Roma Locuta Est

December 1, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – Archbishop Viganò recent published an open letter titled “THE ‘DISASSEMBLED’ Papacy: Emeritus. munus, ministerium.” This open letter has appeared on other sites over the last day or so, such as LifeSiteNews.  But what is Viganò really saying in it?

Perhaps others may have a different take on it than I, but Viganò’s letter struck me as something interesting and a bit strange. As I read it, and gathered my thoughts on it, the title for it that came to mind was the “Spontaneous Combustion of Benepapism.”

For a time there appeared to be some ambiguity in what Viganò was asserting about whether he believed Francis to be a true pope or not, and if not, based on what theory. Eventually, Archbishop Viganò appeared to finally settle on one theory. In this theory, he suggested Cardinal Bergoglio’s intent in accepting his election was defective (see Viganò’s video and transcript called Vitium Consensus, dated October 1, 2023).  With this theory, Viganò also attempted to show why the doctrine of universal acceptance did not apply in the case of Pope Francis (see my response, Thoughts on Vigano’s ‘Mens Rea’ Thesis). As an aside, Dr. Mazza would later offer the same supposed exception to Universal Acceptance. I replied his claims in an article titled Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument.

Viganò appeared at Dr. Mazza’s online conference of Benepapists in December 2023 holding to the same theory offered on October 1st of 2023. He continued to hold to it even as recently as June 2024 (see LifeSiteNews.com:  Archbishop Viganò responds to schism charge: ‘I regard the accusations against me as an honor’ ) in defending himself against the charges of schism made in Rome. Yet, sometime between June 2024 and August 2024, in his answers to interview questions posed by Taylor Marshall, it clearly appears Viganò had moved from the ‘defective intent’ theory into the Benepapist camp (see Viganò hops from one bad theory to another) when he stated “The resignation of Benedict XVI, due to the procedural defects and canonical monstrum that it produced [of two apparent “popes”], is certainly invalid.”

Throwing Monsignor Bux under the Bus?

In his recent open letter, Viganò seems to raise the alarm over the ‘never ending’ confusion over Benedict’s resignation.  His description of the confusion, and its cause, and its origin are quite interesting.  He writes (bold added);

The never-ending saga of the Resignation of Benedict XVI continues to fuel an increasingly bold and surreal narrative of the events we have witnessed in the last decade. Inconsistent theories not supported by any evidence have taken hold of many of the faithful and even some priests, increasing confusion and disorientation. But if this has been possible, it is also largely due to those who, knowing the truth, nonetheless are afraid to speak about it because of the consequences that the truth, once revealed, could have. In fact, there are those who believe it is preferable to shore up a castle of lies and deceit, rather than having to face questions about a past of connivance, silence, and complicity.

This is a puzzling but interesting accusation.  Again, if I am reading Viganò correctly, it seems clear he is complaining about “inconsistent theories” held by Benepapists which are “not supported by any evidence” and the fact these have “taken hold of many of the faithful”, etc.  I will offer my opinion shortly on which theories he finds to be “inconsistent.” In addition, he blames these “inconsistent theories” on those who “knowing the truth, nonetheless are afraid to speak about it“!

Viganò apparently believes some have withheld evidence, thus leading to the development of the “inconsistent theories,” and enabling them to flourish. Indeed, Viganò claims “there are those who believe it is preferable to shore up a castle of lies and deceit, rather than having to face questions about a past of connivance, silence, and complicity.”

So, of whom does Viganò mean when he speaks of this “past of connivance, silence, and complicity“?  Well, in context, it appears he speaks — in this instance at least — of the respected Monsignor Nicola Bux! Viganò writes (bold italics added):

During a meeting at the Renaissance Mediterraneo Hotel in Naples with Catholics from the local Cœtus Fidelium held this past November 22 [2024], Msgr. Nicola Bux mentioned an exchange of letters with “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,” dating back to the summer of 2014, which supposedly constitute the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation. The content of these letters – the first, written by Msgr. Bux on July 19, 2014 (three pages), and the second, by Benedict XVI, on August 21, 2014 (two pages) – was not released ten years ago, as would have been more than desirable. Instead, only today has their existence been barely mentioned. It so happens that I am aware of both this exchange of letters as well as their content.

Why did Msgr. Bux decide not to promptly disclose Benedict XVI’s response when Benedict was still alive and able to confirm and corroborate it, and instead to reveal only its existence, without disclosing its content, almost two years after his death? Why would he hide this authoritative and very important declaration from the Church and the world?

So, for the record, I have no idea about these letters of which Msgr. Bux speaks.  Apparently, he has not released them to the public, or at least not yet (that I am aware of).  A couple interesting things to note at the outset is the following.  Per Viganò’s description of Bux’s comment regarding them, these letters “supposedly constitute the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation.” 

For the record, I have never believed there was ever any good evidence for the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation. This blog, Roma Locuta Est, has devoted much space (.e.g., see HERE) to explaining why, and I have written a book as well on the topic titled Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI.  Still, the fact there is supposedly direct, written evidence from Benedict’s own hand that amounts to a “definitive denial” of the various invalidity theories will come as earth shattering news to diehard Benepapists — a veritable deathblow to Benepapism, at least to many theories.

Given Viganò published this letter a little over a week after Bux’s comments suggests Viganò recognizes this danger, and is trying to get ahead of the approaching tsunami. 

So, what does Viganò, do?  Well, for starters he asks questions that – to me at least – seem to strike at Bux’s motivations.  “Why“, Viganò asks, “did Bux decide not to promptly disclose Benedict XVI’s response when Benedict was still alive and able to confirm and corroborate it, and instead to reveal only its existence, without disclosing its content, almost two years after his death?”   Vigano goes on and asks, “Why would he hide this authoritative and very important declaration from the Church and the world?”

On their face, these questions are fair, and the answers should be divulged along with the text of the supposed letters. That said, while Viganò questions Bux’s credibility and that of the letters; it appears Viganò should answer a question or two himself. For example, in his open letter, while he complains that the existence of the letters has not been previously disclosed, Viganò admits he was aware of the letters and their content! He writes:

“Instead, only today has their existence been barely mentioned. It so happens that I am aware of both this exchange of letters as well as their content.”

So, how long has Viganò been aware of Bux’s correspondence with Benedict, and why didn’t he bring it to our attention before now, along with revealing the content to us? It is curious. Viganò doesn’t appear here to be questioning the legitimacy of the correspondence, just the timing and motives behind Bux mentioning it now after all this time.

The Contents of Benedict’s Response to Bux

So what did Bux ask Benedict, and what did Benedict write in response to Bux? I have no earthly idea, other than what we might glean from Viganò’s just published open letter.

We know from the Viganò’s statement already quoted above, we may obviously surmise that what Benedict wrote ‘constituted the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation.’ This much is clear.

Furthermore, the title of one section Viganò’s open letter is titled “the false Problem of the ministerium and munus,” which perhaps gives us another clue. In this section, it seems Viganò wants to place less emphasis on the importance on ministerium vs. munus in the debate over the validity of the resignation. That is, it appears in the Bux correspondence that Benedict “vigorously denied” he intended a distinction between the ministerium and munus, and apparently, it seems, asserted they were used as synonyms. As Viganò writes (bold added):

“Since the removal from the Apostolic See could appear as a form of disapproval of the line of governance of the Church imposed by the Bergoglian deep church, both the Personal Secretary and the Secretary of State put strong pressure on Ratzinger to remain “part-time” so to speak, playing on the fictitious separation between munus and ministerium – which moreover was vigorously denied in the Emeritus’ response to Mons. Bux.”

So, in the bolded text above, Viganò again appears to ‘lift the skirt’ a bit to reveal he knows Benedict “vigorously denied” a distinction (“fictitious separation“) or separation between munus and ministerium. Again, this appears to point to Benedict using them as synonyms, just has been argued by those of us who have publicly opposed the arguments of the Benepapists. And, indeed, Archbishop Gänswein’s wrote in his book on his life beside Benedict: “The simply reality is that, for the sake of stylistic elegance, Benedict decided to use two latin synonyms to indicate what had been entrusted to him at the conclave and what he had accepted” (see Who Believes Is Not Alone: My Life Beside Benedict XVI; p. 220 Kindle version).

Yet, we now reach the seeming point and purpose of Vigano’s open letter. Keep in mind, Viganò has by this point been forced to concede — based on his knowledge of the contents of Benedict’s correspondence with Bux — that Benedict neither used nor intended a distinction between munus and ministerium in the Declaratio — the very premise of all theories proposed by the likes of Ann Barnhardt, Ed Mazza, Andrea Cionci, etc.

Mindful that Benedict’s letter to Bux implodes these theories like a case of spontaneous combustion, Viganò attempts a strategic pivot to save Benepapism, or at least his version of it.  He writes (bolded italics added)  

“Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli has highlighted in his in-depth studies that this arbitrary bipartition of the Petrine mandate between munus and ministerium renders the Renunciation invalid. Since the Petrine Primacy cannot be broken down into munus and ministerium, since it is a potestas that Christ the King and High Priest confers on the one who has been elected to be Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter, Ratzinger’s denial (in the cited letter) stating that he did not want to separate munus and ministerium is in contradiction with Benedict’s own admission that he has based the Papacy emeritus on the model of the Episcopate emeritus, which is precisely based on this artificial and impossible split between being and doing the Pope, between being and doing the Bishop. The absurdum of this division is evident: if it were possible to possess the munus without exercising the ministerium, it would also be possible to exercise the ministerium without possessing the munus, that is, to carry out the functions of Pope without being one: which is an aberration such as to radically invalidate the consent to the assumption of the Papacy itself. And in a certain sense we saw this surreal dichotomy between munus and ministerium realized, when the Emeritus was Pope but did not exercise the Papacy, while Bergoglio acted as Pope without being Pope.

Viganò again admits immediately above that in the “cited letter” from Benedict (Ratzinger), that Benedict “did not want to separate munus and ministerium”. 

Clearly, this is a reference to their use in the Declaratio. Thus, We can understand this to mean, ‘Benedict did not want to separate munus and ministerium in the Declaratio.’ Viganò certainly seems to implicitly, if not explicitly concede this.

Consequently, if the munus and ministerium distinction no longer holds with regard to the Declaratio – as the Bux correspondence seemingly argues; then most Benepapist theories spontaneously combusts at this point. These must be the “inconsistent theories” of which Vigano speaks, i.e., the ones which he suggests did not have the necessary information, as perhaps found in the Bux-Benedict correspondence.

So, what about Viganò’s attempted pivot of which I spoke? Viganò seemingly attempts to shift the focus from a now non-existent distinction of the munus and ministerium in the Declaratio to a question of a supposed implicit distinction of munus and ministerium which Viganò believes is found in Benedict’s adoption of the title of “pope emeritus.”

“Ratzinger’s denial (in the cited letter) stating that he did not want to separate munus and ministerium is in contradiction with Benedict’s own admission that he has based the Papacy emeritus on the model of the Episcopate emeritus…”

So, here, we see Viganò essentially gives up on the Declaratio as the premise for disputing the validity of Benedict’s resignation, and shifts the weight of the Benepapist argument entirely to Benedict’s adoption of the “pope emeritus” — and claiming that is where one still finds the distinction between munus and ministerium. As Viganò goes on to say in his open letter (bold added):

“There is an obvious contradiction between the goal Benedict set for himself (i.e., to renounce the Papacy) and the means he chose to do so (based on the invention of the Papacy Emeritus). This contradiction, in which Benedict subjectively resigned but objectively produced a canonical monstrum, constitutes an act so subversive as to render the Renunciation null and void...”

So, having had the benefit of seeing the Bux correspondence, Viganò is apparently now forced to admit what the arch-Benepapists (i.e., Cionci, Barnhardt, et al) have not yet admitted. That is, Benedict actually intended to renounce the papacy, neither wanting or intending a distinction between ministerium or munus in the Declaratio.  Viganò’s unique spin or claim here, in an effort to save Benepapism, is that the creation — in his view — of the “canonical monstrosity” of a “pope emeritus” is an act “so subversive as to render the Renunciation null and void.” 

As a side note, we don’t know how long Viganò has known of the Bux correspondence. We only know he’s been aware that Bux recently publicly acknowledged it a week or so ago. It is interesting to recall, as I did near the beginning of this article, that Viganò discarded his “defective intent” theory sometime after June 2024. By August 2024, in his Taylor Marshall interview he was speaking of the “canonical monstrum” of the “pope emeritus” — terminology which appears in his current open letter.  Therefore, it’s certainly possible he had knowledge of the Bux letters this past summer (e.g., did Bux share the letters with Viganò?), and that these impacted the shape of his current theory. So, the point being, Viganò’s current letter may not be signaling any modification in his own theory. Rather, it may be signaling to other Benepapists that their theories based on a munus and ministerium distinction in the Declaratio are no longer tenable due to the Bux-Benedict correspondence revelations.  But, if Viganò has known about the problem of the Bux correspondence and the problems of “inconsistent theories” for some time, the question is – why didn’t Viganò inform the Catholic world before now, and why only incompletely so now?

If Viganò’s representation of the Bux-Benedict correspondence are accurate, then most Benepapist theories spontaneously combust. That said, there is no saving Viganò’s theory either. There is simply no basis in fact, reason, theology, or canon law to accept Viganò’s assertions about a “pope emeritus” being a canonical monstrum. For one, Benedict never wrote a document as pope wherein he officially defined “pope emeritus.” By analogy, the title of “emeritus” in canon law was intended to “symbolize an ongoing relationship“[1], not a continuance of a real or partial papacy. This is also clear in how Benedict spoke about “pope emeritus” in one of his Seewald interviews.[2]  Per canon 185, the honorific of “emeritus” could be used of an office ‘lost to resignation.’ [3]

I have already written an article on why the Benepapist arguments fail with regard to the title of “pope emeritus” (see Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus).  I point the reader to that article, but will briefly repeat one of the points from it below.

Benedict XVI makes clear that by resigning and becoming “pope emeritus” that this meant 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.”[4]  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 Seewald-Benedict 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 – or to Viganò’s argument; both of which suggest Benedict believed he had maintained the munus or office in some way.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Conclusion

Again, I have neither seen the aforementioned Bux-Benedict correspondence nor previously heard of it.  Viganò says he has, and I’ve accepted him at his word this is so. I do believe Bux and or Vigano should release this correspondence for the world to see. If and or when it is released, I may revise/update this analysis as necessary.

But, in the meantime, based on the little info provided by Viganò in his open letter, it seems pretty clear Benedict’s letter must provide powerful direct evidence against the existing Benepapist theories which rely on a munus and ministerium distinction. That appears to be a reasonable assumption. Indeed, per Viganò, Bux apparently described Benedict’s letter as ‘constituting the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation.’

In his open letter, Viganò is clearly unhappy about the fact Benedict’s letter and its “definitive denial” are only now being mentioned by Bux, ten years after the fact. Viganò blames the withholding of this information in part by some (Bux?) for contributing to the creation of “Inconsistent theories not supported by any evidence [which] have taken hold of many of the faithful and even some priests, increasing confusion and disorientation.”

And as we have seen, given the context of the letter, the “inconsistent theories” of which Viganò is speaking must certainly be those “theories” which have relied on the erroneous premise that Benedict either wanted or intended a distinction between ministerium and munus in the Declaratio, i.e., those theories that denied a synonymy of munus and ministerium in the Declaratio. These are the theories of the ilk of Andrea Cionci, Ann Barnhardt, Don Minutella, Mark Docherty, Ed Mazza, Estefania Acosta, etc.[6] But like them, Viganò’s theory is also untenable in that Benedict said “The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office [Amt].” 

These theories have now gone up in a puff of green light and smoke.[7]  

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] 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.

[2] Benedict XVI: A Life Volume Two: Professor and Prefect to Pope and Pope Emeritus 1966, Peter Seewald, Kindle, English version

[3] 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.

[4] See Seewald.

[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.

[6] Consider the comments on the Catholic Monitor – a Benepapist blog – that illustrate the sorts of concerns many Benepapists must be feeling at the moment.  Among them, the writer suggests “A Vatican expert who wishes to remain anonymous” suggests the Bux letters could be a “false flag”; and in another comment, “Is it possible that the Francis Vatican seeing that the validity of the Bergoglio papacy is increasingly being questioned by more scholars decided to throw out a ruse to discredit their scholarship?”

[7] Perhaps like the fictional drummers from Spinal Tap who vanished in spontaneous combustion.