Roma Locuta Est

February 29, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – Back in February of 2023, Roma Locuta Est published an article titled A Rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s book on Pope Benedict’s Resignation.  As the title suggests, the article addressed the key claims of Dr. Mazza’s just published book at the time (The Third Secret of Fatima & the Synodal Church: Volume I Pope Benedict’s Resignation).  

There were a few remaining odds and ends in the book I’ve been meaning to get to.  One those items was addressed in a recent article on Paul Badde‘s interview of Archbishop Gänswein (see The Good, the Badde, and the Tendentious).

The Emperor’s New Clothes and the False Analogy

Another issue I wanted to touch upon are the attempts by Benepapists (e.g., Dr. Mazza, Ms. Ann Barnhardt, Andrea Cionci) to suggest the resignation of Blessed Karl of Austria served in some way as a template for or an example of a ‘partial’ or even non-resignation resignation for Pope Benedict XVI. For example, Ms. Barnhardt cited this example of Karl (or Charles) who seemingly stepped down as Emperor of Austria in 1918, but who never used the word “abdication” (See Charles I of Austria).  Ms. Barnhardt says:

“Relinquishing governance without abdicating the office is exactly what Blessed Charles I Habsburg did under freemasonic coercion in November 1918”

(Antipope “Francis” Bergoglio: The Freemasonic Conspiracy to Destroy the Papacy; Barnhardt:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVU3qtmT-gU; 1:20:17″

Andrea Cionci in his book The Ratzinger Code (p. 67, Kindle) points to the “partial renunciations” of “several archdukes of the Austrian imperial family”, as well as the same example cited by Ms. Barnhardt, i.e., Emperor Karl I of Austria.

Likewise, In his book[1], Dr. Mazza uses the same example of Karl I to attempt to refute the proposition that a plain reading of Benedict’s Declaratio demonstrates his intent to fully resign the papacy.  Dr. Mazza writes:

“There are those who argue that because Benedict renounced the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome,” because he stated that “the Chair would vacant,” and that “a successor” would necessarily need to be elected, therefore, his renunciation was valid. But giving up the active service, allowing someone else to serve in that capacity is not the same as renouncing one’s ontological status as Vicar of Christ. Let us take the example of Blessed Karl I, Emperor of Austria-Hungary.” (p. 62)

Now, in response to Dr. Mazza, I would make a couple points to start.  I will return to Dr. Mazza’s comments about the “active service” or “active ministry” further down in this article. But first, let’s discuss Emperor Karl’s proclamation.

As I have argued before, in articles, my book, and videos, Benedict’s words in the Declaratio make clear he resigned the papacy in full, even if we set aside the munus vs. ministerium dispute. Benedict XVI said he renounced the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter…in such a way…the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter is vacant” and that an election of a “new supreme pontiff” would be necessary (see discussion in Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio, or Chapter 1 of my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, or in my video series).

From these words, it is evident, given the See of Rome, the See of Peter is vacant, obviously, there is no pope.  Therefore, Benedict resigned the papacy in full. Yet, Dr. Mazza attempts to dissuade the reader from this common sense reading of the Declaratio, instead proposing that his readers see in it an analogy to the proclamation of Blessed Karl, Emperor of Austria-Hungary wherein Karl retains the imperial throne, and gives up only “participation” in the government.  In the case of Benedict, Dr. Mazza proposes something similar, that Benedict only gave up the “active service” or “active ministry” in the Declaratio — but not the papal throne.

There is no need to go into the historical particulars regarding the pressures facing Karl I, which led him to do what he did.  I will stipulate that Karl I did not intend to abdicate. So, let’s see what he said. I borrow part of the key text of Emperor Karl’s proclamation from Dr. Mazza’s book (p,63):

Ever since my accession I have tried ceaselessly to lead my peoples out of the horrors of a war for whose inception I bear no trace of blame.

I have not hesitated to restore constitutional life and I have opened up for the peoples the path of their development as independent states.

Filled, now as ever, with unwavering devotion to all my peoples, I do not wish to oppose their free growth with my own person.

I recognize in advance whatever decision that German-Austria may make about its future political form.

The people, through its representatives, has taken over the government.  I renounce all [active] participation in the affairs of state. At the same time, I relieve my Austrian Government from office.

Again, the suggestion Dr. Mazza is making is that just as Emperor Karl avoided saying he abdicated his “Emperorship” – his office as Emperor, by only ‘renouncing participation’ in state affairs.  In like manner, according to Dr. Mazza, Benedict avoided giving up the papacy by renouncing only the “ministerium”, or “active service” or “active ministry.”  [NB: As a quick aside, Dr. Mazza inserted the word “active” in brackets before the word participation. A Google translation of the German here [ich verzichte auf jeden Anteilan den Staatsgeschuften] is given as “I renounce any share in the toil of the state.“] 

Before commenting on whether or not Benedict’s Declaratio bears any resemblance to Emperor Karl’s proclamation, let’s take a quick look again at Benedict’s Declaratio which reads (emphasis added):

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. 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. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.  And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

Now, it should be evident to anyone with common sense who actually reads these two documents, Karl’s proclamation and Benedict’s Declaratio, that there is not real resemblance, certainly not in what matters.  Consider the following observations:

{1} Benedict states his chair, “the See of Rome, the See of Peter” will be vacant. Emperor Karl does not make any similar or analogous statement about his imperial throne being “vacant.” He only renounces “participation.” Of course, Karl does not say his throne is “vacant” — he’s not resigning!  But Benedict does say the papal throne is “vacant” — because he is resigning in full!

{2} Benedict explicitly makes provision for his own successor necessitated by his resignation, stating a conclave “will have to be convoked” to elect a “new Supreme Pontiff.” Again, Emperor Karl does not make any similar or analogous statement about the need for either the government, or for his family, or for himself, or the Church to crown a new emperor. Of course, Karl makes no provision for a successor — he’s not resigning!  But Benedict does make such a provision — because he is resigning in full!

{3} Benedict entrusts the Church to the Lord, and implores Mary to assist the cardinals “in electing a new Supreme Pontiff.”  Here too, Emperor Karl does not make any similar or analogous appeal to the Lord, or Mary, asking for their assistance to help any authority to name, and crown a new Emperor.  Of course, Karl does not pray to God, and implore Mary to aid in the selection of a new Emperor — he’s not resigning!  But Benedict does pray to God, and implore Mary for such aid — because he is resigning in full!

In sum, it is quite evidence, there is no resemblance between what Pope Benedict XVI did, and what Emperor Karl did.  Pope Benedict XVI resigned the Chair of Peter in full. Emperor Karl attempted to hang on to his throne.

The Emperor’s New Clothes and the “Active Ministry”

There still remains the question of Dr. Mazza’s reference to the “active service” or “active ministry.” As quoted earlier from Dr. Mazza’s book (p.62):

“…But giving up the active service, allowing someone else to serve in that capacity is not the same as renouncing one’s ontological status as Vicar of Christ. Let us take the example of Blessed Karl I, Emperor of Austria-Hungary.” (p. 62)

Okay, we’ve address Emperor Karl proclamation, and demonstrated it bears no resemblance to Benedict’s Declaratio. 

However, there still remains the central claim by Dr. Mazza that “giving up the active service, allowing someone else to serve in that capacity is not the the same as renouncing one’s ontological status as Vicar of Christ.” Dr. Mazza is wrong. That Dr. Mazza is wrong will be demonstrated in this article in two ways. 

For the first demonstration, let us consider the text of Canon 331:

Can. 331 (Latin) — Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, Collegii Episcoporum est caput, Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor; qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet (emphasis added).

Can. 331 (English) — The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office 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 (emphasis added).

Looking at this canon, Fr. Rickert FSSP makes the following point (also quoted in my book):

If a pope renounces the administration of his office, he necessarily renounces the office itself, because the office per se (vi muneris)[2] entails the right to act. Thus, Pope Benedict’s renunciation of his administration entails renunciation of the papal office. That is why he goes on to express the results, which he is clearly cognizant of: the Chair of St. Peter will be vacant, and a new pope must be elected.[3]

Fr. Rickert argues that even if we assume, arguendo, that Benedict meant to resign the “ministerium” in the sense of the “active ministry” of the Petrine office which Dr. Mazza prefers, then this would still result in a valid resignation. This is so, as Fr. Rickert demonstrates, because “Pope Benedict’s renunciation of his administration entails the renunciation of the papal office.”  Per Canon 331, the right to act — what Dr. Mazza might call the “active ministry” of the papacy — is always associated with the papal munus. Thus, as a matter of logic, in renouncing the one, one necessarily renounces the other.  That is, renouncing the Petrine ministerium, one necessarily renounces the Petrine munus. See also the discussion of the definitions of munus and ministerium in Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto and Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Faulty Logic, and Faulty Comprehension with Respect to Canon 17.

The second demonstration is as follows. The reality is, Benedict’s Declaratio, which is the official instrument of his resignation, does not qualify that he is only giving up an “active” part of the papacy, as if there is an “inactive” part of it.  That is not found in the Declaratio.  Benedict said he renounced “the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter…in such a way…the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.” Benedict did not say he renounced the “active ministry of the Bishop of Rome,” etc.

As to the suggestion that Benedict only gave up the “active service”, or the “active ministry” or “active exercise of the ministry,” the Benepapist understanding comes through their misreading of the Last Audience (see Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience). 

It must be remembered that the term ‘active ministry’ in Church documents is usually contrasted with the ‘contemplative life’ or a life devoted to prayer. For example, there is a contrast between the life of a priest, who is in “active ministry” (i.e., a parish priest, being a pastor, being a bishop of a diocese, president of a school, or a hospital, etc.), to the life of a religious in a monastic order devoted to prayer (e.g., THE CONTEMPLATIVE DIMENSION OF RELIGIOUS LIFE (Plenaria of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes, 4-7 March 1980); 25).

To speak of a priest who has retired from, or resigned from, or left the “active ministry” is to speak of him having left and given up the official role or office or function he previously held in the Church. What remains to a priest after leaving the “active ministry” is to live a life devoted to prayer, e.g., saying the mass, the divine office, etc. An example of this distinction can be seen in comments made by Pope Paul VI in Australia in an address to priests, both those in “active ministry” and those who have left the “active ministry” and can now devote their lives to prayer (emphasis added):

In the above comments, the priestly life of “active ministry” from which one may retire – or resign is contrasted with a priestly life which is devoted to prayer after leaving the “active ministry”. 

So, let’s take the example of a pastor or head of a parish. If he were to say “I am resigning my active ministry and will now lead a life devoted to prayer,” he should naturally be understood to mean, “I am resigning as pastor and will now lead a life devoted to prayer.”  It would be incongruous and meaningless for a pastor to say, “I have resigned the ‘active ministry’ but will remain the pastor or head of this parish!” 

We may lay out the same analogy for a bishop of a diocese.  If he were to say, “I am resigning the active ministry and will devote my life to prayer”, he would rightly and naturally be understood to mean, “I am resigning as bishop of this diocese, and will devote my life to prayer.”  In no way would either the pastor or bishop in these examples be understood to mean they were keeping their current office. It would be incongruous to ask one’s bishop or pastor in these examples, “you say you’re resigning the ‘active ministry’…but are you remaining in your office as pastor/bishop of the diocese?” It would be a nonsensical question.

So, likewise with Benedict, when he said in the Last Audience that he is ‘resigning the active exercise of the ministry‘ this signifies he was, in fact, giving up the papacy, which is an “active ministry.” Like the priests that Pope Paul VI spoke to (above), Pope Paul VI spoke of those who have left the “active ministry” and those who now devote their lives to prayer. This is an important point, as it underlines the error the Benepapists, such as Barnhardt, Dr. Mazza, et al, have made in understanding the Last Audience.  Benedict spoke of the life he was leaving behind, which was an ‘active ministry’, in his case the papacy, and the new life he would engage in, i.e., a life devoted to prayer.  This life of prayer did not require that Benedict XVI keep any part of the papacy, nor does it even imply it.  As Paul VI said to the Australian priests, even though they may leaves the “active ministry” — i.e., give up their office, role, or function — they can devote their lives to prayer (e.g., the mass, the divine office, etc).

And, indeed, Pope Benedict in his last audience underscores this transition of resigning from the “active ministry” and turning to a life of prayer. Pope Benedict speaks of St. Benedict “showing us a way for a life which, whether active or passive” is given over to the Lord. To be clear, Pope Benedict quotes St. Benedict as speaking of a way of life which is active or passive; and not of a papacy which is either active or passive.

To summarize, if a pastor or bishop of a diocese or a pope speaks of resigning the “active ministry,” it is to speak of resigning the office/role/function, whether it be pastor of a parish, bishop of a diocese, or Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. While the underlying sacramental priesthood or episcopal consecration remains, the office does not – it is now vacant. 

Consequently, one can see from the examination of the Benepapist attempt to appeal to the analogy of Emperor Karl and the ‘active ministry’; that this Benepapist Emperor has no clothes.

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 Third Secret of Fatimate & The Synodal Church, Vol. I Pope Benedict’s Resignation by Edmund L Mazza, PhD

[2] Here, Fr. Rickert emphasizes that the word “muneris” is in fact a form of the same word, “munus.” See Leo F. Stelten, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), and its entry on munus.

[3] Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, Ph.D., “Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert”. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39718/