Benedict XVI’s Resignation: FAQ

February 11, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – In this article Roma Locuta Est provides an FAQ which addresses “frequently asked questions” which reflect the objections posed by those who claim Benedict XVI’s resignation was not valid. This FAQ is intended as a resource for those Catholics who have either accepted such claims, or for those who are leaning toward accepting them. The FAQ may also be of aid to those looking for resources to combat the arguments of those who claim Benedict’s resignation was invalid.

In the years following Benedict’s resignation, twelve years ago today, there arose what I call the “Benepapists” –those who believe and pushed the idea Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid for any number of reasons. When the early Benepapist theories began to circulate, I was initially eager to examine them in the hope they might ‘solve’ the “Francis problem.” However, as I detailed in my initial article on the topic back in 2017, it was clear to me the leading Benepapists were misreading Benedict’s words (see Benedict is NOT pope), and ultimately, misleading Catholics. Nor would it be the last time noted Benepapists have misread the source materials (e.g., HERE).

I don’t say this because I am a fan of Pope Francis. I am not — as those familiar with the blog are aware. I have researched some of the oddities surrounding the 2013 conclave (see The Conclave Chronicles), and have critically reviewed what has transpired during this pontificate (e.g., see Summa Contra Stephen Walford, Summa Contra the Francis-Apologists, Why blame Scalfari?, etc.).

There is, understandably, a certain visceral appeal arising from theories that purport to solve easily our current dilemma of having a “Francis.” However, an honest pursuit of the truth does not allow us to short cut or bend the evidence, logic, reason, theology, the canons, historical precedent, etc., to find or concoct a gimmicky theory to “undo” his election. Unfortunately, all the theories (e.g., an invalid resignation) – inclusive of all the publicly available evidence – that attempt to undo the conclave of 2013 have come up short, inclusive of Benepapism, the claim Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Propounding or accepting these sorts of theories is also dangerous because they tend toward schism.

Consequently, Roma Locuta Est has considered it important to devote much time and effort to show why the Benepapist theories are wrong. This blog offers various resources which respond to the claims of the Benepapists. Roma Locuta Est offers compendiums of articles rebutting Benepapist claims (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope” and Summa Contra the BiP Theory (Why Benedict XVI is NOT the pope)), In addition, a series of videos on key topics is also offered (see HERE). On top of that, I have written a book which addresses the Benepapist claims in an objection and reply format (see Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI). I have also written a series of articles for One Peter Five (see HERE), and a series of them which appear on LifeSiteNews (see Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here).

And now, in addition to the resources above — intended for those who have perhaps accepted the claims of the Benepapists, or who are struggling with them, Roma Locuta Est offers this FAQ. Below are the list of the questions that are addressed in detail in this article. The responses are based directly on what I have previously written, whether in articles or in portions of my book.

Given the number of questions and the detail of the answers, this article is lengthy. However, the expectation is the reader can pick and choose which questions might interest them, and return to this FAQ at their leisure. I may from time to time update this FAQ with additional questions and responses. The reader is also invited to submit questions either in the comment section, or to my email given at the bottom of this article.

The FAQ questions addressed in this article:

Question 1. According to Canon 332.2, a papal resignation must be made “freely” in order for it to be valid. Wasn’t Benedict forced to resign by the “St. Gallen mafia” – and if so, doesn’t this make Benedict’s resignation was invalid?

Question 2. Benedict read his Declaratio on February 11, 2013, but his resignation did not become effective until February 28, 2013, at 8 p.m. Doesn’t this delay invalidate Benedict’s renunciation as some have claimed?

Question 3. Canon 332§2 speaks of the Roman Pontiff renouncing the munus (office). However, in the Declaratio, Pope Benedict XVI said “I renounce the ministry (ministerio/ministerium) of the bishop of Rome.” The Latin word for “ministry” is ministerio (ministerium). Given Benedict XVI renounced the “ministerio” (ministry), and not the “munus” (office) wouldn’t Benedict’s renunciation be invalid?

Question 4. But some who claim Benedict didn’t fully resign the papacy, or only partially did so, claim Benedict resigned only the ‘ministry’ or administration of the papacy, but not the office of the papacy itself.

Question 5. But I have read the claims of some, like those of Dr. Mazza, that Cardinal Ratzinger believed in a sacramental munus, which left an indelible mark upon him. Thus, they say, Benedict erroneously believed he would retain the papal munus in some way even after his resignation. Given Benedict committed a “substantial error” (cf. Canon 188) in believing this, wouldn’t this invalidate his resignation?

Question 6. Doesn’t Benedict’s use of the title of “pope emeritus” prove that he remained pope in some way, after all the word “pope” remains in the title of ‘pope emeritus’? What did he intend by “pope emeritus”?

Question 7. Why did Benedict continue to wear a white papal cassock? Doesn’t this mean he believed he was still pope in some way?

Question 8. Benedict is said to have given his Apostolic Blessing in at least a couple of private letters to at least Cardinal Brandmüller and Cardinal Sarah, the late pope emeritus concluded his letters “with my Apostolic Blessing”. Isn’t it true that only popes can give apostolic blessings?

Question 9. I have seen that some say that even after his resignation, Benedict continued to sign his correspondence with the letters “PP” (i.e., “Benedict PP XVI”) — something that only makes sense for a reigning pope to use. The “PP”, depending on the source, stands for Pontifex Primus or Pontifex Pontificum. The claim here is that after his resignation, Benedict continued to sign his name with “PP” indicating he was, or at least believed he still was pope. How do you respond to this claim?

Question 10. In Benedict’s Last Audience as pope on February 27, 2013, he said the line “The Always is also a Forever….”. Didn’t this expression signify that he would “always” retain the papal munus, or that he’d remains pope in some way?

Question 11. But wait, doesn’t Benedict say in his last general audience that he is giving up the “active ministry?” Doesn’t this imply he is retaining the “passive ministry”, becoming a “contemplative pope” or “passive pope”?

Question 12. Benedict XVI’s personal secretary, Archbishop Ganswein gave a speech in 2016, three years after Benedict resignation. In it, he made some remarks that some considered controversial. For example, Ganswein spoke of Benedict participating in an “expanded petrine ministry.” Doesn’t such a phrase, coming from a close associate of Benedict, mean that Benedict believed he retained something of the Petrine Munus, along with Francis?

Question 13. Some, like Andrea Cionci, claim Benedict intentionally created a ‘self-impeded see’ to save the papacy and the Church from its internal enemies. He did this by so wording the Declaratio that it only appear to be a resignation, when in reality he really retained the petrine munus for himself. What of this claim?

Question 14. Some claim Benedict XVI engaged in a “strategic ruse,” essentially pretending to have resigned, or wording the Declaratio so as to retain the Petrine munus. His words as “pope emeritus” must be understood as having a surface meaning, and then an underlying meaning whereby he communicated the reality he remained pope to “those with ears to hear.” What do you say then about the claim Benedict attempted to communicate the reality he remained pope by speaking in a cryptic code, which some have named the “Ratzinger Code”?

Benedict XVI’s Resignation: Frequently asked questions and the responses to them

Question 1. According to Canon 332§2, a papal resignation must be made “freely” in order for it to be valid. Wasn’t Benedict forced to resign by the “St. Gallen mafia” – and if so, doesn’t this make Benedict’s resignation was invalid?

Response: Although it has been suggested by some that Pope Benedict XVI was forced to resign, perhaps by the St. Gallen mafia, proponents of this theory have offered no evidence which demonstrates this was the case. Some have suggested financial pressure may have been brought to bear against Pope Benedict XVI,[1] while others have suggested there were death threats.[2] However, these theorists have produced no “smoking gun” to prove his resignation was “forced.”

Rather, to the contrary, such theories are contradicted by Benedict himself. Pope Benedict XVI in his Declaratio specifically states he is renouncing the papacy freely. Furthermore, after his resignation, Benedict called theories that called the validity of his resignation into doubt “absurd.” In his interviews with Peter Seewald, the former pope made it quite clear he resigned freely. For example, speaking of whether pressure of the Vatileaks scandal led to his resignation, Benedict told Seewald:

“…that no one is permitted to step back when things are going wrong. I could resign because calm had returned to this situation. It was not a case of retreating under pressure or feeling things couldn’t be coped with.” [3]

In the quote above, Benedict explicitly recognizes that he cannot validly resign under pressure or coercion, or in this case, “when things are going wrong.” But he follows by saying he could resign in the case of Vatileaks because “calm had returned to the situation.” To suggest that Benedict resigned due to direct threat or pressure is to make a coward and a liar of the man.

Moreoever, Benedict did not behave like a man who acted under a threat or coercion. Benedict as former pope had been in communication with old friends, colleagues, and well-wishers; and he had received guests. Not one of them has ever come forward to suggest that Benedict either hinted he resigned because of a threat, or that he appeared to be living under some threat.

Finally, had Benedict resigned under pressure, surely, he would have left us some last “testament” that spelled out what had really happened. He could have passed this testament onto one of his guests in something as small as a thumb drive. But no such testament has surfaced in the years following his death (see https://romalocutaest.com/2023/01/09/benedict-xvi-and-the-missing-last-testament/).

In sum, there is no evidence Pope Benedict XVI submitted his resignation out of fear or threat. Indeed, the evidence, as outlined above, is to the contrary.

Question 2. Benedict read his Declaratio on February 11, 2013, but his resignation did not become effective until February 28, 2013, at 8 p.m. Doesn’t this delay invalidate Benedict’s renunciation as some have claimed?

Response: The suggestion that a papal resignation must be effective immediately in order to be valid is not supported by the relevant papal canon, Canon 332§2. This canon lists only two requirements for a valid papal resignation, that it be “free” and it must be “duly manifested” (see response to Question 3 below). There is no third requirement that it must go into effect immediately, and nothing prevents the Supreme Pontiff from setting conditions which trigger an effective resignation.

Pope Benedict XVI formulated a resignation conditioned on the arrival of a predetermined date and time. There have been prior popes provided for their own resignations contingent on the presence of certain predetermined conditions. For example, Pope Pius XII made provisions for his resignation should he be taken prisoner by the Germans during World War II.[4] Pope Paul VI provided for his resignation should he fall seriously ill.[5] Pope John Paul II did the same in the event he became incapacitated.

It may also be noted that Canon 189§4 reads as follows (italics added):

A resignation can be withdrawn by the one resigning as long as it has not yet become effective; once it has become effective it cannot be withdrawn, but a person who has resigned can obtain the office by some other title.[6]

As is apparent in the text above, the canon envisions the possibility of there being a period of time between the time when a resignation is submitted and when it becomes effective.[7] Therefore, there is no real basis to reject the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation on the grounds there was a time delay between the date when a resignation was announced, and the date it became effective.

Question 3. Canon 332§2 speaks of the Roman Pontiff renouncing the munus (office). However, in the Declaratio, Pope Benedict XVI said “I renounce the ministry (ministerio/ministerium) of the bishop of Rome.” The Latin word for “ministry” is ministerio (ministerium). Given Benedict XVI renounced the “ministerio” (ministry), and not the “munus” (office) wouldn’t Benedict’s renunciation be invalid?

Response: Canon 332§2 reads as follows:

If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [munus], it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.[8]

As can be seen, the canon does not say the word munus must be used in a resignation. In fact, the canon explicitly outlines only two requirements: that the resignation be made freely and that it be duly manifested. The canon on papal resignations does not require that any specific formula, any specific word, or any set of words be used to validly renounce the papacy. It is notable that an author of a popular Benepapist book admits the word “munus” need not be used in a valid resignation, and that other words may be acceptable.[9]

What must be clear in whatever word or words used, is that these convey that the pope is, in fact, resigning the papacy. That can be said in any number of ways. Even setting aside the debate over munus vs. ministerium, it is clear Benedict resigned the papacy in saying he was renouncing the “ministry (ministerio) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter…in such a way…that the See of Rome, the See of Peter would be vacant,” resulting in the need for a conclave to elect a “a new supreme pontiff.” The importance of these words is clear. If the See of Peter is vacant and a new conclave is necessary, there is no pope. Clearly, Benedict both intended, and stated he was giving up the papacy.

The Benepapist case is undermined by the fact that munus and ministerium are synonyms. Both can mean duty or office, as has been demonstrated by Ryan Grant [10] and Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, PhD [11]. Archbishop Gänswein, Benedict XVI’s personal secretary, wrote in his book on his life beside Benedict: “The simple 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).

Even the Benepapist Dr. Edmund Mazza, in his book, cites an authority on the question who affirms that munus, ministerium, and officium are synonyms.[12] This authority goes on to say the meaning and synonymy of these words “depends on the context of the utterance, the author’s intent, or the purpose for which they are used.”[13] All three of these criteria, applied either individually or together to the resignation statement, clearly support the case that Benedict validly resigned.

Furthermore, in the official record of the Apostolic See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the actual title of Benedict’s resignation is: Declaratio Summi Pontificis De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione.[14] This can be translated as “Declaration of Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” The title clearly speaks of Benedict abdicating the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome. Given this, it follows that where the text below the title declares “I renounce the ministry (ministerio) of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter,” that text must necessarily and definitively be understood as synonymous with that title.

Though the preceding is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of the resignation, we can briefly add the following as well. Lumen Gentium 20 speaks of the Lord appointing the Apostles as rulers of the Church, and that the Apostles, in turn, appointed men to take up their ministry (ministerium) when they died:

“Among these ministries (ministeria) which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office (munus) of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning, are passers-on of the apostolic seed.”[15]

Given LG 20 says the office (munus) of the episcopate is “among the ministries”, it follows that a munus is a ministry. Therefore, in the case of the papacy, if one resigns the Petrine ministry or ministerium, one necessarily resigns the Petrine munus.[16] Consequently, again, the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid.

Question 4. But some who claim Benedict did not fully resign the papacy, or only partially did so, claim Benedict resigned only the ‘ministry’ or administration of the papacy, but not the office of the papacy itself. What is the response to this?

Response: This claim can be rebutted by appealing to Monsignor Bux’s correspondence with Benedict XVI in the year following his resignation. In a 2023 interview with Rosa Benigno of Roma, Monsignor Bux spoke of his 2014 exchange of letters with Benedict. In reply to one question, Bux said, “The munus and the ministerium, although they seem to be two different Latin terms, are synonyms, and both translate as ‘office’ or ‘task.’” [17]

In response to another question in the same interview, Bux replied (emphasis 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. [18]

Above, Bux confirms the existence, dating, and substance of the correspondence as elsewhere reported by Archbishop Viganò. Furthermore, 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 in his discussion of Canon 331[19] (italics and parentheticals 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) [20] 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.[21]

The two — the Petrine munus and Petrine ministerium — are inextricably linked. If you have one, you necessarily have the other. If you renounce one, you necessarily renounce the other.[22] And what is important here to note is that in the above interview, 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.”

In addition to the interview, Monsignor Bux also commented on the munus-ministerium question in a preface he wrote for a book authored by Frederico Michielan and Francesco Patruno on the resignation controversy, published in 2023.[23] In this preface, Bux provides us Benedict’s view of the munus-ministerium question, all of which is consistent with the description in Viganò’s open letter on the subject. In this preface, Bux wrote in part (italics and bold added):

…. 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.” [24]

Elsewhere in his preface, Bux clearly affirms that Francis is pope as he has been recognized “by the whole Church.” He also observes that the evidence for the invalidity of the election cannot withstand serious examination. As in his interview, Bux in his preface quite clearly and directly writes: “Whoever renounces the ministry is no longer pope.” This is consistent with his interview wherein – speaking of the munus and ministerium — he said: “One cannot renounce one without also losing the other.” This, he explicitly said, was confirmed to him by Benedict himself.

Response: Dr. Mazza has not provided, and cannot provide, any clear statement by Josef Ratzinger, either as theologian, pope, or pope emeritus wherein he affirms the concept of sacramental papacy or a “sacramental papal munus” which Dr. Mazza ascribes to him.

Where Dr. Mazza has attempted to produce such evidence, a closer reading of his primary sources shows he has misread key passages from which he draws his conclusion (e.g., HERE). Perhaps the most notable example of this is when Dr. Mazza, on a Patrick Coffin podcast, paraphrased a passage from Ratzinger’s Principles of Catholic Theology,[25], claiming that the cardinal “disagreed with those who said the papacy is not a sacrament.” [26] If this were true, Dr. Mazza would have his proof that Benedict believed the papacy is a sacrament.

However, in my book I have demonstrated conclusively, by showing the full context of Ratzinger’s passage, that Dr. Mazza has misread the source material. Ratzinger was in reality “offering his understanding of the Eastern Church’s general view of the problem of papal centralization, the declaration of infallibility, etc., i.e., that the West has, in the East’s view, effectively treated the papacy as if it was another sacrament — something the East rejects.” [27] In sum, Ratzinger was not claiming in this passage that the papacy is a sacrament, nor was he disagreeing with those who say it is not.

Dr. Mazza’s reading is so mistaken that even a noted Benepapist, in her own separate analysis of the same passage, would later refer to his interpretation as “a real madness.” [28]

But we need not even rely on Dr. Mazza’s misreading of various source materials. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), citing Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 21), teaches clearly that “the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by episcopal consecration” (cf CC 1557).

Given episcopal consecration confers the “fullness of the sacrament,” it therefore follows that election to the papacy is not a stage of Holy Orders, i.e., there is no “sacramental papal munus.” The real problem for Dr. Mazza is that Cardinal Ratzinger was Chairman of the Commission that drafted this Catechism. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably claimed Ratzinger opposed this teaching, and believed in an additional “sacramental munus” upon elevation to the papacy.

Response: Benedict XVI did not provide an official document explaining what he meant by “pope emeritus.” However, the origin of the word gives us some idea. We may observe that “emeritus was used of soldier who had completed their duty”; and “It is the past participle of the verb emereri, meaning “to serve out one’s term” (see Here).

In addition, canons 185 and 402 may shed light on what Benedict XVI intended by the title by way of analogy. Canon 185 states that anyone who loses an office due to resignation may use the title “emeritus.” [29] Thus, “emeritus” is used in reference to a lost office; it is not used of an office still held in some way. [30] Thus, “pope emeritus” would obviously speak of a man who is a former pope, one who has lost the office by resignation; just as “professor emeritus” applies to a former professor.

Canon 402§1 states in part: “A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese.” [31] As with canon 185, this canon is not directly applicable to the Pope, as it speaks of a resignation that “has been accepted” (a pope’s resignation is not accepted). Still, significantly, a respected commentary on canon law, speaking of Canon 402, says the title of bishop emeritus or former bishop of N. “…symbolizes an ongoing relationship to the people whom he had previously served as diocesan bishop.” [32]

And, indeed, speaking of this “ongoing relationship,” in his “last audience,” Benedict spoke of gaining “brothers and sisters,” indeed “sons and daughters,” upon his papal election. He spoke of forming a mutual, special relationship with these new “sons and daughters”; a bond of charity, whereby “he belonged to them,” and “they belonged to him,” etc. Though he resigned the papacy, this “bond,” this loving “relationship,” still persists. It is this “bond of charity,” this “special relationship” that continued for him after his renunciation, not the papacy. This is the true context of the “always” and “forever” of which he spoke. [33]

This is the essence of what Benedict meant and intended by “pope emeritus.” Consider, in an interview with Peter Seewald, in response to the question, “What is an emeritus bishop or pope?” Benedict answered as follows (all emphasis added):

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.[34]

Above, Benedict states clearly “emeritus” meant one “was no longer the active holder of the bishopric but remained in a special relationship to it as its former bishop.” Here, we see Benedict acknowledging by implication his position as a “former bishop,” that is, “former bishop” of Rome – and not the “second bishop” of it. Therefore, he certainly recognized he was no longer Bishop of Rome, i.e., no longer Pope.

Moreover, Benedict explicitly stated “the word ‘emeritus’ said he had totally given up his office [Amt], but his spiritual link to his former diocese was now properly recognized.”

Two things to note here. In brackets I inserted the German used in the original text of the interview for “office,” which is Amt. Amt is also used in the official German translation of Canon 332§2 in place of munus. [35] Therefore, in the Seewald interview, we have Benedict saying “emeritus” meant he had “totally given up his office” – his Amt, his munus. He said, “Totally given up his office.” There was nothing left of it. This alone should put to rest the Benepapist claims.

The second thing to note is that Benedict speaks of what remains after totally giving up the Amt or office or munus. What remains is a “special relationship” or “spiritual link.” For a ‘regular’ bishop, this is a relationship to his former diocese, i.e., it is people. But for Benedict, as his former jurisdiction of office encompassed the Church, this “special relationship”, this bond of charity, is between him and the whole Church, i.e., the “sons and daughters” he speaks of in the last audience.

Seewald asks a follow up question: “But does that apply to the pope?” Benedict replies (all emphasis added):

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. [36]

Benedict explicitly says that by the formula (i.e., “pope emeritus”), two things are implied: (1) “no actual legal authority any longer” but (2) a “spiritual relationship remains even if it is invisible.” So, again, there is no “legal authority any longer” because he no longer holds the office. Therefore, there is no suggestion of an indelible, sacramental, papal munus remaining. No, only a “spiritual relationship” remains, a spiritual relationship between the former pope who has totally given up his office, and those he had formerly governed as pope. Again, this cannot be stressed enough, Benedict is speaking of a relationship which remains, not an office or munus that remains.

Also, it is important to note that Benedict explicitly says the following about the legal-spiritual formula of the “pope emeritus”: “This legal-spiritual formula avoids any idea of there being two popes at the same time.” [37]

As can be seen, Benedict makes an absolute universal exclusion, explicitly stating the formula (i.e., pope emeritus) avoids “any idea of there being two popes at the same time.” Thus, there is no place for any sort of “kind of” pope, “partial pope,” or “sacramental-munus-only pope” as claimed in Dr. Mazza’s theory.

Thus, expressed in his own words, Benedict saw the title of “pope emeritus” as (1) a recognition that he had “totally given up the office” of the papacy while (2) still recognizing an “ongoing” and “special relationship” – i.e., a mutual “belonging”, a bond of charity – between himself and his ‘sons and daughters’ and ‘brothers and sisters’ who he had once governed as pope before his resignation. His moral duty as he saw arising from this bond of charity, this “spiritual assignment,” was to continue to love and pray for those in this “special relationship”, i.e., to pray for the Church – just as he said in his Declaratio, his last audience, and in the Seewald interview.

Question 7. Why did Benedict continue to wear a white papal cassock? Doesn’t this mean he believed he was still pope in some way?

Response: One may certainly disagree with some of the decisions Benedict XVI made with certain externals surrounding his renunciation, such as his choice of title and or clothes. But as with the discussion above regarding the honorific use of “pope emeritus,” a closer examination of the question of his attire shows that Benedict XVI gave up his papal office.

First, while Benedict XVI as emeritus did wear white, it was not a “papal cassock.” Benedict wore a simple white cassock. Benedict stopped wearing items associated with papal attire, including the white or red ‘mozzetta’ worn over the shoulders, the white sash or fascia worn around the waist bearing the papal coat of arms, and the papal red shoes. In addition, when he resigned, Benedict took off the Fisherman’s Ring, a sign of papal office, as witnessed by Archbishop Gänswein (Benedict’s personal secretary). [38]

Furthermore, after Benedict renounced the papacy he stopped wearing pontifical insignia during the liturgy, e.g., the pallium.[39] As “the pallium symbolizes the plenitudo pontificalis officii (i.e. the plenitude of pontifical office),” [40] the significance of Benedict no longer wearing it should be self-evident. The removal of these items from his attire is another sign Benedict fully resigned the papal office.

[Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/benedict-xvi-did-not-fake-his-resignation-a-response-to-patrick-coffin/]

Finally, we have confirmation from Gänswein, as if we needed it, that Benedict clearly did not believe himself to be pope after February 28, 2013, as he named “not himself but Pope Francis in the Canon of the Mass.” This is not something Benedict would have done if considered himself to still be pope after his renunciation. (see https://romalocutaest.com/2022/11/02/benedict-names-always-and-only-pope-francis-in-the-mass/)

Question 8. Benedict is said to have given his Apostolic Blessing in at least a couple of private letters to at least Cardinal Brandmüller and Cardinal Sarah, the late pope emeritus concluded his letters “with my Apostolic Blessing”. Isn’t it true that only popes can give apostolic blessings?

Response: Those who claim Benedict remained pope until his death claim that only a pope can give an apostolic blessing. This is partly true. The authority to give apostolic blessings does rest in the pope. However, the pope can and does delegate this authority to others.[41] On some occasions a certain solemn rite and formula are prescribed, but for others this is not the case.

By what authority did Benedict give apostolic blessings after his resignation? It may be the case that Pope Francis delegated the right to his predecessor, the Pope Emeritus Benedict, either with or without certain conditions attached to this right. Per Canon 1167§1, Pope Francis certainly would have had the authority to do so. That he might have done so should not be a surprise. Bishops are accorded the right to give a certain number of apostolic blessings each year, thus it would be fitting that a former pope should be granted this privilege to an even greater extent in view of the dignity of his former office.

There is another way in which Benedict might have received the delegated authority to give apostolic blessings. It may be that Benedict, while he was still pope, granted to any future pope emeritus the delegated authority to give apostolic blessings. Obviously, this would apply to himself when he renounced the papacy. Again, that Pope Benedict XVI could do this is granted by Canon 1167§1 [42] which reads:

“The Apostolic See alone can establish new sacramentals, authentically interpret those already received, or abolish or change any of them.”[43]

As stated above, it is fitting a pope emeritus would be accorded the delegated authority to give apostolic blessings in view of the dignity of his former office.

But, what of Benedict’s use of the possessive “my” when imparting the apostolic blessing, i.e., “with my Apostolic Blessing”? Doesn’t that mean he must be asserting he has the inherent authority to give an apostolic blessing, and thus believes he is still fully pope, or at least pope in some partial way? The answer is a clear “no.”

Per the relevant portion of Canon 1168 which applies to this question, “the minister of sacramentals is a cleric who has been provided with the requisite authority.”[44] Thus, Benedict, even as pope emeritus, i.e., a former pope, is the “minister of the sacramental” on the basis of having been “provided the requisite authority” via delegation. Consequently, even in giving the apostolic blessing in an informal setting of a private letter, he is a true “minister of the sacramental.”

Thus, Benedict’s use of the possessive “my” refers to the apostolic blessing being his to give, to whom he chooses to give it, on those occasions he chooses to do so as the true “minister of the sacramental” for which he has been “provided the requisite authority.” He used “my” in this delegated sense of being a true “minister of the sacramental,” and not in the intrinsic, inherent sense that would apply only in the case of a pope. As a final point, to my knowledge Benedict had not given the apostolic blessing in public settings. He did so only in private letters between friends and associates, so the lack of precise formula, and the informal use of ‘my’ for the blessing is not surprising.

Whatever the specific arrangement that was made which allowed Benedict as pope emeritus to give apostolic blessings, the point is, there are more mundane explanations available to account for it than to wildly assert Benedict must have still believed himself to be pope in some way. The real point is that the Benepapists would have to show the canons were violated here.[45] The burden is on the Benepapists to demonstrate there is no other solution but their own. This they have failed to do. So, in summary, if Benedict still gave apostolic blessings after his resignation, that is not a proof that he still believed himself to be pope.

See also my article on Roma Locuta Est (https://romalocutaest.com/2023/03/04/benepapists-and-their-false-claims-about-apostolic-blessings/)

Response: My research into this question began when some suggested that the appearance of Benedict’s signature with the PP on the cover of his post-resignation book, Per Amore, published on May 2, 2019 suggested he was still claiming to be pope in some way. For example, see Don Minutella’s letter to Aldo Valli (see HERE), and Ann Barnhardt’s article on her blog (see HERE).

I have looked into this question in some detail (see my article, Minutella, Cionci, Barnhardt wrong on the “PP” (Pontifex Pontificum). In the course of my research of this topic, I searched the internet for and collected images of letters written by Benedict XVI as pope emeritus, and the signatures on them. In addition I searched the internet for images of Benedict XVI’s signature with the “PP” which can be dated with certain to the time when he was still pope.

My analysis and comparison of the signatures based on a number of samples of Benedict’s signatures, demonstrated the signature on the book cover was simply an image of a signature dating to Benedict’s pontificate. In other words, it was not signed by Benedict at any point after his resignation. Furthermore, in my research, I could find no example of any letter dated after Benedict’s resignation in which he signed his signature with the “PP.” I have since collected more signature images, and may write a follow up article at some point.

Whence did the claim come? In the course of my research I did find that Benedict and others working in Vatican would send out cards on occasion with Benedict’s picture, as pope, which also include below it, an image of his signature with the PP. These were even sent out when he was pope emeritus. These images can look to the naked eye as if Benedict actually signed it. However, for all the samples of these picture cards I found, in all cases I could trace the signature image back to the time when Benedict was still pope.

There are two conclusions to my research and analysis of the publicly available samples I could find.

First, the allegation that Benedict as pope emeritus continued to sign his letters with “PP” is false. I could find no sample of a post-resignation letter including a signature with the “PP.”

Second, Benedict did on occasion include cards with a photo of himself with his signature (with PP) underneath it. However, in all cases I examined, the signature images on the cards sent out post-resignation could be matched to signature images from the time of his pontificate. So, no special meaning can be read into this, other than Benedict as pope emeritus wished to give a memento of himself to those with whom he was corresponding. Nothing else should be read into this. The same can be said of Benedict’s signature with the PP on the cover of his 2019 book, Per Amore. This book was a collection of letters, which included letters from the time he was pope. In such a context, putting his old papal signature on the cover is not a surprising marketing decision. Again, nothing more should be read into this.

So, in sum, the “PP” is a bogus issue.

Question 10. In Benedict’s Last Audience as pope on February 27, 2013, he said the words “The Always is also a Forever….”. Didn’t this expression signify that he would “always” retain the papal munus for “forevever,” or that he would remain pope in at least some way?

Response: Below, I include the two key paragraphs from Benedict’s last audience which include the now famous line, “the always is also forever.” The two paragraphs are as follows (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 “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 XVI’s final General Audience, February 28, 2013)

The premise behind the question is, perhaps, 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 believing he retained the papacy in some way forever. However, this is a misreading of the text. Benepapists generally focus on the second paragraph above, and neglect any real, detailed discussion of both paragraphs together. If they had really read both together, they might have understood what Benedict meant by both the “always and the forever.”

In the first paragraph, Benedict explicitly said the “always” refers to a newly elected pope ‘losing his privacy.’ Indeed, he explicitly defines it, saying: “Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy.” So, we see, contrary to the assertion of the Benepapists, Benedict did not speak here of some indelible mark of the papacy that he would always retain.

No, he is speaking of a ‘loss of privacy.’ Okay. So, what did Benedict mean by a “loss of privacy” upon first becoming pope? Well, he told us that too. In the very next sentence, he said “He (a pope) belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church.” So, here we see that Benedict is defining the ‘loss of privacy’ in the sense of belonging “always and completely” to everyone, to the whole Church. He is speaking of a relationship. And in the remainder of the paragraph where he speaks of gaining “brothers and sisters” and “sons and daughters”, it is clear he is speaking of a mutual, two-way bond of charity where “he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.”

It is clear. Benedict is speaking of a relationship which persists — not of a papacy which persists (see Response to Q6). 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” (see HERE). 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.[46]

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 begins the second paragraph given earlier, saying:

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.

Here, too, as with the “always”, the “forever” involves the idea of ‘privacy.’ The “always” refers to the loss of privacy which is the forming of the bond of charity as we saw – and now the “forever” refers to an inability to step back from this bond of charity. He is not saying he cannot surrender the papacy in its entirety, he is saying he cannot surrender the “bond of charity.” In other words, even though he is renouncing the papacy, he will continue to love those who became his “sons and daughters.” This love simply does not end due to a resignation.

When Benedict says his resignation of the active ministry “does not revoke THIS”, Grammatically and logically, the “this” points back to the preceding sentence when he says “there can no longer be a return to the private sphere.” In other words, there is no return from the bond of charity. One does not stop loving one’s “sons and daughters” gained upon becoming pope, even if one stops being pope. The bond of charity persists after the resignation — not the papacy or papal munus!

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.

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.

Response: First, we should keep in mind that it is the Declaratio which is the official instrument of resignation — not Benedict’s last audience, in which he says his goodbyes, and provides some personal reflections upon his ending papacy, and his future life afterward. In the Declaratio, Benedict explicitly declares he renounces “the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter” without any mention of giving up only an “active papal ministry” or retaining a “passive papal ministry.”

When Benedict says above “My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this”; the “does not revoke this” refers logically and grammatically to the inability to “return to the private sphere.” As argued in the response to Question 10, this idea of “privacy” is inextricably linked by Benedict to the “always” and “forever” in his talk. This is undeniable.

It is also clear, as argued in the response to Question 10, that by the “loss of privacy” Benedict is referring to the relationship, or bond of charity between himself and his “sons and daughters.” Thus, in saying his decision to resign “does not revoke this,” this means both grammatically and logically that his decision to resign does not revoke this relationship — this bond of charity. In others, ‘I am no longer pope, but my love for you remains – it is not revoked.’ And that is why Benedict speaks of devoting his life to prayer after his resignation. Indeed, he speaks of St. Benedict who “showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” But note, Benedict is speaking of a way of life that is “active or passive,” given over to God – and not a papacy that is either “active or passive”!

In their appeal to Benedict’s statement, the Benepapists have fallen into fallacious reasoning. While it is true that a priest or bishop who gives up the “active ministry” remains a priest or bishop in his contemplative or passive life, it does not follow that Benedict in speaking of giving up the “active ministry” meant he would remain pope in some way in his “contemplative or passive life.” To make such a claim is to misunderstand the use and meaning of “active ministry.”

Generally, an expression like the ‘active ministry’ in Church documents is often contrasted with the ‘contemplative life,’ e.g., 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 serving parish priest, being a pastor, being a bishop of a diocese, president of a school, or a hospital, etc.) and 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).

For a simple parish priest, to give up the “active ministry” most likely means he is retiring, and will no longer serve in a parish (i.e., hear regular confessions, visit the sick, be on call, etc.). This is “active ministry” in the case of a simple parish priest. However, “active ministry” can encompass more than that.

Let us take the case of a priest who holds some sort of ‘office.’ Let’s take the example of a priest who holds the office of pastor (head) of a parish, and the example of a bishop who holds the office of bishop of a particular diocese.

If each were to say “I am resigning the active ministry and will now lead a life devoted to prayer,” they would both be rightly and naturally understood to mean they were also resigning any Church office they held, whether it be as pastor of a parish, or as Bishop of a particular diocese. Moreover, no one would understand them to mean that either would be remaining as the “passive pastor” of the parish, or the “passive bishop” of a particular diocese. No. One is either the pastor of the parish, or one is not. One is either the “bishop of diocese N” or one is not. It would be incongruous for each to say respectively “I have resigned the ‘active ministry’ to lead a life of prayer while remaining pastor or bishop of the diocese in some way.” It is incongruous because being a pastor of a parish, or bishop of a particular diocese is an active ministry. Thus to resign the active ministry would include the resignation of any Church office.

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. He does not retain his prior office. 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):

We greet you, dear priests, with fatherly affection. You are not unaware of the great place that priests have in the heart of the Pope; with their bishops they are his closest collaborators in the work of salvation. We wish to express Our appreciation of the wonderful work accomplished here in building up this dynamic and generous community which is so attached to the teaching of the Church. You have sown, others reap, but it is always the same harvest with its one and only master, our Lord Jesus Christ. If age or sickness has caused you to retire from the active ministry, you know that the exercise of your priesthood has not thereby substantially diminished; it has only changed in its expression. By your special conformity to Jesus Christ, you can, today as in the past, carry out his priestly function of praising the Father, through the celebration of Mass and the recitation of the Divine Office.

(Source: APOSTOLIC PILGRIMAGE OF HIS HOLINESS PAUL VI TO WEST ASIA, OCEANIA AND AUSTRALIA ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER PAUL VI TO THE PROMOTERS OF HUMAN AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Sydney, Australia Wednesday, 2 December 1970)

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, too with Benedict’s statement. Speaking of his “resignation of the active exercise of the ministry,” is just another way of saying one has given up the priestly “active ministry” which is inclusive of any Church office. In the case of Benedict, this is the papacy. The papacy is an active ministry, just like the head of a parish, or a bishop of a particular diocese.

So, in sum, when Benedict spoke of the ‘resignation of the active exercise of the ministry‘ this signifies he was, in fact, giving up the office of the papacy, which is an “active ministry” – and would now in his retirement embark in a life of 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 giving up 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.

See also my article on the last audience (see Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience), and my rebuttal to Fr. Nix’s article (see https://romalocutaest.com/2024/10/07/a-rebuttal-of-fr-nix-and-his-defense-of-benepapism/).

Question 12. Benedict XVI’s personal secretary, Archbishop Gänswein gave a speech in 2016, three years after Benedict resignation. In it, he made some remarks that some considered controversial. For example, Gänswein spoke of Benedict participating in an “expanded petrine ministry.” Doesn’t such a phrase, coming from a close associate of Benedict, mean that Benedict believed he retained something of the Petrine Munus, along with Francis?

First, it should be remembered that Gänswein gave his speech (see here) 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. Second, even though I see no real divergence between the two, we should interpret Benedict through Benedict, and not Benedict through Gänswein.

I provide a full detailed analysis of Gänswein’s speech elsewhere. The key point I would make here is that Gänswein’s talk of and references to an “expanded petrine ministry,” etc., should not be understood in a strict sense – i.e., as if he meant Benedict and Francis are both popes, each in their own way. In fact, in the same speech, Gänswein explicitly denied he was speaking of two popes, saying even as he spoke of an expanded ministry: “there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry.” [47] This in itself strikes at the heart of the question’s premise.

There are various keys in his speech which demonstrate Gänswein is speaking in a loose sense of an “expanded Petrine ministry”, such as when one shares, by way of helping another, in a ministry. Indeed, that this is his meaning is clear when Gänswein 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).

Certainly, one can be a “fellow worker” without sharing the same office as the other in any real or true sense, e.g., a layman can be a “co-worker of the truth” with a priest, bishop, or pope without sharing their offices. 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). Obviously, Paul is not here suggesting any sort of equivalency to God!

In his Last Audience, Benedict said he would devote the remainder of his life to prayer for the whole Church. In this sense, he might be said to have been a “fellow worker” of Pope Francis in that both were focused on the whole Church. Francis does so as the true pope, while Benedict did so as a former pope. So, in this manner of speaking, this is the “expanded Petrine ministry” of which Gänswein spoke, in a reflection on Benedict’s life as pope, and as pope emeritus.

But it is even more obvious toward the end of the speech that Gänswein has been speaking of an “expanded ministry,” or a continued “participation” in the “Petrine ministry” in this loose sense. Consider the words below as Gänswein concludes his speech speaking of Fr. Roberto Regoli, whose book was the subject of the meeting (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.” (Source: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s speech, May 30, 2016)

Above, Gänswein explicitly says the author Roberto Regoli – whose books is the subject of the speech — now takes part in the munus Petri, i.e., the Petrine Munus! Gänswein even goes farther by adding that Regoli, Peter Seewald, and others(!) enter into that “enlarged Petrine ministry!” Clearly, Ganswein is not speaking in a strict. In other words, he is not saying Regoli actually entered into an “enlarged Petrine ministry” in such a way as to really have a share of the Petrine munus.

The answer is clear. Gänswein is speaking in something of a loose, extended or figurative sense when he says Regoli is 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.” Most certainly, Gänswein is not saying Regoli and Seewald have really become popes in some way. No! Far from it. Again, he speaks in a loose, extended, or figurative sense.

But that, of course, is the point…that is how Gänswein should be understood throughout his speech regarding Benedict’s post-resignation participation in the “expanded Petrine ministry.”

I have discussed Gänswein’s speech in a number of articles (e.g., https://romalocutaest.com/2023/10/25/deconstructing-ann-barnhardts-benedict-video/).

Question 13. Some, like Andrea Cionci, claim Benedict intentionally created a ‘self-impeded see’ to save the papacy and the Church from its internal enemies. He did this by so wording the Declaratio that it only appears to be a resignation, when in reality he really retained the petrine munus for himself. What of this claim?

Response: To begin, I would point the reader back to responses to Question 3, 4, and 6 which address the Benepapist claims regarding the ministerium and munus, and the use of the honorific title, “pope emeritus.”

Having said that, Andrea Cionci’s thesis strains credulity for several reasons. If Benedict XVI intentionally submitted an invalid resignation for a supposed greater purpose, then he still would have been instrumental in, and directly and morally responsible for, both (1) the election of a man the same Benepapists tell us is an antipope, as well as (2) the creation of a “false church” of which the great majority of Catholics are blithely unaware.

However, the ends do not justify the means. Not only does the theory make Benedict a liar, but it also makes him a monster for allowing the great majority of Catholics to believe he was no longer Pope, and for not offering any real resistance to an anti-pope and false church which arose as a consequence of his actions. Benedict would be a monster for enabling the wolves of the “false church” to ravage the Lord’s flock. He would have been a monster for not leaving the faithful any word or last testament explaining what he had done, why he had done it, and what he proposed we do to extricate ourselves from the crisis he created.

Even assuming Benedict XVI had concerns about the next conclave, surely there were far simpler and less drastic actions he might have taken to save the Church than handing it over to an anti-pope. For example, Benedict could have, theoretically, enacted new papal legislation for conclaves that would restrict the number of vote-eligible cardinal electors to a handful of his closest, most trusted associates. Alternatively, he might have dismissed most cardinals, replacing them with those trusted by him, or by his most trustworthy friends.

The Cionci thesis requires the suspension of common sense. It does so by essentially suggesting that Benedict decided that pretending not to be pope was a wiser and preferable course of action than to remain as the visible and active pope. Surely, one can do greater good for the Lord’s flock by being the shepherd and doing precisely what the Lord commanded, “tending” and “feeding” the flock (cf. Jn 21:15-17), rather than by pretending not to be that shepherd, and thus failing to tend or feed the flock.

Question 14. Some claim Benedict XVI engaged in a “strategic ruse,” essentially pretending to have resigned, or wording the Declaratio so as to retain the Petrine munus. His words as “pope emeritus” must be understood as having a surface meaning, and then an underlying meaning whereby he communicated the reality he remained pope to “those with ears to hear.” What do you say then about the claim Benedict attempted to communicate the reality he remained pope by speaking in a cryptic code, which some have named the “Ratzinger Code”?

Response: The suggestion Benedict XVI communicated some hidden reality that only a few Catholics “in the know” can see and understand is just a form of Gnosticism.

Let us examine the key example of Cionci’s “Ratzinger Code” — the preeminent example found in his book. On February 28, 2013, the effective date of his resignation, Benedict did essentially say “I am not the Pope.” Less than three hours from the effective hour of his resignation, Benedict said to a gathered crowd of pilgrims: “I am no longer Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church…until eight o’clock in the evening I still am, but then no longer.” [48]

This admission – on its face, and in reality — is utterly devastating to the claims of the Benepapists. It is — unless they can find a way to explain it away. This Cionci attempted to do. Cionci points out that, in Italian, Benedict used the words “pontefice sommo,” which in English is translated “Pontiff Supreme.” Consequently, as Cionci correctly notes, Benedict literally said “I am no longer Pontiff Supreme of the Catholic Church.” [49] Observing this, Cionci quite clearly states: “There is simply no such thing as a ‘Pontiff Supreme.’” [50]

Let that sink in. Cionci explicitly states, “there are no arguments: Pontiff Supreme does not exist.” [51] Having made this statement, Cionci goes on to explain the significance of Benedict using “Pontiff Supreme” instead of “Supreme Pontiff” (bracketed comments in the original):

The inversion of the two terms indeed prevented Pope Benedict…from telling a lie. He did not say that beginning at 8 P.M. he would renounce his canonical title as pope [Supreme Pontiff], and as a matter of fact he never did. [52]

By pointing to the use of “pontefice sommo,” Cionci hopes to explain away a clear statement by Benedict that he was no longer Pope, no longer Supreme Pontiff. [53] Devoting a chapter to it in his book, Cionci makes this the test case. Indeed, it is the keystone of his gnostic “Ratzinger Code” thesis.

However, in my book, I detail examples from various sources, over the course of 165 years, where “pontefice sommo”– the very phrase Cionci said does not exist – is, in fact, used of either the pope or the papacy, i.e., meaning the same thing as “sommo pontefice” or Supreme Pontiff . Quite simply, Cionci is wrong when he claims that there is no such thing as a “pontefice sommo.” This is indisputable. What Cionci declared to be “impossible” is, to the contrary, quite real. Cionci and I exchanged some articles on the question, and he admitted he was wrong, although he attempted to gaslight his way out of it (see A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”)!

Another illustration of Cionci’s gaslighting to explain away the obvious can be seen in his effort to convince Don Minutella (his fellow Benepapist) that Gänswein’s comments about Minutella’s own book — which Don Minutella had considered to be “calumnious” — should be understood, according to Cionci, as signifying Ganswein’s (and thus Benedict’s) “approval and encouragement!” I describe this comical episode in my article Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes.”

Cionci’s gaslighting aside, the truth explodes the whole foundation of the “Ratzinger Code,” destroying the myth Benedict left cryptic word clues – a “Ratzinger Code” – to reveal that he still retained the papal munus, and thus remained pope.[54]

The faith of believers in the Ratzinger Code should have imploded the moment Cionci’s claim “There is no such thing as a ‘Pontiff Supreme”” – the key case upon which his Ratzinger Code relied — was proven false.

“Pontefice sommo” does mean, or can be translated as, ‘Supreme Pontiff.’ Consequently, it is indisputable that less than three hours from his effective resignation, Benedict said “I am no longer Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church…[U]ntil eight o’clock in the evening I still am, but then no longer.” There is no plausible, commonsense explanation for this statement other than that Benedict recognized he would no longer be Pope as of 8pm, February 28, 2013. It is clear from this that he validly resigned.

It should now be evident to the reader that Benedict did not leave behind any, let alone many, “clues for us to discover that he intentionally retained the munus to protect the Church,” etc.

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 Gettr or TruthSocial: @StevenOReilly).

Footnotes:

[1] See https://www.atmmarketplace.com/news/bank-of-italy-shuts-down-vatican-atms-over-aml-issues/

[2] For reporting on such rumors, see Andrea Vogt, “‘Plot to kill pope’ sparks Italian media storm,” The Guardian, February 10, 2012.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/10/plot-kill-pope-italian-media

[3] Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI: Last Testament in his own words (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Company Plc, 2016), p. 23.

[4] Ryan Sayre Patricio, “Pius XII Planned to Resign if Seized by Nazis,” First Things, May 6, 2009, retrieved June 18, 2022, 2:05 p.m. https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/05/pius-xii-planned-to-resign-if-seized-by-nazis;

and see also, Jerry Filteau, “Pope Pius XII was prepared to resign as pope,” National Catholic Reporter, blogs, February 28, 2013, retrieved June 18, 2022, 2:11 p.m.

[5] Cindy Wooden, “Resignation letter prepared by Blessed Paul VI published,” National Catholic Reporter, blogs, May 16, 2018, June 18, 2022, 2:17 p.m. https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/resignation-letter-prepared-blessed-paul-vi-published

[6] James A. Coriden, et al, eds. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 110.

[7] The citation and use of Canon 189.4 in the reply to this objection was directly suggested to the author by an article written by Fr. John Rickert, FSSP who made the point regarding Canon 189§4 that “He (Benedict) even had a window of opportunity to revoke this resignation.” See Fr. John Rickert FSSP, Ph.D., “Antipope Claims: Substantial Error — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert, FSSP,” William M. Briggs, March 20, 2017. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/21231/

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

[9] See Estefania Acosta, “Adversus Fallacies: A Reply in Defense of the Book ‘Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus?”’”, Katejon.com.br, May 13, 2021. https://katejon.com.br/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/reply_complete-blqd.pdf; O’Reilly’s note: While Acosta does not accept the use of ministerium, she does concede other words may be used, such as officium, or papacy, etc.

[10] Ryan Grant, “Rise of the Benevacantists: Who is Pope?”. https://onepeterfive.com/benevacantists/

[11] Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, Ph.D., “Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert,” William M. Briggs, April 20, 2022.

https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39718/

[12] See Edmund Mazza, PhD, “The Third Secret of the Fatima & Synodal Church, Vol. I: Pope Benedict’s Resignation,” (2023), p.55. Dr. Mazza quotes Dr. Anna Slowikowska in part as saying that munus, officium, and ministerium are synonyms, see p. 55-56.

[13] Ibid. see p. 55-56.

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

[15] Lumen Gentium 20, from Chapter III (On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on the Episcopate).

[16] My thanks to Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, who, during the course of my research on my book, via private correspondence, brought to my attention both Lumen Gentium 20 and its relevance to the question of ministerium being a synonym of munus, i.e., that the munus of the episcopate is “among the ministries.” The argument above appears in chapter 1 of my book Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. There is also a whole article dedicated to developing this line of argumentation here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/11/04/lumen-gentium-destroys-benepapism-in-toto/

[17] See Rosa Benigno interview with Monsignor Nicola Bux, https://www.ilroma.net/news/cultura/314176/codice-ratzinger-chiacchiere.html (February 21, 2023)

[18] Ibid.

[19] The canon and translation as cited by Fr. Rickert in his article (see “Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert”. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39718/ )

Can. 331 (Latin) — Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, Collegii Episcoporum est caput, Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor; qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet (emphasis added).

Can. 331 (English) — The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely (emphasis added).

[20] 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.

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

[23] See Frederico Michielan and Francesco Patruno, Non era più lui: Una risposta al Codice Ratzinger sulla rinuncia di Benedetto XVI (Italian Kindle version), Preface by Nicola Bux, p. 4. Translation: Google

[24] Ibid.

[25] Joseph Ratzinger, Principle of Catholic Theology: Building Stone for a Fundamental Theology. Ignatius Press. 1987. Pages 194-195)

[26] See Dr. Mazza on Patrick Coffin’s show. See Patrick Coffin, “#248: Is Benedict XVI Still the Pope?—Dr. Edmund Mazza”. Time stamp 30:01 to 30:55, retrieved 4/21/2022. Unofficial transcript available in my book, Valid, in chapter one; and it is available here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/

[27] See Steven O’Reilly, “Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio”, February 21, 2021, https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/; See “Reply to Objections 2.1 and 2.2”; I repeated this argument in a later article, and it is also found in Chapter 1 of my book.

[28] See Estefania Acosta, “His Holiness Benedict’s Declaratio and the Myth of Substantial Error – Part IV”. September 15, 2022. Accessed 10/9/2024, 11:28 AM; https://www.patrickcoffin.media/his-holiness-benedicts-declaratio-and-the-myth-of-substantial-error-part-iv/;

[29] 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.)

Also of note, in the official German translation “Amt” is used for office. See HERE. See discussion in footnote 19.

[30] Dr. de Mattei is cited by Dr. Mazza on the “pope emeritus” question. Mattei does say “If the pope who resigns from the pontificate retains the title of emeritus, that means that to some extent he remains pope” (see https://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350868bdc4.html?eng=y;). However, in the absence of an official declaration of what Benedict defined as “pope emeritus”, Mattei is dealing with an analogy to “bishop emeritus.” Here, it must be remembered all analogies limp. As a result, Mattei’s analysis and conclusion suffers in our opinion, e.g., the canons and Benedict in Seewald speak of a “lost office”, etc. Mattei may be forgiven for his overstated conclusion in that he did not have the benefit of having Benedict’s Seewald interviews (2021) before him at the time of his article’s publication (2014).

[31] 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)

[32] Ibid.

[33] See my discussion of Gänswein speech on my blog (Regarding Ganswein’s Speech), and in my book, to which I devote an entire chapter.

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

[35] 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.]

[36] Benedict XVI: A Life Volume Two: “Professor and Prefect to Pope and Pope Emeritus 1966—the Present.

[37] Ibid.

[38] See from “Complete English Text: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s ‘Expanded Petrine Office’ Speech” translated by Diane Montagna. May 30, 2016. © Aleteia.org.

[39] See “The status of pope emeritus remains to be defined;” an Interview with Valerio Gigliotti, professor of medieval and modern law at the University of Turin (Italy) By Matthieu Lasserre.

[40] Braun, J. (1911). Pallium. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11427a.htm

[41] Holweck, F. (1907). Apostolic Blessing. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 7, 2022, from New Advent:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02602a.htm

[42] In this discussion of apostolic blessings, my thanks again go to Fr. John Rickert, FSSP. In private correspondence with him, it was he who specifically pointed my attention to several canons that were relevant to the debate over Benedict and apostolic blessings. These Canons include 1166, 1167, and 1168.

[43] John P. Beal, et al, eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p. 1402.

[44] Ibid.

[45] In private correspondence with Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, regarding the reply on apostolic blessings in this section, Fr. Rickert made this precise point.

[46] 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

[47] 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.

[48] GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANO, February 28, 2013 (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130228_fedeli-albano.html); Also see Cionci’s Italian language version of the Codice Ratzinger, p. book, The Ratzinger Code, for comments on the translation, see p. 104. My article defers to Cionci’s quotation in the English version of The Ratzinger Code.

[49] See Cionci, Andrea, The Ratzinger Code, Milano: Byoblu Edizione, 2022. [English Kindle Edition], p. 104

[50] Ibid, p. 104

[51] See Cionci’s Italian language version of his book, Codice Ratzinger, p. 93. Cionci writes “…non ci sono discussioni: ‘pontefice sommo’ non esiste”, which translated is “…there are no argument: ‘pontefice sommo’ does not exist.”

[52] The Ratzinger Code [English Kindle Version], p. 104

[53] In his book, after asserting “pontefice sommo” is not a reference to the papacy, Cionci goes on to give the term “pontefice sommo” (Pontiff Supreme) an alternative meaning, working it into his gnostic “Ratzinger Code,” but that part of the story is irrelevant here.

[54] I believe Cionci understood the significance of the evidence I detailed with regard to “pontefice sommo” and that it destroyed his theory. I invite the reader to judge for himself or herself the arguments made for the “Ratzinger Code” theory (see my article Ratzinger Code: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”). This prompted Cionci to reply to my article with regard to “pontefice sommo”, and this in turn led to my rebuttal, A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”. The reader who follows this exchange of articles will see why I have elsewhere used the word “gaslighting” to describe his method of argumentation.

4 thoughts on “Benedict XVI’s Resignation: FAQ”

eddie says:

February 12, 2025 at 7:39 pm

I completely believe that Pope Francis was elected to the Chair of Peter.

For the sake of argument, if the papacy was seen by Pope Benedict XVI as a sacrament, beyond ordination, received through acceptance of his election, placing another indelible mark on his soul (after all, no one elected pope can ever not have been elected pope), Benedict XVI could have seen his resignation as eliminating his ministry as pope but not able to eliminate the reality of his having received the office (i.e. sacramental indelible mark) of being pope.

is not it possible that there could be two (or conceivably even more) who have received the indelible mark of the office while, administratively, legally and legitimately there can only be one who exercises the ministry of the office?

this would explain Pope Benedict XVI’s wording of his resignation and his designating himself pope emeritus.

Election places the indelible mark so that only the ministry can be resigned.

The papacy is, at least to me, an outward sign instituted by Jesus Christ to give grace, its uniqueness notwithstanding.

LikeLike

1. Steven O'Reilly says:
  
  February 12, 2025 at 8:03 pm
  
  Eddie,
  
  Thanks for the comments.
  
  Before addressing the hypothetical you raise, I’d like to make a couple points first for others who might read this. First, there is no evidence Benedict ever wrote anything indicating he believed in a ‘sacramental papal munus.’ Dr. Mazza is the main proponent suggesting he did — but, I have demonstrated conclusively that Dr. Mazza has misread/misinterpreted the very texts he puts forward. Second, as I also point out in the FAQ and elsewhere, Vatican II, and the Catholic Catechism state episcopal consecration is the highest of the orders. So, there is nothing like a ‘papal conscecration.’ On top of that, Cardinal Ratzinger headed the commission which drafted the Catechism — so it is silly to suggest that he opposed the Catechism on this very point. In sum, there is no real evidence that withstands scrutiny that supports the Mazza thesis here, and in fact, what evidence we have opposes it.
  
  Now, with regard to your hypothesis. Let us suppose Benedict believed there were some sort of mark received upon election. Even at that, we know he believed popes could resign, and that others could be elected in their place (e.g., see Sewald interviews, BXVI’s correspondence with Cardinal Brandmuller). So, even if he believed there was some sort of mark, he certainly believed this did not prevent another from being elected to the papacy in his place. Consequently, this hypothetical belief (i.e., in a supposed ‘sacaramental papal munus’), even if erroneous, would not be an obstacle to a valid election of Francis. It is sufficient that BXVI understood he would no longer be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, and would no longer have that authority. This he recognized in his Declaratio, the last audience (‘I no longer have the power of governance…’), and in his comments to pilgrims on 28 Feb 2013 when he explicitly said: “I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church….”.
  
  Regards.
  
  Steve
  
  LikeLike
  
  1. eddie says:
    
    February 12, 2025 at 8:08 pm
    
    Thanks Steve, I 100% agree Pope Francis was validly elected.
    
    I apologize if what I wrote casted doubt on the validity of Pope Francis’ election. That was never my intention.
    
    LikeLike
  2. Steven O'Reilly says:
    
    February 12, 2025 at 8:17 pm
    
    Eddie,
    
    No…I didn’t take it that way at all. I just wanted to take the opportunity to repeat why the “sacramental papal munus” argument is bunk.
    
    The point you raised in your hypothetical is a good one, i.e., EVEN IF Benedict did hold some sort of view like that, it is clear he intended someone else to be the “True Pope” (see UDG), and Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Essentially, he would have understood he was giving up what was necessary to let someone else be pope, even if he held an erroneous theological OPINION on a ‘sacramental papal munus.’
    
    Thanks for the comment.
    
    Steve
    
    LikeLike