Roma Locuta Est

August 10, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – Monsignor Nicola Bux and Vito Palmiotti have just published a book titled, Realta e Utopia nella Chiesa, or Reality and Utopica. In its appendix, this new book includes a letter written by Benedict XVI to Msgr Bux in August of  2014 — a year after Benedict’s resignation, when he was no longer pope. In his letter to Msgr. Bux, Benedict addressed questions about the validity of his resignation, and rejected the arguments which denied it — thereby affirming the validity of his resignation.

Word about the existence of this letter is not new. Back in November 2024, the excommunicated, former Archbishop Vigano referenced it, admitting its existence, and affirming its legitimacy.  Vigano even said he had seen it. I wrote about this at the time time (see Vigano and the Spontaneous Combustion of Benepapism), and comment on how this letter exploded the Benepapist theories. In addition, I further confirmed Vigano’s story by citing an interview of Msgr. Bux, as well as comments Bux made in a preface he wrote for a book.[1]  All of this should have led to the demise of Benepapism (see Intellectual Honesty and the End of Benepapism).

As said, that such letter existed is not old news. What is new is that the actual letter has now been made available via the recent book published by Bux and Palmiotti.

The Letter and the Death of Benepapism

Those denying the validity of Benedict’s resignation – the ‘Benepapists‘ – have done so on the basis of various theories. But the main theory rests on the premise that Benedict — in his Declaratio — resigned the petrine ministry (ministerio/ministerium) but not the petrine office (munus). 

For example, Ms. Ann Barnhardt has long alleged Benedict attempted to partially resign the papacy, by only resigning the petrine ministry (ministero/ministerium) while failing to resign the munus per canon 332.2. Per Barnhardt, Benedict’s ‘failed attempt’ to partially resign the papacy involved a “substantial error” on Benedict’s part, rendering his resignation invalid per canon 188.

Signor Andrea Cionci, on the other hand, rejects the notion that Benedict committed any error in his resignation. Rather, Cionci’s “Ratzinger Code” thesis claims Benedict intentionally resigned or ‘pretended’ to only resign the petrine ministry (ministerium) because he wanted to keep the munus (office) to himself — thus, per Cionci’s wild theory, keeping the papacy to himself, and out of the hands of the Church’s internal, modernist enemies. In effect, Cionci essentially claims Benedict intended to submit a flawed resignation which he knew was not valid in order to retain the papacy.

We’ve addressed both Ms. Barnhardt’s and Signor Cionci’s theories – and the others – in great detail here on Roma Locuta Est (see Here), in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and in a YouTube video series.  

In the letter from August 2014, Benedict XVI addressed the question of the Petrine ministry (ministero/ministerium) and the Petrine munus (office). When he was pope emeritus, Benedict XVI wrote in part to Msgr. Bux (Italics original, bold added): 

“In my opinion, the “authoritative historians” and the “other theologians” are neither true historians nor theologians. The speculations they propose are, in my opinion, absurd. To say that in my resignation I would have left “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus” is contrary to the clear dogmatic-canonical doctrine you cited in point 1. If some journalists speak of a “creeping schism,” they deserve no attention.”

(See La Nuova Bussola, HERE, and Here by Riccardo Cascioli)

First of all, in the passage cited above, Benedict calls speculation or theories which doubt the validity of his resignation “absurd.” I have called them that before as well, but note — I was not the first. The first was Benedict XVI, back in 2014. 

Second, what Benedict writes is utterly devastating to the Benepapist case, which necessarily depends on a supposed distinction or separation between the petrine munus, and the petrine ministerium.  The above passage is devastating because Benedict XIV rejects any thought of a separation of the ministerium and munus.  He writes (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…”

The import of his statement is clear. Benedict intended to not “only” give up the “exercise of the ministry” (ministerium) ” but to give up “also the munus.” Indeed, Benedict says that to suggest it is possible that one could resign “only the exercise of the ministry and not also the munus” is contrary to “dogmatic-canonical doctrine.” 

Consequently, Benedict is arguing if one resigns the ministerium, one necessarily resigns the munus.  If one resigns one, one necessarily resigns the other. Benedict XVI speaks of this being the “clear dogmatic-canonical doctrine.” His letter does not provide the references, but I will provide two brief demonstrations that seem appropriate.

First, a doctrinal demonstration[2]: the following is from my article Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto.  I refer the reader to that article for the complete argument.  But briefly, for our purposes here, Lumen Gentium 20 explicitly states here that:

“They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry (ministerium).  Among those various 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.” 

The text teaches that among the “various ministries” is the “office (munus) of those” appointed to the episcopate. Therefore, it follows, a munus is a ministerium.  Furthermore, Lumen Gentium 20 also goes on to speak of “the office (munus) granted (by the Lord) individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors.” Consequently, the Petrine munus is “among the ministries” which needed to be taken up ‘when Peter should have died.’

Given a munus is a ministerium; the Petrine ministry logically entails the Petrine munus.  Therefore, if one resigns the Petrine ministry, one necessarily resigns the Petrine munus. Thus, in the words of the Declaratio, by renouncing the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter,” Benedict was necessarily renouncing the Petrine munus. The logic is inescapable.

Second, a canonical demonstration:  In my book, I cite an argument made by Fr. John Rickert[3].  Here, in his article, Fr. Rickert cites canon 331:

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).

Having cited the above canon about the Bishop of Rome, Fr. Rickert makes the following observation:

“If a pope renounces the administration of his office, he necessarily renounces the office itself, because the office per se (vi muneris)[4] 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.[5]”

In sum, both Lumen Gentium and Canon 331 point to the fact that one cannot separate the Petrine ministry (ministerium) from the Petrine munus.  If one resigns one, one necessarily resigns the other. If one resigns the Petrine ministerium – as Benedict did in his Declaratio; one necessarily resigns the Petrine munus.  Therefore, Benedict’s resignation was valid. 

All of the above agrees with what Benedict XVI said in his letter to Msgr Bux; as well as with Bux’s own understanding based on his correspondence with Benedict. In an interview  from 2023 Bux stated:

“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

(February 21, 2023 on the website ROMA, an interview titled, “Codice Ratzinger? Chiacchiere.” NB: I provide commentary on this interview, and additional evidence in my article Intellectual Honesty and the End of Benepapism)

Even more succinctly, summarizing Benedict’s argument, Msgr Bux wrote: “Whoever renounces the ministry is no longer pope.”[6] 

The Final Stake through the Heart of Benepapism

Benedict’s letter is utterly devastating to the Benepapist theorists.  It is as the title of the article states, the stake through the heart of Benepapism. It is the end of the line for them. The Benepapists have reached the end of the game; whether they realize it or not, or whether they want to admit it or not. 

The stark choice for the likes of Ms. Barnhardt, Signor Cionci, Dr. Mazza, Fr. Fare’, et al, is either to embrace the truth that Benepapism is untenable; or to continue to embrace the absurdities of their theories.  

 Vigano and Cionci concede the validity of the letter — it was written by Benedict XVI.  Vigano concedes the validity of the letter, and that Benedict’s words undermine the traditional Benepapist arguments (see discussion HERE).  Cionci concedes the validity of the letter, but, incredibly, continues to argue the letter is further substantiation of his disproven “Ratzinger Code” theory — even though it obviously contradicts him!

Cionci should have given up his ‘code’ game long ago. The prime example of Cionci’s “Ratzinger Code” is his interpretation of Benedict’s statement he was no longer the ‘supreme pontiff’, made just hours before his resignation became effective on February 28, 2013 (bold added):

“You know this day of mine is different from the previous ones; I am no longer “Pontefice Sommo” (Pontiff Supreme) of the Catholic Church…until 8 o’clock in the evening I still am, but then no longer.”

(Andrea Cionci, Ratzinger Code, Kindle English Translation, p. 103, BOLD added.  Compare translation to GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANO, 28 February 2013]

Now, I have examined this comical farce elsewhere in detail. Cionci once claimed there is no such thing as a “Pontefice Sommo” or “Pontiff Supreme” in English. Per Cionci, Benedict should have or would have said he was no longer “Sommo Pontefice“, i.e., Supreme Pontiff / Summus Pontifex, is here meant to say he would no longer be pope.  But, Cionci notes, Benedict inverted the title and said “pontefice sommo” in Italian; but “There is simply no such thing…” Cionci boldly asserted.  Thus, per Cionci, Ratzinger was speaking in code to say he really still was the “pontefice sommo” or Supreme Pontiff.  

However, this is all the sort of nonsensical word games that Cionci plays. I devoted a chapter in my book (HERE) to the Ratzinger Code, where I demonstrated a number of examples of “pontefice sommo” being used in the sense of “sommo pontefice” or Supreme Pontiff.  Cases where it is a distinction without a difference.

There isn’t even a question about it.  Cionci was simply and verifiably wrong in claiming “there is no such thing” as “pontefice sommo”.  In an exchange of articles between us, he admitted he was wrong and I was right (see A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”). I suggest the article to the reader for I thought it quite funny and telling how he even attempted to gaslight his way out of this!  See also my video series on the “Ratzinger Code” for a few more funny examples of Cionci’s code, and his other glaring attempts to gaslight his audience (see Here, Here, and Here).

Now, Ms. Barnhardt never commented on Benedict’s “I am no longer the supreme pontiff” comment to my knowledge.  Nor has Dr. Mazza.  This is all very odd because they pretend to be interested in searching old textbooks written by Ratzinger or others, or speeches or interviews, etc., hoping to find some statement here or there that sounds as if it might fit or strengthen their theory.  But, it is always for naught.  They strike one dry well after another, but continue the game.

For example, Barnhardt fallaciously tried to attribute the beliefs of other German theologians to Ratzinger (see HERE). Dr. Mazza has attempted to use various Ratzingerian texts from the 1960s and 1970s, or other sources to try to prove his thesis, but Dr. Mazza has consistently misinterpreted such texts (see HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE). 

Yet, while Barnhardt and Mazza struggle with finding old texts to prove their theory, they never address the clear, contemporaneous statements by Benedict which are staring them right in the face! Unfortunately, they ignore those of us who point this out to them, while their own followers do not hold them accountable to answer objections.

But for the curious reader (Benepapist or not), submit emails to them and ask them to publicly explain Benedict’ statement “I am no longer the supreme pontiff…“?  With the new Bux book; how do they explain away Benedict’s statement theories such as theirs are “absurd“?  How do they explain Benedict’s statement “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?”

I challenge the leading Benepapists to answer these question; and or their followers to demand answers from them.

Final Thoughts

This article is now my third one on the subject of Benedict’s letter to Bux.  The first two being Vigano and the Spontaneous Combustion of Benepapism, and Intellectual Honesty and the End of Benepapism.  Msgr. Bux is to be commended for finally releasing Benedict’s letter, so that we can see the text, and confirm its validity.  

It should be clear to the intellectually honest, that Benedict’s letter utterly destroys any Benepapist theory that depended on a distinction or separation of the terms ministerium (ministry) and munus (office). As Msgr Bux wrote, summazing Benedict’s argument: “Whoever renounces the ministry is no longer pope.”

Barnhardt & Company’s theory has been nuked. Cionci’s theory has been nuked. Let us hope and pray they and their followers recognize and understand this, and admit this to themselves, and others publicly. Last year, in an appearance on Tim Gordon’s podcast, there was a glimmer of hope that Dr. Mazza understood the import of the Benedict letter, which had not yet been officially published (see IS Francis the TRUE POPE? What do YOU Think? w/ Dr. Ed Mazza)). Back in December, commented on a report of what the letter said, Dr. Mazza admitted with a flash of intellectual honesty:

“…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; bold inserted. Bracketed comments inserted]

At the time Dr. Mazza said those words, we did not have have a confirmed copy of the actual letter from Benedict to Bux. However, now we do.  Therefore, Dr. Mazza, on your own terms, your thesis is wrong.  I hope you will now publicly admit it.  Furthermore, you should recant your acceptance of Benepapism, and all that has followed from it.

There is a small, but sizable group of Catholics who continue to believe Benedict remained pope until his death.  As a consequence, they believed that Pope Francis was actually an anti-pope. Furthermore, the rejection of Francis as a valid pope has also, in turn, impacted the acceptance of Leo XIV as a true pope by a segment of this group. I have no way of knowing the true size of this group. But, Dr. Mazza has expressed his hypothesis that Leo XIV is not a true pope (see  Dr. Mazza: A Semivacantist?).

It seems a number Benepapists are drifting toward sedevacantism. Indeed, as I argue in a recent article, Benepapism seems to be something of a “gateway drug” to sedevacantism (Benepapism: The gateway drug to sedevacantism). This is unfortunate.

Therefore, it is all the more incumbent upon the arch-Benepapists, the ‘founders’ or prominent proponents of the various Benepapist theories (e.g., the Barnhardt, Cionci, Acosta, Docherty, Mazza, Don Minutella, Fr. Kramer, Fr. Fare’, Coffin, et al) who may have set others on the road to the rejection of Francis and possibly Leo XIV, to now publicly admit they were wrong, and to urge their followers to reject the failed and disproven Benepapist claims, arguments, and theories — as well as to publicly urge their followers to accept that Pope Francis[7], and Pope Leo XIV are valid popes.

You were wrong.  Now…man up and admit it.  Put an end to the absurdity before it gets any worse.

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. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.

Notes:

[1]  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. 4-5.  Italian Kindle Version. Translation via Google.

[2] The observations in this first demonstration are based directly on Fr. John Rickert FSSP making this salient point about the  meaning of munus relative to ministry within Lumen Gentium 20.  Fr. Rickert had pointed me to this important text in personal correspondence while I was writing my book.  My many thanks to him.

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

[4] 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.

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

[6] 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. 4-5.  Italian Kindle Version. Translation via Google.

[7] Even as as awful, and problematic as he was…Francis was a true pope.