Yet again…Benedict is still, really not pope

May 7, 2020 (Steven O’Reilly) – The theory that Benedict XVI is still the pope continues to percolate.  For example, there was Sergio Russo’s article on Marco Tosatti’s site (see “Two Impelling Questions which necessitate an urgent answer“).  Then there was Edward Pentin’s own article on the debate over Benedict XVI’s resignation on his own website (see “Debate Intensifies Over Benedict XVI’s Resignation and Role as Pope Emeritus“, Edward Pentin, March 6, 2020). Now a new biography of Pope Benedict XVI by Peter Seewald entitled Benedict XVI: A Life is likely to be seen, or at least some quotes from it, as providing additional impetus to the Benedict is Pope movement.

While I do not believe the Benedict is Pope theory (“BiP”) is at all credible, I do believe it is understandable. The pontificate of Pope Francis has been thoroughly confusing and unsettling — from its murky beginnings involving the St. Galen mafia, to questions surrounding the 2013 conclave (e.g., here, here), and to questionable teachings and utterances, e.g., Amoris Laetitia (e.g., here), the Abu Dhabi statement, Pachamama, the Scalfari interviews, etc. Indeed, there are so many problems, it is hard to keep track of them all.

Consequently, it is understandable in the face of all these things that Catholics would wonder about Francis, i.e., how could a true pope say and do such things? Thus, it is almost inevitable that theories — like BiP — arise to explain this unprecedented pontificate. While evidence for BiP is severely lacking in my opinion [NB: Roma Locuta Est provides a series of articles refuting BiP, entitled Summa Contra the BiP Theory], I do believe there are many questions about this pontificate that require the urgent attention of a so-called “imperfect council” (see here, here).

The newly published Benedict biography is written in German, and apparently the English language version will not be available until later in the year. The biography is bound to lead to more questions regarding Benedict resignation and the debate over BiP. Maike Hickson’s LifeSite article on the biography (see Pope Benedict: I resigned, but I kept ‘spiritual dimension’ of papacy) provides some interesting snippets from this biography.    Ms. Hickson writes:

He speaks in this book about the “spiritual dimension…which is alone still my mandate.” He shows an understanding of his resignation from the papacy, according to which he gave up any “concrete legal powers” and any role of governance, but at the same time maintained a “spiritual mandate.”

Such quotes from Benedict’s biography are bound to fuel the hopes of those who still believe Benedict is pope (“BiP”). Granted we do not have the book in English as of yet, but as I read Ms. Hickson — who does speak German, I do not see any need to question my long held position that the BiP theory is an exceedingly weak one (at best).

While there are some quotes taken alone which will, no doubt, bolster some BiPPer hopes, I think the overall context further demonstrates Benedict intended to fully resign the papacy — something denied by BiPPers. For example, speaking of the controversy over his use of the title Pope Emeritus, Benedict compares Pope Emeritus by analogy to the title of Bishop Emeritus used by a retired bishop.  Ms. Hickson writes:

For, such a retired bishop, he adds, “does not anymore actively have an episcopal seat, but, still finds himself in a special relationship of a former bishop to his seat.” This retired bishop, however, thereby “does not become a second bishop of his diocese,” explains Benedict. Such a bishop had “fully given up his office, yet the spiritual connection with his former seat was now being acknowledged, also as a legal quality.”

Now, my intent in citing the above is not to go into the question of whether Benedict’s analogy is good one or not. That is debatable. However, I cite the section above to underline the fact that Benedict is speaking in this analogy of himself as being — like the bishop emeritus of his example — as someone who has “fully given up his office.”  That is, Benedict is stating by implication in this analogy that he fully resigned his office. This refutes those BiPPers who deny Benedict XVI did fully resign his office.

While all this appears clear enough, Benedict does seem to suggest that as a former pope he still has some sort of “spiritual mandate;” or like a retired bishop, he has a “spiritual connection to his former seat…being acknowledged, also as legal quality.” Such quotes might seem at first glance to support the BiP notion Benedict intended to bifurcate the papacy, as if there could be two popes, or that he intended to bifurcate the papacy into “active” and “contemplative” parts. However, the BiP argument is undermined when Benedict in the same analogy says the resigning bishop “does not become a second bishop of his diocese.”  

Furthermore, Ms. Hickson describes from the book what Benedict appears to mean by the ‘spiritual mandate‘ or spiritual connection to his ‘former seat’:

Further discussing this matter of a “retired Pope” with Peter Seewald, Benedict makes a comparison with the “change of the generations,” where the father of a family gives up “his legal status,” while maintaining his “human-spiritual importance,” which remains “until death.” That is to say, the “functional” aspect of fatherhood can change, not his “ontological” part.

Here, the former Pope refers to Bavarian farming families, where the father of a family at some point in his life hands over the major farmhouse to his son while staying in a smaller cottage on the same land. The son then becomes responsible for providing the father with his material needs such as food. “Thus,” Benedict argues, “his material independence is given, just as the transition of the concrete rights to the son. That means: the spiritual side of the fatherhood remains, while the situation changes with regard to the concrete rights and duties.”

Again Benedict uses an analogy.  Here he compares himself as a former pope to a father who has given up his worldly responsibilities as he grows old. Though Benedict resigned his office as universal pastor of the Church, the bonds of charity he felt and had for the flock (his ‘sons and daughters’ and ‘brothers and sisters’) remain, just like the “spiritual side of the fatherhood” remains for the father in the analogy.  This similar sentiment is apparent in Benedict’s last audience as pope.  BiPPers often cite this last audience as evidence that Benedict did not mean to fully resign, but as I explain in Benedict is NOT pope, they miss the point of what Benedict is saying about his resignation:

Benedict’s logic, in brief summary, runs as follows: (1) one who is elected pope belongs to the Church and the Church to him, the private dimension of his life in a “manner of speaking” is lost; (2) yet, one receives ones life when one gives it away, i.e., the Pope truly gains brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world; (3) a Pope feels secure in their embrace because he “no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him;” (4) resigning the papacy does not revoke this loving attachment (i.e., that which has been gained by the loss of the private dimension of one’s life), as he will always retain that love for all (i.e., for we the Church), and thus (5) he will pray in service for the Church…

This, it seems to me, is all that Benedict intends as the “spiritual connection” or his ‘spiritual mandate.’ That is, though he left behind the office, he will continue to love and pray for all in the Church whom he came to know and or lead as pope. Though he leaves behind his office, he retains the love and desire to care — through spiritual prayer — for those he no longer serves as pope.

In sum, I don’t see anything in the reviews of the new Benedict biography which lead me to change or amend my views regarding BiP.  From the quotes examined above it is clear that Pope Benedict XVI fully intended to resign his office, and that he did not intend to become anything like a “second bishop” of Rome or a ‘second pope’ of the Catholic Church. For those interested in the BiP arguments and refutations of those arguments, I suggest the articles compiled in the Summa Contra the BiP Theory where I go into these questions in greater detail.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of the recently published Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA)


5 thoughts on “Yet again…Benedict is still, really not pope

  1. Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger remains a liberal even though he promised the world he’d clam-up after abdicating.

    Of course, he says he has a mandate but he will not tell his readers where the mandate came from but it certainly did not come from his office as Pope.

    He abdicated but still wears white, calls himself Pope, and dispenses Apostolic Blessings. Now, imagine if Richard Nixon called his own self POTUS Emeritus Nixon after he abdicated and delivered his opinions standing behind a podium with the presidential seal on it and issued pardons, as the band played Hail to the chief, – all the while claiming he is no longer POTUS.

    The arrogance is astonishing. It really is. Look at me, look at me….

    He has told the world that Matthew’s Gospel is wrong vis a vis “Let His blood be upon us” because Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger says that was not really said by the Jews.

    Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger also publicly says that The Crucifixion was not a sacrifice because the Romans crucified Jesus.

    His modernism includes denial of the eucharist and he is ga-ga over The Cosmic Christ of that fraud what’s-his-face, Chardin

    I’m glad he is gone because his cultural conservatism masked his destructive modernism.

    Like

  2. The Catholic canadian priest and seer Fr Michel Rodrigue says that Pope Francis will die in a troubled period, Bénédict still being alive. Wait and see what will happen then.

    Like

    1. Jacques, thanks for the comment. I don’t know much about Fr. Michel.

      But…we’ve been in a “troubled period” for many decades now. So, I don’t know if it would be noteworthy in a prophetic sense to suggest this pope would die in a troubled period — even if he himself is the cause of much of the trouble.

      Does Fr. Michel have have more specific prophecies against which one might one day check his ‘accuracy’?

      Regards,

      Steve

      Like

      1. I have read some articles speculating whether Francis would possibly cancel Summorum Pontificum but not before Benedict’s death. Indeed when Benedict XVI renunciated the Seat of Peter, many people commented that he was exhausted and his health was frail.
        Benedict is still alive and Francis looks now more frail than him.
        So Fr Rodrigues prophecy of Francis dying before Benedict would possibly turn up being true.
        In addition he said that Benedict (though no longer Pope) would call a council (imperfect council?)
        Wait and see…
        https://www.countdowntothekingdom.com/fr-michel-rodrigue-apostle-of-the-end-times/

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s