Roma Locuta Est

August 31, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – There has been a renewed effort by certain Benepapists to push their erroneous theory that Benedict XVI only ‘partially resigned’ or ‘semi-resigned’ the papacy. They have taken notice of a comment the excommunicated Archbishop Viganó made last November in his essay about Benedict XVI’s 2014 letter to Msgr. Nicola Bux. That Benepapism remains an issue at all to some, may seem strange. Yet, having rejected the papacies of Francis and Leo XIV, some of the leading Benepapists are now “interregnists,” as they prefer to call themselves instead of sedevacantists. However, this is a distinction without a real difference.

Benedict’s 2014 letter completely undermines the theories of arch-Benepapists Ann Barnhardt, Dr. E. Mazza, Fr. Nix, and Andrea Cionci, etc. (see HERE, HERE, and HERE). These Benepapists have grudgingly admitted this reality by their actions. That is, faced with the reality the letter reveals their errors, they are constrained to either deny its authenticity, or to gaslight via more ‘Ratzinger Codes.’ But, regarding the 2014 letter, it is undoubtedly authentic (see The Authenticity of Benedict XVI’s 2014 Letter).

As for Viganó, he is certainly to be commended for his important Testimony with regard to McCarrick, and in this regard I greatly respect what he did. However, there is no reason to make of him an oracle on the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He has been all over the board on the question. A short while ago he settled on the theory that Francis was not the pope because he had a ‘defect in consent.’ But, more recently, Viganó is suggesting the use of pope emeritus is a “canonical monster” that make the resignation invalid. (see Viganò hops from one bad theory to another).

Did Rahner and Ratzinger collaborate on idea of a ‘Shared Papacy’ as Viganó says?

Below, I cite from an article by Fr. Nix titled Why the “Bifurcated-Papacy” Still Matters. I include part of Fr. Nix’s citation of Viganó regarding Rahner and Ratzinger, followed by Fr Nix’s commentary on the quote (Bold and Italics added):

 Viganó: It will not be surprising to learn—as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller confided to me in January 2020, responding to a specific question of mine—that Professor Joseph Ratzinger developed the theory of the [papal] emeritus and collegial papacy with his colleague Karl Rahner in the 1970s, when both were “young theologians…

Nix: Notice here that AB. Viganó is again insisting that Ratzinger had it in his head his whole clerical life that a future Pope (be it himself or someone else) could one day become a “Pope Emeritus” will full power shared into a “collegial papacy.”  So, if Msgr. Bux really got that letter from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in 2014 referenced in the first paragraph, then Benedict XVI simply changed his mind from his earlier insistence on a bifurcated papacy.  (Dr. Ed Mazza has repeatedly proven very clearly from Ratzinger’s own writings in the 1980s that he [erroneously] believed a “resigned Pope” would still maintain the grace of office of Pope somehow until death.) So, we can ask this question from the beginning: If Benedict really told Bux he never meant to double-up the papacy into “two Popes” then why did he promote this broken notion from the 1980s forward?

O’Reilly Replies:

Fr. Nix gives us only two choices above.

Either (1) Benedict’s letter – which proves he resigned the munus – is a fraud/forgery; or (2) if he really did write it, Benedict XVI “simply changed his mind from his earlier insistence on a bifurcated papacy.” Unfortunately, Fr. Nix’s second option makes Benedict a liar.

Even though the good Father tries to soften the alternative in the hypothetical by suggesting Benedict “simply changed his mind.” However, this is nonsense. In the 2014 letter, Benedict was quite clear, calling  the theories rejecting his resignation “absurd.” He believed that, or he didn’t. If one chooses option #2 which implies Benedict changed his explanation of his resignation in the letter, one is saying Benedict lied.

In framing the issue in only these two ways, Fr. Nix is guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle, aka a fallacy of a false dilemma. Fr. Nix has excluded alternative explanations from consideration. One other obvious possibility is that Fr. Nix and other Benepapists have misinterpreted Benedict XVI’s words and acts. They have failed to understand that Benedict really did, in fact, resign the ministerium and munus – just as Benedict says, and never intended a ‘shared papacy’ or ‘bifurcated papacy.’  It is the Benepapists who have misunderstood the nature of what Benedict meant by pope emeritus.

Fr. Nix says Viganó insists “that Ratzinger had it in his head his whole clerical life that a future Pope (be it himself or someone else) could one day become a “Pope Emeritus” will full power shared into a “collegial papacy.”” As cited above, Viganó said, in part:

“Cardinal Walter Brandmüller confided to me in January 2020, responding to a specific question of mine—that Professor Joseph Ratzinger developed the theory of the [papal] emeritus and collegial papacy with his colleague Karl Rahner in the 1970s, when both were “young theologians.”

Dr. Mazza cites the same Viganó quote in an appearance on a sedevacantist podcast. Both he and Fr. Nix both use Viganó’s statement as proof Ratzinger believed in a collegial, shared papacy since the 1970s, and was already then devising the pope emeritus.

However, there are several problems with such a claim. At the outset, Viganó does not provide us the specific question posed to Cardinal Brandmüller, nor does he provide us the exact wording or text of the latter’s exact response. Furthermore, we do not know the provenance of Cardinal Walter Brandmüller’s knowledge of a supposed Ratzinger-Rahner collaboration on this specific topic. Who was his source, and what did they say about it?

But even granting Viganó’s brief report the benefit of the doubt, it proves absolutely nothing. He provides zero details of what Rahner and Ratzinger each contributed to such a collaboration; what each understood by “pope emeritus”; or even whether or not they agreed with the other’s opinions.

Furthermore, according to Viganó, this collaboration was undertaken when the two were “young theologians.” Thus, this work was done 50 years ago!  Thus, even accepting the truth of Viganó’s revelation, arguendo, neither Viganó, Fr. Nix, nor Dr. Mazza has produced any document that is the fruit of this supposed Rahner-Ratzinger collaboration on a ‘collegial papacy.’

Nor do we know the nature of Ratzinger’s participation. Was he an active collaborator, and contributor of his own ideas – or was he merely a sounding board for Rahner, perhaps acting as something like an informal thesis or doctoral advisor?

There are reasons to suppose Ratzinger walked away from any discussion that might have taken a heterodox turn. For one, there is no evidence produced of Ratzinger having written on the subject as a “young theologian”, or having been published on the topic. While Dr. Mazza in the aforementioned sedevacantist podcast appears to quote Rahner regarding some of his collegial papacy ideas; Dr. Mazza provided no citation, no footnote, no nothing that proves Ratzinger contributed a single thought to any paper or article on Rahner’s thoughts or theory. This observation — had they ever collaborated on this topic — certainly suggests that Ratzinger either rejected Rahner’s views from the outset, or came to reject them.

Finally, another problem with Viganó’s suggestion is that whatever Ratzinger may, or may not have believed on the subject back in the 1970s, his use of pope emeritus at the time of his resignation, properly understood, does not pose a real problem to the validity of the resignation. Benedict XVI said pope emeritus meant one had “totally given up the office” – completely incompatible with any theory of a shared, collegial, or bifurcated papacy.

While Benedict XVI did not provide a papal definition or explanation of what he meant by pope emeritus, Canon 185 says “anyone who loses an office due to resignation may use the title ‘emeritus.’” [1] ‘Emeritus’ denotes a “loss of office due to resignation.” Canon 402.1 states in part: “A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese… “[2]. Here too, the office is resigned – neither kept, nor shared.

A respected commentary on canon law discusses the meaning of Canon 402, stating of the title of ‘emeritus’: “This symbolizes an ongoing relationship to the people whom he had previously served as diocesan bishop.” [3] Indeed, Benedict himself told Seewald:

“The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office, but his spiritual link to his former diocese was now properly recognized.” [4]

Benedict explicitly stated that pope emeritus meant he had “totally give up his office.” In this German language interview, Benedict XVI used the German word “Amt” for office. Amt, it should be well noted, is also used in the official German translation of the Latin munus in Canon 332.2, the canon on the resignation of the Roman Pontiff.[5]

The Benepapists have misinterpreted the “always” and “for ever” of Benedict’s Last Audience, as if referring to an indelible mark of a supposed sacramental papacy. Rather, in his Last Audience, Benedict XVI defined what he meant as the “always…” in terms of a spiritual relationship between himself and the faithful (bold added):

“…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…”

(Source:  GENERAL AUDIENCE, February 27, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI)

He speaks of the Pope ‘truly having…sons and daughters.” Benedict speaks of a mutual relationship in which “he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all, and all belong to him.”  This is a touching picture painted by Benedict XVI of his love for the faithful, and his belief in their love for him. He is speaking of mutual bond of love, a bond of charity, not of an indelible mark of a supposed ‘sacramental papacy’ from which he could not fully resign.

No, this is an ongoing spiritual relationship’ of love that would continue for Benedict even after his resignation for the rest of his life, and that is why he adds in the very next paragraph:

“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…” 

In light of the previous paragraph, Benedict’s decision to resign does not revoke this bond of love, this bond of charity – this “ongoing spiritual relationship.” That is the logical and grammatical meaning of the “this” that is not revoked. His resignation “does not revoke this” bond of charity, this spiritual relationship – because he will continue on in love and prayers for his ‘sons and daughters’, the faithful – i.e., the Church.

Given this ‘ongoing spiritual relationship’ was not merely with the local faithful of the Archdiocese of Rome but with the faithful of the whole Church, we may understand that it is for this reason Benedict opted to use the more emphatic title of pope emeritus, and to wear white. Benedict told Seewald the title of “emeritus” meant (bold added):

 “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.” [6]

And in fact, Benedict in his Last Audience went on to say he had given up “the power of office for the governance of the Church”, and would devote his life “in the service of prayer” for the Church.  There were not “two bishops” of Rome, there were not two popes. In fact, speaking of the formula of pope emeritus, he disclaims the notion of any collegial papacy, telling Seewald (bold added):

“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.” [7]

So, we see above, Benedict did not intend any idea of there being two popes. Therefore, he specifically disclaimed any idea of a collegial, shared, or bifurcated papacy. Therefore, it is clear he intended neither a ‘collegial papacy’ nor a ‘bifurcated papacy’ suggested by the likes of Fr. Nix, Ann Barnhardt, Dr. Mazza, et al.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Has Dr. Mazza “proven” anything, as alleged by Fr. Nix?

Having addressed the erroneous opinions advanced by Fr. Nix and others on a supposed ‘collegial papacy’ and ‘bifurcated papacy’, I wish to address the following assertion made by Fr. Nix in his article:

“Dr. Ed Mazza has repeatedly proven very clearly from Ratzinger’s own writings in the 1980s that he [erroneously] believed a “resigned Pope” would still maintain the grace of office of Pope somehow until death”

O’Reilly Replies: Dr. Edmund Mazza has proven no such thing, clearly or otherwise. What has been demonstrated is that Dr. Mazza has often seemed – to put it charitably – to misunderstand or overstate the very sources he cites.[8] One key example relating to the ‘partial resignation’ or ‘semi-resignation’ theory will suffice. It is an example to which Fr. Nix links in his article.

In an appearance on Patrick Coffin’s podcast, speaking of one of Ratzinger’s books, Dr. Mazza makes the following assertion (bold added):

“…What does Joseph Ratzinger say? He says, “No, no, no. “I disagree with those people who say the papacy is not a sacrament, that it’s only a juridical institution. That juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order.” Now here is another quote from Ratzinger right after the counsel. This is from his book Theological highlights of Vatican II, Published 1966 by Paulist Press…”

(See Catholic Monitor, which printed part of transcript from Dr. Mazza’s appearance on Patrick Coffin’s show)

The reader should recall that central to Dr. Mazza’s and Ann Barnhardt’s thesis is the claim that in resigning the papacy, Benedict believed he could retain, in some way, the Petrine munus — thereby remaining pope, in some way. It was this mistaken belief, they say, that created a “substantial error” (cf. canon 188) which made his resignation invalid (they say).

Dr. Mazza quite clearly alleges that Ratzinger in his book Principles of Catholic Theology says he “disagrees” with those who say the “papacy is not a sacrament.” Thus, obviously, Dr. Mazza is clearly stating Ratzinger believes that the ‘papacy is a sacrament.’ 

If Dr. Mazza really found such a passage in which Ratzinger said what he alleges above, then his thesis might have some legs. Unfortunately, as first demonstrated conclusively by Roma Locuta Est, Dr. Mazza ‘misread’ the meaning of the text in question (see, for example, A closer look at Mr. Coffin’s evidence: Dr. Mazza’s Thesis 3.0; and also included in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI).

Dr. Mazza’s reading is so egregiously mistaken that even another noted leading Benepapist, Estefana Acosta, in her own separate analysis of the same passage, would later refer to Dr. Mazza’s interpretation as “a real madness.” [9]

The truth is, Dr. Mazza’s interpretation bears zero resemblance to what Ratzinger actually said or meant. A fuller, extended citation from the original source is provided below to prove the point. Ratzinger, in context, is speaking on the subject of Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism. Ratzinger writes (bold and italics mine):

“All this, as we have said, is basically true also of the separation between Rome and Constantinople that became the starting point of the division between East and West. Not everyone, it is true, especially on the Orthodox side, would agree with this opinion – which shows how time has served to intensify the gravity of the dispute. For, from the Orthodox point of view, at least according to one interpretation, the monarchia papae means a destruction of the ecclesial structure as such, in consequence of which something different and new replaces the primitive Christian form. Because this aspect of the problem is, generally speaking, more or less foreign to us in the West, I should like to indicate in a few words how this impression has arisen in the East. For such a view, the Church in the West is no longer, under the leadership of her bishops, a nexus of local churches that, in their collegial unity, go back to the community of the twelve apostles; she is seen, rather, as a centrally organized monolith in which the new legal concept of a “perfect society” has superseded the old idea of succession in the community. In her, the faith that was handed down no longer (so it seems) serves as the sole normative rule—a rule that can be newly interpreted only with the consensus of all the local churches; in her, the will of the absolute sovereign creates a new authority. Precisely this difference in the concept of authority grew steadily more intense and reached its climax in 1870 with the proclamation of the primacy of jurisdiction:  in one case, only the tradition that has been handed down serves as a valid source of law, and only the consensus of all is the normative criterion for determining and interpreting it. In the other case, the source of law appears to be the will of the sovereign, which creates on its own authority (ex sese) new laws that then have the power to bind. The old sacramental structure seems overgrown, even choked, by this new concept of the law: the papacy is not a sacrament, it is “only” a juridical institution; but this juridical institution has set itself above the sacramental order.” [10]

What should be immediately evident from the extended quote is that Ratzinger is not suggesting the ‘papacy is a sacrament’, as Mazza alleges. Rather, Ratzinger is explaining how the Eastern Church views the Western Church, and the development of the papacy in particular. This is evidently the case because Ratzinger says so himself:

“…Because this aspect of the problem is, generally speaking, more or less foreign to us in the West, I should like to indicate in a few words how this impression has arisen in the East. For such a view…”

Ratzinger was obviously describing the Orthodox Church’s view, not his own; and doing so without suggesting he personally ‘disagrees with those who say the papacy is not a sacrament’ or for that matter, saying anything of his opinion at all on the question.

So where does Dr. Mazza’s presentation of the above citation in question leave us?  Dr. Mazza has not proven a ‘shared papacy’ as claimed by Fr. Nix. There is no gentler way to say it but this. Dr. Mazza has either misunderstood and or misstated Ratzinger’s view; attributing to him a theological opinion that is simply not his in the text (Note: Dr. Mazza would not be the first. See discussion of Ms. Barnhardt’s “thermonuclear” misuse of a Ratzinger text in Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio; read Objection 2.1/2.2 and Reply to that objection).  Or as Dr. Mazza’s fellow Benepapist described his interpretation — “a real madness.”

Adding to the difficulties facing Dr. Mazza’s ‘sacramental papacy‘ thesis is the fact 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). As I argued in my rebuttal to Mazza in one of my LifeSiteNews articles (see HERE), as episcopal consecration confers the fullness of the sacrament, it therefore follows that election to the papacy is not a stage of Holy Orders – and is therefore not a sacrament, 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 thus believed in an additional “sacramental munus” upon elevation to the papacy.

There we will leave this matter.

Final Thoughts

Related to the above, Roma Locuta Est has also provided detailed analysis of Archbishop Ganswein’s speech (see Regarding Ganswein’s speech, and Deconstructing Ann Barnhardt’s Benedict Video).

The Benepapists who remain active on this subject are leading folks into sedevacantism and schism. Using the name “interregnists” does not change the reality.  It is simply lipstick on a pig.  It’s still a pig.

My challenge to the followers of Ann Barnhardt, Dr. Mazza, Fr. Nix, Mark Docherty:  If you accept their views and are considering following their views on rejecting the validity of the papacies of Francis and Leo XIV — then you at least ought to kick the tires on their claims. They are asking you to make a big leap of ‘faith’.  You owe it to yourself – and the loved ones for whom you may be responsible — to look before you jump. What do you have to lose — check out the resources on Roma Locuta Est.

Check out the responses to the claims of the Benepapists. For those looking for answers to their claims, either for themselves, or for others, this Roma Locuta Est offers a collection of articles (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”) rebutting their Benepapism, but also their sedevacantism (see Dr. Mazza: A Semivacantist? and Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument). Also, I have written a book against the Benapapist claims in an easy to use Objection-Reply format (Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI).  In addition, I have created a series of videos which tackles many of the key issues (see HERE).

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.

Notes

[1] 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.)

[2] John P., James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, eds. New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, New York NY/Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 2000….p. 538. Commentary on Canon 402.

[3] Ibid.

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

[5] On the Vatican website, the German language translation of the Latin in Canon 332.2 uses “Amt” for the translation 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 above added in brackets by O’Reilly.]

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

[7] Ibid,

[8] Examples seen in the following articles: (see A closer look at Mr. Coffin’s evidence: Dr. Mazza’s Thesis 3.0; A Rebuttal of Dr. Mazza’s book on Pope Benedict’s Resignation; The Good, the Badde, and the Tendentious; pope emeritus question)

[9] 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/;

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