Roma Locuta Est

December 8, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) –  In his recent letter on Benedict’s resignation, the excommunicated Archbishop Viganò provided information on something which came to many as a revelation of sorts. Apparently, there is letter correspondence on the topic of Benedict XVI’s resignation between the respected theologian, Msgr. Nicola Bux, and Benedict XVI from 2014 — the year following Benedict’s resignation.

According to Viganò’s letter, Bux spoke at a meeting of Catholics from a local Cœtus Fidelium group in Naples on November 22, 2024. Also per Viganò, Bux apparently told the group something along the lines of that a letter he received from Benedict “supposedly constitute(s) the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation.” 

I discussed the import of Viganò’s letter in a prior article titled Vigano and the Spontaneous Combustion of Benepapism.  While Viganò does not give us the text of Benedict’s letter — the contents he claims to know — we are able to glean the essence of some of its content from Vigano’s own letter. In sum, it appears that in his letter to Bux, Benedict “vigorously denied” a distinction (“fictitious separation“) or separation between munus and ministerium. 

For those who claim Benedict did not resign validly, this statement absolutely contradicts their theory of the case. For those following the “did Benedict resign validly controversy“, the claim that Benedict did not resign validly rests on the premise that Benedict — in his Declaratio — intended a distinction between the Latin words munus and ministerium, i.e., according to the main Benepapist theories, munus and ministerium are not synonyms.

However, the content of Benedict’s letter to Bux contradicts this Benepapist claim.  Viganò at one points writes, speaking of Benedict’s letter (emphasis added; parenthetical comment Viganò’s):

“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,”

Viganò concedes from his knowledge of the correspondence that “in the cited letter” from Benedict (Ratzinger), that Benedict “did not want to separate munus and ministerium”.  As a result, Viganò is forced by Benedict’s clear words to concede that “Benedict subjectively resigned but objectively produced a canonical monstrum, constitutes an act so subversive as to render the Renunciation null and void.” 

That is, as I outlined in my article Vigano and the Spontaneous Combustion of Benepapism, Viganò — with his “but objectively…” comment — tries to save Benepapism by pivoting away from its dependence on a munus/ministerium distinction, and instead resting the invalidity claims solely on the basis of Benedict’s use of “pope emeritus.” Now, in the aforementioned article, and in others (e.g., Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”), I demonstrate why “pope emeritus” is neither a grounds nor a proof of the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation. But we’ll leave that discussion aside in this article in order to stay focused on the import of the munus and ministerium question.

Here, it suffices to understand that Vigano tells us the essence of the Bux-Benedict correspondence, and what he says is utterly devastating to the Benepapist claims.

Close on the heels of Viganò’s letter, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, on his website (FromRome), published an article which details how he came by an apparent excerpt of Benedict’s letter, i.e., the one Viganò references (see Msgr. Bux: Pope Benedict validly resigned, his letter to me proves it!).  In his article, Br. Bugnolo provides his translation of it from the original Italian. See Bugnolo’s article for the details.   

If the authenticity of the letter holds up; as said, it is an unmitigated disaster for the Benepapists. For in the letter, Benedict says the “speculations” about his renunciation — by certain, here unnamed “historians” and “theologians” — are for him “absurd.”  And, just as Viganò also hinted at, in the letter excerpt, Benedict rejects the separation of the ministerium and munus.  After calling the “speculations” absurd, Benedict says in his (apparent) letter (bold added):

“To say that in my renunciation I had left “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus” is contrary to the clear dogmatic-canonical doctrine, cited by you in number 1.”

What was “absurd” to Benedict XVI, clearly, was to say he gave up, or left “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus.” So, Benedict intended to not “only” give up the “exercise of the ministry” (ministerium) — but to give up “also the munus.” Therefore, Benedict is affirming he gave up the entire papal munus in his renunciation, and thus renounced the entire papacy — and this is the meaning of the Declaratio.

New Revelations and More Confirmation From Msgr. Bux

As of yet, a confirmation of the published portion, and or a full text of the letter has not been provided or authenticated by Msgr. Bux.  I do expect it will be soon. But, in the meantime, I did find some confirmation that had already been made public by Msgr. Bux.

This morning before Mass, I was searching in Italian for any new articles out there that might contain the contents of the Bux-Benedict correspondence from 2014.  While that search did not produce the letter, I did find an interview of Bux from February 21, 2023 on the website ROMA, which confirms from Bux himself that there was correspondence between him and Benedict in 2014.  The article was titled in Italian “Codice Ratzinger? Chiacchiere” or “Ratzinger Code? Chatter.”

There are a few interesting revelations from the interview beyond the question of the munus vs. ministerium. [1]  While this article will continue to focus on the munus vs. ministerium question, I will address another interesting point or two arising from this interview in a coming article.

With regard to the munus and ministerium question.  The interviewer (Rosa Benigno) put the following to Bux: “Those who maintain that the resignation would have been invalid distinguish between the munus (the office) and the ministerium (the exercise of the function). You maintain that Benedict XVI renounced both…“.  

Bux replied as follows (bold and italics added):

“The munus and the ministerium, although they seem to be two different Latin terms, are synonyms, and both translate as “office” or “task”. They can also be declined in such a way as to attribute to the first, a theoretical content, so to speak, and to the second, practical. In essence, Benedict wanted to make it clear that he would no longer be able to exercise the Petrine office with its governmental duties, but would continue to exercise the spiritual task of supporting with prayer the Church and the successor that the cardinals would elect and to whom he promised reverence and obedience in the meantime. It is enough to read the aforementioned Declaratio. Monsignor Gaenswein also explains it in his recent book. The rest is a saga constructed with a mixture of ignorance and bad faith, perhaps for interests: the fruit of intellectual fixation. Does it mean anything to you that they invented a “Code” that recalls the Da Vinci Code? Perhaps they were hoping for a similar success.”

So, here, clearly, Msgr. Bux says that ministerium and munus are synonyms.  Bux also adds that Benedict wanted to make clear he would “no longer be able to exercise the Petrine office with its governmental duties but would continue to exercise the spiritual task of supporting with prayer the Church…“.  This latter point is consistent with what I have argued from the beginning is the meaning of Benedict’s last audience (see Benedict is NOT pope and Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience), and his responses Seewald’s questions about the meaning of “pope emeritus” (see Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”).

As I noted in one of my past articles (HERE), Archbishop Gänswein also said Benedict used munus and ministerium as synonyms in the Declaratio. Gänswein wrote in his book on his life beside Benedict: “The simpl(e) 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).

The interviewer then asks Bux the following: “The supporters of the thesis of the “invalid renunciation” insist on some errors in the Latin text, unlikely for a theologian like Pope Ratzinger. What is your response?” Bux responded as folllows (Bold and Italics added):

“Even if the two terms were considered one, the munus, the office of pope in itself, the other, the ministerium, the exercise of papal jurisdiction, they remain inseparable. One cannot renounce one without also losing the other; Benedict himself confirmed this to me, in response to the question I posed to him in a conversation, the year after his resignation. On that occasion, I left him a text of mine that explained it in detail, to which he responded a month later. As for the errors, it seems that he made some in the off-the-cuff speech, not in the Latin text – as can be read in “Nient’altro che la verità” on pages 229 and 230 – The rest is pure fantasy. Everyone knows what Benedict declared and undoubtedly one cannot think that it is not so. The time will come when more will be understood about that renunciation.”

Okay.  A few points on the interesting answer above.

First, Bux gives the timing of his discussion with Benedict as “the year after his resignation”, which is consistent with what Vigano describes in his recent letter, including the year (2014), and the fact Benedict’s response came a month after Bux submitted his text to him.

Second, Bux makes the important point that even if one considered the munus and ministerium as distinct, “they remain inseparable.”  As cited in my book, this is the very point made by Fr. John Rickert (italics and parethentical are Rickert’s):

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

The two — munus and ministerium — are inextricably linked.  If you have one, you necessarily have the other.  If you renounce one, you necessarily renounce the other. And what is important here to note is that Bux says “Benedict himself confirmed this to me, in response to the question I posed to him in a conversation, the year after his resignation.”

Bux goes on to apparently say that arguments against the validity of the resignation are “pure fantasy.” And from his answer about the “Ratzinger Code“, it is easy to see what Bux must think of Cionci’s “Ratzinger Code”!!

Monsignor Bux and his Preface to a Book

So, as we have just seen in the aforementioned interview, Bux directly provides us Benedict’s view of the munus-ministerium question, all of which would later surface again in Viganò’s letter. This is “old” information that has been essentially overlooked in the United States at least.  But, there is even more.

Bux’s interview of February 2023 apparently coincided with the release in Italy of a book on Benedict’s resignation titled Non Era Lui Piu, or translated, “It wasn’t him anymore.”  Bux wrote the preface for this book.  Below, I have provided an excerpt from this preface.  Bux wrote (Bold and Italics added):

“For a decade, the Pope of the Catholic Church has been called Francis and, as such, he has been recognized by the whole church. Contra factum non valet argumentum. Some have now attempted to support the invalidity of the election, without providing evidence capable of withstanding the serious examination of a tribunal; others, however, focus on Benedict XVI’s resignation and support its invalidity, playing for example on the presumed distinction between munus and ministerium, also present in his declaration of 11 February 2013, indicating respectively the office and its exercise ; still others focus on the intention to split the papal office. In truth, Benedict XVI has never hidden that he has renounced both, maintaining only a sort of mystical task (munus) in spiritual support of the new pope and the universal Church: nothing else. A bit as prescribed in the monastic context: semel, abbas, semper abbas, but the abbot of a monastery, once replaced, is no longer its head. The essence of the papacy is the ministry or, better yet, the institution, not the munus. Whoever renounces the ministry is no longer pope. For this reason, in his declaration, Benedict said: “I declare that a conclave must be convened to elect a new Supreme Pontiff.”

(Source:  Preface by Monsignor Nicola Bux to the book,  Non Era Lui Piu:  Una Risposta al Codice Ratzinger sulla Rinuncia di Benedetto XVI by Federico Michielan, p. 4.  Italian Kindle Version. Translation via Google.

Bux clearly affirms that Francis is pope as he has been recognized “by the whole Church”.  He says, translated from the Latin, “against the fact, there is no argument.” Significantly, he notes that the evidence for the invalidity of the election cannot withstand serious examination. This is, essentially, the position of Roma Locuta Est.

The position of Roma Locuta Est is – as an aside – that while there are undoubtedly many odd, strange, and suspicious facts and events surrounding the conclave, none of what is currently known is enough to declare the conclave invalid — even if Universal Acceptance could be set aside. However, even if Universal Acceptance cannot be set aside, as we suspect, that is not a reason to say an investigation into the conclave should not move forward.  Even if ultimately there is no theological or canonical recourse, whatever happened is a question for the historical record and thus should be uncovered in order that  protective measures might be taken for the future, if nothing else (see HERE).

Now back to the question at hand. As in his interview, Bux in his preface rejects a supposed distinction between munus and ministerium, and quite clearly affirms that Benedict renounced both of them.  According to Bux, Benedict maintained “only a sort of mystical task (munus) in spiritual support of the new pope and the universal Church: nothing else.” Again, as mentioned earlier, this is essentially what I have been arguing with regard to Benedict’s last audience (see Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience), and his use of “pope emeritus” (see Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”).

Furthermore, Msgr. Bux quite clearly and directly writes: “Whoever renounces the ministry is no longer pope.” This hearkens back to what he noted about the munus and ministerium being inseparable.

Intellectual Honesty and the End of Benepapism

In my prior two articles on the Bux-Benedict correspondence I described its implication and impact on Benepapism, tongue-in-cheek, as “spontaneous combustion” (a pseudo-scientific, “Forteanic”, supposed, and very rare paranormal phenomena).

Humor aside, the impact of Benedict’s words described above on Benepapism is devasting. The impact is truly, an unmitigated disaster for the Benepapists. For those honest enough to admit it, it is an existential crisis for Benepapism as a theory. Bux is a firsthand witness to what Benedict meant by munus and ministerium, and there is a document out there that backs him up (and we may have already glimpsed a part of it, as noted earlier).  He says the two terms are synonyms.  Even if one were to press a distinction between them, Benedict says the terms are inseparable. As Bux replied in the interview (all emphasis added):

“One cannot renounce one without also losing the other; Benedict himself confirmed this to me…“

Msgr. Bux’s statement above appears to provide authentication for the portion of the letter that appears and is translated on Br. Bugnolo’s website and article, quoted here in part (bold added):

“…To say that in my renunciation I had left “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus” is contrary to the clear dogmatic-canonical doctrine, cited by you in number 1…”

What was “absurd” to Benedict XVI, clearly, was to say he gave up, or left “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus.” So, Benedict intended to not “only” give up the “exercise of the ministry” (ministerium) — but to give up “also the munus.” Therefore, Benedict is affirming he gave up the entire papal munus in his renunciation, and thus renounced the entire papacy — and this is the meaning of the Declaratio.

So, what are Benepapists to do in the face of this information?  What will they say in the face of this devastating evidence? Perhaps, there might be the temptation to fall into the all too human reaction, that is, to dig one’s heals into ground and simply say, “what Benedict or Bux say matters not – our theory goes on the same!”

There is that reaction, or there is the intellectually honest reaction that recognizes that the Bux-Benedict correspondence signals the death of Benepapism, or at the minimum, the death of both of its two main theories, each championed by the likes of Andrea Cionci on the one hand, and Ann Barnhardt on the other.  In his preface, each of their theories was called out by Bux for criticism, and rejected.

The views and theories of Dr. Mazza are among those I have opposed in articles, a book, a debate, in videos (HERE) and a series of dueling LifeSiteNews articles (Here, Here, and Here). However, despite my disagreements with his theories, I must recognize that Dr. Mazza did exhibit great intellectual honesty on Tim Gordon’s recent podcast (see IS Francis the TRUE POPE? What do YOU Think? w/ Dr. Ed Mazza). After recounting Vigano’s account of Benedict’s letter and Bugnolo’s translation of it, Dr. Mazza admitted (Bracketed comments inserted):

“…it seem as though he [Benedict] were saying I resigned not only the ministry but the munus of the bishop of Rome…and if that is true, my thesis is wrong, the Cionci thesis [“The Ratzinger Code”] is definitely wrong…”

[Source: O’Reilly’s unofficial transcription; see beginning around 11:15]

Now, granted, Dr. Mazza goes on to describe other ways in which his own theory might still be right.  But, that said, I salute Dr. Mazza for having the intellectual honesty to admit the implication of the Bux-Benedict correspondence to his brand of Benepapism.

But now consider this.  Before, the discussion on Gordon’s show dealt only with Vigano’s letter, and the translation of the letter excerpt found on FromRome.  Now, this Roma Locuta Est article has surfaced additional information that Dr. Mazza and other Benepapists must consider, i.e., the Bux interview, and the Bux preface from February 2023. Consequently, given this new information directly from Bux, it is undeniable that Benedict believed the munus and ministerium are synonyms, and that even if one tries to maintain a distinction between them, Benedict believed they are “inseparable,” i.e. to renounce one is to renounce the other.

Again, I salute Dr. Mazza. To admit his thesis would be wrong — if Benedict is in fact saying “I resigned not only the ministry but the munus of the bishop of Rome” — is certainly an act of intellectual honesty. But as shown in this article — that is undoubtedly what Benedict is saying!  So now, there is even more information to consider with the Bux interview and preface.  I pray the leading Benepapists take to heart and mind these latest revelations.

What happens next remains to be seen.  But it is clear:  the “End of Benepapism” has arrived.  All that remains is for those who have believed, favored, and or spread these ideas to see and understand what has just happened and what it means to their pet theories — and to now proceed accordingly.

Conclusion

This blog, Roma Locuta Est, has created a lot of resources related to the controversy surrounding Benedict’s resignation.  These are intended to help those who might have already accepted Benepapist claims, or who are tempted by them, or who are searching for ways to respond to the claims that others make.

Roma Locuta Est has published many articles (.e.g., see HERE) on this controversy.  I have written a detailed book as well on the topic titled Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI.  The book examines the controversy in an Objection-Reply format, and argues the resignation was entirely valid.  I have also produced a dozen or so videos that examine all the key questions (see HERE).

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).

Note:

[1]  During the course of the aforementioned interview, Monsignor Bux revealed that: “In February 2006, less than a year after his election, he asked the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts for an opinion on the possibility of the Pope resigning from the pontificate.” This is very curious when one remembers that Cardinal Martini allegedly suggested to Cardinal Ratzinger, that Martini would throw his support behind Ratzinger’s election in the conclave of April 2005.  As indicated above in my article, I will comment on this as this Martini-Ratzinger conversations has been previously discussed in Roma Locuta Est’s article series titled The Conclave Chronicles.

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

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