October 7, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – The regular readers of Roma Locuta Est know that I am in no way a fan of Pope Francis. I have from the outset of this blog severely critiqued the works of the Francis-apologists (see Summa Contra the Francis-Apologists), and have even examined the oddities of the 2013 conclave (see The Conclave Chronicles) which are a matter of the historical record.
Now, while the problems, ambiguities, and confusion associated with the present pontificate are real and must be dealt with in a future pontificate; there are also real dangers into which those ‘on the other side’ may also fall. The claim that Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid –a claim some label “Beneplenism”, and I label “Benepapism” — continues to remain popular among certain Catholic commentators. This is unfortunate as otherwise faithful Catholics who listen to these commentators or follow after them on this topic are in danger of being led by into ‘neo-sedevacantism’ and schism. It is for this reason that I have devoted much time to refuting the arguments of the Benepapists on this blog, Roma Locuta Est.
An article by Fr. David Nix (aka PadrePeregrino) just came to my attention wherein he defends the view that Benedict XVI attempted to bifurcate the papacy. Given that a bifurcation of the papacy is in fact impossible, Fr. Nix claims Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid. Fr. Nix’s article was titled “An “Expanded Ministry” to the Papacy is Impossible.” It may be found on his blog. Fr. David Nix claims:
“To be sure, some traditionalists today insist that Pope Benedict XVI meant to fully resign the papacy (and they insist they can prove it.) Others say he did not mean to fully resign. (They also say they can prove it.) The fact is: Both groups can prove it. But Benedict saw nearly everything through the Hegelian eyes of: Thesis + Counter-thesis = Synthesis. Basically, two opposite “truths” can be united to create a Super-Truth (or synthesis.) For most of the last decade of his life, Benedict did believe Francis was Pope. This is true. But Benedict also believed Benedict was Pope. This is seen in the overwhelming evidence to follow that Benedict erroneously believed a Pope could semi-resign.”
(Source: An “Expanded Ministry” to the Papacy is Impossible)
Well, at least Fr. Nix does gets at least one thing right here — one group can prove Benedict fully resigned. And, quite notably, Benedict XVI belonged to this group. There is abundant evidence of this, but one that strikes at the heart of the Benepapist claim is that on the very day of his effective resignation, February 28, 2013, about two and half hours before it became effective, Pope Benedict XVI himself affirmed (emphasis added):
“I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, or I will be until 8:00 this evening and then no longer.” (Source: GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANO)
Benedict said ‘I will no longer be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.’ There is no room for this in Fr. Nix’s analysis, nor explanation for it. “Not pope” is not consistent with “contemplative pope.” Indeed. Fr. Nix would make Benedict a liar if he suggests Benedict really did intend to remain pope in any way, or in any sense after saying ‘I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.” Afterall, if one is not the “Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church”, then one is assuredly, not the pope!
All the supposed ‘evidence’ Fr. Nix points to in his article has been addressed by myself and or by others [e.g., Roma Locuta Est has published various article compilations on the topic (see The Case Against the Benepapists), and I have written a book on the topic as well, titled Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI]. However, given Fr. Nix’s article will potentially lead Catholics into schism, I find it necessary to address his erroneous claims so that none might erroneously conclude there are no answers to Fr. Nix, or follow him into error.
Below, I’ll take a look at the six major claims found in Fr. Nix’s article and provide a necessarily detailed rebuttal of the claims made by Fr. Nix.
[1] Fr. Nix on Archbishop Georg Gänswein and the “expanded ministry”
“Yet a decade ago, the Vatican’s Archbishop Georg Gänswein erroneously believed Pope Benedict XVI could bifurcate the papacy into “an expanded ministry.” Even the mainstream Aleteia ran a story back in 2016 that quoted Ganswein explaining this: “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. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is ‘Your Holiness.’.. on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, he introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of ‘pope emeritus.’”
Notice again this was published in 2016—after the alleged-resignation of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013, but before his death in 2022. Clearly Gänswein did not believe Benedict fully resigned the papacy. Did Benedict? This might seem like an outdated question, but the answer to it may also reveal nothing short of how God Himself sees the current Church crisis in Rome, now at a fever pitch.”
It was probably Gänswein’s speech at the Gregorian University in 2016, more than any other one thing, that launched a new phase of the controversy over the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. This is unfortunate. A closer examination of what he said and its context will show the speech’s import is overblown.
First, it should be remembered that Ganswein gave his speech at the presentation of a new book by Fr. Roberto Regoli on the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. I go into this speech, and the importance of the context, in my article Regarding Ganswein’s speech; and I also devote a whole chapter to it in my book Valid?. While I would direct folks to these sources, please also check out my two part video series (Part 1 and Part 2) where I develop some additional analysis of this speech.
Now, a discussion of this speech can get very involved, and would make this article way too lengthy in itself. The key point I would make here is that Ganswein’s talk of and references to an “expanded petrine ministry“, etc., is not meant in a strict sense – i.e., as if to meant to say Benedict and Francis are both popes, each in their own way. In fact, Ganswein explicitly denies he is speaking of two popes.[1] This in itself strikes at the heart of the Benepapist thesis.
There are various keys in his speech which demonstrate Ganswein is speaking in a looser sense of an “expanded Petrine ministry”, such as when one shares, by way of helping another, in a ministry — for example, a priest sharing in the ministry (i.e., the care of the flock) of his bishop, without himself being the bishop. Indeed, that this is his meaning is clear when Ganswein references Benedict’s Coat of Arms and its inclusions of words from a letter of the Apostle John, i.e., “fellow workers in the Truth” (cf. 3 John 8).
As I note above, one can share a ministry of the truth without sharing the same office in any real or true sense, e.g., a layman can be a “co-worker of the truth” with a priest, bishop, or pope — while not being any of them. St. Paul makes an even stronger reference to being God’s “co-workers” and “fellow workers” (for example, see 2 Cor. 3:9, 6:1) without suggesting any sort of equivalency or sharing of an office in the true sense. Thus, Francis and Benedict, at the time, may be spoken of, in a sense, sharing a ‘Petrine-like’ ministry in that both focused on the whole Church; however, Francis does so as the true pope, while Benedict as a former pope, continued, due to the ‘bonds of charity’ formed at his election, to pray for the whole Church (see Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience). So, in this manner of speaking, this is the “expanded Petrine ministry.”
But it is even more obvious that this is the sense in which Gänswein is speaking when we get to the end of the speech. For those, like Fr. Nix in his article, who want to interpret Gänswein’s of an “expanded ministry,” 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 added):
“Thus, this book once again throws a consoling gaze on the peaceful imperturbability and serenity of Benedict XVI, at the helm of the barque of Peter in the dramatic years 2005-2013. At the same time, however, through this illuminating account, Regoli himself now also takes part in the munus Petri of which I spoke. Like Peter Seewald and others before him, Roberto Regoli — as a priest, professor and scholar — also thus enters into that enlarged Petrine ministry around the successors of the Apostle Peter; and for this today we offer him heartfelt thanks. “
Note clearly, Gänswein says the author Roberto Regoli now takes part in the munus Petri! Ganswein even goes farther saying Regoli, Peter Seewald, and others(!) enter into that “enlarged Petrine ministry!” Where are our Benepapist interpreters on this? Is Ganswein speaking literally or figuratively of Regoli taking “part in the munus Petri?” Is Ganswein speaking literally or figuratively when he says of Regoli, Seewald, and others that they have entered into that “enlarged Petrine ministry”?
The answer is clear. Ganswein is speaking in something of a loose, extended or figurative sense of Regoli now also taking part in the “munus Petri,” and also when he says Regoli and the others have entered “into that enlarged Petrine ministry around the successors of the Apostle Peter.” This they have done as individuals who have written about various papacies; and in this way, have supported and helped the Petrine ministry — and thus “take part” and “enter” into the munus Petri and the “enlarged Petrine ministry.” Clearly, Ganswein is not saying Regoli and Seewald really became popes in some way! No! Far from it. He is speaking in a loose, extended sense. But that of course is the point…that is how Gänswein should be taken throughout his speech regarding Benedict’s post-resignation participation in the “expanded Petrine ministry.”
Why as Fr. Nix never addressed this portion of Ganswein’s speech? Unfortunately, Fr. Nix, like other leading Benepapists do not read this far into Gänswein’s speech. Rather, they choose instead to cherry phrases and there which they believe support their argument, but which on a more detail review, do not.
[2] Fr. Nix’s claim Benedict resigned due to “grave fear”
“In 2023, I wrote an article about two relatively-unknown aspects of duress under which Pope Benedict XVI semi-resigned the Papacy in 2013. As you can see in that article, Canon 188 asserts: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.” The above linked article evaluates the “grave fear” placed upon Benedict from 2010 to 2013. In that sense, Benedict was the victim of the St. Gallen mafia in his quasi-resignation from the papacy.”
With regard to whether Pope Benedict XVI resigned the papacy under duress, no evidence has been brought forward that demonstrates his renunciation was not freely made. While we do know the group of cardinals and bishops known as the St. Gallen mafia opposed Cardinal Ratzinger and his election, there is no firm, convincing, and definitive proof coercion played a role in his resignation.
We do know that Benedict had relayed to others his decision to resign at some point in the summer of 2012.[2] These individuals included Cardinal Bertone, and Benedict’s personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein. None of these men have given any indication that Benedict’s real reason for renouncing the papacy was other than what he announced publicly, i.e., weakness and lack of strength.
Despite speculations to the contrary, the evidence supports the case the resignation was offered freely. For one, most obviously, Pope Benedict XVI said it was freely made in his Declaratio. Benedict also said as much in his interviews with Peter Seewald. For example, in his discussion of the Vatileaks scandal, it is clear Benedict was cognizant of the fact that he could not validly resign under pressure.[3] That is why, according to Benedict, he deferred his resignation until the Vatileaks controversy had reached a resolution in October 2012 following the completion of the trial.[4] Thus, it is clear that Benedict did not act in the belief he was being forced out of his papal office.
Ultimately, the suggestion Benedict was forced out simply does not correspond with the observable facts. Over the last nine years of his life, the former pope had received guests, been interviewed, and even co-authored a book. There have been no suggestions by any who have visited him, or talked with him, to my knowledge, that Benedict had given any indication he had been coerced to leave office, or that he was somehow imprisoned, or still living under a threat. In addition, if Benedict had been forced to resign, he certainly had the opportunity to convey this to his close associates — as mentioned above, and or to have left a written testimony that he could have secretly left to trusted associates (e.g., passing them a flash drive, etc). The fact there is no such “last testimony” with such a statement, or anything like it, is damning evidence against the Benepapists. I discuss this in my article Benedict XVI and the missing “Last Testament”.
Consequently, given the evidence his resignation was free, and absent any demonstrable proof to the contrary, it is unreasonable to say his resignation must be rejected on this ground.
The claim Benedict was forced to resign is unfortunate, as it implicitly impugns the character of the pope. The claim makes this holy man who devoted most of his life to the Church into a coward.
[3] Fr. Nix’s false claims about the Declaratio and the Munus vs. Ministerium
Next. Fr. Nix suggests the wording of Benedict’s instrument of resignation, the Declaratio, is flawed due to the use of the word “ministerium”, which Fr. Nix claims is not a synonym of munus. Fr. Nix writes (emphasis in the original):
“In Pope Benedict XVI’s 2013 Declaratio (considered to be his resignation from the Chair of St. Peter, archived here) Benedict referred first to the papal munus (office) twice at the beginning of that short 250 word document, but later he only renounced the ministry of St. Peter (“plena libertate declaro me…renuntiare…ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri”) translated on the Vatican website in English as: “With full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” Again, at the beginning of the document he clearly refers to the office, but later renounces only the ministry (in that short 250 word document.)
I have studied languages intensely for 20 years. Anyone who says “munus means the same thing as ministerium” not only reveals they have no understanding how Latin works, but they also reveal they have no understanding how language works. The first step in learning a language is knowing that each single word reveals reality or a lie. Yes, there are synonyms, but even synonyms do not mean exactly the same thing. (Munus and ministerium are not even synonyms, by the way.) Yes, Pope Benedict XVI was a Hegelian who erroneously believed the truth is found between synthesis and anti-thesis. However, he was still a German who used words with surgical precision.
Combining these two facts, the outcome is obvious: Benedict meant munus and ministerium as two different things. However, these two things (as will be proved later in this article) would become (in his broken Hegelian mind) a contemplative-Pope and an active-Pope. Of course, in true Catholic theology, neither of these things can exist side-by-side.”
A few things. First, Benedict made clear he was fully resigning. This is evident in what Fr. Nix oddly decided not to include in his truncated quotation of the Declaratio. Fr. Nix includes the first part of it where Benedict writes “With full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” But note well that Fr. Nix excludes the rest of the phrase:
“…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.”
Why Fr. Nix doesn’t provide the full sentence may be a matter of speculation — but what is clear is that the second half of the sentence in no way support Fr. Nix’s claim. Benedict explicitly says, he resigns “in such a way” that the “…the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter” will be (1) “vacant,” and the (2) a conclave would be required to “elect the new Supreme Pontiff.” If the See is “vacant” — there is no pope. A vacant chair of St. Peter, means there is no pope whatsoever. If a new conclave is necessary, then that means there is no pope. Nothing can be clearer. The full resignation declaration does not support Fr. Nix’s claims.
As for the munus vs. ministerium debate, Fr. Nix rehashes old talking points without addressing the arguments against his position. For one, there is nothing in canon law that says the word “munus” must be used, and in fact, in the resignation of Pope Celestine V, it wasn’t used at all. It need only be clear that the pope is resigning the papacy, and there is no approved formula of what word – or words – should be used. There are any number of words or ways to describe what is effectually the “papacy.”
Fr. Nix claims “Munus and ministerium are not even synonyms, by the way”, but this is simply not true. Ryan Grant demonstrated in his OnePeterFive article (see HERE), and as did Fr. John Rickert FSSP, PH.D (see HERE) that munus and ministerium are synonyms (See also Valid? Chapter I). As Fr. Rickert observes:
“A Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short, which is a standard, well-respected dictionary of long standing, states simply that ministerium and munus are synonyms. See the entry for munus.”
In addition to the authority of Fr. Rickert and Mr. Grant, against Fr. Nix we might also appeal to Dr. Edmund Mazza, who in his book he concedes munus and ministerium are in fact synonyms. Dr. Mazza concedes this by citing a scholar, Dr. Anna Slowikowska, on the topic. Dr. Mazza cites Dr. Slowikowska in her own words (emphasis added):
“The knowledge of all the meanings of a given word–in this case munus–is not enough to correctly identify the thoughts of the author of the translated text.
The term munus is most often analyzed in the literature with two others: officium and ministerium. They are also synonymous with it. But at the same time each one of them can mean something different. Their use, whether separate or synonymous, always depends on the context of the utterance, the author’s intention, or the purpose for which they are used.” (Mazza citing Anna Slowikowska, location 1235, Kindle Version)
Dr. Mazza’s own cited expert, Dr. Slowikowska states they are synonymous — something Fr. Nix denies. She also confirmed that the meaning depends on “the context of the utterance,” the “author’s intention,” or “the purpose for which they are used.” We will return to this in a bit.
But continuing on, Fr. Rickert also observed in a subsequent article (see HERE) that the authentic and official version of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is found in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, wherein in it bears the title in Latin: “Declaratio Summi Pontificis: De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione.” This may be translated into English as follows: “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” The official title of the document gives us how we should understand the meaning and intent of the text below it. The title clearly conveys Benedict is abidicating the “munus of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter“; therefore, the use of ministerio/ministerium in the text below it should be considered be synonymous with the title when it says “ministerio of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” It should be noted, in Fr. Rickert’s exchange with Dr. Mazza, when Fr. Rickert made the preceding argument, Dr. Mazza vanished from the public exchange — never answering his argument, either in article form, or in Dr. Mazza’s book. [NB: see also my article Ms. Barnhardt vs. the Acta Apostolicae Sedis]
Now, in my book Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI I include another argument of Fr. Rickert’s. He noted in personal correspondence with me that in Lumen Gentium, Chapter III “On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on the Episcopate”, the text gives us to understand that ‘a munus is a ministerium’ (e.g., “among the ministries (ministeria)…the chief place belongs to the office (munus) of those who, appointed to the episcopate”); therefore, given a ‘munus is a ministerium’, it follows that if the Roman Pontiff resigns the Petrine ministry (ministerium), he necessarily resigns the Petrine munus. See my article Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto for the details of the argument on this Lumen Gentium text, or see my aforementioned book (Chapter I).
Dr. Mazza ‘own’ expert, Dr. Slowikowska, confirms that the meaning of munus and ministerium depends on “the context of the utterance,” the “author’s intention,” or “the purpose for which they are used.” In this, Dr. Slowikowska’s analysis strengthens the arguments against Benepapism given (1) the Declaratio follows the form and conditions of Canon 332.2 for a papal resignation, thus confirming the intended synonymy of ministerium to munus; (2) the title of the Declaratio in the Acta Apostolica Sedis (i.e., “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiffon the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter”) gives us the intended meaning of the text below it, thus confirming the intended synonymy ministerium to munus; and (3) Lumen Gentium 20 (seeHERE) demonstrates ‘a munus is a ministerium’, therefore confirming the synonymy of munus and ministerium.
One last thing on languages. It should be noted that the word for “office” in German 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).[See note 7] In one of Benedict’s Seewald interviews (discussed in Section 5 of this article), he says the 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.
Consequently, Fr. Nix’s argument fails.
[4] Fr. Nix Appeals to Dr. Mazza’s Tendentious Interpretations
Next, Fr. Nix goes on to cite one of the arguments made by Dr. Mazza. Fr. Nix writes (emphasis in the original):
“Dr. Edmund Mazza discovered that even before being elected Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger believed the papacy endured the following development: “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.”—Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, emphasis mine.
Thus, when Pope Benedict XVI quasi-resigned in 2013, he believed he could bifurcate the papacy into a dual-papacy.”
Unfortunately, Fr. Nix has accepted Dr. Mazza’s ‘discovery’ without critical examination. I suspect Fr. Nix has not bothered to fact check Dr. Mazza’s research. This is unfortunate, because if Fr. Nix is going to present himself to his readers as a commentator who is educated on the relevant arguments, he should take the time to fact check Dr. Mazza. I’ve previously addressed Dr. Mazza’s gross misuse and misreading of this quote in a prior article (see Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”), and I have addressed Dr. Mazza’s glaring misreadings of Ratzinger in other places as well (for two more examples, see A closer look at Mr. Coffin’s evidence: Dr. Mazza’s Thesis 3.0). I don’t point out Dr. Mazza’s gross mistakes with relish, but as he has relied on these texts to make his Benepapist arguments, it is both fair and important to point out his erroneous interpretations. It is his moral responsibility to correct his evident mistakes given the stakes involved.
Now, returning to the specific text Fr. Nix references with regard to Dr. Mazza, 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. And, of course, Fr. Nix does not explain. There is no logical connection!
I am confident few, if any, readers of Dr. Mazza’s book have taken the time to read the source material he cites between pages 254-256 in Ratzinger’s book, as I have. I am confident Fr. Nix hasn’t. 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 quote he provides — and Fr. Nix cites –with a period after the word “benefits.” However, in the original text, the sentence continues! Dr. Mazza (and Fr. Nix following him) leaves off a key part of what Ratzinger was actually saying. The remaining part of that sentence, and the next one which concludes the paragraph after the word “benefits”, goes on to read as given below (my emphasis):
“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; 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 down the real meaning lost to Dr. Mazza and Fr. Nix, 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 in this section of his book 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.
Most importantly, a fact lost on Dr. Mazza who supposedly read Ratzinger’s book, and lost on Fr. Nix who apparently hasn’t, 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.” In sum, Ratzinger does not support a separation — which is contrary to the whole premise of Dr. Mazza’s argument here!!! Not only that, there is nothing here touching on the “pope emeritus” or the separation of munus and ministerium 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 no justification to suggest it applies in any way to Benedict’s resignation.
Again, Dr. Mazza is suggesting – and Fr. Nix follows him – 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’s text in Principles of Catholic Theology is not tenable. In his Principle of Catholic Theology, Ratzinger is not even speaking positively or in favor of a separation of the “office of jurisdiction” from the “office as rite” – and when he does speak of it, it is not even in the sense interpreted by Dr. Mazza. This explodes Dr. Mazza’s thesis (as well as Fr. Nix’s who depends on Mazza) entirely as Mazza’s rendering of the question requires that Benedict had a positive view of this separation, which again, as we have seen — is not the case.
Again, Fr. Nix’s claim fails closer scrutiny.
[5] Fr. Nix Appeals to the Seewald Interviews
Fr. Nix then appeals to Benedict speaking of an “accusation” in a response to one of Peter Seewald’s interview questions. Fr. Nix writes (Emphasis in the original):
“Consider more proof of this in an interview three years later with Mr. Peter Seewald:
Peter Seewald: “Is a slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?”
Pope Benedict: “One can… make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The follower of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office enters into your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion”
Notice that Pope Benedict XVI considered it merely an “accusation” that he fully resigned the papacy in that interview in 2016 (three years after his putative-resignation.) Yet Pope Benedict XVI knew very well that he left the active-papacy to another (as seen in the above word function) but kept the contemplative-papacy to himself (munus) as he said in that interview above: “The follower of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office enters into your very being.”
Thus, Pope Benedict clearly believed that in 2005, the office of the Chair of Peter entered into his “very being” until his death in 2022. Nothing could whisk away that forever-gift of the papacy, he erroneously believed. How do we know this? See again the quote from Principles of Catholic Theology that he wrote in 1987 as Cardinal Ratzinger. In other words, he had a broken idea of the papacy even before becoming Pope.”
Fr. Nix misinterprets what Benedict XVI said in his reply to Seewald’s question. In this, he seems again to follow after Dr. Mazza, who often appeals to this same quote. The “accusation” Benedict is responding to is the accusation that by resigning due to his age and weakness he has reduced the papacy to being a secular position. That is, being something like a secular CEO of a corporation who resigns due to age and or weakness. The rhetorical accusation to which Benedict responds is that by resigning due to weakness and or age, he has secularized the papacy, making it something like a secular job – rather than the divinely founded office it is.
However, what Dr. Mazza and Fr. Nix do not tell their readers is that immediately following the line Fr. Nix (and Dr. Mazza) cites above ending in the word “criterion,” Benedict XVI’s answer continued as follows (emphasis added):
“One can of course make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The follower of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office enters into your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion. Then again, the pope must do concrete things, must keep the whole situation in his sights, must know which priorities to set, and so on. This ranges from receiving heads of state, receiving bishops – with whom one must be able to enter a deeply intimate conversation – to the decisions which come each day. Even if you say a few of these things can be struck off, there remain so many things which remain essential, that, if the capability to do them is no longer there – for me anyway; someone else might see it otherwise – now’s the time to free up the chair.”
We see this broader context does not bear out Dr. Mazza’s — or Fr. Nix’s –claims. The point Benedict XVI is making is that ‘yes the papacy is more than a job’ but, even so, there are so many things ‘which remain essential,’ that if you can’t do them, in Benedict’s opinion, “now’s the time to free up the chair.” That is, time to step down from the Chair of Peter! Time to resign from the office! Benedict is speaking of resigning the office.
During an interview (A Life: Vol II), Seewald asked about Benedict’s use of the honorific title “emeritus.” Benedict replied: “In this formula both things are implied: no actual legal authority any longer, but a relationship which remains even if it is invisible.” This is what Benedict means by the ‘office entering your very being‘ — he is speaking of a relationship! Furthermore, Benedict told Seewald explicitly 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.” Again, what enters into his ‘very being’ is a relationship.
So, what remained for Benedict after “freeing up the chair” was an ‘invisible relationship,’ i.e., a bond of charity towards his “sons and daughters.” The ‘inner responsibility’ arising from this two-way bond of charity led him to devote his remaining years as a former pope, “pope emeritus,” to the service of prayer for the Church, just as he said in his Declaratio and his Last Audience (see discussion).
In Fr. Nix’s argument above, he again appears to be appealing to an argument advanced by Dr. Mazza, i.e., regarding Benedict saying “One can…make that accusation.” I have addressed the specifics of Dr. Mazza’s misreading of Benedict’s statement in a Roma Locuta Est article titled Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”.
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 in a “special relationship to it as its former bishop”[6]. We reference elsewhere in this response to Fr. Nix that Benedict emphasizes this “special relationship” in his Last Audience (e.g., “he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him”).
As seen in the quotes above, 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).[7] 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.”
[6] Fr. Nix Misunderstands “The Always is Also a Forever”
Finally, Fr. Nix raises Benedict’s last audience where he uses the phrase “the always is also a forever.” Fr. Nix writes (emphasis in original):
“Sadly, Benedict did not believe traditional theology on the papacy here. This theological reality that stands against his legacy is clearly buttressed by the folly of Benedict’s own words during the week of his “resignation.” These words are still shockingly found on the Vatican website (archived here) for Pope Benedict XVI stated:
“The ‘always’ is also a forever’ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. 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. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.”
Notice that when Pope Benedict XVI said “Yes” to the papacy in 2005, he considered that step to be an “always” and a “forever” act that was irreversible (even if resigned.) Of course, I believe this is substantial error, for he believed this idea even past his unusual attempt at becoming the “contemplative Pope” in 2013. Hence, in the above quote, he remained both physically and hierarchically within the “enclosure of St. Peter.” (Some translations call it the “precincts of St. Peter.”)”
The central problem with Fr. Nix’s interpretation might be described as the original sin of the Benepapists in this controversy. It is the suggestion that Benedict’s use of the phrase “The always is also a forever” is somehow a reference to Benedict retaining the papacy forever. However, this is clearly a misreading of the text. Benepapists neglect to consider the prior paragraph of the last audience text in which Benedict defines what he means by the “always.” Benedict explicitly said it refers to a newly elected pope losing his privacy.
Benedict explains this by saying a pope no longer “belongs” to himself. He belongs to others, and they to him. Becoming pope, he gains true ‘sons and daughters’ and ‘brothers and sisters’ he says in explaining this “always”, this “loss of privacy.” Benedict says in this preceding paragraph (emphasis added):
“Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.”
The whole paragraph is essentially ignored by the Benepapists, who leave it out entirely, or insert ellipses as they skip over it. As one can readily see, the paragraph is devoted to a ‘loss of privacy’ which is explained as ‘bond of charity’ that forms between the pope and the faithful. It is the relationship, the ‘bond of charity’ with his ‘sons and daughters’ which are — to use Fr. Nix’s terminology — “irreversible.” Benedict is speaking of a relationship which persists — not of a papacy which persists. Indeed, earlier in the last audience, he speaks of the same ‘sons and daughters’ writing to him “with a sense of a very affectionate family bond.” He spoke in similar terms of this papal loss of privacy when as Cardinal Ratzinger he gave a homily following the death of Pope Paul VI. Soon after the death of Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger in August 1978 gave a homily on the deceased pope, in part saying (italics and emphasis added):
Moreover, we can imagine how heavy the thought must be of no longer belonging to ourselves; of no longer having a single private moment; of being enchained to the very last, with our body giving up and with a task that day after day demands the total, vigorous use of a man’s energy.[5]
Archbishop Ratzinger was reflecting on the life of the recently deceased Pope Paul VI. He spoke of Paul VI as having to bear the “heavy” thought of “no longer belonging to [himself]” and of “no longer having a single private moment.” Thus, understanding the above, we are better prepared to understand what Benedict means when he says:
The “always” is also a “forever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.
Benedict is not saying he cannot return to a status in which he is not pope. Rather, he is saying there is no returning to the “private sphere.” Grammatically and logically, that is what the “this” points back to — to the issue of the loss of privacy. In other words, there is no return from the bond of charity. One does not stop loving the “sons and daughters” one gained upon becoming pope, even if one stops being pope. The bond of charity persists after the resignation — not the papacy! Benedict is saying his resignation does not revoke this bond of charity, his loving relationship with his ‘sons and daughters.’ Benedict goes on in his last audience to say this is why he will continue to pray for the Church — because of his loving relationship with his ‘sons and daughters’, etc. Similar themes are found later in his Seewald interviews.
Unfortunately, the Last Audience was a beautiful reflection that has been mangled beyond recognition by the Benepapists. I go into the themes above in more detail in my article Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience and devote a chapter in my book where I deconstruct the absurdities of the Benepapist interpretations on the Last Audience.
Returning briefly to the question of Benedict speaking of the “active ministry,” he said that his renouncing of it does not revoke the inability to return to the private sphere. That is what the “this” referred to when he said “my renunciation of the active ministry does not revoke this.” He says:
The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. 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. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.
Benedict is not denying a true resignation. He is referring to the point about the example of Saint Benedict who “showed us the way for a life” — not a papacy(!) — “which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” That is Benedict’s meaning. He is contrasting the active life of having been pope, which he was giving up via his resignation, in favor of a passive life of prayer to which he is now dedicating himself for the Church. He mentioned this in his Declaratio, and he developed that theme in the Last Audience. Again, as long as this article is, I am trying to keep short. Please see my article Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience.
Some final comments on the use and meaning of “active ministry” by Benedict. 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).
The Declaratio is the official instrument of resignation. In it, Benedict makes no distinction about an active vs. passive or contemplative ministry. It is in the last audience that Benedict does make reference to the “active exercise of the ministry”, or ‘active ministry’ in shorthand. But here is must be remembered the last audience is not an instrument of resignation, rather the last audience is Benedict’s ‘good-bye’ to the Church as pope, it is a reflection. Consequently, the last audience is not intended a theological document with precise, technical terms.
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., whether as 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 as pastor of this parish, or bishop of this diocese. 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 leave 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.
Final Thoughts
I know this rebuttal of Fr. Nix went on at some length and detail. However, providing such detail is necessary. The assertions of the Benepapists (e.g. Ann Barnhardt, Andrea Cionci, Dr. Mazza, Patrick Coffins, Estefania Acosta, Fr. Nix, etc.), as we have seen above, are reliant on shoddy research, misinterpretations of key texts, and misuse, misinterpretations, and even misrepresentations of the various source materials, and are in contradiction to the facts. A rebuttal in such cases must take the time and detail to explain how and where this is the case.
I invite those who may have been attracted to the arguments of those like Fr. Nix to check out the counterarguments. I have provided various resources addressing the false claims of the Benepapists. Please see my compilation of articles (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), my videos rebutting various Benepapist claims (see HERE), and or my book on the topic (see Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI).
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] Ganswein said (emphasis added): Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” The rest of this statement can be understood in the light I further explain in my comments above, and or in the articles, book, and video I cited.
[2] See “Martini: Benedict XVI’s resignation and the 2005 Conclave,” La Stampa, Vatican Insider (www.VaticanInsider.com), July 18, 2015, modified July 9, 2019, retrieved August 7, 2022, at 2:40 p.m. https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2015/07/18/news/martini-benedict-xvi-s-resignation-and-the-2005-conclave-1.35243041
[3] Benedict was quoted as saying: “Of course you are not permitted to yield to demands. Therefore I emphasized in my speech that I was acting freely. One is not allowed to go away if one is running away. One is not allowed to submit to coercion. One can only turn away when no one has demanded it. And no one demanded it of me during my time as pope. No one.” See Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI: Last Testament in his own words, p. 26.
[4] Benedict was quoted as saying: “On the contrary, the Vatileaks controversy was completely resolved. I said while it was still happening – I believe it was to you – that one is not permitted to step back when things are going wrong, but only when things are at peace. I could resign because calm had returned to this situation. It was not a case of retreating under pressure or a feeling that things couldn’t be coped with.” See Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI: Last Testament in his own words, p. 23.
[5] Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, “The Transfiguration,” originally a homily given August 10, 1979, Reprinted in L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 7-14 August 2013, page 3, published online on EWTN (www.ewtn.com). https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/transfiguration-1723
[6] 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.
[7] 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.]
Roma Locuta Est 