gonna hate.

So you’re totes positive he’s really the pope and NOT an apostate heretic antipope and/or possible forerunner of the Antichrist. Mmmkay.

“When a supranational common good is clearly identified, there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation.”
“Think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new slavery and peace,” he told members of the Pontifical Academy, who are meeting this week at the Vatican.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-new-supranational-authorities-to-enforce-UN-goals
I’m sure the “special legal authorities” will look kindly upon you and your Christian family when they visit you on the occasion of “facilitating its implementation” of the worst Marxism you can imagine.
Maybe it starts with jail time for not recycling or for running your a/c too much. Watch some Antifa videos to find out where it goes from there.
Let me know how that works out.

The author and finisher of faith: Alleluia!

“And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God. For think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds.” Hebrews 12:1-3

Truly He is risen. Alleluia!
Happy Easter everyone.