August 26, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – Roma Locuta Est has covered the recent publication of pope emeritus Benedict XVI’s letter to Msgr. Bux in 2014 (see The Stake through the Heart of Benepapism).
In that letter, Benedict XVI clearly stated in renouncing the ministerium, he also renounced the munus as well. Benedict wrote:
“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)
The above is provided as a refresher of the key point to this discussion, i.e., the quote falsifies the more popular Benepapist theories (e.g., Barnhardt’s, Cionci’s). We have elsewhere provided analysis and commentary on how Benedict’s letter completely undermines various Benepapist theories, so no need to rehash it here (see Vigano and the Spontaneous Combustion of Benepapism; Intellectual Honesty and the End of Benepapism; The Stake through the Heart of Benepapism).
For the most part, the letter has been received as authentic. Former Archbishop Vigano, who has known about the letter for some time, appears to have accepted its authenticity – even though he maintains the resignation was invalid (see discussion HERE). Even one of leading Benepapists, Andrea Cionci, accepts its authenticity as well. However, in the case of Cionci, he does attempt to apply his “Ratzinger Code” in interpreting it so as to twist it to fit his theory.
However, a few Benepapists (e.g., Dr. Mazza, Ms. Barnhardt, Mark Docherty) suggest the letter is not authentic. This article will explore the arguments that have been advanced to attack the letter’s authenticity, and sadly and unfairly, to attack Msgr. Nicola Bux’s credibility.
“Hard to swallow” quotes?
Dr. Mazza admitted in December 2024 that if Benedict’s 2014 letter really said he resigned both the ministerium and munus, then “if that is true, my thesis is wrong…” [See Tim Gordon’s podcast (see IS Francis the TRUE POPE? What do YOU Think? w/ Dr. Ed Mazza), beginning around 11:15]. To be fair, Dr. Mazza did add there might some other way to try to reconcile Benedict’s letter with his own Benepapism.
But that was back in December when Dr. Mazza clearly seemed to recognize Benedict’s letter posed an existential crisis for the ‘partial resignation’ theory that he, Ms. Barnhardt, and others believe. But what does he now say about the letter, now that it has been published in Bux’s recent book? Does Dr. Mazza admit his theory was in fact wrong, which he formerly conceded to be possible? Or, has he developed a new argument that attempts to interpret the letter in some way favorable to his ‘partial resignation’ theory?
The answer is none of the above. Appearing on a sedevacantist podcast, Dr. Mazza took a more conspiratorial tack. Dr. Mazza cast doubts upon the authenticity of the above quote from Benedict’s 2014 letter by asserting that: “there are quotes that are attributed to Pope Benedict that are kind of hard to swallow” (see 6:54- 7:07). Also he says, “it’s hard to know what statements from Benedict are actually from Benedict, and even if they are from Benedict, should they be believed?” (see 17:24-1736).
So Dr. Mazza’s logic seems to be something like the following: ‘I have a hard time accepting other quotes attributed to Benedict XVI, therefore his quote in the ‘alleged’ 2014 letter is a fraudulent one.’ Perhaps a crude way to put it, but that is essentially his argument.
Okay, so what are the examples of these “hard to swallow” quotes elsewhere attributed to Benedict which Dr. Mazza uses to justify his rejection of the 2014 letter? Dr. Mazza gave two examples of what he considers odd or suspicious quotes from Benedict XVI after the resignation. The first is as follows. In replying to a question as to why he wore white as pope emeritus, Benedict XVI reportedly replied he did so because at the time of his resignation there were ‘no black cassocks available in Rome.’ The second example is Benedict’s response to Peter Seewald’s question as to whether there were any contradictions between his own theology and that of Pope Francis. Benedict replied he saw “no contradictions.”
While Dr. Mazza may personally find it hard to swallow these quotes; in themselves, they do not justify a rejection either of Benedict’s truthfulness generally, or of the 2014 letter specifically.
With regard to the “no black cassocks left in Rome” statement, it is true there are many clerical clothing shops in Rome near the Vatican. Clearly, everyone knows this as a matter of common knowledge in Rome. Benedict certainly knew this — there is no question. Benedict could have bought a black cassock – had he wanted to.
But the seeming absurdity of Benedict’s response in itself answers Dr. Mazza’s objection to the quote. Benedict’s response is clearly intended as a bit of humor intended to deflect a question he did not care to answer. Afterall, Benedict explained his vision of the mission of a pope emeritus in his last audience. Furthermore, even before his resignation, he was probably already tired of the controversy caused even by the public reports of his choice for the style clothes (white cassock), manner of address, and title (HERE). One can certainly understand why he did not want to deal with something he considered “absurd.” Thus, we can likewise understand that he dealt with the question diplomatically, politely, and charitably by deflecting it with some humor. There is no need to read into it some nefarious reason, or to suggest he was under some form of duress when answering the question.
With regard to Benedict denying “contradictions” between Benedict’s and Francis’s theology, this does seem a curious response on the fact of it, because surely there does seem to be great differences in their theologies. Again, Dr. Mazza apparently wants to chalk up Benedict’s response to duress, or some other nefarious reason.
However, one does not need to go to such extremes to hope to explain this answer. A far simpler, and innocent explanation comes immediately to mind. That is, Benedict probably wanted to avoid the screaming headlines that would have been sure to follow had he admitted and outlined the contradictions between himself and the reigning pontiff. Benedict was respectful of the situation, and did not want to encourage speculation regarding differences between them. Others could point them out. No need for him to get into it, causing a public affairs controversy. That’s one innocent possibility that is quite reasonable — and more probable than what is suggested by Dr. Mazza.
As I outline above, surely there are various innocent variations and possibilities that do not require we must posit that Benedict and or Bux said what they did under duress; making cowards of two honorable men. Yet, this is precisely what Dr. Mazza suggests by implication without even considering more innocent explanations. Nor does Dr. Mazza even attempt to explain why innocent explanations must be discarded. Absolute silence. Rather, he simply declared (bold and italics added):
“Do we really think that that Benedict said that? and did he have a gun to his head at the time or were there, you know, was there a punishment room waiting for him if he failed to tow the line?
So, who knows what pressures Bux may have been subjected to. I don’t have any firsthand knowledge obviously, but I will say this: anyone who contravenes the narrative, bad things seem to happen to them. I mean Cardinal Pell, for example, has an unfortunate post-operative experience, right? Archbishop Vigano, his location is still hidden I take it, and you know gets allegedly excommunicated. Other people they just have their character assassinated. So, who knows what’s going on, but it seems to me it’s a full court press to suppress anything that deviates from the narrative.”
(Source: podcast HERE, c. 18:07 – 19:08)
Mazza assumes the most sinister motives behind the two Benedict quotes, and then jumps to the speculation Benedict didn’t say either of them. He then makes an additional leap of logic that we don’t know what pressures Bux was subject to! The leaps of logic here are breathtaking. One non sequitur after the other.
Dr. Mazza introduces the dubious and misleading suggestion that “who knows what pressures Bux may have been subjected to?” – when in fact, we don’t know Bux was subject to any pressures at all! Dr. Mazza has produced no credible evidence at all that we should even consider the possibility. Dr. Mazza talks about ‘character assassination,’ but he essentially does that by implying Bux could possibly have been complicit to fraud or forgery, even if only because he succumbed to pressure for which Dr. Mazza admits he has no evidence!
Mazza throws Bux under the Bus
Above, we saw there is no credible basis to even introduce the suggestion that Benedict or Bux was coerced, or that the quotes are doubtfully authentic. It is pure, unfounded speculation without an evidential basis.
That said, Dr. Mazza does make a more relevant point — also made by others — dealing with Aldo Valli’s 2018 interview of Msgr. Bux. First, let’s provide the pertinent quote from the interview where Bux says the following (bold added):
“Perhaps — and I say this from a practical point of view — it would be easier to examine and study more accurately the question concerning the juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, i.e., whether it was full or partial (“halfway,” as some have said) or doubtful, since the idea of a sort of collegiate papacy seems to me decidedly against the Gospel text. In fact, Jesus did not say “Tibi dabo claves…” [“I will give to you the keys”] turning to Peter and Andrew, but he only told Peter!
That’s why I say that, perhaps, a thorough study of the resignation could be more useful and profitable, as well as helping to overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.“
(Source: HERE)
Here, in 2018, Bux certainly seems open to studying the validity of Benedict’s resignation. The seeming difficulty is: how does one reconcile Bux’s openness to studying the validity of the resignation in 2018, if Bux really possessed the 2014 letter which proves the resignation was valid? This is seemingly further complicated by the fact Bux by 2023 had firmly accepted the validity of the resignation.
The observations above leads Dr. Mazza to suggest the 2014 letter is not authentic. Though he doesn’t state it directly, Mazza’s logic seems to imply or suggest Bux was “under pressure” from unknown actors to publish a letter which was in fact a forgery (see c. 17:30-18:28). Mazza said he has no “firsthand knowledge” of such a threat; nor presumably, is he in possession of any ‘second-hand’ information about any such threat being made.
Unfortunately, Dr. Mazza — once again undeterred by the absence of any evidence — engages in rank speculation. The apparent, although unstated implication of his speculation is that a respected theologian, and friend of Benedict is, somehow, potentially complicit in a fraud. The reader should be rightly outraged by Dr. Mazza’s line of “reasoning.”
So, how to explain and understand this without descending into Mazza’s tin-foil-hat conspiracy mentality?
Understanding Bux’s Views
First, Bux held off on publishing the letter in 2014 after receiving it for a variety of reasons. The letter was private correspondence between himself and Benedict XVI. Furthermore, to have publicized the letter back in 2014 would necessarily have drawn Benedict directly into the Benepapist controversy which he had already called “absurd,” and which apparently annoyed him. To do any of this would have been a double betrayal of Benedict. Thus, we can understand why Bux waited until after the death of Benedict to publish their correspondence. There is nothing nefarious here.
But how should we understand Bux’s comments in 2018 which seemed open to questioning the validity of the resignation. This, Mazza alleges, seems odd given Bux’s ‘alleged’ possession of the 2014 letter which proved the validity of the resignation. Ultimately, this is a good question for Bux. I am sure with time he will provide additional clarification via future interviews. In the meantime, I offer some thoughts below.
There are any number of possibilities. For example, Bux’s thinking on the question might have gone back and forth, until it at last became firmly in favor of a valid resignation, as seen in the 2023 preface he wrote, and in which he alludes to the 2014 letter from Benedict.
Speaking of Bux’s motivations for delaying release of the letter until after the death of Benedict, Ricardo Cascioli wrote (bold added):
“…but above all, because he (Bux) wanted to prevent this letter from fueling further conflict between opposing factions regarding Benedict XVI’s resignation and Francis’s pontificate.”
(Source: La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, “Benedict XVI’s letter, why right now?” by Ricardo Cascioli, 8/9/2025)
So, curiously, Bux seemed for some time to have had concerns that the 2014 letter would cause more controversy, not less. Certainly, such an assessment could not be based on the ministerium/munus question, which Benedict clarified decisively in the letter as we’ve seen.
Rather, Bux’s concerns over fueling more controversy seems to have focused more on the pope emeritus issue. This had been one of Bux’s questions, but Benedict did not respond to it in great detail. Indeed, the Valli interview certainly suggests Bux clearly entertained questions in 2018 about a ‘shared papacy’, for example, Bux said: “...the idea of a sort of collegiate papacy seems to me decidedly against the Gospel text.” Bux’s original concerns about the pope emeritus may have been also exacerbated by certain interpretations of Archbishop Ganswein’s 2016 speech about the “expanded ministry“, etc. [NB: we have refuted claims about Ganswein’s speech many time, see for example: Regarding Ganswein’s speech]
However, by the time he wrote the preface in 2023, any doubt that might have existed in Bux’s mind during the 2018 interview regarding the resignation’s validity had been resolved in his mind.
However, the thesis of the inconsistency, or failure to establish, of the papal emeritus, which some cardinals, such as W. Brandmuller and R.L. Burke, had invoked in the run-up to the 2013 Conclave, does not seem to fundamentally undermine the fact that the resignation of the pontifical ministry leaves the former titular bishop no longer pope, as he has not received another sacrament
(Source: Preface by Monsignor Nicola Bux to the book, Non Era Lui Piu: Una Risposta al Codice Ratzinger sulla Rinuncia di Benedetto XVI by Federico Michielan, p. 4. Italian Kindle Version. Translation via Google.
So, by 2023, Bux had concluded that any remaining doubts he might even still have over the pope emeritus had been rendered moot by the Benedict’s resignation of the papal ministerium – which left Benedict “no longer pope.”
What convinced Bux of this in the years between 2018 and 2023? Again, we must await new interviews with Bux on such a question to have a firm answer. However, it’s quite possible Seewald’s book-form interview of Benedict, published in 2021, might have played a part in the evolution of Bux’s thinking. For example, in this interview, Benedict explained what he meant by “pope emeritus,” saying in part (bold added):
“The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office, but his spiritual link to his former diocese was now properly recognized.”
[Source:
In this interview, conducted in Benedict’s native German, the word for “office” in the original German of the interview is “Amt.” The German word “Amt” is the word used to translate the Latin word munus, when referring to “office” in Canon 332.2 which speaks of the renunciation of the Roman munus/office/Amt.[1] Consequently, in a plain reading of his words, Benedict’s is saying his use of “emeritus” meant he had “totally given up his office” — in other words, he had ‘totally given up the munus’ (see Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”). This statement by Benedict could readily account for Bux seeing the pope emeritus question now being rendered moot in relation to the validity of the resignation — even if he might still doubt the appropriateness of the title.
Furthermore, speaking of the use of “pope emeritus,” Benedict also told Seewald:
“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.”
[Source:
Clearly, Benedict thought the pope emeritus formula conveyed the reality he intended, i.e., he had “totally given up” the Petrine munus. Indeed, he added that the use of the title ‘avoids any idea of there being two popes at the same time.’ In sum, in resigning the way he did, Benedict did not suggest in any way, or intend in any way a “shared papacy” or a “bifurcated papacy.”
Again, this too could readily accounts for Bux seeing the pope emeritus debate being rendered moot in relation to the validity of the resignation, and any concerns he might have formerly had over a ‘shared papacy’ — even if he might still doubt the appropriateness of the title.
Did such additional information, such as the 2021 interview on “pope emeritus” enter into Bux’s internal deliberations? Obviously, I cannot say. But, by 2023, Bux was clearly certain Benedict’s resignation was valid, and that the use of pope emeritus did not undermine the fact Benedict was no longer pope. And that indeed appears to demonstrate an evolution in his thinking.
Why the Benedict Letter is not a forgery: other considerations
Above we examined the arguments of folks like Dr. Mazza who believe Benedict’s 2014 letter is not authentic. We considered these arguments and demonstrated why they are specious. But besides our counterarguments there are other reasons that redound to the authenticity of Benedict XVI’s 2014 letter to Bux.
First, as we have already mentioned, Msgr. Bux is a highly respected theologian, and is an honorable man. He has nothing to gain in circulating a fraudulent, forged letter from Benedict. Furthermore, no evidence has been advanced at all by Dr. Mazza that Bux was coerced or threatened. None whatsoever. Dr. Mazza at least this point, even if it didn’t prevent him from making this ridiculous speculation.
Second, fraud or forgery makes little sense, as there is no reason for it to be released now. Francis is dead. Indeed, who benefits from it – cui bono? It is hard to see who benefits from it. The Benepapist movement was already disintegrating. Some Benepapists have accepted Leo XIV is true pope, while other diehard Benepapists are now effectively sedevacantists – even though some of the latter prefer to call themselves “interregnists,” but this is a distinction without a difference.
Third, fraud or forgery also make little sense on another ground – it was not sufficient for the purpose of silencing all Benepapists. How so? While the letter does put to rest the ministerium/munus question, it could have made a far stronger defense of the pope emeritus – but the letter did not.
Consider, Vigano’s latest theory acknowledges Benedict did not separate the ministerium and munus. In addition, Vigano seems to disparage Cionci’s and Barnhardt’s theories in a November 2024 essay when speaking of “Inconsistent theories not supported by any evidence have taken hold of many of the faithful and even some priests, increasing confusion and disorientation” (see discussion HERE).
Instead, Vigano’s theory pivots away from the Barnhardt’s and Cionci’s heavy reliance on a supposed ministerium/munus distinction, and instead anchors his theory on his claim the creation of the pope emeritus being a canonical monster that invalidates the resignation. [NB: Roma Locuta Est addresses Vigano’s theory here: Vigano and the Spontaneous Combustion of Benepapism, and Viganò hops from one bad theory to another]. Vigano’s use of canonical “monstrum” is a term found in Bux’s original letter to Benedict. So, again, Benedict’s letter could have been much stronger on the pope emeritus question, and the fact it wasn’t, clearly points to its authenticity.
In sum, the Benedict letter, if it were a forgery, is a poor one, as it failed to take the opportunity to shut down all the main Benepapist theories. Surely, a forger would have taken greater care to maximize the impact of his/their fraudulent document on the debate, i.e., shutting down not only the ministerium/munus debate, but also the debate over the pope emeritus and a supposed ‘shared papacy’, as well as some of the other theories (e.g., Benedict resigned under duress). But the fact “he or they” did not, clearly points to the letter being authentic.
Conclusion
In sum, there are no credible reasons to believe Benedicts 2014 letter to Bux was fraudulent. There is no clear motive to forge such a letter, and it’s not clear at all who would benefit. In addition, the fact that the letter could have been much stronger in defending the validity of the resignation, but wasn’t, is a further consideration in favor of its authenticity.
How do we account for Bux’s views between 2014 and 2023? The seeming change in Bux’s view appears to have been due to a progression in his thinking — and not the result of coercion or duress. That is, at first, he understood the equivalency of ministerium/munus, but all the while seemed to harbor doubts or questions regarding the pope emeritus in relation to a possible ‘shared papacy.’ This left him open to studying the question more deeply – as we saw in Bux’s 2018 interview with Valli. However, these doubts were resolved for Bux by the time he wrote a preface for a book in 2023. By this time, he was convinced the resignation of the ministry/munus made the debate over pope emeritus question a moot point relative to the validity of the resignation.
While we don’t yet have a complete response by Bux on any changes in his thinking over this period, we do know that more evidence had become available on the pope emeritus question. That is, the publication of a Seewald interview with Benedict in 2021. In that interview, Benedict had said that ‘pope emeritus’ meant that he had ‘totally given up the office (munus)’, and he also went on to say this formula precluded the idea of there being “two popes.” Thus, such evidence could certainly have been a factor in the evolution of Bux’s thought on these questions.
Whatever the case, there is absolutely no reason to resort to the fanciful speculations offered by Dr Mazza about nefarious plots, and claims that Benedict and or Bux may have been subject to threats, “guns to the head,” or “punishment rooms.”
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] On the Vatican website, the German language translation of the Latin in Canon 332.2 uses “Amt” for the meaning of “munus” in the sense of office
Canon 332.2: Falls der Papst auf sein Amt verzichten sollte, ist zur Gültigkeit verlangt, daß der Verzicht frei geschieht und hinreichend kundgemacht, nicht jedoch, daß er von irgendwem angenommen wird. (see HERE)
Here is the English of the canon (emphasis and bracket comments added):
Canon 332.2: If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [Latin: munus; German: Amt], it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.
[Source: Coriden, James A., et al, eds. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 437. Latin and German translations added in brackets by O’Reilly.]
Roma Locuta Est 