Roma Locuta Est

March 13, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – Saw an article on Ms. Ann Barnhardt’s  blog earlier today, where she advanced a strange argument to try to support her claim Benedict XVI really did not resign the papacy. I wasn’t planning on bothering to reply, but I later received a note from a Roma Locuta Est reader who sent along the same article.

Ms. Barnhardt hangs her latest, desperate hope for Benepapism on the idea of “derogation” and Canon 38.  Here’s the key part of her argument (emphasis and annoying font sizing in the original):

“There is a legal term for the “calling of deuces wild” – it is called DEROGATION.

As I said in my Part 2 video on the Bergoglian Antipapacy, we are under the ARSH 1983 code, warts and all, by the perfect Divine Providence, and lo and behold! Canon 38:

Can. 38 An administrative act, even if it is a rescript given motu proprio, lacks effect insofar as it injures the acquired right of another or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogating clause.

Mike drop. Even the Pope, a Monarch holding an Office instituted and given by Christ Almighty Himself, has to call the rules of the hand, before the hand is dealt, if he intends to change them in any way. That’s just common sense, and a rule of integrity so natural and fundamental that even Wild West card sharks lived by this simple code of the Natural Law.

And just to make sure everyone is clear: Pope Benedict issued ZERO derogations or changes to Canon Law with regards to his attempted partial resignation and attempted creation of the ontologically impossible pseudo-office of “Pope Emeritus“. Pope Benedict never issued nor signed a letter of resignation. All he did was MENTION, almost as an aside, during a consistory speech that he was partially resigning in seventeen days. That’s it.

Pray for the Petrine See, needlessly vacant these 437 days and counting, and for the Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.”

Source: DESPERADO: A Poker Analogy to Help Understand How the Pope and Canon Law Relate to Each Other

Ms. Barnhardt on the Pope vs. Canon Law

First, let’s recall that Ms. Barnhardt claims that in his Declaratio, Benedict ‘attempted to partially resign the papacy.’ However, to even try to do this (impossible thing) per Ms. Barnhardt’s argument above, Benedict needed to have issued a derogation or change in canon law to allow a ‘partial papal resignation‘ — because, clearly, canon law does not provide for such a thing. But, given Benedict did not provide a derogation or change in canon law to allow a “partial resignation” — his resignation, per Barnhardt, is null on that ground as well.  Before now, Ms. Barnhardt has essentially accused Benedict of a theological error, but now she accuses him of a canonical one as well!

But, is she right on the canon law here? Leaving aside for the moment Ms. Barnhardt’s erroneous thesis that Benedict tried to partially resign, she is wrong on the pope relative to canon law.  Papal acts, by their nature, are presumed valid. They cannot be appealed, as per Canon 333§3: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”[i] This would necessarily include a papal resignation, and Canon 332§2 essentially underlines this very point. Further, a highly respected commentary on Canon Law, while commenting on Canon 332§2 on papal resignations, states (emphasis added):

“The general provisions on resignation of an office are contained in canons 187-189. These legal regulations are only guidelines since, due to his supreme power, the pope can always pass new laws, and stands above already valid laws (Papa supra omnes canones).[i] [The pope is above all canons.]”[ii]

In sum, the pope “stands above already valid laws”, or Papa supra omnes canones.

Ms. Barnhardt’s Faulty Premise

The above said on the canonical question, I would point out that if Benedict had intended a “partial resignation” — a resignation unlike any other resignation in the past; then being the theologian he was, Benedict XVI surely would have officially taught this to be possible before he attempted to do it. He would have done so perhaps in some way like Pope Celestine V, who before resigning the papacy, actually taught it was possible to do so.

However, given the precedent of Celestine V, and given Benedict left no such document; it is certain Benedict XVI neither intended nor attempted a partial resignation, and neither did he think his resignation was something unique nor different from prior papal resignations. Furthermore, the absence of any such teaching document indicates he thought his resignation was indeed like all other prior papal resignations, and that he intended to ‘do as the Church does‘ in his papal resignation — and, thus, consequently, his resignation was certainly valid.

The reality is, no “derogation” or “change” in canon law was needed in this instance — and there was no theological error on Benedict’s part — precisely because Benedict’s resignation conformed to Canon 332§2 in all respects (emphasis, and parenthetical added):

Canon 332§2:  If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [munus], 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.[iii]

Benedict met all conditions of the above canon. There are only two things explicitly “required for validity” in the canon, (1) that the resignation be made “freely”, and (2) that it be “duly manifested.”  These two requirements were met — though I would note that Barnhardt and company are in violation of the clause “not that it be accepted by anyone” in as much they loudly and rashly reject the resignation in shrill tones, and have encouraged others to do so as well.  She and other arch-Benepapists are leading folks into schism and a ‘neo-sedevacantism.’

As far as the use of the word munus, that is not specified as being “required for validity” in the above canon, and no resignation formula is required that specifies which word, or words are required. I go into  detail on the munus vs. ministerium question on this blog (e.g., Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio), in Chapter One of my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and in episodes 1-6 of my VIDEO SERIES, so I will not linger on the question.

However, it suffices here to say Benedict’s intent is clear — that is to say, he resigned the papacy in full. Consider, if he resigns “in such a way that the See of Rome, the See of Peter” is to be vacant, as Pope Benedict XVI said in his Declaratio, then there is no one holding the primacy over the Church as Bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor. In short, there is no pope. That this is the effect of the resignation is clear from the fact Benedict immediately states that, as a result of this vacancy, a conclave would be needed to elect “the new Supreme Pontiff.”

We also know that a few short hours before his effective resignation on February 28, 2013, Benedict XVI said that as of 8PM that evening, “I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church” (see HERE).  It is noteworthy that Ms. Barnhardt has avoided commenting on this statement like the plague since the beginning of the controversy — and the reason for this is evident. Perhaps one of Ms. Barnhardt’s followers will persuade her to explain how she can possibly argue the concept of the Petrine munus is not included within the office of “Supreme Pontiff” — the specific name of the office by which the man elected by a conclave accepts the papacy (see Normas Nonnullas, 87; and Universi Dominici Gregis, 88).

Ms. Barnhardt, meet the Acta Apostolicae Sedis

I’d like to address one other thing Barnhardt says in the selected quote above.  She wrote:

“Pope Benedict never issued nor signed a letter of resignation. All he did was MENTION, almost as an aside, during a consistory speech that he was partially resigning in seventeen days. That’s it.”

I’d say this in reply. Benedict’s resignation was “duly manifested.” He read his resignation to the cardinals, it was video taped, and uploaded to the Vatican website.  But, Ms. Barnhardt minimizes this it seems, saying: “he did mention…he was partially resigning” but “that’s it.”  However, this misses the mark on a couple key points.  As Fr. John Rickert FSSP noted (see HERE) in a exchange with Dr. Edmund Mazza on the WMBRIGGS site, Benedict also placed his Declaratio in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), the official journal of papal acts — that is more than just a “that’s it” (see image below).

Fr. Rickert’s argument, also cited in my BOOK, is a devastating proof against the Benepapists. Fr. John Rickert, as said, notes that Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio was entered into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), the authoritative, official record of papal acts. As Fr. Rickert argues,[iv] the title of this document in the AAS is Declaratio Summi Pontificis: De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione. This is translated “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” Regarding the significance of this Latin phrase, Fr. Rickert wrote (emphasis added):

“As I argue in my last post, it is not prescribed for the pope to use any particular formula, phrase, or word. But for those who think so, look at the title: De muneris episcopi Romae, successoris sancti Petri abdicatione.

There it is, the second word: munus in the genitive singular, as required by the grammar. But I also draw your attention to the word abdicatio. Lewis and Short make it clear that this is a strong and unequivocal word; when applied to persons, it means to disown them.

Sat est. Benedictus locutus, causa finita.[ii]

Again, Fr. Rickert’s argument is devastating to the Benepapist cause. It alone suffices to defeat it!  [NB: It should be noted in passing that it was at this point that Dr. Mazza disappeared from his exchange with Fr. Rickert.  Dr. Mazza provided no response on either the WMBRIGGS site; and he did not provide any response to this argument in his own book].

To sum up, the title in the AAS tells us explicitly it is a “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff.” The official Latin title in the AAS includes the proper form of munus (muneris) required by the grammar. This is the very word, munus, demanded by the Benepapists. Further, as Fr. Rickert tells us, the title uses “abdication” in the title, which is a form of the Latin abdicatio, which in Lewis and Short is defined as “a renouncing, disowning.”[v]

Therefore, in the official entry for the Declaratio in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the element (i.e., “munus”) which the Benepapists erroneously claim is required by Canon 332§2 for a valid resignation is, in fact, present. It is clear Pope Benedict XVI did renounce or abdicate the munus. It is there in black and white in the AAS.

With that, it is appropriate to repeat Fr. Rickert’s concluding remarks in his article on this point: “Sat est. Benedictus locutus, causa finita,” or “It is enough. Benedict has spoken, the case is closed.”

So it is.

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:

[i] John P. Beal, John P., James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America,  New York NY/Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 2000, p. 438. I would like to thank Ryan Grant who brought this citation and commentary to my attention.

[ii] Ibid. I would like to thank Ryan Grant who brought this citation and commentary to my attention.

[iii] Coriden, James A., et al, eds. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 437.

[iv] See Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, Ph.D., “Follow The Munus! Why Benedict Is [Likely] Pope — Guest Post by Edmund J. Mazza; Rejoinder by Fr John Rickert”. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39752/.

[v] “Abdicatio, onis, f. abdico, I. a renouncing, disowning…”. See Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, ed., Abdicatio. A Latin Dictionary. Omaha, NE: Patristic Publishing, 2019 (in public domain) p. 50.