June 1, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – Once again, Roma Locuta Est finds it necessary to deal with the claims of those who believe Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid. Unfortunately, as once predicted, Benepapism has become the launching pad for a new form of sedevacantism, as most — if not all — of the leading Benepapists claim Francis was, and Leo XIV is, an antipope. While I do believe Benepapism will one day be but an obscure footnote of our times in some dusty dissertation on a bookshelf, here in the present it is necessary to address its fundamental errors.
John-Henry Westen’s recent May interview of the ever-ubiquitous Dr. Edmund Mazza presents an occasion to do so. Curiously, Mr. Westen now seems to host regular forays into questions surrounding the validity of the pontificates of Francis and Leo XIV. It seems to be a part of his regular programming. In April 14, he and Liz Yore alleged Benedict XVI was pressured to resign, as they have done on other occasions as well (for example, On April 21, Here). I replied their claims in a recent OnePeterFive article (see HERE) and in a recent interview (see Here). Then, on May 14, Mr. Westen interviewed Patrick Coffin. I replied to Mr. Coffin’s errors regarding the title of pope emeritus (see HERE), and other issues (see HERE).
Mr. Westen’s has had a couple of recent conversation with the ever-ubiquitous Dr. Edmund Mazza, the most recent being on May 26 (see Dr. Ed Mazza: Benedict’s fundamental error invalidated everything), as well as one back on March 3rd (see How Anti-Popes in History Compare to TODAY). In all, over the last three months, I count at least 5 podcasts episodes devoted to undermining the legitimacy of Francis and or Leo XIV in some fashion.
I am getting the impression there is a concerted effort underway to raise and sustain doubts about the validity of the last two pontificates. The timing of this is curious in light of the approach of the July 1st consecrations of new SSPX bishops, and threatened excommunications of them by Rome. I don’t know, but the timing seems more than a little coincidental.
Regardless, the occasion for the most recent Westen-Mazza discussion was the 10th anniversary of Archbishop Gänswein’s speech in 2016. This speech was famous, or infamous for some, for its Gänswein references to an ‘enlarged Petrine ministry’ with a ‘collegial and synodal dimension,’ etc. However, podcast’s discussion covered much more than just Gänswein’s speech, ranging from Benedict XVI’s Last Audience to Benedict’s Seewald interviews.
The goal for this article is for it to serve as a resource not only for those wanting to combat Benepapism/neo-sedevacantism in their social circles, but also for any Catholics intellectually honest enough, and willing enough to see whether their attachment to the Benepapist theory can withstand critical challenge. As it is, regular listeners to podcasts, like those of Mr. Westen, Ms. Ann Barnhardt, etc., will never hear from them any serious attempt to address the substantial refutations of the Benepapist claims.
The Plan of Attack
This article will take a tour through each of the aforementioned sources, and demonstrate the contrived nature of the Benepapists’ interpretations of them. We will look at Benedict’s statement of 2014, the meaning of pope emeritus, the last audience, the meaning of “active ministry,” Gänswein’s speech, and an addition Benedict statement to Seewald. It is somewhat ambitious to cover all of this in one article, but I thought it best to do so. Surely, a lot to read, but something to bookmark, come back to, and read in sections.
The Benepapists believe each of the documents above either give definitive proof, or at least provide some evidence that in resigning the papacy, Benedict XVI believed he still remained a pope, or ‘papal’ in some way. The Benepapists claim Benedict believed his elevation to the papacy left an indelible mark on him, an “ontological papal residuum,” — something like a sacramental mark which he could not lose. If Benedict XVI truly believed this, this would be an error, if not heresy. And, it would be heresy! So, in their self-described efforts to save us from one heretical pope (Francis), the Benepapists have merely given us another, i.e., Benedict. Regardless, this substantial error, they say, would have invalidated Benedict’s resignation per canon 188, thereby making Francis an antipope.
The Benepapists behind the substantial error theory attempt to mind-read or divine the former pope’s intent, motives, and meanings from the aforementioned documents. Yet, their efforts are plagued by the misreading and or misrepresentation of source material, as well as by muddled logic. The leading Benepapists have provided a forced and unnatural interpretation of Benedict’s words which upon deeper analysis is both unpersuasive, and contrary to common sense.
The clear implication of the substantial error theory is that Benedict intended to impose a wholly new, and ambiguous theory of the papacy upon the Church, (1) without either bothering to inform, or to clearly articulate this theory to, the Church, and (2) without giving the reason he thought it even necessary to resign in a way different from all other previous popes who had resigned the papal office. Obvious questions such as ‘why wasn’t a normal resignation not sufficient for Benedict?‘ and ‘why didn’t he leave a document that formally declared his previously unheard of understanding of the papacy before resigning?’ are left unasked and unanswered. The substantial error Benepapists cannot credibly account for any of this.
However, there is a far simpler explanation of Benedict’s words and actions, which have the benefit of not requiring us to forget he was a good theologian, and had familiarity with Church history, and canon law. Nor does this explanation require us to make Benedict a heretic who proposed there could be two popes or two men literally sharing the papacy. In addition, this explanation explains why Benedict did not leave a document with a new understanding of the papacy; that being, he wasn’t proposing a new understanding!
The interpretation that I have long proposed going back to my first article on this controversy (see Benedict is NOT pope), and which is consistent with all the evidence and common sense, is that when Benedict spoke of the “always and forever“, or of “spiritual bonds” remaining after his resignation, he was speaking simply of a bond of love, or a bond of charity he had for those he formerly served as a pope. Owing to this bond, he continued on, as he said, in “the service of prayer” for the Church. A resignation results in a loss of office, but that does not mean the former pope simply forgets those he once served. Rather, this bond of love, this bond of charity for those he served as pope is what endured for Benedict — not an indelible mark or ontological papal residuum! This article will show how these themes run through the evidence.
In sum, there is no reason whatsoever to prefer the convoluted, bizarre, and controversial interpretations proposed by the Benepapists as being more probable; and they have never even attempted to explain why a simpler, more natural interpretation, like the one I have proposed. is not the true one.
With this in mind, let us begin the tour of some of the citations that Church historian Dr. Mazza touched upon in the podcast with Mr. Westen, and see why the Benepapist interpretation should be absolutely rejected.
The Speculations of “authoritative historians” are absurd!
Benedict XVI wrote the following a year after his resignation (emphasis 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)
Here, Benedict XVI made clear that when one resigns the ministerium, one also resigns the munus. The one logically entails the other (see The Stake through the Heart of Benepapism). The interesting thing is, Benedict XVI criticized, in scare quotes, the “authoritative historians” and “other theologians” as being neither true historians or theologians. Benedict wrote, “The speculations they propose are, in my opinion, absurd.”
Benedict XVI chastised those pushing the Benepapist theories as ‘neither true historians or theologians.’ While the historian Dr. Mazza had not yet succumbed to Benepapism at the time of these words by Benedict, there can be no doubt that Benedict would have considered the speculations proposed by Dr. Mazza and other leading Benepapists to be absurd.
Dr. Mazza believes that when Benedict resigned, that Benedict believed he retained an indelible mark of the papacy, as if it were a sacrament. On Mr. Westen’s show, Dr. Mazza said (emphasis added):
“…from Ratzinger’s writings that he believes in a sort of an ontological papal residuum which endures in him or you know we should now speak in the past tense… ” (c. 42:55 – 43:08).
This view is a ‘dogma’ among Benepapists who accept the substantial error theory. For example, long before Dr. Mazza, one of his compatriots wrote (emphasis added):
“in his [Benedict’s] mind, the papal coronation indelibly anoints the pontiff in a distinct way, which is different from, and more profound than, the priestly or episcopal ordination/consecration.”[1]
With regard to this supposed ontological papal residuum or indelible mark from the elevation to the papacy, Dr. Mazza can provide no true or explicit proof that Ratzinger, either as theologian or pope, believed any such a thing. Dr. Mazza has attempted on occasion to produce such evidence from Ratzinger’s writings, but a closer reading of his primary sources consistently shows he has misread the key passages from which he draws his conclusion (e.g., a couple of these error are outlined HERE, and HERE; and in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI [see Reply to Objection 1.6]).
The most egregious example of this comes from Dr. Mazza’s appearance on a Patrick Coffin podcast. On it, he paraphrased a passage from Ratzinger’s Principles of Catholic Theology[2], claiming that Cardinal Ratzinger “disagreed with those who said the papacy is not a sacrament” – thus clearly suggesting Ratzinger thought the papacy is a sacrament. [3] If this were true, Dr. Mazza would have his proof that Benedict believed the papacy is a sacrament, and that consequently there was in Benedict’s mind an “ontological papal residuum” even after his resignation. However, in my book and elsewhere I have demonstrated conclusively, by showing the full context of Ratzinger’s passage, that Dr. Mazza had clearly misread the source material. Rather, 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.” [4] 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 embarrassingly mistaken that even a noted Benepapist, Estefania Acosta, in her own separate analysis of Dr. Mazza’s claim, would later refer to his interpretation as “a real madness”! [5] Yet, even after he was shown the obvious error in his reading of Ratzinger, Dr. Mazza still went on to include the same Ratzinger text in the appendix of his book on Benedict’s resignation! In that book, inexplicably, Dr. Mazza doubles down on his error, and repeats his erroneous interpretation, saying:
“That Ratzinger believes that papal power is sacramental, explains both of what he renounced, and what is irrevocable in “Pope Emeritus.””[6]
I can only refer the intellectually honest reader to the links above where I demonstrate Dr. Mazza’s clear misreading of Ratzinger. As an aside, I provide a fuller citation of Ratzinger than does Dr. Mazza to prove the point. Dr. Mazza cannot reasonably defend his interpretation. As I noted, even one of his fellow Benepapists considers his interpretation “a real madness.” The above is noted not as an attack on Dr. Mazza. Rather, such a substantial error in research on an essential element of his claim makes it necessary and fair to draw the reader’s attention to it.
But, that aside, adding to the difficulties facing Dr. Mazza’s thesis of a ‘sacramental papacy‘ is that 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” (see 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.” An additional 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. Therefore, Benedict could not have believed his elevation to the papacy left an indelible mark, or ontological papal residuum as claimed by Dr. Mazza and the Benepapists.
In sum, the problem for the view that there was an “ontological residuum” or that there was an “indelible mark” when becoming pope is that the papacy is an office of jurisdiction, and not a sacramental office.
Pope Emeritus
Dr. Mazza cites an excommunicated archbishop, Carlo Maria Vigano, as saying Cardinal Brandmuller confided to him that:
“Professor Ratzinger supported Professor Rahner’s shared papacy idea. So, this is the quote from Vigano. He says, uh, “Brandmuller confided in me in response to a specific question of mine that Joseph Ratzinger was developing the theory of the Pope Emeritus and a collegial shared papacy with his colleague Carl Rahner in the 1970s when they were both young theologians.” (c. 8:56 – 9:28)
Vigano apparently betrayed something that was “confided” to him. Unfortunately he only came forward after Benedict died and is no longer able to confirm or deny the account. For that matter, I am not aware of any reports that Brandmuller himself has confirmed Vigano’s report. Ultimately, the problem with Vigano’s claim is that it is double hearsay. We don’t know the exact wording of what Vigano allegedly asked Brandmuller. We also don’t know specifically what Brandmuller said in the response. But regardless, if Ratzinger had developed the theory of the “pope emeritus and a collegial share papacy” with Cardinal Rahner — where is the evidence for that? Dissertations? Books? Papers? Speeches? We do know what Benedict has said about pope emeritus from 2013 till his death. Where is the evidence any earlier views held by Ratzinger differed substantially from ‘later’ views, which are not in any way problematic, properly understood. Without any of this, Vigano’s account is worthless in evaluating the matter. This is especially considering his own theories have been all over the map (see Viganò hops from one bad theory to another), and have only recently centered on the title of pope emeritus.
But instead of relying on Vigano’s double hearsay testimony which lacks any useful details, we actually can look at what Benedict himself said on the meaning of Pope Emeritus–which are, in fact, his only relevant words on the question. However, in addition to his own words, we have canon law and other Vatican documents which further undermine the case of the Benepapists.
While there is nothing in either current or past canon law that speaks of “emeritus” being applied to a former pope; it is clear from his correspondence with Cardinal Brandmuller in 2017, that Benedict thought all former popes in history were a “pope emeritus” in fact if not name.[7] Benedict did not see himself as qualitatively different from preceding, resigned popes.
Again, there is no mention of pope emeritus in canon law, there are a couple of canons certainly help us to understand the principles that might be applied by analogy.
Canon 185 reads: “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.”[8] Obviously, emeritus which here applies to one who ‘loses an office by resignation,‘ allows us to see by analogy that pope emeritus can apply to a former pope who ‘lost his office by resignation.’ The individual in question no longer hold the office, at all. This certainly would apply to Benedict.
Canon 402.1 which states in part: “A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese…“[9]. Per the canon, the former bishop holds the title of Bishop Emeritus of whatever diocese (e.g., Bishop Emeritus of Atlanta).
According to a 2008/2010 study, the Vatican’s Congregation of Bishops wrote bishop emeritus loses all jurisdiction, and his former see is vacant. The document states (emphasis added):
“With the status of emeritus, on the other hand, there is only cessation of jurisdiction over the office held, which becomes vacant [until a new bishop is appointed]. A bishop emeritus, while losing the latter competence, retains other bonds, especially those of affection that link him to the particular church, while remaining a member of the college of bishops.” [10]
There is no talk of an “ongoing episcopal residuum” or an “indelible mark” which specifically connects the former bishops to his former diocese. Rather, according to the document, what especially remains are ‘bonds of affection.’ Obviously, this bond of affection is for those the bishop formerly served.
Indeed, the title of bishop emeritus, per a respected canon law commentary, “symbolizes an ongoing relationship to the people whom he had previously served as diocesan bishop”[11].
So, we see, that “emeritus” involves:
(1) the recognition an office is lost/no longer held, and that,
(2) it symbolizes an ongoing relationship with those one previously served, i.e., a bishop’s continued bond of affection toward the particular Church he previously served. That is the “bond” spoken of. In no sense does bishop emeritus imply the former bishop has any sacramental bond ontologically linked to his former office of jurisdiction. What he does retain is a true bond of affection, or a bond of love, a bond of charity toward “those” he previously served.
With the above in mind, we can see how Benedict incorporated these general principles into his use of pope emeritus, as he describes in an interview with Peter Seewald. Consider, Peter Seewald (his words in italics) when interviewing Benedict, asked him about the title of pope emeritus, and Benedict provides the following replies:
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:
Above, Seewald asks Benedict “What is an emeritus bishop or pope.” Benedict says emeritus means one had “totally given up his office.” In the German of the interview, the word “office” is translated from the German “Amt,” which also happens to be the word used for munus in the German translation of canon 332.2 (the papal resignation canon).[12] Benedict affirms clearly, in terms of pope emeritus, that he had given up the papal munus [Amt]. As he says, there is no idea “of there being two popes.” Again, Benedict said there is no idea of there being two popes. Against the Benepapists, this obviously rules out per the Principle of Non-Contradiction there being one pope plus a partial pope as well.
The above passages from Seewald are devastating to Dr. Mazza’s claim. Yet, this does not deter Dr. Mazza from trying to make do with what he has. In his comments on Mr. Westen’s show, Dr. Mazza attempts to favorably interpret Benedict words in the second of Seewald’s paragraphs above, going so far to tell us how Benedict is thinking:
Above, Dr. Mazza grasps onto Benedict speaking of emeritus as referring to a “spiritual spiritual link to his former diocese” or “a spiritual link, which cannot ever be taken away.” For Dr. Mazza, this “spiritual link” or “spiritual bond” must be what he refers to elsewhere as the ontological papal residuum or indelible mark that Benedict, in Dr. Mazza’s theory, erroneously believed he still held.
But nothing could be farther from the truth. Benedict is speaking of a “spiritual link” in the sense of a “special relationship,” not of a indelible mark or ontological papal residuum. Benedict was basing pope emeritus on an analogy to the bishop emeritus, and not something else. As such, against Dr. Mazza, no where in any Vatican document, and no where in canon law, is it ever suggested that a bishop emeritus has a sacramental link as bishop of his former diocese to his former diocese. For example, it is not remotely found or even suggested in guidance from the Vatican (See APOSTOLORUM SUCCESSORES, Chapter IX, “The Bishop Emeritus”). Furthermore, canon 402, from which we cited earlier, makes no mention of it.
Rather, as the highly respected commentary on canon law cited earlier says; the the title emeritus “symbolizes an ongoing relationship with those one previously served.” Thus, emeritus symbolizes a relationship with the people one previously served. This is a bond of affection. It does not represent either an “ontological papal residuum” or an “indelible mark” from the papal coronation or the papacy as a sacrament (which it isn’t!).
Benedict explicitly says that emeritus meant the total giving up of the office (munus/Amt). What Benedict as pope emeritus maintains, like a bishop emeritus, is a “spiritual relationship”, “spiritual link” or a “spiritual relationship which remains even if invisible” with the Church (as people, i.e., a bond of affection, a bond of charity. And charity is a true spiritual bond, or spiritual link, as St. Paul says:
“But above all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection” (Colossian 3:14)
That’s why the canon law commentary cited above speaks of the title of bishop emeritus symbolizing an ongoing relationship with those he previously served. An individual bishop emeritus once served a particular diocese and thus has a spiritual bond of charity to the Catholics within its bounds over whom he once served as bishop, as a spiritual father. A spiritual father cannot simply forget his children. Even though he has resigned, he still bears – or should bear – the same bond of love and charity for them.
So, too, pope emeritus symbolizes an ongoing relationship with those the former pope previously served. The pope emeritus once served, not just a particular Church, but the whole Church. Thus, Benedict’s spiritual bond of charity was uniquely one to all Catholics over whom he once served a pope, as a spiritual father. Benedict still wore white to symbolize this spiritual bond of charity to all Catholics, while at the same time removing all signs of papal authority (e.g., the mozetta, the red shoes, the facsia, the Fisherman’s Ring, the pallium, etc).
When a bishop or pope is given their jurisdiction, they become ‘a father to his children’ to whom he forms a bond of affection, a bond of charity. Even if he resigns, he still continues to have a bond of charity toward his ‘sons and daughters.’ He doesn’t lose the love when he resigns! That is why Benedict said in his last audience that his “decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” The “this” – in the grammatical and logical context of that speech – references the bond of charity (i.e., his loss of privacy on becoming pope). This bond of charity is what gives him the sense of inner responsibility of he speaks to Seewald (Last Testament, p. 23), the spiritual mission to continue in the “service of prayer” for the Church, even though he is no longer pope in any sense. That he would continue to serve the Church in prayer is something he said he would do in his Declaratio, and in his Last Audience, and in what Archbishop Gänswein said about Benedict in his own speech.
Now, we can take a look at the Last Audience
Benedict’s Last Audience and the Bond of Charity
The Benepapists like to cite Benedict’s Last Audience and its mention of the “always is also a forever” as a proof Benedict believed the papacy was sacramental in some way, leaving an indelible mark, or left an “ontological papal residuum” which left him pope is some way, even if only partially so. In fact, the Benepapists say when Benedict uses the words “Always” and “Forever” that he is speaking of what he believed is the indelible mark of his elevation to the papacy, the ontological papal residuum. This is the Benepapists proof.
However, there is nothing in the text of the Last Audience to suggest any such thing. Their claim is ridiculous. As we shall see, the “always” and “forever” is a reference to “privacy,” and not an indelible mark. And, as we shall see, in Benedict’s expansion of this though on privacy that he is describing the bond of charity between himself and his sons and daughters in the Church. It was this bond of charity that continued in Benedict’s life as a former pope, pope emeritus; and who from this love continued to pray for those he formerly served, i.e., the Church.
So, let’s directly confront the Benepapist patently absurd claim the “always” and “forever” refers to an indelible market or “ontological papal residuum.” Let’s look at what Benedict actually said. With regard to the “always is also a forever,” toward the end of his last audience, Benedict said the following (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.”
(excerpted from the last general audience of Pope Benedict XVI, February 27, 2013)
In their discussion of the “always is also forever” above, the Benepapists generally leave out the first paragraph above entirely, or skip over most of it. This is of critical importance in understanding the Benepapist misinterpretation.
Note well. Benedict does not define the “always and forever” as an indelible mark of a papal sacrament, or an ontological papal residuum. No.
Rather, Benedict defined his terms for us. In the first of the two paragraphs above, Benedict XVI explained his use of “always.” As he said, “Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy.” Benedict is speaking of ‘no longer having privacy.’ He is not speaking of now having an indelible mark. There is no allusion at all, and no reference to an indelible mark of the papacy, or a ‘failed partial resignation!’ Benedict connects the “always” to a ‘loss of privacy‘.
He goes on and expands on what this means by this ‘loss of privacy.’ Benedict says on accepting the papacy, a pope “belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church” and he speaks of the “great affection” there is for him, and how he “truly has brothers and sisters” and that he “no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.” Benedict’s theme of the “loss of privacy” as meaning ‘no longer belonging to oneself’ is also seen elsewhere in his writing. For example, 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 bold 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.”[13]
So, in this 1978 homily, we also see Ratzinger defining the loss of privacy for a pope as “no longer belonging to ourselves.” Ratzinger even describes this as being “enchained,” because by no longer belong to oneself, one belongs — as he says in the Last Audience — “always and completed to everyone, to the whole Church.” So, he clearly has a bond in mind, but it is a bond of love or charity, which is the belonging to another, and another belonging to you–and no longer belonging to oneself.
Consequently, we can see that Benedict’s words on the “always” is not a discourse on the theology of a supposed (and erroneous) ontological papal residuum or indelible mark. As said, when Benedict is speaking of a “loss of privacy,” he is speaking of “no longer belonging to himself.” His discourse is about himself, upon becoming pope as “belonging always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church.” Benedict is clearly speaking of something of a ‘family bond‘ (which he speaks of earlier in his audience!), a bond of love, a bond of charity. By this, he is not saying he will “always be pope,” he is saying he “belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church” and “he belongs to all and all belong to him.”
In the second paragraph above, Benedict now says the “always is also a forever – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere.” Here again he connects “always and forever” to privacy – and not to an indelible mark. He cannot return to the private sphere, i.e., he cannot return to only belonging to himself, because as he said earlier, ‘he now belongs to all, and all belong to him.’ He is speaking of a bond of love, a bond of charity. He formed a bond of charity with the members of the Church, like a spiritual father, and although he is now resigning, his resignation does not revoke this bond of charity. This sentiment is in line with the canon law commentary that said that emeritus symbolized an ‘ongoing relationship with the people one previously served.’
In sum, in the second paragraph above, Benedict is saying that although he is resigning he still will continue to love his sons and daughters he previously served. The bond of charity is not revoked. That is why he goes on to say he will continue in “service of prayer” for the Church. That is, he maintained and carried within him this bond of charity towards his “sons and daughters” (i.e., the Church), and even though he is no longer pope, he will continue ‘in the service of pray” for them, i.e., the Church — the people he previously served.
In sum, Benedict is speaking of an ongoing relationship which persists via the bond of charity — and not of a papacy that continues due to some “residuum” of it.
But didn’t Benedict only resign the “Active Ministry”!?
On the question of Benedict supposedly resigning only the “active ministry” — as if he kept a passive papal ministry; the Benepapist here contradict themselves. They say, when speaking of the Declaratio, that Benedict only resigned the petrine ministry, and not the munus; but then they want to say Benedict intended to only give up the “active” ministry! Which is it? Did he try to give up the whole papal ministry as they claim in the official resignation of the Declaratio, or only the “active” ministry as found in his informal comments in a papal audience?
The Declaratio was the official resignation document. The last audience was a goodbye, and informal reflection. The latter should not be read as a theological addendum or supplement to the Declaratio, because it wasn’t.
The truth is, the term “active ministry” or “active exercise of the ministry” has been grossly misunderstood. A search of Church documents will show that the use of “active ministry” essentially refers to a priest having a post or office of some sort, and who is not retired; or “active ministry” is used to distinguish it from contemplative orders, or a contemplative life (i.e., one of prayer), etc. So, for example, being a parish priest, a parish pastor (head of a parish), a bishop of a diocese, and even a pope is an “active ministry. A monk in prayerful seclusion is a contemplative.
If one’s pastor or head of your parish tells the congregation he has resigned from the “active ministry,” he should be rightfully understood to mean he is stepping down as pastor of the parish, and that will no longer be the pastor. He no longer holds that office. It does not mean he is now the “passive pastor” or “contemplative pastor” of your parish! Similarly, if a bishop of a diocese tells you he just resigned from the “active ministry” you should understand that to mean he has resigned the office of bishop of that diocese. It does not mean he remains the bishop of your diocese, but will only minister in a passive or contemplative way!!
So, even when a priest or bishop or a pope gives up the active ministry, as Pope Paul VI outlines, he continues in virtue of his priesthood to pray, say mass, recite the Divine Office, etc. In this light, Benedict said in his last audience that his “decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” The “this” – in the grammatical and logical context of the speech cited above, as seen – references the bond of charity (i.e., his loss of privacy on becoming pope). In other words, though he has resigned the active exercise of the ministry (i.e., being pope), this resignation does not revoke the bond of affection that formed when he became pope. Thus, as he went on to say, he will continue on in the “service of prayer” for the Church.
Finally, Benedict then speaks of St. Benedict who “showed us the way for a life” — not a papacy(!) — “which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.” That is Benedict’s meaning. He is contrasting the active life of having been pope, which he was giving up via his resignation, in favor of a passive life of prayer to which he is now dedicating himself for the Church. He mentioned this in his Declaratio, and he developed that theme in the Last Audience. Please see my article Regarding Benedict’s Last Audience.
What about Gänswein’s Speech
It was probably Archbishop Gänswein’s speech at the Gregorian University in 2016, more than any other one thing, that launched the “substantial error” theory for the Benepapists. This is unfortunate, as a closer examination of what he said and its context will show the speech’s seemingly problematic portions are overblown.
First, it should be remembered that Gänswein gave his speech 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, you can also check out my two part video series (Part 1 and Part 2) where I develop some additional analysis of this speech.
Now, a discussion of this speech can get very involved, and would make this article even more lengthy that it is already. The key point I would make here is that Gänswein’s talk of and references to an “expanded petrine ministry”, or an ‘enlarged Petrine ministry,’ or a ‘collegial and synodal dimension,’ etc., are not meant in a strict sense – i.e., as if Gänswein meant Benedict and Francis were both popes at the same time, each in their own way, participating in a ‘collegial’ papacy. In fact, Gänswein explicitly denies he is speaking of two popes [see discussion HERE] This in itself strikes at the heart of the Benepapist thesis.
There are various keys in his speech which demonstrate Gänswein is speaking in a looser sense of an “expanded Petrine ministry.” By this I mean that Gänswein speaks of this ‘expanded ministry’ in the sense of when one shares, by way of helping another, in a ministry — for example, a priest sharing in the ministry (i.e., the care of the flock) of his bishop, without the priest himself being a bishop. That this is his meaning can be seen when Gänswein references Benedict’s Coat of Arms in his speech, and the motto’s inclusion of the words from a letter of the Apostle John, i.e., “fellow workers in the Truth” (cf. 3 John 8).
As I note above, one can share a ministry of the truth without sharing the same office in any real or true sense, e.g., a layman can be a “co-worker of the truth” with a priest, bishop, or pope — while not being any of them. 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) without suggesting any sort of equivalency to God!
In this light, a document from the Congregation of Bishops, speaking of the role of bishop emeritus, says (emphasis added):
“226. The relationship between the diocesan Bishop and the Bishop Emeritus should be marked by a fraternal spirit which flows from their membership in the one episcopal college, from their common apostolic mission, and also from their shared affection for the particular Church. This fraternal relationship between the diocesan Bishop and the Bishop Emeritus will serve to edify the People of God and, in particular, the diocesan clergy.”
Above, while the document speaks specifically about a bishop and a bishop emeritus, we can readily see how this in many respects should apply to a pope emeritus in his relation to the Supreme Pontiff. For example, the sharing of a “common apostolic mission” and “shared affection for the particular Church” or in the case of Benedict and Francis, a shared affection for the Universal Church. In addition, it speaks of a “fraternal relationship” that “serves to edify the People of God.” So, we see here the basis of some of the phrases used by Gänswein that might appear odd, exaggerated, and hyperbolic on first glance. The above passage even cites Pope John Paul II for support of these ideas:
“59. In addition to the universal level, there are many different forms which can and do express episcopal communion and therefore solicitude for all the sister Churches. The relationships of exchange between Bishops thus go well beyond their institutional meetings. A lively awareness of the collegial dimension of the ministry bestowed on them should impel them to bring about among themselves, especially within the same Episcopal Conference, on both the provincial and regional levels, a variety of expressions of sacramental fraternity, ranging from mutual acceptance and esteem to the various manifestations of charity and practical cooperation…” (Pastores Gregis, Pope John Paul II,
This is a brief bit of paragraph 59 of Pastores Gregis, which goes on at length with similar themes. The point is, it uses ideas incorporated by Gänswein, such a “collegial dimension of the ministry” and “practical cooperation.” Francis and Benedict, at the time, may be spoken of, in a sense, of sharing a ‘Petrine-like’ ministry in that both focused on the whole Church; however, Francis did so as the true pope, while Benedict as a former pope, continued — due to the bonds of charity with the people of the universal Church, formed when pope — continued to pray for the whole Church. So, in this manner of speaking, this is the “expanded Petrine ministry.”
But there are other reasons to believe Gänswein was not speaking in a strict sense when he spoke of an “expanded ministry,” or of continued “participation” in the “Petrine ministry.” Consider what Gänswein says of the book’s author (Fr. Roberto Regoli) at the end of the same speech (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. “
Above, Gänswein says the author Roberto Regoli now takes part in the munus Petri (the petrine ministry)! Gänswein goes farther, even saying Regoli, Peter Seewald, and others(!) enter into that “enlarged Petrine ministry!” Where are our Benepapist interpreters on this? Is Gänswein speaking literally or figuratively of Regoli taking “part in the munus Petri?” Is Gänswein speaking literally or figuratively when he says of Regoli, Seewald, and others that they have entered into that “enlarged Petrine ministry”?
The answer is clear. Gänswein is speaking in something of a loose, extended, or figurative sense of Regoli 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, helped, and contributed to the Petrine ministry — and thus “take part” and “enter” into the munus Petri and the “enlarged Petrine ministry.”
Obviously, Gänswein is not saying Regoli and Seewald really became popes in some way! No! Far from it. He is speaking in a loose, extended sense. But that of course is the point…that is how Gänswein should be taken throughout his speech regarding Benedict’s post-resignation participation in the “expanded Petrine ministry.”
On a curious note. Dr. Mazza has never addressed this passage from Gänswein’s speech, and in fact, his translation of the speech leaves it out. Perhaps his fans could ask him (1) why he left it out, even knowing it existed, and (2) how does he explain it, in light of my commentary above.
Benedict’s reply to Seewald
Before closing out this article, we must take a look at another argument offered by Dr. Mazza in his discussion with Mr. Westen. Dr. Mazza brings up one of the questions Peter Seewald posed to Benedict XVI. Benedict’s answer strikes Dr. Mazza as odd. For the benefit of the reader, I cite the question and answer in full from Seewald’s book below:
Seewald: In the resignation speech the reason you gave for relinquishing your office was the diminishing of your energy. But is the slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?
Benedict: One can of course make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The follower of Peter is not merely bound to function; the office enters your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion. Then again, the Pope must do concrete things, must keep the whole situation in his sights, must know which priorities to set, and so on. This ranges from receiving heads of state, receiving bishops — with whom one must be able to enter into a deeply intimate conversation — to the decisions which come each day. Even if you say a few of these things can be struck off, there remain so many things which are essential, that, if the capability to do them is no longer there — for me anyway; someone else might see it otherwise — now’s the time to free up the chair.
(Benedict XVI: Last Testament in his own words, Peter Seewald, p. 19, Kindle Version)
As said, Dr. Mazza finds Benedict XVI’s response odd. Dr. Mazza comments (emphasis added):
“…Seewald says to him is a slowdown in the ability to perform reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter. Now, isn’t that what I just read to you from Benedict’s declaratio, right? He no longer has the strength to to carry out the words and the deeds, right? So, you’d expect that the answer that Seewald should get to that question is “yes.”
But instead, Benedict replies, well, “one can make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding.” Again, the question was, is a slowdown in the ability to perform reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter? And Benedict says, “Yeah, that’s an accusation. It’s it’s a functional misunderstanding. The successor of Peter is not merely bound to a function.” And I interpret that to mean, you know, the the day-to-day tasks, the administration, the words and the deeds. There’s more to it than that.
He says the office there’s the word office munus enters into your very being in this regard fulfilling a function is not the only criterion. So here you you have Ratzinger saying that there’s more than one criterion for being pope for holding for being part of the petrine munus. I mean it it it’s clear as day here, right?”
In reply, Benedict’s answer is not odd or problematic at all! In resigning his office, Benedict was accused of secularizing the papacy by resigning it due to a lack of strength, as a corporate CEO might do. A CEO might retire from a large corporation, and walk away from all those he had worked with in the office, the industry, and customer’s as well. The CEO puts this all behind him as he moves on to his beach or lake house, to a life of fishing, golfing, or traveling with his family, etc.
Consequently, Benedict defends his action and the papacy from this accusation, saying the papacy is more than a ‘function,’ more than what a secular job is. The “office enters your very being.” But how does the papacy “enter your very building”? Dr. Mazza would have us believe, as we have already seen, that it does so in a sacramental sense leaving an indelible mark or ontological papal residuum. But, let’s see what Benedict elsewhere explains in more detail:
“Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign. There were a number of bishops who said, ‘I am a father and that I will stay‘, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and a secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply; even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day to day tasks as such. It was also this way for bishops.” (Peter Seeward interview of Benedict XVI, Last Testament, p. 23 Kindle version)
Here we see that by the “office enters your very being” that Benedict means it is because a bishop becomes a “father,” and one “does not stop being a father.” As Benedict says, ‘stopping is a functionalization and secularization‘, i.e., treating the papacy as a job that one can walks away from like the CEO. So, what Benedict explains is, is that a former pope “remains a father in a deep inward sense, in a particular relationship“, i.e., with the people he formerly served.
Benedict’s point is certainly not that ‘a father does not stop being a father, so therefore a pope, even after resigning, is always a pope in some way.’ Not at all.
Rather, Benedict’s point is that if one cannot do the function, it is “time to free up the chair — but the ‘inner responsibility’ arising from this relationship as a father to the flock, this bond of charity, persists even after a resignation. You simply do not forget those you loved when you leave office. Rather, you continue to love, and serve them in prayer.
We see this broader context does not bear out Dr. Mazza’s claims. The point Benedict XVI is making is that ‘yes the papacy is more than a job’ but, even so, there are so many things ‘which remain essential,’ that if you can’t do them, in his opinion, “now’s the time to free up the chair.” That is, time to step down from the Chair of Peter! Time to resign from the office. What remains is not an ontological papal residuum or indelible mark. Rather, what remains is a spiritual fatherhood and relationship with those one previously served. The former pope remains a father “in a particular relationship” – with those he previously served – and to them he has responsibility, i.e., to pray for them. And this is what Benedict said he would do.
Final Thoughts
As I argue above, and in a number of articles on Roma Locuta Est; and in my book Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI ; the Benepapists have grossly misread and misinterpreted what Benedict was saying in a number of places. The Benepapist have interpreted these texts in the most tendentious manner possible, and they do so without ever addressing simpler, and more natural interpretations that contradict their conclusions. There is no reason to accept the Benepapist claim that in resigning the papacy that Benedict though he retained any indelible mark, or ontological papal residuum.
Above, I have offered simpler, more natural, common sense explanations of Benedict’s words. It has the benefit of not requiring us to forget Benedict was a good theologian and had familiarity with Church history, and canon law. Nor does this explanation require us to make Benedict a heretic who proposed there could be two popes or two men sharing the papacy at the same time.
There are those who either believe, or are tempted to believe that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Many of these believe Francis was an antipope, and that Leo XIV is one. These beliefs are erroneous, and dangerous. You are flirting with neo-sedevacantism for the long term, if you are not already there. Accordingly, before you continue down this path, I invite and challenge you to check out my articles (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), and or my book (Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI) , and or some of my videos on the topic (see HERE). I also have a couple articles that look at Dr. Mazza’s errors on Universal and Peaceful Acceptance, etc., in relation to the the election of Pope Leo XIV (see The Narci-Schism of Dr. Mazza and the neo-sedevacantists; Dr. Mazza: A Semivacantist?).
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] Mark Docherty on his blog NonVeniPacem (see https://nonvenipacem.com/2017/07/22/faq-did-pope-benedict-reveal-his-intent-to-bifurcate-the-papacy-in-the-actual-declaratio/)
[2] Joseph Ratzinger, Principle of Catholic Theology: Building Stone for a Fundamental Theology. Ignatius Press. 1987 Pages 194-195)
[3] 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/
[4] 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.
[5] 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/;
[6] Dr. Edmund Mazza, The Third Secret of Fatima & the Synodal Church Vol. I Pope Benedict’s Resignation, p. 180.
[7] In correspondence with Cardinal Brandmuller, Benedict replied to the Cardinal’s criticism about the use of the title “pope emeritus:”
“In your recent interview with the FAZ [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung] you say that I created, with the construction of the Pope Emeritus, a figure that does not exist in the entirety of Church history. Of course, you know very well that popes have retired, even if very rarely. What were they afterwards? Pope Emeritus? Or what instead?”
[8] James Coriden, et al, eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 109.
[9] James Coriden, et al, eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 538.
[10] “The Bishop Emeritus: Resigned but still ministering“. America Magazine. Frank J. Rodimer. March 22, 2010
[11] “Once his resignation has been accepted by the Supreme Pontiff, the diocesan bishop immediately becomes a titular bishop and holds the title of bishop emeritus of his diocese. Unlike the custom in the past, he does not receive the title to a titular Church in partibus infidelium (in the territory of the unbelievers) but instead holds the title of “Former Bishop of N.” This symbolizes an ongoing relationship to the people whom he had previously served as diocesan bishop.”(Source: 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)
[12] 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.]
13. 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