July 10, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – Back in February of 2023, Roma Locuta Est published A Rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s book on Pope Benedict’s Resignation.[1] 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).
Over the last few months, Roma Locuta Est has returned to Dr. Mazza’s book to continue its analysis and expand upon its rebuttal to include other arguments offered by Dr. Mazza. For example, I recently addressed Dr. Mazza’s claims about Paul Badde‘s interview of Archbishop Gänswein (see The Good, the Badde, and the Tendentious), as well as Dr. Mazza’s claims about a supposed analogy between the renunciations of Benedict XVI and of Karl of Austria (The Benepapist Emperor has no clothes). Also, I examined the theological, and historical errors of Dr. Mazza’s claim that the case of Pope Urban VI and anti-pope Clement VI disproves the applicability of “universal acceptance” as a proof of the validity of Pope Francis’s election (see Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument).
In this article, Roma Locuta Est will look at Dr. Mazza’s claims about the title of “pope emeritus.” In his book, Dr. Mazza examines Benedict XVI’s adoption of the title “pope emeritus” and his analysis leads him to conclude:
Thus he remained “pope” in the sense that a bishop remains a “bishop” even without a diocese to run. (Mazza, p. 41)
But as we shall see, Dr. Mazza’s conclusion relies on a series of non sequiturs, other flawed logic, questionable appeals to certain of Ratzinger’s writings, as well as the ignoring of other clear, and explicit statements of Benedict XVI on what he meant regarding the title of ‘pope emeritus.’
“Pope Emeritus,” Canon Law, and the Last Audience
Benedict XVI’s adoption of the honorific title of “emeritus” is based on canon law by way of analogy, so to speak, as there is no existing canon on the use of “pope emeritus.” Still, we can look at a couple of canons (185, and 402) to get a sense of what Benedict XVI’s use of “emeritus” meant.
First, Canon 185 states that anyone who loses an office due to resignation may use the title “emeritus.”
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.
(Source: James Coriden, et al, eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 109.)
Granted, the context in the Code of Canon Law here does not explicitly apply this to the Roman Pontiff — as it speaks of a resignation that “has been accepted” (a pope’s resignation is not accepted). Regardless, the title “emeritus” refers to a ‘loss of office by reason of…a resignation‘; so here we see Benedict’s use of “emeritus” means he is speaking of a lost office, i.e,, he has lost the papacy, thus “pope emeritus.”
Second, Canon 402.1 states in part: “A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese…“[2]. Again, as with canon 185, this canon is not directly applicable to the pope, as it speaks of a resignation that “has been accepted” – and, as noted above, a pope’s resignation is not accepted. Now, one respected commentary on canon law provides some commentary on Canon 402, which I quote in part below (bold added):
“Once his resignation has been accepted by the Supreme Pontiff, the diocesan bishop immediately becomes a titular bishop and holds the title of bishop emeritus of his diocese. Unlike the custom in the past, he does not receive the title to a titular Church in partibus infidelium (in the territory of the unbelievers) but instead holds the title of “Former Bishop of N.” This symbolizes an ongoing relationship to the people whom he had previously served as diocesan bishop.”
(Source: 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. 538)
A couple points on this analysis. First point, “Bishop Emeritus” is said to be the same thing as “Former Bishop of N.” Therefore, by analogy, “Pope Emeritus” must mean the same thing as “Former Pope.”
The second point is that, it is said calling the resigned bishop emeritus or former bishop of N “symbolizes an ongoing relationship to the people whom he had previously served as diocesan bishop.” This later point suggests why Benedict XVI chose to call himself “Pope Emeritus” rather than “Bishop Emeritus of Rome.” That is, the latter may seem to emphasize his relationship to the people “he had previously served” as diocesan Bishop, i.e., the archdiocese of Rome; while with the title “Pope Emeritus” he wanted to more clearly recognize his relationship to all the people of the whole Church, who “he had previously served” as pope. We can understand Benedict’s attachment to all in the Church he has “previously served” via a ‘bond of charity’ when in his Last Audience he spoke of (bold added):
…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, February 27, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI)
Above, Benedict XVI talks about this relationship with the all the people of the Church as his “sons and daughters“, etc, i.e., he is speaking of a ‘bond of charity’, and as we will see in his Seewald interview, this is the ‘special relationship’ he references. As I point out in Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience, and in chapter 3 of my book (Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI), Benedict XVI goes on to say that this mutual loving relationship, this bond of charity, will continue after his resignation when he said his decision to resign “does not revoke this“, does not revoke this bond of charity, or relationship. Thus, as the previously quoted commentary suggested, Benedict is speaking of an ‘ongoing relationship with those he had previously served'[3] — and because of this he will devote the remainder of days in a life of prayer for them [cf Last Audience, and the Declaratio].
One last point on Pope Emeritus here, in one of Benedict’s letters to Cardinal Brandmüller after his resignation clearly suggests Benedict believed prior popes who had resigned had been “emeritus” in fact, though they had not been so explicitly by name.[4] So, clearly, Benedict understood he was acting in a manner consistent with the Church.
Benedict XVI clearly explains the meaning of “Pope Emeritus”
Having examined what canon law has said about “emeritus,” as well as a respected canon law commentary, let’s take a look at how Benedict — after his resignation — responded to Peter Seewald’s questions about what an emeritus bishop or pope is, and if that applies to a pope. Below I provide Seewald’s questions, and Benedict’s responses (Emphasis added):
What is an emeritus bishop or pope?
The word ‘emeritus’ meant that he was no longer the active holder of the bishopric, but remained in a special relationship to it as its former bishop. So the need to define his office in relation to a real diocese was met without making him a second bishop of it. The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office, but his spiritual link to his former diocese was now properly recognized. In general, a titular see was a pure legal fiction, but now there was a special relationship to a see where the retired bishop had formerly worked. This real, but hitherto legally unrecognized, relationship to a former see is the new meaning of ‘emeritus’ acquired after Vatican II. It does not affect the legal substance of the office of the bishop but acknowledges the spiritual link as a reality. So there are not two bishops but a spiritual assignment, whose essence is to serve his former diocese by being with it and for it in prayer with all his heart and with the Lord.
But does that apply to the pope?
It is hard to understand why this legal concept should not also be applied to the bishop of Rome. In this formula both things are implied: no actual legal authority any longer, but a spiritual relationship which remains even if it is invisible. This legal-spiritual formula avoids any idea of there being two popes at the same time: a bishopric can only have one incumbent. But the formula also expresses a spiritual link, which cannot ever be taken away. I am extremely grateful to the Lord that Pope Francis’s warm and generous attitude towards me has made It possible to implement this idea in practice.
[Source:
As can be seen right away, Benedict says an “emeritus” is no longer the ‘active holder’ of the bishopric. However, he does remain, as we saw in our brief discussion of canon law, in a “special relationship to it as its former bishop.” This echoes the canon law commentary quoted above about the former bishop having an “ongoing relationship,” but this is “to the people whom he had previously served.” We have already referenced Benedict’s emphasis on this “special relationship” in his Last Audience (e.g., “he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him”).
Next, Benedict XVI makes clear by resigning and becoming “pope emeritus” that he had “totally given up” the papacy. This is clear when Benedict says: “The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office, but his spiritual link to his former diocese was now properly recognized.” Benedict clearly says by use of emeritus, “he had totally given up his office.” Again, in reference to Benedict XVI, it means he has given up the papacy.
To underline the above point, it should be noted that the German word for “office” in the original German of the interview is “Amt.” The German word “Amt” is the word used to translate the Latin word munus, when referring to “office” in Canon 332.2 which speaks of the renunciation of the Roman munus/office/Amt (cf Canon 332.2).[5] Consequently, in a plain reading of his words, Benedict’s is saying his use of “emeritus” means he had “totally given up his office” (Amt/munus). Benedict’s words (i.e., that ” ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office…”) cannot be reasonably interpreted in a manner favorable to the Benepapist argument, which suggests Benedict believed he had maintained the munus in some way.
It is also clear Benedict is not speaking of any part of his former papal office or papal munus persisting in him. He explicitly says in various places in his answers that “there are not two bishops.” He says the “pope emeritus” is a formula where “both things are implied: no actual legal authority any longer, but a spiritual relationship which remains even if it is invisible.” This “spiritual relationship” is the “ongoing relationship” spoken of in the canon law commentary, previously cited.
Benedict goes on add with regard to pope emeritus: “This legal-spiritual formula avoids any idea of there being two popes at the same time: a bishopric can only have one incumbent.” Again, Benedict is disclaiming any idea there a two bishops of Rome, or two popes – there can only be one bishop of Rome (“only one incumbent”). Benedict’s statements cannot be reasonably construed in a manner favorable to the Benepapist argument.
Benedict XVI’s does speak of a spiritual relationship. This spiritual relationship – or ‘bond of charity’ – is precisely what he spoke about in regard to his Last Audience, and as I describe in various articles (e.g., Here, and Here), and in Chapter 3 of my book. This ‘bond of charity’ or spiritual relationship leads to “a spiritual assignment, whose essence is to serve his former diocese by being with it and for it in prayer with all his heart and with the Lord.” In the case of Benedict, this “spiritual assignment” involves “serving” the whole Church in prayer, and this too he says in the Declaratio (“With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer“), and in the Last Audience (“I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.“).
He says “the formula expresses a spiritual link, which cannot ever be taken away” — again, that “ongoing relationship.” Benedict speaks of the “spiritual relationship” and the “spiritual assignment” (i.e., prayer) he has as a former pope for those he “previously served“[6], and says this link or bond “cannot be taken away.” And this is precisely what Benedict means in his Last Audience when he says “The ‘always’ is also a “for ever.‘”
The gaping holes in Dr. Mazza’s argument
Having explained a proper understanding of “pope emeritus,” let us take a look at Dr. Mazza’s treatment of “pope emeritus” in his book titled The Third Secret of Fatima & The Synodal Church: VOL. I Pope Benedict’s Resignation. Dr. Mazza introduces his discussion of “Pope Emeritus” as follows. He provides a brief intro in his own words followed by quotes from Ratzinger’s book, Principles of Catholic Theology (emphasis, brackets, etc., are Dr. Mazza’s):
Benedict applied the conciliar innovation of “bishop emeritus” to the bishop of Rome. As we shall see, the ecclesiology of the Council did away with the notion of a bishop only having “legitimacy” only through papal sanctioned office, e.g. “Bishop of Milan”, as Ratzinger once wrote:
“The most crucial event in the development of the Latin West was, I think, the increasing distinction between sacrament [potestas ordinis] and jurisdiction [potestas iurisdictionis], between liturgy and administration as such…
I think we should be honest enough to admit the temptation of mammon in the history of the Church and to recognize to what extent it was a real power that worked to the distortion and corruption of both Church and theology, even to their inmost core. The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite was continued for reasons of prestige and financial benefits.”
[Source: Dr. Mazza’s book, p. 40. His Ratzinger citation above is from Principles of Catholic Theology, p.254-256]
Dr. Mazza attempts to draft the above Ratzinger citation into his effort to say that Benedict XVI believed wrongly that he could keep part of the papal office/munus after his resignation. Dr. Mazza does this by emphasizing Ratzinger’s words, which he puts in bold: “The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite was continued for reasons of prestige and financial benefits.“
The key is, of course is, how does Dr. Mazza interpret this quote and apply it to the “pope emeritus” question? Well, immediately following the above citation from Ratzinger, Dr. Mazza explains how as follows (emphasis and italics are Mazza’s):
In giving up the “office as jurisdiction,” in this case, the administration of the diocese of Rome–and the universal Church–Benedict was not parting with the “office as rite.” To return to being “Cardinal Ratzinger” would have been tantamount to denying the interpenetration of the functional and the sacramental, as he says: “both the sacrament and the ‘ruling power’ interpenetrate one another.” Thus he remained pope in the sense that a bishop remains a bishop even without a diocese to run:”
[Source: Dr. Mazza’s book, p. 41]
Say what? There are significant, gaping holes in Dr. Mazza’s logic! How on earth does Dr. Mazza logically get from Ratzinger’s quote (“The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite was continued for reasons of prestige and financial benefits”) to concluding Benedict gave up the “administration of the diocese of Rome–and the universal Church” but was not parting with the “office as rite”?! Dr. Mazza does not explain. There is no logical connection! [6]
We will look at Dr. Mazza’s logic and use of the source material above in a moment. However, in his book, immediately after giving his “reasoning” for his interpretation above, Dr. Mazza inserts his interpretation of what Benedict says to Peter Seewald with his (Mazza’s) own interpretative presuppositions via brackets — apparently to insure the reader accepts his argument! I have provided the translation of the interview above already from the English version of Seewald’s book. Here I just provide one example of Mazza’s interpretation (and his translation of the original German), and a couple of his bracketed, interpretive brackets. To Seewald’s question “What is an emeritus bishop or pope?,” Benedict XVI answered in part (bracketed comments added by Mazza):
“…The word “emerito” meant that he had fully relinquished his office [as jurisdiction], but the spiritual attachment to his previous see was now also recognized as a legal quality…”[7]
Dr. Mazza is reading his theory into the text (via bracketed comments) rather than reading the text for what it says. I have already drawn the reader’s attention to the fact that the word “office” in the English language version of Seewald’s interview, as well as Dr Mazza’s, is translated from the German word “Amt.” As noted earlier in this article, “Amt” is the word used to translate the Latin word munus, when translating Canon 332.2 — the papal renunciation canon! — into German[5]. Obviously, in a plain reading of the words, Benedict is saying his use of “emeritus” means he had “totally given up his office” or “fully relinquished his office” (i.e., “totally given up his munus“).
Consequently, it is mystifying, that Dr. Mazza could have overlooked or could have observed without comment this obvious Amt/Munus connection during his translation; and that he thought it necessary to seemingly qualify the meaning of “office/Amt” with “office [as jurisdiction].” Now, Canon 331 says in part that the Pope:
“By virtue of his office (munus) he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.”[8]
Now, it is possible that that is what Dr. Mazza meant by “office [as jurisdiction]” with respect to the papacy, fine. However, this would be an admission that by saying he “totally given up his office” or “fully relinquished his office” (i.e., Amt/munus). Benedict is essentially saying he ‘totally gave up the papal munus’! Obviously, this natural reading of the text is in no way favorable to Dr. Mazza’s thesis. If Dr. Mazza means something else by “office [as jurisdiction],” it is not supported by the actual text of what Benedict said.
This qualifying the meaning of Benedict’s words with bracketed interpretative comments can also be seen elsewhere in Dr. Mazza’s translation of Benedict’s reply to Seewald. For example, Dr. Mazza translates another portion of Benedict’s response (emphasis is Mazza’s):
“..Thus, there are not two bishops [of a diocese], but there is a spiritual mission [i.e., munus as rite], whose essence is to serve from within, from the Lord, in prayerful being with and for his previous diocese…no concrete legal [jurisdictional] authority anymore, but a spiritual assignment, which remains–even if invisible. Precisely [now] legal-spiritual form avoids any thought of a coexistence of two [reigning] popes: a bishop’s see can have only one holder…”
[Dr Mazza’s book, p. 42. His translation]
I provided the full English version of Benedict’s responses on the “emeritus” from Seewald’s book. Regarding Dr. Mazza’s translation immediately above, the key thing to note is that he is superimposing his theory upon the text via his bracketed comments which have no relation to the actual text. For example, Dr. Mazza tells us “spiritual attachment” or “spiritual link” should be understood as “office as rite“. But, perhaps most amazing of all, while Benedict speaks above of a “spiritual mission,” Dr. Mazza tells us in brackets that Benedict’s meaning is “munus as rite!” As we saw in the canon law commentary, an “emeritus” has an “ongoing relationship” with those he “previously served” — he is not maintaining a part of his former office/munus.
Dr. Mazza didn’t interpret “office” as simply “munus” when Benedict says “The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office“ — yet, incredibly, using his brackets, Dr. Mazza will turn “spiritual mission” into “munus as rite!” He does so without any compelling logical, textual, or theological basis. Dr. Mazza is reading into the text. Nothing can be clearer. Here we can see the tendentious nature of Dr. Mazza’s analysis — and I have drawn attention to this before, elsewhere in his book (e.g., The Good, the Badde, and the Tendentious).
Dr. Mazza misreads Ratzinger’s Principles of Catholic Theology
While I could conclude my article here, I do believe it is worthwhile for the reader to understand how Dr. Mazza arrived at his ‘argument.’ There is a lot that can be said about Dr. Mazza’s earlier citation from Ratzinger’s Principles of Catholic Theology, and his attempt to superimpose his Benepapist reading on top of Benedict XVI’s comments on the meaning of “emeritus.”
For one, the first part of the previous Ratzinger quote is found on p. 254 of Ratzinger’s work, and the second part on p. 256. There is, therefore, much commentary provided by Ratzinger which lies between the two segments cited by Dr. Mazza. I am confident few, if any, readers of Dr. Mazza’s book have taken the time to read his source material between pages 254-256, as I have.
However, if they had taken the time to do so, several things would become clear, namely: (1) Ratzinger is neither speaking nor referring to the Petrine Munus or Office, and (2) that he is not even speaking of a supposed ability of a bishop or pope to fully or partially resign his office/munus in such a way that he might retain a part of it. On this fact alone, Dr. Mazza has no basis to use of the Ratzinger quote “The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite…” to support any claim he wishes to make about the title of “pope emeritus.”
But, there is more to this cautionary tale for the reader. Dr. Mazza ended the second part of the quote he provides with a period, when there should have been an ellipsis, given he ends the quote mid-sentence. The remaining part of that sentence, and the next one which concludes the paragraph after the word “benefits”, goes on to read (emphasis added by Roma Locuta Est):
…the isolation of the Mass, its separation from the unit of the memoria and, therefore, its privatization were products of the amalgamation of Masses and stipends. What Ignatius of Antioch strove to combat returned here with full force: the Mass became the private possession of the pious (or impious) by which they hoped to effect their private reconciliation with God.
Boiling it down, between what was left out before the ellipses (p. 254-256) and after (p. 256-257), the “separation” that Ratzinger was speaking of was that of the juridical officeholder (i.e., the bishop) from the ‘office as rite’, i.e., celebration of the sacrament (Eucharist) — due to various developments in the Middle Ages. In Ratzinger’s commentary, various cases are mentioned, one being of the priest who “became a cult-minister in the retinue of a feudal lord,” or another being the “employment of the sacerdotium in the services of the imperium“ (cf. Ratzinger, p. 255). Regarding this latter example, Ratzinger speaks of the cases where the bishop became something of a “functionary of the Empire.” Of these bishops, Ratzinger writes “the bishop was concerned only secondarily with the ecclesial assembly and, of necessity, allowed its concrete functions to be carried out by others” (cf Ratzinger, p. 255). In another example, Ratzinger speaks of cases where the office became “a legal entity to which certain revenues were due, was bestowed on some important personage, often not even ordained, who relegated the performance of liturgical services to an ill-paid Mass-priest” (p. 255).
This is getting to more of what Ratzinger was speaking of, when he spoke of “The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite“, i.e., the juridical office holder was somewhat removed from his sacramental duties, being ‘concerned only secondarily with the ecclesial assembly,’ relegating the ‘performance of liturgical services’ to others. From these examples, the separation of the “office as jurisdiction” vs. the “office as rite” are ones where the bishop was concerned “only secondarily” with the “ecclesial assembly,” and or where the rites became “privatized.”
So, given Ratzinger’s negative treatment of the separation of “office as jurisdiction” and “office as rite”, we understand Ratzinger’s conclusion given toward the end of his commentary on this question on developments in the Middle Ages, when he writes (emphasis added):
From this time on, there existed the problem of breaking the “domination of the laity” in the Church that arose from the separation of the juridical officeholder from the sacramental priest and of ensuring that he who holds the office actually exercises his office-his whole and undivided sacramental office–in terms of the sacrament and not for money or any similar purpose [p. 257]
Thus, again, we see, in reality, that Ratzinger in his book speaks of the concern of breaking the “domination of the laity,” and the “problem” that arose from that, namely, the “separation” of the “juridical office holder” from sacramental rites offered by the sacramental priest, e.g., cases where the attention of the bishop was only “secondarily” over the ecclesial assembly. This is what is meant by a separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite in the present context. Further, Ratzinger is speaking of such separation as a “problem” and not as something positive. Indeed, Ratzinger writes of “ensuring that he who holds the office actually exercises his office-his whole and undivided sacramental office,” i.e., the bishop must be actively engaged with, and over the “ecclesial assembly.” There is nothing here touching on the “pope emeritus” question at all!
In sum, in Principles of Catholic Theology, there is no discussion by Ratzinger of a bishop being able to resign his “office as jurisdiction” while maintaining the “office as rite.” It simply is not found in Ratzinger’s text, and Dr. Mazza has not justification to suggest it applies in anyway to Benedict’s reply to Seewald on the meaning of “pope emeritus.” Furthermore, Ratzinger is not even speaking positively or in favor of this separation of the “office of jurisdiction” from the “office as rite!” This explodes Dr. Mazza’s thesis entirely as his rendering of the Seewald interview requires that Benedict had a positive view of this separation — as Dr. Mazza is suggesting via his citation of Principles of Catholic Theology that Benedict resigned the “office as jurisdiction” but kept the “munus as rite” – and thus remained pope in some way. However, this reading of Ratzinger is not tenable.
Another Examples of Dr. Mazza’s Misuse of Ratzinger
As seen thus far, in the section of Principles of Catholic Theology quoted by Dr. Mazza, Ratzinger is not saying anything related to any topic that touches upon the question of the use of the title of “emeritus,” or of a pope being able to resign his office fully or partially, while somehow retaining the papal munus. The same can be said of another Ratzinger line cited by Dr. Mazza above. Recall, Dr. Mazza wrote (Bold added by me):
In giving up the “office of jurisdiction,” in this case, the administration of the diocese of Rome–and the universal Church–Benedict was not parting with the “office as rite.” To return to being “Cardinal Ratzinger” would have been tantamount to denying the interpenetration of the functional and the sacramental, as he says: “both the sacrament and the ‘ruling power’ interpenetrate one another.” Thus he remained pope in the sense that a bishop remains a bishop even without a diocese to run:”
[Source: Dr. Mazza’s book, p. 41]
We have already discussed Dr. Mazza’s misuse of “office as jurisdiction” and “office as rite” in his discussion of “pope emeritus.” But here he also provides a brief quote from Ratzinger as a theologian which reads: “both the sacrament and the ‘ruling power’ interpenetrate one another.” However, as with the other citations from Ratzinger, Dr. Mazza offers no explanation or justification of how this solitary quote has any relevance in its original context to his argument! [NB: Dr. Mazza does provide a fuller quote in the aforementioned Appendix 1, see p, 167, 168; but he still does not link it to his argument on “papal emeritus”].
Interestingly enough, this Ratzinger quote is one that I have seen elsewhere in Dr. Mazza’s writing, and I have pointed that his use of it — along with another quote — were misread by him. They do not say what he claims. I provided an examination of this quote — along with the other — in other articles, including Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio and A closer look at Mr. Coffin’s evidence: Dr. Mazza’s Thesis 3.0. Here is the line cited by Dr. Mazza, but in a more fuller context (emphasis added):
The eucharist is there to build man up for the body of Christ, and conversely the building up of the Church is accomplished through the eucharist. Each of these penetrates the other. Whoever has, as a priest, the privilege of presiding over the eucharist not only transforms the substance of the bread into that of the body of Christ, but is also performing a ministry for the Church of God, which lives from this eucharist. In the eucharistic office, both the sacrament and the “ruling power” interpenetrate one another, and it becomes at once clear how inappropriate the words “rule” and “power” are with regard to the Church. We have no more right to speak of a quasi-profane ruling power, neatly separated from the sacramental ministry, than we have a right to speak of a separation between the mystical and eucharistic body of Christ.
But this means that the pluralism of the sacramental communities and the unity of the Church’s ministries safeguarded by the pope likewise interpenetrate one another. It is precisely this that is the actual content of collegiality. Its reference to the sacramental definition of the office of bishop ultimately comes from a sacramentally defined image of the Church. The ministry of the bishop is not an externally assigned “administrative power,” but rather arises from the necessary plurality of the eucharistic communities (i.e., of the Churches in the Church) and, as representing these, is itself sacramentally based. The ruling of the Church and its spiritual mystery are inseparable.
[Source: Josef Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II (New York/Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 1966), pp. 189-190.]
The priest who presides over the eucharist “not only transforms the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, but is also performing a ministry.” It is in this sense Ratzinger is saying that “In the Eucharistic Office, both the sacrament and the “ruling power” interpenetrate one another.”
Dr. Mazza’s conclusion that “Thus he remained pope in the sense that a bishop remains a bishop even without a diocese to run” is a non sequitur — it does not follow in any way from what Benedict has said about “office as jurisdiction”, “office as rite”, or “sacrament and the ‘ruling power’ interpenetrate one another.”
No where does Benedict say the papacy is a sacrament that is irrevocable — or once a pope, always a pope, or anything of the sort! However, Dr. Mazza once attempted to claim he did. On a Patrick Coffin podcast, citing Ratzinger’s book Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Dr. Mazza erroneously paraphrased one of Ratzinger’s statements as meaning: “What does Joseph Ratzinger say? He says, “No, no, no. I disagree with those people who say the papacy is not a sacrament, that it’s only a juridical institution. That juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order.”[9]
However, I conclusively demonstrated Dr. Mazza — to put it as charitably as I can – “grossly misread” his source material (see Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio; A closer look at Mr. Coffin’s evidence: Dr. Mazza’s Thesis 3.0) [NB: Even one of Dr. Mazza’s fellow Benepapists, Estefania Acosta, would later make the same finding that I did].
Final Thoughts
Dr. Mazza wants to interpret Ratzinger in Principles of Catholic Theology as if he were speaking in support or providing some theology basis for the possibility of separating of the papal office/munus into two parts, i.e., “office as jurisdiction” and “office as rite.” The suggestion seems to be, Ratzinger believed a pope could resign one, and keep the other part of the papal munus. However, such assertions find no basis in the texts provided by Dr. Mazza. Indeed, nothing can be farther from the truth.
Dr. Mazza’s citations of Ratzinger are obscure with respect to the issues of the validity of his resignation, and or to the use and meaning of “pope emeritus.” Dr. Mazza cannot provide any clear statement by Ratzinger, either as theologian, pope, or pope emeritus wherein he affirms the concept of the papacy which Dr. Mazza ascribes to him. In fact, as I noted in this article, Dr. Mazza once claimed to have found such a statement, but it was demonstrated he grossly misread the source material (see HERE). In short, Ratzinger did not say what Dr. Mazza claimed.
This article lays out the case that Benedict XVI’s adoption of the title “pope emeritus” upon renouncing the papacy is perfectly consistent with the view he fully renounced the papacy, and kept no part of it. Canon 185 says “emeritus” is used of one who has “lost his office” due to resignation. Indeed, as Benedict XVI said in his interview with Peter Seewald, “The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office, but his spiritual link to his former diocese was now properly recognized.” Benedict had “totally given up his office,” (i.e., Amt/Munus).
Just as canon 402.1 says a “bishop emeritus” means “former bishop of N“; it follows that “pope emeritus” means “former pope.” As Benedict said to Seewald, “there are not two bishops” and that the “This legal-spiritual formula avoids any idea of there being two popes at the same time: a bishopric can only have one incumbent.” Benedict’s replies to Seewald are in no way supportive of the Benepapist claims, no matter how many bracketed comments the Benepapist want to superimpose on the text!
The “spiritual relationship”, the “ongoing relationship” – the bond of charity – even if “invisible” – remains between the former pope and his “sons and daughters” (i.e., the Church). The pope emeritus “formula expresses a spiritual link, which cannot ever be taken away.” Again, Benedict spoke of a “spiritual relationship” or a ‘bond of charity’ (see Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience, Deconstructing Ann Barnhardt’s Benedict Video). From this ‘bond of charity’ or “spiritual relationship” arises a “spiritual assignment” (i.e., the service of prayer) which Benedict has as a former pope for those he “previously served“[10], and this link or bond “cannot be taken away.” And this is precisely what Benedict meant in his Last Audience when spoke of the “The ‘always’ is also a “for ever.'”
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 Fatima & The Synodal Church: VOL. I Pope Benedict’s Resignation.
[2] 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. 538. Commentary on Canon 402.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Edward Pentin, “Benedict XVI Discusses His Resignation in Newly Published Letters,” National Catholic Register, blog, September 19, 2018. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/benedict-xvi-discusses-his-resignation-in-newly-published-letters. See my article on this here: https://romalocutaest.com/2018/09/22/benedict-is-really-really-still-not-pope-really/
[5] 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
Canon 332.2: Falls der Papst auf sein Amt verzichten sollte, ist zur Gültigkeit verlangt, daß der Verzicht frei geschieht und hinreichend kundgemacht, nicht jedoch, daß er von irgendwem angenommen wird. (see HERE)
Here is the English of the canon (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.]
[6] When Dr. Mazza writes “We shall see” he footnotes it to reference Appendix I in his current book, and his upcoming second volume, not yet out! So, I’ve slogged through his Appendix I – I am sorry to say – an annoying collection of endless citations with little explanatory commentary, which in the end, does not provide a cogent or coherent argument in favor of Dr. Mazza’s claim on the “pope emeritus” question – or anything else for that matter. This much is obvious, because if he had provided a cogent argument in Appendix I, it would have made it to his section on arguing his position on “Pope Emeritus” up front in the book rather than relegating it to the Appendix.
[7] See Dr. Mazza’s book, page 41-42. The text provided in this quote is Dr. Mazza’s own translation from the original German of the Seewald-Benedict XVI interview. Again, the BRACKETED comments DO NOT APPEAR in the original, these are only Dr. Mazza’s presuppositions imposed on the text.
[8] 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. (Source: Code of Canon Law, Canon 331. https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.htmlCode of Canon Law, Canon 331. https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann330-367_en.html)
[9] Dr. Mazza on Patrick Coffin’s show. See Patrick Coffin, “#248: Is Benedict XVI Still the Pope?—Dr. Edmund Mazza”. Time stamp 31:42 to 31:59. Unofficial transcript by O’Reilly.
[10] 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. 538. Commentary on Canon 402.
Roma Locuta Est 
One thought on “Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus””