October 25, 2023 (Steven O’Reilly) – Ann Barnhardt recently released a new video in her series promoting Benepapism. Folks interested in the controversy, and her take on it, should check out her video (see Bergoglio Antipapacy Part 3: Enough!). I’ll make some high-level comments about the video below; providing rebuttals of the key points of her presentation, and providing resources for a more thorough discussion of Benepapist claims, and the counterarguments to them.
One thing I do observe is that Ms. Barnhardt’s video is, essentially, a repetition of her arguments, and assertions made in prior videos. Certainly, that may be intended for the purpose she outlines for her presentation, i.e., to recapitulate the theory, etc. However, this is still unfortunate. This is a lost opportunity for her followers. This controversy has gone on now for seven something years, yet Ms. Barnhardt still makes no real effort to actually address the substantial counterarguments which challenge, indeed explode, her thesis. Instead of taking on opposing arguments in her video, what you will find are (calumnious) ad hominem attacks against yours truly (e.g., see 17:45 in the video).[1] Well, if one is receiving incoming in the form of ad hominems…one knows one is over the target!!
Therefore, here, I challenge any fair-minded follower of Ms. Barnhardt to put their faith in her arguments to the test. In my articles (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), my book (Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI), and in my VIDEO series (see HERE); one will find many of the counterarguments Ms. Barnhardt and other Benepapists typically avoid.
In these aforementioned articles, book, and video series; I address the Benepapist arguments in Objection/Reply format. I fairly state the objection, citing the original sources — and then reply to them.
Ann Barnhardt and the Principle of Consilience
At the point in the video where Ms. Barnhardt gets to Ganswein’s 2016 speech (c. 37:28); she raises the idea of “consilience.” In Wikipedia this is defined as “in science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can “converge” on strong conclusions.”
So, using this idea of “consilience”, she claims something along the lines of that ‘Every data stream; Every data set; every evidence point…all leads back to exactly the same conclusion.’ Ms. Barnhardt claims all the evidence she, Mark Docherty, Dr. Edmund Mazza, and others have collected all points back to the same conclusion, in other words, that Benedict XVI committed “substantial error” through his ‘failed attempted partial resignation’, and thus his resignation was invalid.
But if one actually troubles to look at the evidence critically, Ms. Barnhardt’s claim is nonsense, to put it charitably. The reality is, as I will show, the arch-Benepapists have either misread or misinterpreted the main sources[2]; and in other cases, completely ignored documents and words of Benedict which do not fit their theory.
Consilience and “I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff”
First, let us take a few examples of ignored evidence. On February 28, 2013, the very day Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation went into effect, and less than three hours before it did; Benedict XVI said that as of 8pm that evening (emphasis added):
“I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, or I will be until 8:00 this evening and then no longer. I am simply a pilgrim beginning the last leg of his pilgrimage on this earth.”
(Source: GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANO, February 28, 2013)
So to the follower of Ann Barnhardt, I ask. Where is Ms. Barnhardt’s explanation of one of the last things Benedict said before 8pm on 28 February 2013 — the time and date referenced in his Declaratio? Look as you may, you will not find it in her videos, unless somehow I missed it. But I believe not. How does she explain this statement by Benedict XVI in a way consistent with her theory of a partial resignation? “Supreme Pontiff” is the position the man elected in a papal conclave accepts; an acceptance which makes him at once Bishop of Rome and “true pope” (see UDG 88).
Thus, you have an admission by Benedict XVI that he would no longer be “Bishop of Rome” and no longer be “true pope” — all that a “Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church” is. I address this statement in an article (see Regarding Benedict’s comments to the Pilgrims from Albano), in a whole Chapter in my book Valid?, and in Episode 8 of my two part series on the Last Audience and the “Always is also a forever” (See Episode 9 for Part II).
Look for Ms. Barnhardt’s explanation. Send her an email and ask her to explain. To my knowledge and recollection, Dr. Mazza has not publicly explained this either. However, one leading Benepapist I know who has is Mark Docherty, and he is a close associate of Ms. Barnhardt in all things Benedict related. How does Mr. Docherty explain this? Well, in one of his articles he says that Benedict “directly contradicted” himself![3]
This is incredible! If we are to believe Mr. Docherty, on February 27, 2013 at the last audience, Pope Benedict XVI laid out how he was partially resigning; but the very next day, he directly contradicted himself by saying he would “no longer be Supreme Pontiff”! How is that really possible?
Let’s apply some common sense here! The simpler, more reasonable, and natural explanation, of course, is that Benedict’s statements of the last audience and to the Pilgrims of Albano, one day apart, are perfectly consistent with each other because he is fully resigning the papacy; and that therefore it must be the Benepapist interpretation of the Last Audience which contradicts Benedict’s true meaning. I will return to the Last Audience in a bit, but first, let us touch upon another document ignored by Ann Barnhardt that does not fit her theory.
As a brief side comment, other Benepapists, such as Andrea Cionci has his own explanation of Benedict’s words to the pilgrims of Albano which are key to his Ratzinger Code. I have addressed Mr. Cionci’s arguments on this score, and he essentially, grudgingly conceded my core contention (see particularly Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”; A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”; and also Summa Contra Andrea Cionci, Plan B, and the Ratzinger Code). Aside from discussing this in my book Valid?; I’ve done a three-part video series on the Ratzinger Code (see Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3).
Consilience and Normas Nonnullas
Another one of Benedict XVI’s last documents as pope was Normas Nonnullas — and like the above reference, you will not find it addressed in Ms. Barnhardt’s videos. Normas Nonnullas made a number of changes to the then existing papal conclave rules. Normas Nonnullas was promulgated on February 22, 2013 — only 5 days before the last general audience was held on February 27, the day before the effective date of the resignation (February 28).
From this timeline, one can see Normas Nonnullas falls between the Declaratio and the last general audience; while the Last Audience falls between Normas Nonnullas and Benedict’s words to the pilgrims of Albano we saw above on February 28, 2013. So, we see, Normas Nonnullas is contemporaneous to these other key documents — and so, in relation to the Benepapist debate, it is important to understanding Benedict’s mind and intentions at that time. I discuss the relevance of this document in greater detail in my article Regarding Benedict’s Normas Nonnullas. I also devote a whole chapter to it in my book Valid?; and I discuss in Episode 8 of my two part series on the Last Audience and the “Always is also a forever” (See Episode 9 for Part II).
To be brief here, the relevance of Normas Nonnullas is that whatever changes are found in it, or whatever was left out of it and thus unchanged, were officially promulgated after Benedict announced his Declaratio (February 11, 2013), and thus go directly to the question of Pope Benedict’s intent, and his understanding of the papal office. Both the sections that Benedict changed in UDG, as well as those sections he could have changed – but left untouched – reveal his mind as Supreme Legislator in the Church.
The timeline established, let’s proceed to the two examples spoken of above. Among the conclave modifications made by Pope Benedict XVI in Normas Nonnullas was a change to UDG 87. Of particular note, having changed UDG 87, Benedict made no change at all to UDG 88. These two paragraphs — the updated UDG 87 and untouched UDG 88 — read together as follows (emphasis added):
87. “When the election has canonically taken place, the junior Cardinal Deacon summons into the hall of election the Secretary of the College of Cardinals, the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations and two Masters of Ceremonies. Then the Cardinal Dean, or the Cardinal who is first in order and seniority, in the name of the whole College of electors, asks the consent of the one elected in the following words: Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff? And, as soon as he has received the consent, he asks him: By what name do you wish to be called? Then the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations, acting as notary and having as witnesses the two Masters of Ceremonies, draws up a document certifying acceptance by the new Pope and the name taken by him.” [NB: as amended by Benedict XVI in Normas Nonnullas, February 22, 2013]
88 . After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops. He thus acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church. [NB: Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG)]
Reading these two sections together — the changed and the untouched together — we readily see what Benedict intended, and how he understood himself in relation to his successor. Benedict’s motu proprio in conjunction with UDG make clear the one accepting his election as “Supreme Pontiff,” if already a bishop, “is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops” and thus “acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church.”
Thus, it cannot be any more obvious. Benedict understood his successor would be the “true pope” (singular in the Latin), and would be both the Bishop of Rome and the Supreme Pontiff; having full and supreme power over the universal Church. Thus, if we look at his words to the pilgrims of Albano (“I am no longer Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church…”); then it is explicitly obvious he understood he would no longer be “Supreme Pontiff”, obviously, nor “Bishop of the Church of Rome” nor “True Pope”, etc. There is no place for Benedict to fit himself in as a “partially resigned pope.”
So, as with the case of the greeting to the pilgrims of Albano on February 28, we see in the case of Normas Nonnullas that the Benepapists simply ignore actions or words of Pope Benedict XVI which contradict their claims.
Now, the above are examples of things the Benepapists exclude all together in terms of documents. But there are examples of them misreading — or reading only partially — key documents. It would make this document too lengthy to refute all they claim about these documents, so I will give a few more examples.
Consilience and The Last Audience
Around the 13:08 mark in her video, Ms. Barnhardt begins her overview of the Last Audience, and the famous “always is also a forever” line, and so forth. She claims this line has to do with the “papacy”; and others like Mark Docherty say it refers to an ‘indelible mark’ of the papacy in Benedict XVI’s mind. These claims are essential to the argument that Benedict XVI believed he partially resigned the papacy, or retained it in some way. As Ms. Barnhardt’s and Mr. Docherty’s theory is begins with this understanding, if their interpretation fails, the whole edifice crumbles.
However, in their discussion of the “always is also forever” paragraph (featured prominently in Ms. Barnhardt’s video), what the Benepapists leave out of their discussion is the preceding paragraph (as well as other key parts of the text). Indeed, what the reader might not realize is, in that preceding paragraph, Benedict XVI explained his use of “always” as referring to a “loss of privacy.” There is no allusion to an indelible mark of the papacy, or a ‘failed partial resignation!’ Consider that prior paragraph. Benedict said (emphasis added):
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. (Source: GENERAL AUDIENCE)
As is clear, Benedict’s connects the “always” to a ‘loss of privacy‘. He goes on to immediately say, the pope “belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church” and he speaks of the “great affection” there is for him, and how he “truly has brothers and sisters” and that he “no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.”
The point is, in speaking of this ‘loss of privacy,’ he is speaking of something of a ‘family bond‘ or ‘bond of charity.’ That is also the context of the “always is also a forever” line, where he also connects this idea of privacy, but now to the inability to regain it. His point is, he formed a bond of charity with the members of the Church, like a father, and though he is now resigning, his resignation does not revoke this ‘bond of charity.’ In other words, he still loved us even though he was resigning — that was not revoked. That is why he says he will continue in service of prayer for the Church. That is, he maintains and carries within him this bond of charity towards his “sons and daughters” (i.e., the Church), and even though he is no longer pope, he will continue to pray for the Church.
Again, this is a brief explication of what I go into in more detail in my article Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience; I also devote a whole chapter to it in my book Valid?; and I discuss in Part II (see Episode 9) of my two part series on “the always is also a forever”. In these I also go into the “active” vs. “passive” life, etc. I recommendEpisode 9where you will see more commentary on the WHOLE last audience and how it ties in with the interpretation briefly offered above.
Consilience and Ganswein’s Speech
Around the 37:28 point, Ms. Barnhardt gets to Ganswein. It was probably Ganswein’s speech at the Gregorian University in 2016, more than any other one thing, that launched a new phase of the controversy over the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. This is unfortunate. A closer examination of what he said and its context will show the speech’s import is overblown.
First, it should be remembered that Ganswein gave his speech at the presentation of a new book by Fr. Roberto Regoli on the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. I go into this speech, and the importance of the context, in my article Regarding Ganswein’s speech; and I also devote a whole chapter to it in my book Valid?. While I would direct folks to these sources, please also check out my two part video series (Part 1 and Part 2) where I develop some additional analysis of this speech.
Now, a discussion of this speech can get very involved, and would make this article way too lengthy in itself. The key point I would make here is that Ganswein’s talk of and references to an “expanded petrine ministry“, etc., is not meant in a strict sense – i.e., as if he meant Benedict and Francis are both popes, each in their own way. In fact, Ganswein explicitly denies he is speaking of two popes.[4] This in itself strikes at the heart of the Benepapist thesis.
There are various keys in his speech which demonstrate Ganswein is speaking in a looser sense of an “expanded Petrine ministry”, such as when one shares, by way of helping another, in a ministry — for example, a priest sharing in the ministry (i.e., the care of the flock) of his bishop, without himself being the bishop. Indeed, that this is his meaning is clear when Ganswein references Benedict’s Coat of Arms and its inclusions of words from a letter of the Apostle John, i.e., “fellow workers in the Truth” (cf. 3 John 8).
As I note above, one can share a ministry of the truth without sharing the same office in any real or true sense, e.g., a layman can be a “co-worker of the truth” with a priest, bishop, or pope — while not being any of them. St. Paul makes an even stronger reference to being God’s “co-workers” and “fellow workers” (for example, see 2 Cor. 3:9, 6:1) without suggesting any sort of equivalency or sharing of an office in the true sense. Thus, Francis and Benedict, at the time, may be spoken of, in a sense, sharing a ‘Petrine-like’ ministry in that both focused on the whole Church; however, Francis does so as the true pope, while Benedict as a former pope, continues, due to the ‘bonds of charity’ formed at his election, to pray for the whole Church. So, in this manner of speaking, this is the “expanded Petrine ministry.”
But it is even more obvious that this is the sense in which Ganswein is speaking when we get to the end of the speech. For those, like Ms. Barnhardt, who want to interpret Ganswein’s talk of an “expanded ministry,” or a continued “participation” in the “Petrine ministry” in a real, strict sense; how then do these same folks interpret Ganswein when he says of the book’s author (Fr. Roberto Regoli) at the end of the same speech (emphasis added):
“Thus, this book once again throws a consoling gaze on the peaceful imperturbability and serenity of Benedict XVI, at the helm of the barque of Peter in the dramatic years 2005-2013. At the same time, however, through this illuminating account, Regoli himself now also takes part in the munus Petri of which I spoke. Like Peter Seewald and others before him, Roberto Regoli — as a priest, professor and scholar — also thus enters into that enlarged Petrine ministry around the successors of the Apostle Peter; and for this today we offer him heartfelt thanks. “
Above, Ganswein says the author Roberto Regoli now takes part in the munus Petri! Ganswein even goes farther saying Regoli, Peter Seewald, and others(!) enter into that “enlarged Petrine ministry!” Where are our Benepapist interpreters on this? Is Ganswein speaking literally or figuratively of Regoli taking “part in the munus Petri?” Is Ganswein speaking literally or figuratively when he says of Regoli, Seewald, and others that they have entered into that “enlarged Petrine ministry”?
The answer is clear. Ganswein is speaking in something of a loose, extended or figurative sense of Regoli now also taking part in the “munus Petri,” and also when he says Regoli and the others have entered “into that enlarged Petrine ministry around the successors of the Apostle Peter.” This they have done as individuals who have written about various papacies; and in this way, have supported and helped the Petrine ministry — and thus “take part” and “enter” into the munus Petri and the “enlarged Petrine ministry.” Clearly, Ganswein is not saying Regoli and Seewald really became popes in some way! No! Far from it. He is speaking in a loose, extended sense. But that of course is the point…that is how Ganswein should be taken throughout his speech regarding Benedict’s post-resignation participation in the “expanded Petrine ministry.”
But for the fair minded follower of Ann Barnhardt…perhaps it’s time to ask her some pointed questions about her interpretation, and being so dismissive of counterarguments to her assertions. Why has Ann Barnhardt never addressed this portion of Ganswein’s speech?
Consilience and the Munus/Ministerium
Around the 19:10 mark in her video, Ms. Barnhardt goes into a discussion of the Declaratio, and the distinction of munus and ministerium. She also talks about canon 332.2 and the resigning of the munus at 52:00.
Regarding the Munus/Ministerium, Ms. Barnhardt does not appear to understand that the word “munus” is not required under canon law. Other words can be used, and have been in Church history. For example, the word “papacy” was used by Pope Celestine V. The point is, other words that convey the sense of resigning the papacy can be used. One of the meanings of “ministerium” is, in fact, “office.” I ask the reader to check out my articles Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio; and Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto as well as my chapter on the Declaratio in my book Valid?. In addition, I have a five part series on the munus vs. ministerium question (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5).
However, I would point out that Dr. Mazza in his recent book inadvertently introduced a scholar who essentially contradicts his argument (see A Rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s book on Pope Benedict’s Resignation). Dr. Mazza introduces one scholar, Arrieta, who says munus and ministerium are not synonymous. But Dr. Mazza also introduced a scholar, Slowikowska, who states they are synonymous. If one reads this latter scholar’s blurb carefully in Dr. Mazza’s book (quoted in my article above), it should be clear that Dr. Mazza shot himself in the foot. Not only did Anna Slowikowska confirm the synonymy of munus/ministerium, she also confirmed that the meaning depends on “the context of the utterance,” the “author’s intention,” or “the purpose for which they are used.”
Well, on all three of these points, it is clear that Benedict intended to resign that papacy. He said, in the Declaratio, he resigned the “ministry (ministerio) of the Bishop of Rome” in “such a way” that the “See of Rome, the See of Peter” would be “vacant” and that a conclave would need to be called to elect a new pope. What more can one ask for in terms of context, intention, and purpose? The answer is obvious. QED.
As this topic is pretty involved, I point the reader to the sources above for a fuller discussion.
Consilience and Wearing White, Pope “Emeritus,” Apostolic Blessings, etc.
In her video, c. 25:46, Ms. Barnhardt brings up a grab bag of topics, e.g., Benedict wearing white, the title “pope emeritus“, and Apostolic Blessings. I do discuss some of these in my article Regarding Ganswein’s speech;and all of them in my book Valid?. I also discuss these topics in my rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s recent book (see A Rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s book on Pope Benedict’s Resignation).
In establishing the precedent for his life of prayer for the whole Church, Benedict attached to it the title, “pope emeritus,” and attire (dressing in white), and the style of address (“his holiness”). I don’t intend to defend these choices, but I do believe more has been made of them than should be. However, it should be noted, Benedict issued no formal document defining “pope emeritus”, its style and dress, etc. All this was done in a press release.
Still, as I have pointed out in various articles of my series (The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope” ), the use of “emeritus” does have a basis in canon law where it is said that one who loses an office due to resignation[5] may use the title ’emeritus’ – thus an honorific title that connotes the reality of a “loss of office” — which in itself clearly demonstrates Benedict knew by use of this title that he “lost the office” of the papacy, something denied by the Beneplenists. True, this particular canon applied to resignations which are “accepted”, which a papal resignation is not; but the principle remains true, and serves as an analogy in understanding “emeritus” in relation to “pope emeritus”, i.e., it signifies the lost office of pope.
As to Benedict’s wearing of white, this certainly may be a cause of confusion. I am not here to defend it. But, here to, I would point out things are not as bad as the Benepapists make out. Though Benedict continued to wear white, he wore a simple cassock but without the mozetta, a symbol of authority (see here). Furthermore, he no longer wore the red shoes, also a symbol of authority.
Finally, as this is running long, with regard to Apostolic Blessings, also mentioned by Ms. Barnhardt, I address them in a recent article (see Benepapists and their false claims about Apostolic Blessings); and in my book Valid?.
Final Thoughts
This article set out to address Ms. Barnhardt’s recent video at a relatively high level, but with sufficient detail, and follow up sources for the reader. We looked at her suggestion of “consilience”, i.e., the convergence of the evidence toward the same conclusion.
However, this article provided clear examples that Ms. Barnhardt and other Benepapists exclude key evidence from consideration, such as Benedict declaring “I will no longer be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.” One of Ms. Barnhardt’s allies, Mark Docherty, suggested, incredibly, that Benedict ‘directly contradicted‘ himself between this statement, and his Last Audience — a period of one day!!
However, common sense clearly points to a more reasonable and natural solution which does not appear to have even entered into the minds of these Benepapists, that is: that rather than Benedict contradicting Benedict, it is they who are contradicting Benedict’s meaning!!! That is, their theory is false!
We also looked at how Ms. Barnhardt and the Benepapists have misread the Last Audience, and Ganswein’s speech. I do not claim — as Ms. Barnhardt has — that anyone who does not accept the plain meaning of the words is “fundamentally dishonest” and a “liar”, as she has done [see note 1]. I don’t claim Ms. Barnhardt is any of these things. I just don’t agree with her interpretation which is just plain wrong — as I have documented in this article, and in greater detail in my other sources which I have referenced. For example, I gave examples of various indicators in Ganswein’s speech that show he was speaking in a looser sense than Ms. Barnhardt or other Benepapists will allow. Further, I demonstrated this by giving the example of the end of Ganswein’s speech where he was clearly speaking in this loose sense of an “enlarged Petrine ministry.” The point is, the last audience and Ganswein’s speech can be read in a simpler, more natural way that is consistent with a valid resignation.
We also took a look at the munus/ministerium, wearing white, apostolic blessings, etc. This closer examination — either in this article above or in fuller discussions in the referenced sources – shows there is no “consilience” or convergence of the evidence towards a conclusion that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. No amount of avoidance of the counterarguments, exclusion of evidence, or ad hominem attacks will change this central fact.
If the reader has questions for me on the topics above, feel free to submit them via the comments — or to me personally via email. I’ll certainly respond to all emails. Perhaps if I get enough questions, I might address them via a video.
If the reader has made it this far in this article, thank you! To the followers of Ms. Barnhardt, or other leading Benepapists, I think I’ve clearly shown there is evidence the thought leaders of Benepapism have not addressed, either by the exclusion, the misreading or the misinterpretation of it [e.g., see Note 2].
If nothing else, you should ask them to explain themselves. If you are going to commit yourself and possibly your family to Benepapism and its logical consequences, or have done so already…at least conduct some due diligence, and kick the tires — rather than accept the mere assertions of one or two, three hour videos.
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. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).
NOTES
[1] For other ad hominem examples against unnamed others see https://romalocutaest.com/2021/02/28/on-the-8th-anniversary-of-the-resignation-of-pope-benedict-xvi/
[2] Two glaring examples of this are documented here: A closer look at Mr. Coffin’s evidence: Dr. Mazza’s Thesis 3.0. I also go into these instances in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. In addition, there is this example documented here: Benedict is Still Pope and Other Errors
[3] Mr. Docherty is discussing the last audience and his view it points to a partial resignation, and then says explicitly, that this meaning “directly contradicts” Benedict’s statement to the pilgrims of Albano. Mr. Docherty writes (emphasis added): “This is from Benedict’s final general audience of 27 February 2013, the day before his invalid resignation did not become effective, where he exposes his erroneous notion of the indelible nature of the Petrine Ministry. In doing so, he directly contradicts all those previous statements where he claimed he was “renouncing”, “leaving”, and would then be Pontiff “no longer, but a simple pilgrim”.” (see https://nonvenipacem.org/2017/07/22/faq-did-pope-benedict-reveal-his-intent-to-bifurcate-the-papacy-in-the-actual-declaratio/) Mr. Docherty does not, to my knowledge, entertain the possibility that it is not Benedict who contradicts Benedict, but rather Mr. Docherty who contradicts Benedict’s meaning.
[4] Ganswein said (emphasis added): Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” The rest of this statement can be understood in the light I further explain in my comments above, and or in the articles, book, and video I cited.
[5] Canon 185: The title of emeritus can be conferred upon the person who loses an office by reason of age or by a resignation which has been accepted. (see Code of Canon Law…ed. Coriden, Green, et al, p. 109)
Roma Locuta Est 
Thanks for your work in refuting the BiP theory. I was flirting with it until I came across this blog, as well as other articles on other sites.
I also bought the first Pia Fidelis book, and am hoping to see the next one!
LikeLike
Steven,
thanks for the positive feedback! Always appreciated.
Regarding Pia Fidelis…thanks for the comment on that too! I am hard at work on it.
Thanks for reading the article. Share it with any Benepapists, or Barnhardt followers you know.
Regards,
Steve
LikeLike
Since Pope Benedict mistakenly believed there could be more than one Pontiff, he could very easily state that he is no longer “Supreme” Pontiff, subsequently believing himself to be stepping down to his newly created “secondary” papal position.
LikeLike
JefZeph,
thanks for reading the article, and for your comment.
There are a number of problems with what you say. You are simply asserting your conclusion. The evidence at Albano is certainly clear. BXVI said he would “no longer be Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.” But, Ms. Barnhardt, et al., are claiming he remained pope, and this was his intent (in some way). However, BXVI at Albano is categorically saying he is NO LONGER SUPREME PONTIFF.
Also, as I point out in the article, NN 87 says at one’s election, one accepts being “Supreme Pontiff”, which UDG goes on to define for us — the one elected Supreme Pontiff is “Bishop of the Church of Rome”, “TRUE POPE”, etc. So, certainly in saying “I am no longer Supreme Pontiff”, BXVI is saying he is no longer “TRUE POPE” (singular in the latin). Remember…he was well aware of what is said…he was editing UDG via Normas Nonnullas!
So, the problem is…BXVI knew — and stated — he was no longer TRUE POPE at Albano, as I argued. So it is nonsensical to suggest that such a statement allows for a possibility that he thought he would remain pope in some way, or at all. That is excluded by the proposition above — “I am no longer Supreme Pontiff”.
Even Mark Docherty recognizes this much. That’s why he is forced to assert — as I cited — that BXVI “directly contradicts” himself! But that assumes Docherty’s and Barnhardt’s interpretation of the Last Audience. They are simply assuming what they set out to prove; and thus must reject contrary evidence, instead of trying to harmonize it. To his credit to some degree, Mr. Docherty recognizes there’s a problem, and offers at least some sort of explanation, inadequate as it certainly is. In the case of Ann Barnhardt…she has simply ignored it entirely, best I can tell.
Again, as I point out in the article, the obvious, simpler, more natural and more reasonable interpretation is; Benedict is NOT contradicting himself; but rather it is Barnhardt, Docherty, et al, who are contradicting the true meaning of the last audience. Put another way, the interpretation of the Last Audience offered to you by Ann Barnhardt, Mark Docherty, Dr. Mazza, et al is false. It is based on a misreading of the text.
I think that is clear. You may disagree…but then I ask you to show me why or how my reading of the last audience goes wrong. Read my article on it…or get my book…or check out my videos; all linked above. But…I would ask you…just don’t simply accept the Barnhardt’s argument that anyone who disagrees with her interpretation is “fundamentally dishonest” or a “liar.” She is gaslighting her followers with such a claim. I offer a reading that is consistent with the text of the last audience, and which does not require us to posit an elaborate theory, of which BXVI writes nothing anywhere else.
Now…as to other Benepapists…Estefania Acosta passes over the import of the Albano statement in her book. I don’t know if she has elsewhere addressed it. Andrea Cionci recognizes its importance, but is forced to suggest BXVI is speaking a “Ratzinger Code.” However, that’s another ball of wax (and Barnhardt rejects his thesis altogether!!). However, in my article above, I link to my rebuttals of Cionci’s attempt to explain the Albano statement. The point here is just to say…the statement is a REAL problem for Benepapists of all stripes — and I believe an insurmountable one.
Thanks for the comments.
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
Charitably…. I can see why others wouldn’t respond. This isnt a refutation.
If the head of Coca-Cola were to one day say “I am no longer the head of Coca-Cola” the logical first question from any honest person would be… “Did you resign?” The statement alone is not a resignation. Actually he could say this all day every day. But if he hasn’t formally resigned, even the board of directors would consider him still to be head until they got a formal resignation (esp since there would be pretty strong legal implications). And since we are dealing with particulars of something far far far more important than a soft drink company, this seems to be an ‘aside’ or ‘red herring’ to the most important point….. was there a valid resignation! right?!
What if as head of Coca-Cola, his job was also to get people coffee in the morning, but he’s like ‘screw that, im the head of Coca-Cola!’ If he were to declare, “as of 10 o’clock I am no longer in charge of getting people coffee,” would we think he resigned his office?! No! This is similar to “Bishop of Rome.” Bishop of Rome has become synonymous with “Pope” but isnt equal to it. ‘Bishop of Rome’ is a bishopric that the Pope could easily give to a different Bishop if he no longer wants that role…. (which btw is also an ‘office’ and not a ‘ministry,’ so technically he didn’t resign that either….)
Regarding the idea that even a ‘pope emeritus’ would be allowed to create confusion in dress or habit seems an odd argument to make of Catholicism, a faith striving for clarity and truth… no?!
my two cents….
LikeLike
MarkV,
thanks for reading the article, and your comment.
I am not suggesting the Albano statement is akin to a resignation in itself. It is a statement of what Benedict thought he would or would not be after 8pm on 28 February 2013.
It is clear. BXVI said he would “no longer be Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.” As defined in UDG 88, that is equivalent to the “The bishop of the Church of Rome” and “true pope”, etc.
So, we can absolutely say, BXVI did not believe he would be “Bishop of the Church of Rome” and “true pope” after 8 pm, 28 February 2013.
That is all needed on this particular point. But we can go further, BXVI was certainly aware of Canon 331 which is related to UDG 88.
Per Canon 331: “The Bishop of the Roman Church in whom continues the office (munus) given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.”
This is crucial to this discussion because it is said explicitly in c. 331 that it is in the “The Bishop of the Roman Church IN WHOM CONTINUES the office (MUNUS)…” given to Peter uniquely by the Lord.
So, one must be the “Bishop of the Church of Rome” to be the one in whom “continues the office (MUNUS).” So, if one is NOT “Bishop of the Church of Rome,” one does NOT have the MUNUS
Now, returning to “Supreme Pontiff” – it is defined in UDG 88, amongst other things as already noted, as “The bishop of the Church of Rome.”
Therefore, by the transitive property, Benedict in saying he would “no longer be Supreme Pontiff”, which is equivalent to “true pope” (cf UDG 88), which is equivalent to “the Bishop of the Church of Rome” (cf UDG 88), which is equivalent to the one in “whom continues the office (MUNUS)” (cf c. 331).
Therefore, BXVI clearly understood as of 8PM, that no longer being “supreme pontiff” meant he was “no longer bishop of the Church of Rome” which meant he no longer held the MUNUS given by the Lord to Peter, which meant he was no longer “true pope.”
That is what he understood, and we know he was looking at this, because he made changes to Normas Nonnullas as of February 22, 2013…just a five days before the Last Audience, and 6 days before his comments at Albano (“I am no longer Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church…”).
That is what is meant by the statement. Again, that is why the leading Benepapists must resort to one of the following:
1. Claim BXVI is contradicting himself (per Docherty)
2. Claim BXVI is speaking in a code, and means something else (per Cionci)
3. Ignore the statement altogether (per Barnhardt, and apparently, Acosta, and Mazza).
#1 in itself certainly calls into question the Benepapist understanding of the Last Audience, not Benedict’s (it also calls into question their understanding of the Declaratio, because Barnhardt’s, Docherty’s, and Mazza’s analysis of it all BEGINS with the last audience). #2 is absurd, and I’ve refuted Cionci (see links in my article).
I am not a Benepapist…but just saying. If I am going to commit myself and possibly my younger loved ones to this theory, and all that entails I might believe in the future…I would not accept #1 or #2. or #3. I’d be writing emails to Barnhardt, Docherty, and Mazza about now.
But that’s just me.
Again…thanks for the comment.
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
I’m honored by your reply, sir. Thank you.
I agree completely with with your interpretation of NN 87, the definitions you’ve provided and the meaning that should, (and in saner times would) be derived from the statement “I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff”. That is not in question.
I don’t know that I’m “simply asserting” my conclusion, so much as I am attempting to decipher the meaning of his statement through the eyes of a man who honestly believed there could be more than one living Pope at a time.
Do you not think that such a grave error would corrupt the intended meaning? We know he believed himself to be “Pope Emeritus”, which is in and of itself an ontological fallacy. Is it so silly then to extrapolate and consider that Benedict might have seen himself as a subservient, inactive pope and “no longer the Supreme Pontiff”?
Out of curiosity, have you, by any chance, read “Miller’s Dissertation”?
LikeLike
JefZeph…
the honor is mine. Again…thanks for dealing with the material above, and for your comments and questions.
You say “I am attempting to decipher the meaning of his statement through the eyes of a man who honestly believed there could be more than one living Pope at a time.”
I think the evidence I provided on this point demonstrates that the meaning of the words is what I said. It means “I am no longer true pope”. There is no room for “partial” or “inactive” pope in that. One is either TRUE pope, or one is NOT. BXVI said he was NOT. So, I reject the notion that he believed himself pope in any sense of the word following 8pm, Feb 28, 2013. There is no evidence to suggest he did that withstands closer scrutiny.
And if you see my response to MarkV…we can also add in…”I no longer have the MUNUS” (cf c.331). So of all the quotes that must be dealt with in this controversy…this statement is undoubtedly the most obvious in its meaning. Again, that is why Docherty must argue it’s a flat out ‘direct contradiction’, while Cionci (Ratinzger Code) must say “it’s a clever code”. As I see it…they are dancing.
Now, as for “pope emeritus”, I reject the notion it is an “ontological fallacy.” First, BXVI never defined as pope what he meant by it. We were informed he would use it by a press release. We do know a couple of things. Canon 185 said that one could use “emeritus” for an office lost because of a resignation. Now, granted, this Canon refers to a resignation that is accepted — which a papal resignation is not. However, Ratzinger was undoubtedly familiar with this canon, and its idea, by analogy, could easily be adopted to his resignation. “Emeritus” is used of an office lost due to resignation. That is what “pope emeritus” essentially means. The “pope” is the office lost by resignation; thus “pope emeritus.”
But, if we look at the Seewald interviews, Benedict addresses this there as well. I don’t have it open before me at the moment; so don’t hold me to an exact quote…but he said it’s use was to convey that there was no “legal” connection, but a spiritual one. Well, the “legal” connection is the OFFICE. The “spiritual” connection goes with what I said about the “bond of Charity” related to the last audience–i.e., the bond of love he had for his “sons and daughters” (i.e., the Church) which continues, and because of which, he will devote his life to prayer. Please check out my article, and or videos (links in the article) related to the Last Audience which can explain this idea more fully for you, than here.
I won’t say if it is “silly” or not; but I just don’t see ANY evidence, when closely examined, that leads to the conclusion BXVI ever saw himself as a partially resigned pope, or that he held any part of the Petrine munus.
Regarding the Miller Dissertation. I did try to track it down long ago. I forget the exact difficulty I had…perhaps price(?)…but no…I did not read it. However, the onus in this case was on Ms. Barnhardt and Mr. Docherty to provide quotes that proved what BENEDICT BELIEVED. This they never did. I think in one of the articles I cite; I show for example where Ms. Barnhardt tries to attribute the thoughts of OTHERS to Ratzinger — but that doesn’t work as an argument. You must prove what Ratzinger thought. For that matter, I don’t believe even Mazza bothers to cite the Miller Dissertation. What does that tell you?
But…if you know where I can get a Miller Dissertation for a reasonable price, I’d happily buy one. Believe me…I’ve bought a LOT of books researching the Benepapist topics!!
Thanks again for the question and comments.
Steve
LikeLike
Steve,
Fair enough. And I respect the view that ‘Bishop of Rome’ equals ‘Pope.’ We were never taught that in Catholic school, but I think your point is fair and reasonable which I respect. And thank you for the respectful response.
I’d like to continue, if I may….. did you notice that in each point where you made that equivalence that it was to the OFFICE,… and not the ‘ministry’ of which was resigned??? You even capitalized the word “MUNUS” for me! So you and I both are in agreement on what one needs to resign! No?
Though my example was tongue’n’cheek, it does help for clarity. Lets say I make the statement ‘I resign from serving coffee. I will no longer be head of Coca-Cola’…. wouldn’t that cause confusion?? Wouldn’t one rightly be confused? And wouldn’t one (rightly and fairly) see that ‘resigning’ your coffee duties wouldn’t end your role as top person of a company?? And if you then kept showing up to work, in the same suit going, into the same building, but maybe just playing video games instead of signing forms…. wouldn’t you rightly question the ‘intent’?? But what if you ALSO kept signing documents that said ‘Steve, Head of Coca-Cola’…… if that didnt cause confusion for you, couldn’t you understandably (and CHARITABLY, I might add) see how this would cause confusion for others?? Especially since ‘administering the coffee’ isnt akin to ‘running the company’?!
Regarding the 3 positions you mentioned, if fairly presented by you, all hinge on the same thing….. resigning the MUNUS. But here’s the thing:
1. If he resigned, then its not an “opinion” that there is ‘contradiction’ when the non-pope dresses as a pope and doesnt smash the papal ring. The contradiction is very visible! I’d prefer to call it ‘confusion’ but if that’s his word, no worries.
2. I dont know the ‘speaking in code’ theory. I dont know if I’d call it that, but maybe….. if I saw a girl with a black eye standing next to a man in a supermarket and asked her if she was alright, she might say ‘yes’ while shaking her head ‘no.’….. would that be a ‘code’? IDK, I guess one would first have to presume or believe that Benedict was very smart and understood quite well the words he was choosing…. I read his work and had great respect for his intellect!! And my atheist friends all said to a man that though they disagreed with his Catholicism, they had nothing but praise for his intellect. So was he doing the “blink twice if you are in trouble” thing….? IDK… maybe…
3. Regarding this one, you said they “Ignore the statement altogether.” For me, I dont still see how the statement is even relevant…. which is why I myself would ignore it as well. Again, it feels like a ‘red herring.’ If the key is as you mentioned ‘I will no longer be…’ then on your end is that his words dont match the non-resignation of the MUNUS. If this was meant to be a retort, then you’d have to show how the crux of This Particular Argument is wrong! You need to show that the MUNUS was indeed resigned! Properly! In word, deed, and action! The problem is….. the words were wrong, he continued to act as pope, dress as pope, sign documents as pope….
….so it is so unreasonable to presume that you may be wrong?! or at a minimum, that even in disagreeing, you can understand the other side….?
Charitably,
MarkV
LikeLike
MarkV,
Thanks for the response, and the additional points. Which I hope to address below.
First, I would just underline that the thrust of my remarks has been to address the Albano statement and its obvious meaning. Which, is, manifestly, Benedict is saying he would “no longer be true pope” or put another way as I did, I will “no longer hold the MUNUS.”
Second, I am in no way defending the various incidentals that BXVI continued to do after his valid resignation, whether use of title, wearing white, style (e.g., “Your Holiness”), etc. But, the reality is, his resignation was full and complete; and thus these other things must be understood in relation to that fact; and others. Such as “emeritus” is a honorific used with a lost office (see c. 185), and BXVI’s own statement to Seewald (again don’t quote me, as I don’t have his work before at moment) where he says emeritus conveys there is no longer a legal connect, but a spiritual one. The spiritual one I explain in my article, under the Last Audience.
Now, that brings me to my third point on the MUNUS. As to “resigning from serving coffee”—here you are switching to the Declaratio, and I suppose the use of “ministerio”. Fine.
Canon 332.2 does not say “munus” must be used. Reading the canon, it is not listed among what is “required”, such as that it be done freely and properly manifested.
Now, other words have been used in history, such as “papacy” in Celestine V’s resignation. So, another WORD or WORDS could be used to convey the necessary idea the papacy is being resigned. I discuss this in my article, and even cite one of Dr. Mazza’s sources with regard to the words ministerium/munus being synonyms. I refer back to that for more detail. But, saying as he did that he renounced the “ministry of the bishop of Rome, successor of Peter…in such a way…that the See of Rome, the See of Peter” will be “vacant” and a “new Supreme Pontiff” will need to be elected; is pretty clear. I don’t see how anyone can doubt the intent here. It is clear in itself without worrying about the meaning of “ministerium”; but, knowing ministerium can mean “office”; then the full statement about ‘resigning…in such a way’ etc. is clearly comprehensible as a valid resignation.
But I will make a few other points, and recommend an article or two. I cite Fr. Rickert from one of his articles he wrote in a back and forth with Dr. Mazza on the WMBRIGGS site. As Fr. Rickert pointed out, the title of the Declaratio in the AAS is Declaratio Summi Pontificis: De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione. Note MUNERIS…a form of MUNUS. This is translated “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” So, clearly, the title of the Declaratio in the AAS gives us to understand what BXVI is renouncing by the use of “ministerio”, i.e., he is resigning the munus – just as the title says. As an aside, I note for the record that Dr. Mazza never responded to Fr. Rickert’s appeal to the entry in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS). He dropped out of the discussion. Infer what you will from that. But, I for one would like to see a response.
I’d also point you to my article on Lumen Gentium, where it is shown that ‘a MUNUS is a MINISTERIUM.’ Thus, in the case of the Petrine Munus, if one resigns the PETRINE MINISTERIUM, one necessarily resigns the PETRINE MUNUS. (see https://romalocutaest.com/2022/11/04/lumen-gentium-destroys-benepapism-in-toto/).
I would also note another article written by Fr. Rickert on WMBRIGGS, where he make a point of logic on c. 331. Per Canon 331: “The Bishop of the Roman Church in whom continues the office (munus) given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.”
Consider, the one who is pope, in VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE (MUNUS), can ALWAYS exercise his power freely. Written in logical form…. IF P THEN Q. If not Q, then not P. Thus, if Benedict did in fact resign the exercise of his power (Q); he would necessarily be resigning his office (P) as well, because he has one in virtue of the other per c. 331.
As to your remaining points:
1. Benedict as emeritus did not dress as pope. Look at the photos. He wore a white cassock WITHOUT the mozetta or red shoes (both symbols of authority) that he did as pope. This was a conscious decision. As for the papal ring, Ganswein affirms he personally witnessed BXVI removing his papal ring when he resigned. You can find that statement in his speech in 2016.
2. As for the code…as you admit to not knowing the theory…I will not address it here. But.. to the extent you might be interested…see the articles I link to in my main article above regarding Andrea Cionci and the Ratzinger Code.
3. A “red herring”? If one is going to claim BXVI was partially resigning the papacy, then you must prove it from his statements, and also account for statements that may actually contradict your thesis. As for showing the MUNUS was resigned…see my comments above on the munus vs. the ministerium made above.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Regards,
Steve
LikeLike
Steve,
Thank you again for kindly replying. I think such conversations are difficult and the format limited to where it is too easy to presume the other uncharitable. So I dont want you to think any of this is lost on me. Thank you! It’d be more fun over beer, but hey….
And for the record, we are in agreement that ‘intent’ is a difficult argument for either side because only Benedict knew his intent. So all we are left with is evidence, on both sides, trying to sort out confusion.
I agree that there aren’t ‘specific words’ or a ‘verbal formula’ if you will spelled out in Canon Law prescribing similar to that of consecrating the bread and wine. But because of that, one has to be ‘clearer’ not less so. Otherwise we presume on such an important matter that a more ‘mealy-mouthed’ version is acceptable. But as I wrote previously, to argue for less clarity doesn’t seem very Catholic for a faith that argued the location of one iota for 70 years! What’s worse is that we have an example: ‘I freely abandon the Pontificate.’ — P. Celestine V, of whom P.Benedict XVI was well aware….. so we cant claim Benedict was ignorant of historical examples. [of which things get worse when you realize he said it couldn’t be used a precedent…]
Another problem we have is that you are citing the 1983 Canon Law regarding the resignation of the munus. Again, I agree that there is no specific resignation formula indicated within. The problem is Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when the 1983 Canon was written. So we can’t claim he was ignorant of at least an inclusion of ‘munus’ when formulating his resignation.
I agree that BXVI’s words “I am no longer Supreme Pontiff” especially when paired with renouncing a ‘ministry’ vs the office create confusion! When paired with “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere.” This causes confusion! His continued dress as pope cause confusion! Only the white cassock is the specific dress of the pope. I’m not sure where you got the ‘mozetta’ (worn by bishops and cardinals) as being a mark of the papacy, or the ‘red shoes’ (never word by JPII nor Francis) as I couldn’t verify the referenced article. And I fear repeating these inaccuracies might embolden Sedes….
I know you try reconciling this by quoting ‘Lumen Gentium.’ The problem is we have a document as a whole that is written more poetically, conveying ideas not specifics. That flowery, poetic language has caused problems that have been outlined ad nauseum ever since! So you cant use that as a rebuttal for clarity, and certainly not for Traditional Catholics, if that’s who you are trying to sway.
The ‘If P then Q’ only holds logically if P and Q have some formal equality. If not then it is like saying that you arent wearing jeans if they arent blue. That makes no sense. Jeans can be other colors, so their color is immaterial to the conversation of if jeans are being worn. Similarly you are presuming the exercise of an office to be equal to holding it, and that if one decides not to exercise an office, there has been a de facto abdication or relinquishing of said office. But such an interpretation would be absurd as it would necessarily include vacations, sick days, or even coming in late as a trip-wire for resigning! So your “If P then Q” analogy was improperly constructed.
Lastly you mentioned that a certain Fr. Rickert noted the title of his resignation to be “Declaratio in the AAS is Declaratio Summi Pontificis.” The problem is that this isnt true. It was simply titled “Declaratio” and can be easily found on the Vatican’s website. The other is most likely an addition by others to help a Google search or something else, but it isnt part of the original, so we shouldn’t repeat that mistake.
I think one of the great problems right now is that neither side is that necessarily ‘unreasonable.’ I know you like to believe your position to be clear, but its not. It has the same contradictions. But where one side accepts the contradictions and make sense of them, and the other seems to ignore the contradictions and say everything is copacetic. That is why its not persuasive.
Sincerely,
MarkV, who enjoys good conversation…:)
LikeLike
MarkV,
Thanks again for the comments and discussion. Certainly, I have not taken anything you’ve said as uncharitable; and I certainly hope you have not taken anything I’ve said as being intended that way. I do enjoy the discussion. Certainly, over a few beers would be even more enjoyable!
Glad we agree there are no specific words necessary. A words, or **set of words** which convey the idea of the Roman “pontificate” or “papacy” are more than sufficient. BXVI said, he renounced the “ministry of the bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter…in such a way…that the See of Rome, the See of Peter will be vacant” and that a conclave to elect a “new supreme pontiff” would be necessary.
Leaving aside the use of ministerio, or the non-use of munus here…this ‘set of words’ is obvious in themselves, and in context as to what is happening. The “ministry of the Bishop of Rome, successor of Peter” is being resigned “in such a way” that the “See of Rome, the See of Peter” will be vacant. Vacant See means no pope. I won’t repeat the other arguments from article or comments above again here, to keep this short as possible. The bottom line is clear. Benedict is vacating the See of Peter. No one in the chair of Peter = No pope. I don’t see any other meaning that is more probable than that; or indeed, more certain than that.
Regarding the 1983 code of canon law…I agree that we must assume BXVI was fully aware of canon 332.2, and I’ll get to that in a moment. But that also means, by the same token, that he was aware of Canon 185 which says “emeritus” can be used of an office ‘lost due to resignation’. I have noted this canon explicitly refers to resignations that are “accepted”, which a papal one is not, but the idea can be applied as an analogy – of which BXVI surely saw. The “emeritus” signifies, and applies in cases of an OFFICE lost due to resignation. If he didn’t want that implication, surely, he would have used another honorific that did not convey the notion of a “lost office”, assuming he wanted to hold on to the office in some way, as the Benepapists claim. There is no other concession in canon law to a “partially resigned office.”
But, as for c. 332.2, yes, BXVI would have known of the use of munus in the canon – but again, it is not required. We may wish NOW he used it because you and me are now arguing this point here. But the fact remains, and is undeniable. It is not necessary. Other word or words can be used as I have noted.
Furthermore, by the fact he explicitly states he is acting in complete freedom, demonstrates he is acting within the scope of canon 332.2; i.e., he is seeking to fulfill its requirements. This is significant, because the canon is only for someone resigning the papacy. There is no canon for resigning “partially.” Therefore, we must see here that BXVI is meaning to resign the papacy in full. In conjunction with the observation about the words, e.g., involving a vacated See of Peter, it should be sufficiently clear he resigned the papacy. I say this before we even consider the munus vs. ministerium debate, bring in Lumen Gentium, etc. But, I won’t do that again for brevity. But it’s been covered elsewhere in our discussion.
I understand folks are “confused.” By putting that in quotes, I don’t mean to diminish it. Yes…folks are confused. I first came to the Benepapist controversy hoping there was something to it. Check out my 2017 article “Benedict is NOT pope.” I had hoped to write a different article. But examining the Last Audience, for example, I saw at once it did not say what Barnhardt and Docherty said it did. Now, that in itself is a lengthy topic; so I am not avoiding it here. I would just point out the “always is also forever” really begins with how BXVI is speaking of the “always” in the prior paragraph. I argued in brief in the article, showing he was speaking of a ‘loss of privacy’ which in turn is about a ‘bond of charity’ he took on. Yes, I understand the ‘confusion’…but the leading Benepapists haven’t dealt with this interpretation – they have utterly ignored it. I would make on exception for Estefania Acosta who essentially agrees with me in part regarding the ‘bond of charity’ or ‘bond of love.’ But her analysis goes off the rails elsewhere. But that is another subject.
I didn’t say the mozetta is a ‘sign of the papacy’, it is a sign of authority. BXVI stopped wearing it after his resignation, and wore a simple cassock. Ditto with the red shoes. They do signify authority, but he stopped wearing them. Check out CBC, “5 papal things Benedict gives up in retirement,” CBC.CA, February 28, 2013. (see https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/5-papal-things-benedict-gives-up-in-retirement-1.1332261 ). And, as Ganswein reports in his famous speech – he personally witnessed BXVI remove his Fisherman’s Ring.
As to the ‘confusion’, I guess I am trying to do my part to dispel it. I think committing to Benepapism will lead potentially to a bad place. If they are wrong, as I believe, they may end up rejecting the next conclave (which would use Francis’s cardinals), and or they will reject any pope who says the resignation was invalid. Thus, they may end up rejecting the next several conclaves under those same conditions. They would then end up being in long term sedevacantism.
I am not sure of your point, saying I can’t use Lumen Gentium. Canon 17 says we can appeal to outside sources if the meaning or interpretation of a canon is in question – or there is something of doctrinal import. LG is additional evidence from official Catholic documents that ministerium and munus are synonymous, indeed, in the case of LG I cited, a munus IS a ministerium. See my prior argument. But I would also point to other things, such as ministerium being used of the papacy as well, for example, with regard to references to the papacy. I discuss this in my book, but also in one of my articles (see https://romalocutaest.com/2022/12/02/no-patrick-coffin-benedict-is-not-our-pope/).
So while ‘confusion’ might be there in the first instance, with the initial ‘superficial takes’ of the likes of Ms. Barnshardt, Mr. Docherty, or Dr. Mazza…the more we delve into the details, e.g., Lumen Gentium, and a better understanding of the Last Audience, Albano, UDG, Normas Non Nullas, etc., we can see that the Benepapist arguments do not withstand closer scrutiny. As that happens, Benepapist claims should be abandoned, or at least the former “moral certainty” should give way to more doubt than is allowed by the leading Benepapists.
With regard to your comments on the P and Q argument, a couple things. First, I am not arguing BXVI resigned the “exercise” of the MUNUS, as Barnhardt, et al claim. I offered the P and Q argument, arguendo. In other words, let’s assume it is true. That is, even if we assume Barnhardt is correct that the Declaratio stated he resigned the “doing” or “exercise” of the office; the resignation would still be valid due to the principle of logical entailment, i.e., the If P then Q argument. Now, you offer some objections, but something like wearing “jeans” or even papal white are certainly not essential elements of the papacy. For example, popes going forward could certainly stop wearing white, for example. A pope could decide that “blue” will be the new color for popes.
But here we are talking about Canon 331, which BXVI certainly knew, as you essentially conceded earlier. The Roman pontiff IN VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE can freely exercise full authority, etc. Thus, we would say, “If MarkV cannot freely exercise full authority over the Church; he must not be pope.” Or, “if it is true MarkV can freely exercise full authority over the Chruch; then he MUST be pope.”
So, given these are connected “IN VIRTUE OF THE OFFICE”; if BXVI’s Declaratio means what Barnhardt et al might say (i.e., he resigned the “exercise”; then it still follows BXVI validly resigned, because in giving up the exercise of the office, he gave up the office itself.
Finally, regarding my point about the Acta Apostolicae Sedis; it is the official record of pontifical acts. It is the official record of the Holy See, and the Acts of a pope. Yes, you find in simple google search, or the document simply as “Declaratio” on the Vatican website, but you are wrong in saying what I said “simply isn’t true”. You can search the AAS yourself on the Vatican site. Fr. Rickert provides an image of the title in the AAS – which is the OFFICIAL record. Here is the link to his article: https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39752/. Scroll down to Fr. Rickert’s rejoinder to Dr. Mazza. The image is there. I again observe, it was at this point Dr. Mazza stopped replying to Fr. Rickert. I include my discussion of the AAS in my book (see https://www.amazon.com/Valid-Resignation-Pope-Benedict-XVI-ebook/dp/B0BGQPP4KX/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=).
At the end of your last comment, you write:
“I think one of the great problems right now is that neither side is that necessarily ‘unreasonable.’ I know you like to believe your position to be clear, but its not. It has the same contradictions. But where one side accepts the contradictions and make sense of them, and the other seems to ignore the contradictions and say everything is copacetic. That is why its not persuasive.”
I reply…if I understand correctly here, I certainly must disagree. Looking at it in either direction, I don’t “accept the contradictions” and I don’t “ignore the contradictions.” Through all of my research and analysis of the question, I sought to determine if there are real “contradictions.” And take on ALL Benepapist claims. Check out my website. Check out my book (shameless plug for it!!). I have shown, for example, where Barnhardt, et al have both ignored contrary evidence, and accepted contradictions which do blow up their theory. Moreover, take a look at their blogs, videos, and book (Mazza’s for example). I can point to many examples where they simply don’t take on the opposing view for a particular bit of evidence.
For example, take the “always is also a forever.” Barnhardt simply does not acknowledge there might be another way of reading it; even if only to argue against it. She has resorted to saying her interpretation is the “plain” one; but she makes no effort to show why or how, for example, mine is wrong. I cite the article where she calls those who don’t accept the “plain” meaning (i.e., hers!) as being “fundamentally dishonest” and “liars.” That is gaslighting, plain and simple.
Also, watch her video at c. 17:45. There she engages in calumny and ad hominem against me. No attempt to even engage opposing material. Why is that? Frankly, I don’t see how ignoring substantial arguments, or the use of ad hominems – such as in the case of Ms. Barnhardt – can be considered “persuasive.” I am surprised that some of her followers don’t demand a little more from her than that. But she is not alone with regard to deficient arguments, I’ve pointed them in regard to Dr. Mazza (see https://romalocutaest.com/2023/02/10/a-rebuttal-of-dr-mazzas-book-on-pope-benedicts-resignation/ ; https://romalocutaest.com/2022/04/22/a-closer-look-at-mr-coffins-evidence-dr-mazzas-thesis-3-0/ ).
Anyway….this has been a long comment. Thanks again for you reading the article and for your comments.
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
One of the reasons the Barnhardt et al explanation is so attractive is it neatly explains how it is we have an open heretic claiming to be pope. The answer is he isn’t and never was. If heretics can’t be pope, what’s your preferred explanation for this current “pope” and his open disregard for basic Catholic teaching?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
thanks for taking a look at the article, and thanks for your comment. Excellent question.
I fully understand and can sympathize with the confusion and consternation brought to us all by Pope Francis. I particularly understand the desire, and effort to find an “explanation” for him, and a solution(!) — if at all possible.
This blog started in earnest in February of 2017. My first articles were against Stephen Walford’s defense of Amoris Laetitia. That’s what brought me round to finally start actually blogging, although, I think the site was created in October-ish of 2016.
I was interested in whatever theories that might be out there to “de-pope” Francis. I believe the first theory I published had to do with Bergoglio’s Jesuit Vows — and the speculation these would make it impossible for him to accept his election, even if the election itself was valid. This came to via Jesuit sources. I found it very interesting, and researched it. Although I could never say “this is it”…I did find it a fascinating theory. The original article was written around August of 2017. I’ve updated the article many times. If you’re interested…check out the current, renamed version: https://romalocutaest.com/2018/07/31/curiouser-and-curiouser-who-dispensed-jorge-bergoglio-sj-from-his-vows/
My point is, I was definitely on the hunt for a solution to Francis. So, being open to theories; I was very interested when I began to hear the claims Benedict was then (still) pope. I read the claims of Barnhardt and Docherty. I was interested. It was an article by Docherty that discussed the last audience that got me to take a closer look. I was initially hopeful and wanting it to be true as I set out to look into the question.
However, it became immediately evident to me upon reading Benedict’s last audience in full; that it most assuredly did not say or mean what Docherty and Barnhardt claimed that it did. That led me to write my first article on the “BiP” (Benedict is Pope theory) as I coined it in my first couple articles (see https://romalocutaest.com/2017/09/04/benedict-is-not-pope/). I was a former intelligence officer. I believe in evidence and facts to tell us what is going on — so we understand reality as it is, and not as we wish it to be. So, no wishful thinking guiding ones interpretation of evidence. I always got a chuckle out of Ms. Barnhardt claiming her reading is the “plain” one. I went into reading it HOPING her and Docherty’s published interpretations were correct; however, it was immediately clear — IMMEDIATELY CLEAR — upon reading the text, that they were dead wrong. The more I looked into the BiP claims, the more and more convinced I became that Benedict actually did resign. Not what I originally wanted to find. But again, understanding reallity as it is, is necessary to make the right judgments on things.
While I continued to examine Benepapism, I next began researching issues around the 2013 conclave. I’ve looked into the “Influential Italian Gentleman”, and believe provided info on who he actually is; communicated with a source about McCarrick’s reaction on the night of Bergoglio’s election, and wrote some articles on what appears to be an effort to sabotage Cardinal Scola’s papal chances the morning of the conclave. I think the collection of articles makes for an interesting read (see https://romalocutaest.com/2020/09/23/the-conclave-chronicles/), I wrote an article for LifeSiteNews which summarize a few of the findings I, at least, found “mysterious” (see https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/theres-still-many-unsolved-mysteries-surrounding-the-2013-election-of-cdl-bergoglio/).
Then I have also written articles calling for an imperfect council or even an “imperfect conference” to take up the question of Francis. One of my recent articles asks the question of what to do in the case of a heretical pope (see https://romalocutaest.com/2023/10/18/what-to-do-in-the-case-of-a-potentially-heretical-pope/).
Ha. Sorry for rambling on here, but I thought it important to make clear — I have been open to all theories at one point or another — and investigated them honestly, and to the best of my ability; though my conclusion in one direction or the other become firmer as I studied the evidence.
So, roundabout way of coming to your question. Here is what I think of the main theories after my research; and my conclusions:
1. Benepapism, in all its forms, definitely false.
Comment on #1: I suspect it amuses Francis. He could have done some things to dispel the suspicions when they first arose; but it helps him to divide Catholics, and obscure a practical focus on him — sending folks off on a 10 year long wild goose chase. Along this line, it wouldn’t surprise me if there are some elements of a psyop here, by omission.
2. 2013 Conclave: As I said, there are lots of things odd about it. I think that is plain to all.
Comment on #2: I find some things all the more curious, being a former intelligence officer. But the problem is this. The evidence IN HAND and IN PUBLIC is not sufficient to say conclave rules were definitely broken in a way to invalidate it. Given UDG does not invalidate a conclave involving simony (i.e., campaigning with money, things of value, etc)…it is hard to say campaigning by itself would invalidate a conclave. Is it possible there is something UNKNOWN but which could become public? Yes. And I have speculated in my Conclave Chronicles on who might be that person to reveal it. But, even if there is such a person, with such evidence, we cannot act on the speculation. Francis is at least putatively pope.
There are two significant hurdles to declaring the conclave invalid: 1) Sufficient and Definitive evidence must come forward, which (2) is of a kind that is not healed at the root by Universal Acceptance.
3) A variant of the invalid conclave theory is the Jesuit vow theory. It’s actually my personal “favorite” — as it got stranger and stranger the more I looked into it.
Comment: There are some canonical reasons to rule it out; but oddly enough, all it needs to move forward is for a future pope to interpret one canon in a certain way…and boom. The Francis pontificate is invalidated, and it can’t be healed by universal acceptance. Ha. If there ever were to be an imperfect council, and given a chance….I’d love to argue this one.
4) The Honorius Explanation.
Comment: This theory is that Francis is something along the lines of a mixture of what is seen in the cases of Pope John XXII and Honorius, but multiplied by 1000 raised to the Nth degree.
Conclusions: Okay, having run through these scenarios, It would not surprise me if something developed involving Scenario #2; but I think it unlikely at this point. That said, if what actually happened falls under Scenario #2, then undoubtedly, we can be sure that God will see to it that the necessary evidence eventually bubbles to the surface. Of that, we can be sure.
Therefore, in the final analysis, I think Scenario #4 is the probable situation in which we find ourselves. It will take a future pope to condemn Francis similar to what Pope St. Leo II said about Honorius. But, we must be patient…even for that. We must remember it took 40 years after the death of Honorius before he was condemned! So buckle up…the confusion doesn’t necessarily die with Francis.
I would not call this my “preferred” explanation. Scenarios #2 and #3 would be easier and less painful in some ways; potentially more problematic in others. I just think that in consideration of the facts and evidence that are currently in play, Scenario #4 is what we are facing. I don’t “prefer” that. I am just a realist.
Hope that helps.
God bless.
Steve
LikeLike
The fact that so absurd many books, articles, video’s are made on this single issue, proves reasonably beyond doubt: B is – whatever nu opinion is – a appearently a doubtful non-pope, and therefore Fr a doubtful pope.
What was the expression again? A doubtful pope is ..?
LikeLike
Pkc,
Thanks for the comment. I certainly can understand many sorts of doubts with regard to Francis. He’s awful. If you saw one of my comment responses above, I have entertained lots of theories!
Yes, I know the expression about a “doubtful pope…”…but the context was for times immediately or soon after a papal election, and especially in cases of multiple claimants to the throne of Peter. I don’t think it can be said BXVI was contesting Francis for the papal throne, as in the cases which justified the quote.
There needs to be some care, and due diligence done on the part of each believer; especially, if claiming moral certainty leads one, and those for whom one has responsibility, into a course of action that might in the long run be truly schismatic, and takes one outside of the Church.
The stakes are high, so one needs to kick the tires of Barnhardt’s, and other Benepapist claims. Is one’s subjective “moral certainty” actually held on reasonable grounds? Was it reached through proper due diligence? Does one even know the counterarguments — and what the response to them are? Do those Benepapists I follow, try to fairly present the opposing arguments when rebutting them; or do they ignore the arguments — or worse, simply launch calumnious ad hominems (as Barnhardt did in her video with respect to me c. 17:45)?
For me at least, if I didn’t research and know the arguments for all the claims (e.g., such as Benepapism); AND evaluate the respective counterarguments; I don’t think I could personally and honestly say my doubt or moral certainty was “reasonable”, or that I could reasonably or honestly claim to have “moral certainty” with regard to which theory I go with.
Thanks for reading the article, and for your comment.
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
All of these arguments for and against the different theories has my head spinning. I think we should begin at the beginning with Canon 332.2 which states the law for a papal resignation. If Benedict was coerced into resigning by his progressive hierarchy, then his resignation is invalid and Francis is not the pope. All the other theories are then rendered moot because the timeline begins with the resignation.
Not only the church hierarchy, but the globalist oligarchs and the liberal Western leaders desired a different sort of pope, one who was not “rigid”, whose leftist ideology would help enable their plan for a one-world totalitarian government, and Bergoglio fit the bill.
The other bad actors in this play included some former presidential advisors who were found to be plotting a “Catholic Spring” or a coup of some kind. I have not seen any serious investigation into this matter, and was wondering if you have any thoughts or information about this possibility. Thanks.
LikeLike
Christina,
Thanks for reading the article, and for your comments.
Indeed. If BXVI was forced out, all what you say would be true.
The problem is, you need to prove it. It is not enough to say the St. Gallen Mafia despised Ratzinger and wanted him gone. It would be necessary to show they took some action; and that BXVI resigned BECAUSE of it, and in way that was not “freely” done.
What we know about BXVI’s freedom is the following. 1) he said he was acting with full freedom in his Declaratio. 2) He said he acted freely in his Seewald interviews. 3) He lived for 10 more years, seeing and communicating with friends and colleagues which includes cardinals, bishops, etc. Not one of them has said he hinted or communicated in any way to them that his resignation was not free. and 4) He had ten years to secretly write some sort of testimony, and get it into the hands of any trusted friend. He could have handed them a flash drive with a ‘testimony’ on it. But, we have his last testimony. There is nothing on it to suggest he did not resign freely.
I wish it were otherwise. But, we must accept the reality.
Regarding the rest…about the “Catholic spring”…yes…I am all for an investigation into what really happened at the 2013 conclave, regarding the “Influential Italian Gentleman”, the St. Gallen mafia, suspicious police raid on the morning of the conclave, etc. Check out my “Conclave Chronicles” articles on the conclave (see https://romalocutaest.com/2020/09/23/the-conclave-chronicles/) and or a summary of some of my findings which appeared in LifeSiteNews (see https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/theres-still-many-unsolved-mysteries-surrounding-the-2013-election-of-cdl-bergoglio/).
Thanks again for your comments.
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
Thank you sir.
I think that, if someone wanted to split the papacy in an active governing part of ministerial ‘doing’ on the one hand – and a passive, praying, enclosure, ontological part on the other – and thus expand and de-mystify (Ganswein) the papacy, that he’ld reserve the name Supreme Pontiff for the judicial part. ‘Supreme’ is like the husband being head over his wife-part, not so much like the love her like your own body-part. And isn’t ‘pontiff’ taken from old roman pontifex maximus? Hardly the suffering, praying, remaining, sacramental part then. I’m saying it does align with some who’ld wanted to split the papacy. Mind you, it’s in fact irrelevant what his intentions were (Cionici’s nor Barnhardt’s), they can not be known, it’s what he cannonically did and this on only one aspect: was it doubtful or not.
LikeLike
Pkc,
thanks for the reply.
I really don’t see where it can be said he thought he could retain parts of the papacy. Leading Benepapists have attempted to claim that with regard to the Declaratio where BXVI writes:
” I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.”
Above, BXVI speaks of being aware the papacy must be carried out with “words and deeds” but also “prayer and suffering.” The Benepapist claim here, is that this means he can’t do the “words and deeds”; but that as he is able still to “pray and suffer” — BXVI is retaining the “prayer and suffering” part of the papacy.
I don’t see that as a fair reading of the text at all. BXVI’s very next sentence –beginning with “however” — he says that because the world today is “subject to so many rapid changes” and is “shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith” that “in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter” that “both strength of mind and body are necessary.” But with regard to his strength, he says it has deteriorated to the point he had to “recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.”
Thus, his point is, yes…I am aware the papacy must be carried out “words and deeds” BUT with “prayer and suffering” too; but given I am too weak to carry out some of important tasks the pope must do – even if I can still do other tasks – it is still true I cannot adequately to the job. And then this leads into his resignation declaration; the aforementioned being his “reason” for his renunciation.
BXVI makes it also clear in his Seewald interviews. See the Last Testament, p,19 KINDLE version. He says that even if one can ‘strike’ some of the things off the papal to do list — thus meaning, still doing the other things he can do — that is still not enough in BXVI’s opinion. BXVI says that is not enough because there is still so much that is “essential” and thus “for ME anyway….now is the time to FREE UP THE CHAIR.”
So, putting it all together, his point is. Yes, there are some papal tasks that could be struck of the to do list, and others that can still be done (e.g., prayer and suffering); BUT there is so much more that is essential, if one can’t to them, “for me anyway”, it time to “free up the chair.”
He is not saying:
“yes, some things I can do, some I can’t. Therefore, I’ll give up what I can’t do, and keep what I can do, remaining pope in that way.”
No. He is saying:
“yes, some things I can do, some I can’t. But given some of things I can no longer do are too essential, in my view, I have to free up the chair of Peter, i.e., quit being pope altogether.”
He can’t “adequately” do the WHOLE job, so he quits the WHOLE job.
The other thing is, you are right…what he did canonically is the thing. It is clear that the wording in the Declaratio was certainly an attempt to mirror canon 332.2 on papal resignations. For example, he says he was acting in full freedom. There is a canon for a full resignation. There is no canon for a “partial resignation” obviously. Thus, his ‘canonical intent’ was to resign the papacy — and there is no provision for anything else.
His intent to resign the full papacy is clear in his language, even prescinding from the munus/ministerium debate. He said ‘I am renouncing the ministry of Rome, successor of St. Peter…in such a way…that the See of Rome, the See of Peter…will be vacant’ and a conclave would be necessary to elect a “new Supreme Pontiff.” That is very clear. The Chair of Peter will be “vacant.” No one on the chair of Peter = No pope = full resignation; and thus you guys need to elect a “new supreme pontiff.”
Thanks again,
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
Matt 18: 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
One of the major problems with the argument about BISP claims is that individuals will read and consider them and conclude “Well, I can see some sense in the Francis-ain’t-Pope arguments” but that is essentially a protestant response cos it is the Church that has the authority to take decisions on arguments not individuals.
The Church considers and treats Francis as Pope.
Roma locuta est?
Now, I think it likely that in the future the Church may well decide that Francis is a formal heretic (not merely material)and publicise that but we are not protestants ad can’t make that judgement on our own.
Another YUGE problem is the matter of intent. Canon Law does not, and can not, make judgments on the putative interior intent of its members. It deals with the observable actions.
The DOA Cult (Disciples of Ann) do make that judgements even though they have never demonstrated any afflatic ability.
The arguments of sedevacantists (Barnhardt is a sedevacantist) are never considered as legit as sedevacantists are forever seeking justification for their perfidy
LikeLike
VC…thanks for the comment. I think the most probable scenario we’re living through, and will see is what you suggest. IMHO, Francis will be condemned by a future pope as Honorius was…but much more severely. He is John XXII and Honorius rolled into one, times 1000, raised to the Nth degree.
Check out Cardinal Mueller’s latest comments: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-muller-pope-teaching-heresy/?utm_source=daily-usa-2023-10-28&utm_medium=email
Thanks.
Steve
LikeLike