Roma Locuta Est

February 11, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – Thirteen years ago today, Pope Benedict XVI announced his renunciation of the papacy. He did not know it at the time, but his act would have tragic consequences for the Church.

On the one hand, his resignation left the see of Rome vacant. A conclave followed which elected Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, who took the name of Pope Francis. His pontificate has been, in our opinion, a disaster for the Church. Pope Francis has left a host of documents and acts which a subsequent pope, and potentially with a council, will have to clean up.

The list of disasters is long but likely well known to readers. Pope Francis left the Church an apostolic exhortation titled Amoris Laetitia which, if interpreted as the liberal would have it, absolutely contradicts the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio (84). There were other acts such as Fiducia Supplicans on the question of blessing of homosexual couples. There was also the infamous Abu Dhabi document. Pope Francis also contradicted prior teaching on the death penalty. There are so many more things, such as the Scalfari interviews (see HERE), in which Pope Francis seemed to almost delight in trolling the faithful. There’s more, but that is enough of a sampling of the disaster which was his pontificate.

We believe that at some point, the Catholic Church will need to deal with the memory of Pope Francis, and his acts, in a way similar to that in which Pope Honorius was treated, i.e., as a ‘favorer of heresy.’  It is either that, or someone needs to apologize to Pope Honorius. I am confident the Church will one day deal with them but when that day is to come is not foreseeable at this point.  It took 40+ years before the case of Pope Honorius was finally dealt with by an ecumenical council, and by Pope St. Leo II. It is not the goal of this present article to treat the many problems of his disastrous pontificate but simply to outline that the disastrous nature of pontificate, which is one tragic consequence of his election.  But, alas, it not the only tragic consequence.

The other tragic consequence is that the troubling nature of the Francis pontificate led to the rise of Benepapism, the erroneous belief that Benedict’s resignation was invalid, which in turn meant the election of Francis was invalid — making him an antipope. Not to justify it, but it is understandable that the troubling acts of the Francis pontificate led many to entertain the specious and tendentious arguments of the arch-Benepapists. Unfortunately, some Catholics have fallen for these arguments, and some, falling further into despair, fell into outright sedevacantism.

Over the last year or so, Benepapism has now fractured into various movements. Some of these groups are perhaps even more fringe than others. For example, one supposed Franciscan “brother” gathered together a small group to elect their own pope – they did this twice (see The Bugnolo Files, The Inevitable Descent into Schism, and Madness)! Separately, an Italian priest appears to consider himself the “grand prelate” of prophecy, and has accumulated a following. What most of these Benepapists, fringe or not, generally have in common is that they now also deny that Leo XIV is a true pope.  Whereas some of these could try to point to specifically what Benedict did to try justify their sedevacantism, it seems that now have adopted more traditional sedevacantist arguments in relation to Leo XIV (see Dr. Mazza: A Semivacantist?).

It is curious and somewhat risible that some of these Benepapists deny they are “sedevacantists”, preferring to call themselves “interregnists”, i.e., between papal reigns.  However, more longstanding sedevacantists could as easily call themselves the same thing. So, the Benepapists doth seem to protest too much.

The reality is, Benepapism is sedevacantist. One might have thought that after the death of Francis, that Benepapism would fade away. Unfortunately, the claims of many of the leading Benepapists hardened into the belief that Pope Leo XIV is also an antipope.

For those who have adopted the Benepapist view, or are tempted to, please take a look at our various resources. We have provided arguments which refute the many Benepapist arguments.  One can find them in my articles on Roma Locuta  Est. See The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope” for arguments against the key claim of the Benepapist. Also, one can read my book Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.  I also have a series of videos on various Benepapist claims (see HERE).  Also see my recent interview on the Conor Gallagher Show, where we discuss all the major Benepapist theories, including whether Benedict was forced out (see The Conor Gallagher Show: Discussion of Benepapist Theories).

The leading voices – or banshees of Benepapisms have either concocted gnostic interpretations to explain away Benedict’s clear words, or have misread, or misinterpreted – and at times misrepresented Benedict’s words, whether as pope, pope emeritus, or theologian. I have documented this in the links above.

A Review of some of Benedict’s Comments on his Resignation and or “Pope Emeritus” 

Briefly, in his Declaratio, Benedict XVI wrote (emphasis added):

For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

There is no canonical formula for a papal resignation. Leaving aside the munus vs. ministerium question, it is clear what Benedict is saying.  He is renouncing the ministry of the Bishop of Rome “in such a way” that “the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked.” It is clear.  Benedict says the See of St. Peter will be vacant. A new conclave must called to elect a new Supreme Pontiff.  Benedict is vacating the See of St. Peter, which means he will no longer pope. QED. One can find the above, include the munus vs. ministerium, discussed in chapter 1 of my book, and or in my article Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio).

Further, on February 28, 2013, about two and half hours before his resignation became effective at 8pm, Benedict said to crowd of pilgrims beneath his balcony:

“I am no longer the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, or I will be until 8:00 this evening and then no longer. I am simply a pilgrim beginning the last leg of his pilgrimage on this earth.” (see HERE)

Above, we can see that Pope Benedict earlier in the day of February 28, 2013 — just hours before his resignation took effect — explicitly stated he will “no longer” be the “Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church” as of that evening at 8pm, at which time he will become a ‘simple pilgrim‘ who is “beginning the last let of his pilgrimage on this earth.” This, of course, is consistent with what Benedict wrote in his Declaratio, which I cited above.

It is interesting that ‘partial resignationists’ like Ms. Ann Barnhardt and Dr. Mazza haven’t bothered to publicly address this quote.  Given their often tendentious attempts to find and try to twist various Ratzinger quotes to fit their theory, it is glaringly obvious why they have never discussed this quote, or even brought it to the attention of their readers or listeners. Why? Because — for those who understand the principle of noncontradiction — it utterly blows up their argument. Benedict didn’t say I will ‘no longer be fully supreme pontiff’, as if he left a door open to partially being so.  No.  He did not.  He said he is no longer Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.  That should have shut the door to the partial resignationist theorists…but instead…they have ignored it.

Andrea Cionci made the above quote the prime example of the so-called Ratzinger Code in his book. Briefly, he alleged in the original Italian of Benedict’s comments, instead of saying “Sommo Pontefice” (Supreme Pontiff), Benedict had transposed the words, saying “Pontefice Sommo” (Pontiff Supreme).  In his book, Cionci insisted a “Pontefice Sommo” or “Pontiff Supreme” does not exist “non esiste” he wrote). By using the term “Pontiff Supreme”, Benedict was speaking in a code suggesting he’ll be a hidden pope, no longer in high places. However, I explain why Cionci’s code is absolute nonsense (see Regarding Benedict’s comments to the Pilgrims from Albano).  I provided many examples in my aforementioned book where “Pontiff Supreme” or “Pontefice Sommo” is used in Italian documents to mean the same thing as “Sommo Pontefice” or Supreme Pontiff. So, if the terms mean the same thing, Cionci’s code crumbles, and he can no longer explain away Benedict says “I am no longer Supreme Pontiff.”  My evidence was so clear cut that even Mr. Cionci admitted I found examples of what he had previously insisted “does not exist” (see A Response to Andrea Cionci and his “Ratzinger Code”). 

With regard to Benedict’s adoption of the title of “pope emeritus” his intent is clear enough if one actually reads what he said on the matter.  For example, in his interviews with Peter Seewald.  In my book and in my article Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”I lay out the basis for the title of Emeritus, and why it does not suggest Benedict intended to remain pope in any way. For brevity, one example will suffice.  Below Peter Seewald asks the question, and what follows is Benedict’s reply:

What is an emeritus bishop or pope?

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.

But does that apply to the pope?

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.

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

First, note, in response to the question regarding the use of the “emeritus”,  Benedict said that “The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office..”.  Note, the original interview was in German. Benedict used the word “Amt” where “office” appears in this translation.  “Amt” in turn is used in the German language translation of canon 332.2, the papal resignation canon. Where the Latin “munus” is used, the German “Amt” is used (See Dr. Mazza and the “Pope Emeritus”).

Bottom line, Benedict did explain that his use of “pope emeritus” meant that “he had totally given up his office.”  Again, the likes of Dr. Mazza don’t bother to note the obvious implication of this line, which completely undermines the partial resignation belief. There are other things above which we can point out as well.  For example, Benedict said the use of “emeritus” did not mean there were two bishops of the see, as a “bishopric can only have one incumbent.”  Again, all of this is fully consistent with the valid resignation argument – and not consistent with the various Benepapist theories.

Finally, one more bit from Benedict himself as part of this demonstration from his own words. In a 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 to Msgr. Bux the following about the various theories alleging he did not really resign, or that he intended to resign only the ministerium (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)

The citation above is from an article but I have since come into possession of a copy of the letter from Msgr. Bux’s book.  What is clear from above is that Benedict XVI in 2014 described all the various claims adopted by the Benepapists as “absurd” (see my other articles on this letter HERE, HERE, and HERE).

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.  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.”  I’ve discussed the logical necessity of this association in both my book, and in my article Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto.

Deficiencies of the Benepapist Rebuttals

Above, we looked at four, clear, documented statements of Benedict which demonstrate he fully gave up the papacy, and or that the use of “pope emeritus” meant that he had “totally given up the office.”  There are others, but these will suffice for our purpose here. The point is, the Benepapists understanding of things cannot explain all these statements in a way that make them all either internally consistent amongst each other, and then, make them consistent with their own theories.

The Benepapists must either rely on a gnostic code which has been disproven on its own terms (see “pontefice sommo” discussion above), or the Benepapists must either ignore Benedict’s clear words altogether (e.g., as done by Ms. Barnhardt and Dr. Mazza regarding Benedict’s remarks of Feb 28, 2013), and or present tendentious interpretations or clear misreading of unrelated works by Ratzinger (for examples of such misinterpretations by Barnhardt and Mazza, see my book, chapter 1, or my article Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio, reply to Objections 2.1 and 2.2).

Regarding Benedict’s letter to Bux, 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].

Unfortunately, instead of accepting the letter and abandoning his now disproven belief, Dr. Mazza doubled down. On a sedevacantist podcast, Dr. Mazza would later take a more conspiratorial tack by casting 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 might be stated as follows: ‘I have a hard time accepting quotes attributed to Benedict XVI which would admittedly demolish my theory; therefore the ‘alleged’ 2014 letter from Benedict must be a fraudulent one.’ Perhaps a crude way to put it, but that is essentially his argument. Unfortunately, along the way, Dr. Mazza seems to cast aspersions on Msgr. Bux, a priest he had formerly quoted extensively when he thought that supported his own arguments. However, please take a look at my defense of the authenticity of Benedict’s letter to Bux (see The Authenticity of Benedict XVI’s 2014 Letter).

Anyway, on this 13th anniversary of Benedict’s resignation announcement, that is the sad state of affairs with regard to the leading Benepapists, many of whom, rejecting Leo XIV, have fallen into sedevacantism.  Pray for them that they may see the light, correct their errors, and no longer beckon to others to follow them down the road to schism and sedevacantism, thereby leading others astray.

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.