Roma Locuta Est

January 3, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – The erroneous belief that Benedict XVI remained pope until his death, or Benepapism, continues to be a relevant topic. This is especially the case, now, that the Francis pontificate appears to be winding down. Of course, only God knows when it might end.

However, various arch-Benepapists have taken a position they will not accept a future conclave which does not meet their conditions (e.g., no Francis appointed cardinals can participate).  Needless to say, for the arch-Benepapists, and those poor souls who have been misled by them and their specious arguments, it is very likely they will transition from being “Benepapists” to being something like ‘neo-sedevacantists.’

Thus, one of the missions of this wee, humble blog, Roma Locuta Est, has been to head off this catastrophe by publishing articles (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), a book (Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI), and producing a, now, 14 part video series (see HERE) against the erroneous arguments of the Benepapists.

This brings us to the latest endeavor of Roma Locuta Est in this regard. Last year I published a rebuttal of Dr. Edmund Mazza’s book in an article titled A Rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s book on Pope Benedict’s Resignation.  Over the last few months, I’ve considered that there might be some other odds and ends in Dr. Mazza’s arguments, here and there, which I might want to address at some point.

For example, I saw Dr. Mazza’s recent appearance on the Tim Gordon’s “Rules for Retrogrades Show”(see HERE). This appearance along with other material has provided the fodder for a couple of articles, of which this is the first, to go along with another that was already in the works on the topic of Benepapism.

Dr. Mazza and his analysis of the Gänswein-Badde interview

On the Tim Gordon show, Dr. Mazza brought up a comment Archbishop Gänswein had made in his June 2016 interview with Paul Badde (see HERE). Dr. Mazza read Gänswein’s comments to mean he believed there were, in fact “two popes” at the time of the interview, and that Benedict XVI at the time was one of them, at least in some way.

Here is a key portion of the interview that I will examine in this article:

Paul Badde: I know a number of Cardinals who are still upset when hearing that the Church currently has two living successors to Peter. Recently, you spoke about an expanded Petrine office, which Pope Benedict is said to have introduced. Could you explain that a bit further?

Archbishop Georg Gänswein: Yes, you hint at a book launch of an Italian professor, Roberto Regoli, who has written a book dealing with a first evaluation of the pontificate. He is a professor at the Gregorian University, where the book was also presented. I was one of the two persons presenting it and yes, I have spoken of an exponentiated [enlarged] pontificate. To make this very clear, because I saw from among the reactions that I was imputed to have said a number of things that I did not say: Of course, Pope Francis is the legitimate  and legitimately elected Pope. Any talk of two Popes, one legitimate, one illegitimate, is, therefore, incorrect. What I did, in fact, say, and what Benedict also said, was that he continues to be present in prayer and sacrifice, in the “Recinto” of Saint Peter (which is placed outside the walls of the Vatican,) which bears spiritual fruit for his successors and the Church. That is what I meant. For three years, we have had two Popes living, and I stress that the reality of the perception of conflict is covered by what I have explained.

Paul Badde: So, if I have understood correctly, he has remained in service, but in the contemplative role only, without authority to decide. Does that mean that we have now, as you said, an active and a contemplative part, which together form an extension of munus petrinum?

Archbishop Georg Gänswein: That is how I said it. To be more precise, it is very clear that Pope Francis owns the plena potestas, the plenitudine potestatis (full authority). He is the one holding the succession of Peter. As I have said as well – there are no difficulties. There is no competition or rivalry. When applying common sense, faith and a little theology, that should be clear.

Source: Edward Pentin’s blog at National Catholic Register , July 5, 2016

Above, I used Edward Pentin’s NCRegister translation for the full excerpt. As we will see, Dr. Mazza used the same translation for one excerpt, but then a different one for another segment. That said, let’s take a look at Dr. Mazza’s claim about this interview, and then I will offer a reply to it.

Dr. Mazza’s Claims about Gänswein’s Badde Interview

In a recent appearance on Tim Gordon, at the c. 21:43 mark, Dr. Mazza says there is a “data set of bizarre stuff.”  Dr. Mazza says in part):

“…as a quick example.  So in june 2016, Ganswein does an interview with Paul Padde and he says the following…’now we have had for three years, two popes,  and i have the impression the reality of I perceive is covered by what I said.”

(Source:  Tim Gordon’s “Rules for Retrogrades”…..Unofficial transcription: O’Reilly)

In his recent book, Dr. Mazza quotes the same sentence from Gänswein’s interview.  As Dr. Mazza writes (emphasis in the original):

“Nevertheless, Ganswein considered Benedict a present successor of Peter–not a former one–and thus, in that sense he added: “now [2016] we have had for three years two popes and I have the impression that the reality that I perceive is covered by what I have said.” Ganswein does not mince words: Benedict has remained pope [in some sense] for the three years since his exit.” (Mazza book, p. 43)

Let’s look at Dr. Mazza’s claim regarding the Badde interview. Dr. Mazza asserts that Gänswein “considered Benedict a present successor of Peter–not a former one” and because of this, he therefore stated, as of 2016, “we have had for three years two popes.”

Dr. Mazza quotes the interview in two segments in his book, the first on pages 42-43, and the second on pages 43-44. The second segment is quoted below, with the bracketed words and ellipses (which we will return to later) being inserted by Dr. Mazza (emphasis added):

Badde: “If I understand you aright, he [Benedict] remained in office, but in the contemplative part without having any authority to decide . Thus we have — as you said — now an active and a contemplative part which form together an enlargement of the Munus Petrinum [primacy and office of Peter]?”

Ganswein: “That is what I have said, indeed…”

From this Badde interview, Dr. Mazza claims that (1) Gänswein “considered Benedict a present successor of Peter–not a former one“, (2) Gänswein believed in the “enlargement of the Munus Petrinum” – defined by Dr. Mazza as the “primacy and office of Peter”, and (2) Gänswein believed as of 2016 “we have had for three years two popes.”

Below, I will address all these points of Dr. Mazza’s interpretation and claim.

Reply to Dr. Mazza

Dr. Mazza claims Gänswein “considered Benedict a present successor of Peter–not a former one.” This assertion is based on Dr. Mazza’s reading of the Badde interview. Part of that claim is based on Gänswein’s statement about ‘two living popes.’ I will deal with that toward the end of this article. The claim is also based on the part of the Badde interview, which – per the translation provided by Dr. Mazza – reads as follows (Bold and italics added):

Badde: “If I understand you aright, he [Benedict] remained in office, but in the contemplative part [office as rite] without having any authority to decide [office as jurisdiction]. Thus we have — as you said — now an active and a contemplative part which form together an enlargement of the Munus Petrinum [primacy and office of Peter]?”

Ganswein: “That is what I have said, indeed…”

[The Third Secret of Fatima & the Synodal Church. Volume 1 Pope Benedict’s Resignation by Edmund Mazza, PhD, pages 43-44]

The first couple of bracketed comments above are Dr. Mazza’s inserted comments based on his overall theory, which is in itself questionable. I have addressed some of Dr. Mazza’s misreading of Cardinal Ratzinger’s works elsewhere (see A closer look at Mr. Coffin’s evidence: Dr. Mazza’s Thesis 3.0). The third bracketed comment above is Dr. Mazza’s insertion of his definition of what Paul Badde intended, and what Gänswein understood by “Munus Petrinum” in the context of his speech. My reply will, in two parts below, examine the phrase “remained in office“, and what Gänswein really intended to say in his use of “Munus Petrinum” in his 2016 speech.

Benedict “remained in office”?

As seen in the fuller quote I provided at the beginning of this article, and also in the section of it provided by Dr. Mazza above; Badde lays out a clarifying premise for a clarifying question.  The premise/clairification is: “If I understand you aright, he [Benedict] remained in office.” The clarifying question itself is, “Thus we have — as you said — now an active and a contemplative part which form together an enlargement of the Munus Petrinum [primacy and office of Peter]?”

As we see from Gänswein’s response, he accepts or agrees with Badde’s premise and clarifying question  stating — depending on the translation of the German — either “That is what I have said” or “That is how I said it.” Thus, it appears, Gänswein admits the Benepapist premise that Benedict XVI somehow “remained in office“, i.e., the office of bishop of Rome.  Case closed.  It would seem.

However, there is a problem here with Dr. Mazza’s appeal to these interview quotes, in part depending on the translation of the Badde interview. In his book, Dr. Mazza quotes two sections of the Badde interview. For the first excerpt, Dr. Mazza cites the NCRegister‘s translation (cf. Mazza’s book; p. 42 and 43, footnote 51).  For the second excerpt of the interview from Dr. Mazza’s book, which I provided above, Dr. Mazza’s book (cf Mazza p. 43 and 44) gives the translation that includes “remained in office.” Unfortunately, Dr. Mazza provides no footnote for this citation.

In the absence of a footnote, the reader might presumably understand that this second excerpt containing “remained in office” from the same interview, came from the same translation (i.e., the NCRegister, cited by Dr. Mazza, footnote 51).  However, that is not the case. If one consults the NCRegister transcript, one will find that the interview at this point is translated to say Benedict “remained in service.” The German word used, as one can see in the video, is “Dienst.”  The definition of “Dienst” is ‘service’. The German word for “office” is “Amt” (which was not used). Again, reviewing the video, Badde used “Dienst”, not “Amt.”

The difference in translations aside for the moment, the important point is the translation “remained in service (Dienst)” is not consistent with Dr. Mazza’s thesis, which here depends on a translation that Benedict “remained in office.” Remaining in “service” is consistent with the understanding that Benedict fully resigned the papacy. For example, Pope Benedict XVI in his last audience said after his resignation that he would continue “in the service of prayer” for the Church [NB: “Dienst” is used in the Vatican site’s German translation of “servizio” of Benedict’s last audience]. That was the mission Benedict XVI set for himself as Pope Emeritus. I went into this in great detail in an article (Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience), a two part video series (Part 1, Part 2), and in my book (Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI).

I will return the translation issue again shortly.

Extension of munus petrinum?

Thus we see, in the Badde interview, Gänswein consented to the premise that Benedict “remained in service”, and not to the premise that Benedict “remained in office.”  But what about the part where Gänswein consented to when Badde asked him about the “enlargment of the munus Petrinum?”

According to Dr. Mazza’s definition inserted in brackets, when Badde spoke of the “munus Petrinum” he intended, and Gänswein understood him to be speaking of the “primacy and office of Peter.”  Is Dr. Mazza correct on this point?  The answer is “no” in so far as Gänswein’s usage in this speech, which is the context of the question. Munus can be used in different ways, one of them is “office.” However, that is not how Gänswein used it in his May 2016 speech, as we will see.

In speaking of “munus Petrinum”, in the context of the prior section of the interview (detailed at the start of this article), Badde was referring to Gänswein’s use of the term in his May 2016 speech.  As it so happens, in that speech, Gänswein told us the sense or meaning in which he intended “munus”:

And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry.

Source:  Ganswein’s Speech from 2016

Note, while Gänswein speaks of a “multiplicity of meanings,” he has left out the most important meaning which directly relates to the Benepapist claim of an invalid resignation. That is, Gänswein did not include “office” among the “multiplicity of meanings.”

Indeed, the authoritative Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin by Leo F. Stelton lists the meanings of munus as “gift, bounty, present offering; duty, office, employment, responsibility, service; bribe” (see munus -eris, p. 166).  The meanings given by Stelton are quite similar to those given by Gänswein, but note: Gänswein excludes the meaning of “office”. 

This is significant because it demonstrates, as I have argued elsewhere (see Deconstructing Ann Barnhardt’s Benedict Video), that when speaking of an ‘expanded munus Petrinum’ with regard to Benedict, he is speaking in an extended, even figurative sense. That is, that Benedict, though he no longer holds the Petrine munus in the sense of the office, he still continued to serve the papacy and the Church through prayers, praying as a former pope, as the honorific title “emeritus” intends.

Now, the Benepapists have attempted to make much hay out of Gänswein’s talk of an “expanded Petrine ministry” in his 2016 speech (German version, and English Translation) Here, too, I’ve rebutted the Benepapist arguments such that none of them have ever dared to try to address and rebut them.  See my article, Regarding Ganswein’s speech, or my two part video series (PART 1, and PART 2), or my aforementioned book (Chapter 5), and or my recent rebuttal of Ann Barnhardt’s video — the rebuttal titled Deconstructing Ann Barnhardt’s Benedict Video. These sources go into detail to demonstrate, with examples, Gänswein was speaking in a loose, extended, even figurative sense. For example, while the Benepapists cite Gänswein talk of an expanded Petrine munus, Gänswein’s actual words show he was not speaking of the munus as “office” — the meaning which would suggest the papacy. Rather, he intended it in the sense of ‘service’ (Dienst) (or ‘ministry’) as the words of the actual speech, and the context indicate.

For example, it is more than obvious that this is the sense in which Gänswein is speaking when we get to the end of his May 2016 speech.  Recall, this speech was given at an event to launch a book by Fr. Roberto Regoli about the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. For those, who want to interpret Gänswein’s talk of an “expanded ministry”, “enlarged munus Petri”, or a continued “participation” in the “Petrine ministry” in a real, strict sense; how then do these same folks interpret Gänswein when he says of the book’s author (Fr. Roberto Regoli) at the end of the same speech (emphasis and bracketed German 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 [Dienst] around the successors of the Apostle Peter; and for this today we offer him heartfelt thanks. “

Above, Gänswein says the author Fr. Roberto Regoli now takes part in the munus Petri!  Indeed, Gänswein even goes farther saying Regoli, Peter Seewald, and others(!) enter into that “enlarged Petrine ministry (Dienst)!”

Where are our Benepapist interpreters on this?  Is Gänswein speaking literally or figuratively of Regoli taking “part in the munus Petri?” Is Gänswein speaking literally or figuratively when he says of Regoli, Seewald, and others that they have entered into that “enlarged Petrine ministry”? Is Gänswein saying that Regoli, Seewald, and others are now “popes” in some way, like Benedict? 

No, the obvious, simpler, and more natural explanation is the correct one:  Gänswein is saying that in some extended sense, Benedict, Regoli, Seewald, and others, serve or support the Petrine service/ministry in their various and unique ways. Benedict through his commitment of a life now dedicated to the “service of prayer” for the whole Church, and Regoli, Seewald, etc., through their books and articles about the papacy – serve in a sense in an ‘enlarged munus Petri.’

The answer is clear. Gänswein 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, as said, 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, Gänswein 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 Gänswein should be taken and understood throughout his speech regarding Benedict’s post-resignation participation in the “expanded Petrine ministry.”

Thus, it is clear, in his speech Gänswein intended to exclude the meaning “office” from “munus Petri” and that is why he could agree to Badde’s clarifying premise/question about Benedict ‘remaining in service‘ — precisely because he never spoke of Benedict “remaining in office” as pope. Rather, he spoke of him “remaining in service” in the extended sense intended in his speech, and which was the context of Badde’s question.

And shown above, and demonstrated elsewhere in my articles, book, and videos, Gänswein in that same speech, says that others, not just Benedict, participate in this “munus Petrinum” or “Petrine ministry” defined in a broader sense.  Gänswein’s reference to others, like Fr. Roberto Regoli, Peter Seewald, etc.,  participating in the same “munus Petrinum” demonstrate clearly he is not speaking of a shared office, but of a shared ministry or service in a looser, extended sense we see in scripture, such as 3 John 8 (“fellow workers in the Truth”), also cited by Gänswein in his speech.  Benepapists never address or even discuss these references within the 2016 speech.  Why? Because they lay bare the error of their interpretation.

Gänswein’s meaning is not that ‘Benedict had not abandoned the “office“‘ (“Amt” in German), but only that he had not abandoned “service” (“Dienst” in German) to the Church. But that is consistent with a full, valid resignation; because as Benedict said said in his Last Audience – he would continue in “service of prayer” for the Church.

More on “Remained in Service” vs. “Remained in Office”

With that as background, we can return to the Badde interview, and Badde’s premise that Benedict had “remained in service.” As proved above, Gänswein’s reaction (“that is what I said“) is perfectly consistent with the view Benedict fully resigned the papacy on February 28, 2013 — precisely because neither of them were speaking of remaining in the Petrine office. Saying Benedict “remained in service” is perfectly in line with a valid resignation, as described by Benedict in his Last Audience, and by Gänswein in his speech.

The German word used by Badde, “Dienst,” is consistent with Gänswein’s extended use of the word “munus” in the context of the “munus Petri” as seen above (“Dienst” means “service” or “duty”) — and applied to others with regard to an ‘expanded Petrine ministry (Dienst). The online German dictionary suggests “service” is a fair definition of “Dienst” (see HERE); as does the NCRegister translation, and another German dictionary.[1]  In addition, various translations of Italian and or Latin texts into German on the Vatican website support this usage as well.

Indeed, if one looks at the German translation of Benedict’s Last Audience (originally in the Italian), the German word “Dienst” is used for “service” (Italian: servizio) where Benedict speaks of remaining in the “service of prayer.”

Moreover, had Badde and Gänswein been speaking of Benedict “remaining in office” they would have more likely used the German word “Amt,” which means “office.”[2]  Consider the importance to the Benepapist argument of canon 332.2.  On the Vatican website, the German language translation of the Latin in Canon 332.2 uses “Amt” for the meaning of “munus” in the sense of office (emphasis and bracket comments added):

Canon 332.2: If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [Latin: munus; German: Amt], it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.

[Source:  Coriden, James A., et al, eds. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 437.  Latin and German translations added in brackets by O’Reilly.]

So, it is clear Dr. Mazza’s analysis of and conclusions regarding the Badde interview rely on “office” being the only proper translation of “Dienst“.  However, I have shown the translation of “Dienst” as “service”  aligns with, and is consistent with other translations of important texts in this controversy (e.g., the Last Audience, Canon 332.2, Badde’s interview, Gänswein’s speech).

The question remains: where did Dr. Mazza get his translation of “Dienst” as “office”?  As stated earlier, such a reading does not appear in the NCRegister translation which he cites in his footnote 51 on p. 43 of his book for the first excerpt he uses.  So, where did Dr. Mazza find his translation that included “office”?

If I had to wager, it appears to me Dr. Mazza took his translation from a OnePeterFive article of the Badde interview (see HERE) which translated “Dienst” as “office.” Whether that is the case or not, I am not here disputing the OnePeterFive translation as either a possible or not a possible translation. The issue is only that the NCRegister translation as “remained in service” is perfectly acceptable, per consulted German dictionaries, and even more importantly the aformentioned translations of the key documents mentioned here (the Last Audience, and Gänswein’s speech).  All support the use of “service” (or “ministry”) as a translation for “Dienst,” and in the case of Gänswein’s speech and Canon 312.2, the use of “office” for “Amt.”[3]

Dr. Mazza was seemingly aware of both translations (NCRegister and OnePeterFive), yet opted for the one that seemingly made his thesis appear stronger.[4]  Alternatively, it is possible Dr. Mazza cut and pasted excepts from two different translations of the same interview without being aware one translated the controverted line “remained in office” and the other “remained in service.”  This alternative explanation is the more charitable view — but even at that, questions remain.

Whatever the case, it seems odd that Dr. Mazza switched horses midstream without notifying his reader of both (1) the fact this was done, and (2) without notifying the reader that one translation yields a decidedly different conclusion than the one Dr. Mazza is pushing. And that is the key point here.  Accordingly, if nothing else, Dr. Mazza should have greatly softened his conclusion to allow that another translation of “Dienst” would either weaken or actually nullify his thesis altogether.  Either way, there is nothing controversial left about that portion of the interview (NB: even if one still prefers the OnePeterFive translation, see note 4).

As we have seen, Dr. Mazza claimed Gänswein “considered Benedict a present successor of Peter–not a former one.”  The commentary I provided above shows this is simply not the case.  He did not “remain in office.” Yet, there is more evidence from Gänswein’s speech which demonstrates he did not “consider Benedict” at the time “a present successor of Peter — not a former one.” 

Gänswein made various other unmistakable statements that Benedict was no longer pope at all. For example, in his 2016 speech, Gänswein affirmed Benedict “left the papal throne,” and speaks of him as having “stepped down,” and references Francis as “his successor.” Other references make clear Benedict is no longer pope, e.g.: “I was present when Benedict XVI, at the end of his mandate, removed the Fisherman’s ring, as is customary after the death of a pope, even though in this case he was still alive!” Also, Gänswein specifies in his speech that Benedict’s pontificate had beginning and an end: “…Benedict XVI, at the helm of the barque of Peter in the dramatic years 2005-2013.”

The key takeaway is that none of these expressions are accounted for in the Benepapist interpretations of Gänswein speech; nor are they reconcilable with Dr. Mazza’s assertion that Gänswein “considered Benedict a present successor of Peter–not a former one.”  Dr. Mazza makes no attempt to reconcile these contrary expressions with his analysis. As before, his readers are the poorer for it, and are consequently being misled.

In addition, in the same speech from May 2016, Gänswein specifically states “there are not therefore two popes but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member” [See note 2 regarding translation].  Gänswein here specifically disclaims there being two popes (“there are not therefore two popes“) and only speaks of a “de facto expanded office” rather than of an actual, or de jure (i.e., legally recognized) office. So, Gänswein was not suggesting the papal office (German: Amt) was actually expanded.  As to the meaning of the “munus Petri,” I already explained how Gänswein claimed others, besides Benedict, participated in an ‘enlarged munus Petri’ and how this is not consistent with the Benepapist claim of a narrow interpretation of Benedict participating (at the time) in the munus Petri alone with Francis.

Furthermore, as yet another proof, Gänswein would later angrily address a close associate of Don Minutella, denouncing the latter’s Benepapist views, and book(!) (see  Benedict names “always and only Pope Francis” in the mass and  Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”). Brother Bugnolo summarized Gänswein’s words from a phone conversation with a Benepapist priest as follows (emphasis added):

“In summary, the phone call:  Don Minutella is a nut, theologically out of his mind. His book is not worth the paper it is written on. That Pope Benedict is totally faithful to Pope Francis. That he names not himself but Pope Francis in the Canon of the Mass. That there are errors in the Declaratio, but that it remains valid.  This communication was like a kick in the legs, to use a metaphor from soccer.  The telephone call ended by asking Father Gebhardt to seek spiritual counsel to avoid further canonical penalties.”

(Source: APPEAL TO ARCHBISHOP GANSWEIN, FROM CATHOLIC CLERGY IN COMMUNION WITH CHRIST’S VICAR ON EARTH)

It’s obvious from the above that Gänswein did not consider Benedict to be pope; and nor did he think Benedict thought so either. Again, none of the above is brought to the attention of, or explained by Dr. Mazza to his readers.

From ‘Badde to Worse’

Even though the above is more than sufficient to demolish Dr. Mazza’s commentary on the Badde interview, we may yet go even further. Again, recall, Dr. Mazza is asserting that Gänswein’s reply to Badde should be interpreted to mean Gänswein at the time “considered Benedict a present successor of Peter–not a former one.”  

However, what Dr. Mazza does not tell his readers – who have not likely read the whole interview; is that Dr. Mazza inserted an ellipses after Gänswein answered “That is how I said it;” thereby leaving out a crucial part of Ganswein’s answer. Here is a fuller excerpt from the interview than the one provided by Dr. Mazza in his book on pages 43 and 44 (emphasis added):

Paul Badde: So, if I have understood correctly, he has remained in service, but in the contemplative role only, without authority to decide. Does that mean that we have now, as you said, an active and a contemplative part, which together form an extension of munus petrinum?

Archbishop Georg Gänswein: That is how I said it. To be more precise, it is very clear that Pope Francis owns the plena potestas, the plenitudine potestatis (full authority). He is the one holding the succession of Peter. As I have said as well – there are no difficulties. There is no competition or rivalry. When applying common sense, faith and a little theology, that should be clear.

Note, the part in bold above was left out by Dr. Mazza — a part the readers of his book were not shown.  I ask the fair reader:  Does this excluded portion help or hurt Dr. Mazza’s assertion that Gänswein considered Benedict “a present successor of Peter–not a former one”?

In his book, Dr. Mazza only includes the following of Gänswein’s response:  “That is what I have said, indeed…” (See Dr. Mazza, p. 44).  Dr. Mazza leaves out Gänswein’s words which immediately follow which explodes his reading of the Badde interview.  Gänswein explicitly states:

“To be more precise, it is very clear that Pope Francis owns the plena potestas, the plenitudine potestatis (full authority). He is the one holding the succession of Peter.” 

Gänswein explicitly says Pope Francis “is the one holding the succession of Peter”, i.e., not Benedict — and that is why Gänswein can say as a result, “as I have said as well – there are no difficulties.” Why did Dr. Mazza leave that out? If Dr. Mazza had thought these excluded words would help his argument, you can be assured Dr. Mazza would have included them.  But he excluded them.  But we know he was aware of them if he used the OnePeterFive translation as I hypothesized earlier. Yet…he still excluded them.

Regardless, the fact is, Dr. Mazza excluded the elephant in the room. Why? This was an obvious disservice to the average reader who likely never read the original interview, and who as a result, might more likely form a different, false opinion, aligned with Dr. Mazza’s; than otherwise would have been formed had the average reader been provided a more complete text.

“We have had two living Popes”?  Say what?

Finally, we turn now to the question of Gänswein saying, as he did in the interview, that “For three years we have had two popes living.”  What on earth can this mean?  Does such a statement indicate Gänswein believed Benedict was still a true living pope at the time he said this in June 2016?

Here is the excerpt from the Badde interview (translation by NCRegister) (emphasis added):

Paul Badde: I know a number of Cardinals who are still upset when hearing that the Church currently has two living successors to Peter. Recently, you spoke about an expanded Petrine office, which Pope Benedict is said to have introduced. Could you explain that a bit further?

Archbishop Georg Gänswein: Yes, you hint at a book launch of an Italian professor, Roberto Regoli, who has written a book dealing with a first evaluation of the pontificate. He is a professor at the Gregorian University, where the book was also presented. I was one of the two persons presenting it and yes, I have spoken of an exponentiated [enlarged] pontificate. To make this very clear, because I saw from among the reactions that I was imputed to have said a number of things that I did not say: Of course, Pope Francis is the legitimate  and legitimately elected Pope. Any talk of two Popes, one legitimate, one illegitimate, is, therefore, incorrect. What I did, in fact, say, and what Benedict also said, was that he continues to be present in prayer and sacrifice, in the “Recinto” of Saint Peter (which is placed outside the walls of the Vatican,) which bears spiritual fruit for his successors and the Church. That is what I meant. For three years, we have had two Popes living, and I stress that the reality of the perception of conflict is covered by what I have explained.

What should be evident from my commentary up to this point, is that Gänswein did not believe Benedict remained pope after his resignation.  I cited various portions of Gänswein’s own May 2016 speech wherein he speak of Benedict being a former pope, e.g., having ‘left the throne‘, his pontificate ending in 2013, etc.  Also in the 2016 speech, Gänswein specifically disclaims there being two popes (“there are not therefore two popes“) and only speaks of a “de facto expanded office” rather than an actual, or de jure (i.e., legally recognized) office. So, clearly, whatever Gänswein meant to say, he was not suggesting the papal office was occupied at that moment by “two living popes” in the strict sense.

Also, just a bit further on in the Badde interview, Gänswein speaks of Francis as being the one who holds the succession of Peter, i.e., it is not Benedict who does: “it is very clear that Pope Francis owns the plena potestas, the plenitudine potestatis (full authority). He is the one holding the succession of Peter.” Gänswein adds thus “there are no difficulties.”  He could only say that if Benedict was no longer pope, because – otherwise – then there would be difficulties!  So, again, whatever Gänswein meant to say, he was not suggesting the papal office was occupied at that moment by “two living popes” in the strict sense.

So, what then of the “two living popes” comments?  Well, there are two senses in which one can take this reference.  One sense is the one the Benepapists adopt, i.e., Gänswein in 2016 meant that there were literally ‘two living popes occupying the papal office at this moment — both of them true popes.’  Yet, this view, as shown above in this present article, is not consistent with what Gänswein has said elsewhere — even in the same Badde interview.

Thus, this leads to a simpler, more natural reading of Gänswein’s meaning. He is speaking of two men who are or who have been popes – but who are still living (as of that time).  It might be like the following example.  If one were to have met Biden and Trump in the last month, one could say in a sense, “I’ve met two living presidents.” Indeed, one can search for articles that might say something like “There are six living presidents” without the writer intending to mean there are legally, six living presidents.

Similarly, Benedict after his resignation was a successor of Peter, albeit a resigned one, and he will be such for all time – just like Linus, and all other dead popes are considered successors of Peter. Based on all the evidence, this is the sense of what Gänswein likely meant at the time he said it, i.e., Francis and Benedict are both living successors of Peter (one in office, and one resigned). This is far simpler, and far more plausible than the Benepapist reading which must ignore all other statements by Gänswein — then or since.

Final Thoughts

Dr. Mazza’s assertions that Gänswein after the resignation and before his death “considered Benedict a present successor of Peter–not a former one” are simply wrong, and provably false. A plausible variant translation which is not consistent with his claim is either ignored, or dismissed without explanation by Dr. Mazza — when one should have been offered to his readers. Dr. Mazza ignores all evidence to the contrary which demonstrates Gänswein did not believe Benedict was still a pope at the time. Some of this evidence is even found within the Gänswein-Badde interview; but this evidence which would otherwise disprove his claim, through the insertion of an ellipses, was not even presented to Dr. Mazza’s readers for evaluation. In addition, Dr. Mazza makes no attempt to come to grips with Gänswein’s reference to “two living popes”, exhibiting no effort to see how this term might be reasonably used in a sense other than the one favorable to his argument.

I take no delight in it, but I have addressed other examples where Dr. Mazza’s reading and interpretation of source material of his own choice is highly questionable. I have previously addressed in detail other instances in this Benepapist controversy where his interpretations are read into the texts (see A closer look at Mr. Coffin’s evidence: Dr. Mazza’s Thesis 3.0), and counter evidence is ignored (see A Rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s book on Pope Benedict’s Resignation). In sum, what should be clear from this present article, is that Dr. Mazza’s claims about the Gänswein-Badde interview are false and tendentious.

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] The Bantam New College German & English Dictionary gives among the english definitions of Dienst as “Service, Job, Employment…on duty”.  (The Bantam New College German & English Dictionary, Bantam Books, 1981. p.65)

[2] Ganswein in his speech used “Amt” for “office” when he says:

German: “Seit der Wahl seines Nachfolgers Franziskus am 13. März 2013 gibt es also keine zwei Päpste, aber de facto ein erweitertes Amt – mit einem aktiven und einem kontemplativen Teilhaber.”

Translation 1: 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. (Translation by Diane Montagna, see https://aleteia.org/2016/05/30/complete-english-text-archbishop-georg-gansweins-expanded-petrine-office-speech/)

Google Translation: “Since the election of his successor Francis on March 13, 2013, there have been no two popes, but de facto an expanded office – with an active and a contemplative partner.”

Above, in the original German, Ganswein here does use “Amt” or office.  However, Ganswein here specifically disclaims there being two popes (“there are not therefore two popes“) and only speaks of a “de facto expanded office” rather than an actual, or de jure (i.e., legally recognized) office. So, Ganswein was not suggesting the papal office (Amt) was actually expanded. Consequently, even this cannot be credibly turned to support the Benepapist thesis.

[3]  I also ran this by folks with German language abilities, including a native speaker.

[4]  Even if we were to grant, arguendo, that “office” is the preferred translation of “Dienst” in this particular case; it still remains the case that in Ganswein’s speech, as per Note 2 above, he disclaims there being two popes (“there are not therefore two popes“) and only speaks of a “de facto expanded office” rather than an actual, or de jure (i.e., legally recognized) office.  Thus, saying Benedict “remained in office” would refer to a ‘de facto’ situation, not an actual, literal, or de jure “remaining in office.”  Such a meaning would not redound to the benefit of Dr. Mazza’s thesis.