Benedict XVI unequivocal: "I resigned, but I did not abdicate"

Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by Richard67, May 5, 2021.

  1. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    By Andrea Cionci (as translated from Italy's Libero Pensiero)

    Ratzinger’s unequivocal text: “I have not abdicated”.

    If a pope does not abdicate, there cannot be another conclave. Bergoglio would be invalid.
    We would not have two popes, but “half”: a pope without practical exercise of power.

    by Andrea Cionci

    “There is only one pope,” Benedict XVI has been repeating for eight years, without ever explaining which one is which.

    Perhaps he can not say; nevertheless, we have located a text where Ratzinger clarifies that although he, with the 2013 Declaratio, “resigned” by renouncing the “ministerium” (the practical functions), he has not at all “abdicated”, on the other hand, the divinely created title of pope: the “munus.” — Words are important: resigning is giving up functions, abdicating is giving up the title of a sovereign.

    Boring “clerical legalisms,” as Bergoglio says? — No. This is a huge problem – one that is carefully avoided in public debate – because if a living pope does not abdicate, by completely laying aside the munus, another conclave cannot be called. Even from a theological point of view, the Holy Spirit does not direct the election of the pope in an illegitimate conclave. The “Pope Francis” therefore, would never have existed, he would only be a “bishop dressed in white”, as in the Third Secret of Fatima, and no one further, in his line of succession, would be a true pope. — It is therefore worth applying ourselves to the question.

    But let me show you the documented proof. In his “Last Conversations” (Garzanti 2016,), the book-length interview by Peter Seewald of Pope Benedict XVI, the journalist asks: “With you, for the first time in the history of the Church, a pontiff in the full and effective exercise of his functions has resigned from his “office”. Was there an inner conflict over the decision?” (p. 26)

    Benedict replied, “It’s not that simple, of course. No pope has resigned for a thousand years, and even in the first millennium this was an exception: so such a decision must be pondered at length. For me, however, it appeared so obvious that there was no painful inner conflict.”

    An absurd statement if we understand the word “resignation” in the common and simple sense that we use in the English language. For in the last thousand years (1016-2016) there have been no less than four popes who have renounced the throne, (including the famous Celestine V in 1294) and, in the first millennium of the papacy (33-1033), there were six others. — Perhaps, then, Ratzinger does not know the history of the Church so well?

    Yet, his sentence makes perfectly coherent sense if we understand that “resigning” (from the ministerium, as Ratzinger did) does not at all entail “abdicating” (from the munus). The – vaguely confusing – distinction between munus and ministerium was formalized at the canonical level in 1983, but it is entirely functional for Benedict XVI to get across a very clear message.

    He, in fact, is not talking about popes who have abdicated, but about those who have resigned like him, that is, those who have abandoned the ministerium, without abdicating.

    It all makes sense: the “exception” of the first millennium of which Ratzinger speaks is that of Benedict VIII — known in life as Theophylact of the Counts of Tusculum — who, having been ousted in 1012 by the antipope Gregory VI, had to give up for a few months the ministerium, the exercise of power, but did not lose the munus of pope, much so that he was then reinstated on the throne by German Emperor Henry II. In the second millennium, however, no pope has ever renounced only the ministerium, while four popes have, however, abdicated, giving up the munus (and, consequently, also the ministerium).

    Consulted on this historical question, Dr. Francesco Mores, professor of Church History at the University of Milan confirmed it, saying: “There is indeed this difference between the first and the second millennium. The decisive junction is the “Gregorian” reform (of 1073). Although in conflict with the secular powers, the popes of the second millennium always maintained a minimum of practical exercise of their power, unlike very few cases in the first millennium: Pontian, Silvester, but, above all, Benedict VIII”.

    Ratzinger is clearly telling us that he had to renounce the ministerium like his ancient, homonymous predecessor: if Benedict XVI did it voluntarily, and Benedict VIII did it forcibly, neither of them ever abdicated the munus. If it were not so, how could Ratzinger say, as he did, that no pope has resigned in the second millennium, or that a papal resignation in the first millennium was an exception?

    We can cite another proof of this, from Seewald’s other book-length interview of Benedict: “Ein Leben”. On page 1204, Benedict XVI distances himself from Celestine V, who legally abdicated in the second millennium (1294), saying: “The situation of Celestine V was extremely peculiar and could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent.” !

    Also in Ein Leben, we note that the word “abdication” appears eight times – nine in the German edition (“Abdankung”) – and is never used in reference to Ratzinger, but only to popes who really abdicated, or who wanted to do it seriously, such as Pius XII to escape the Nazis. For Ratzinger, on the other hand, there is only talk of resignation (“Ruecktritt”).

    Today, therefore, we would not have “two popes”, but only “half”: Benedict XVI, devoid of practical power. For this reason, he continues to wear white (although without a the mozzetta), to sign P.P. (Pontifex Pontificum), to live in the Vatican and mysteriously enjoy other papal prerogatives.

    Are there any other explanations?

    The question can not be passed over lightly: 1,285,000,000 Catholics are entitled to certain and transparent answers: a press conference by Pope Benedict, for example, or a synod with public discussion between bishops and cardinals appointed before 2013.

    A clarification should not be delayed.
    Michael Pio, Carol55 and Mario like this.
  2. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    If this were truly the case, why would PE Benedict have gone on record as saying that Francis is the Pope?
    Jo M and AED like this.
  3. Mario

    Mario Powers

    The Vicar of Christ now reigns in a dual fashion: He is head of the Church in Rome(ministerium) and he holds the keys of Peter (munus). Somewhat differently, Peter held the munus and the ministerium, but the second was in what we now call Israel.

    Another way of saying it is:
    the Pope is head of government (Vatican City and the Church of Rome), but he is supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church (munus) which includes his teaching authority.

    The above claim is that in his resignation, Benedict renounced his governance (Bishop of Rome) without renouncing his teaching authority (munus).

    If the above were true then Francis would be Pope (he who is Bishop of Rome) while Benedict would be Pope (He who holds teaching authority).

    Safe in the Barque of Peter.
    Last edited: May 5, 2021
  4. thomas21

    thomas21 Angels

    Either way there are reasonable reasons to doubt until the cardinals publically judge the matter or Benedict holds a press conference. Failure to do so might result in a great schism, with some people being loyal to Benedict and some to Francis. Like end times prophecy hints at.

    If all goes well, and he is definitely not the pope, someone should tell him to change his clothes, stop calling himself Pope Emeritus, give up his papal ring and leave, because this is confusing.
    Clare A, Mary's child, BrianK and 2 others like this.
  5. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    wow, what is that prophecy again that the See of Peter would transfer to Fatima-Portugal or in Jerusalem?
  6. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    That would make it a bifurcated Papacy which is not canonical.
  7. DesertStar7

    DesertStar7 To Jesus + through Mary @-}--

    Does it matter?
  8. Christy1983

    Christy1983 Guest

    Hard to believe Benedict, a highly intelligent man and theologian, would not have realized the implications of any resignation vs. abdication--or that he would have arranged things so that Church authority would be split between two men.

    It's also hard to believe a Cardinal Burke, or a Cardinal Sarah, wouldn't have noticed the issue early on and issued a warning.

    This is just another sensational article, aimed at stirring the pot. (I find the use of Ratzinger and Bergoglio disrespectful, in context.)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2021
    Booklady, Jo M, HeavenlyHosts and 2 others like this.
  9. thomas21

    thomas21 Angels

    Yes. Because if Francis is not pope none of the things he has taught or promoted has the backing of God.
    Mary's child and FatimaPilgrim like this.
  10. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

    Which if BXVI honestly believed he WAS bifurcating the papacy, as Archbishop Ganswein has claimed, it would invalidate his resignation due to it being made in serious/grave error.

    This story is not going away. It has legs. Better to deal with it now than try to suppress it.
  11. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    Benedict Is Still The Pope?
  12. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    Michael Pio and FatimaPilgrim like this.
  13. FatimaPilgrim

    FatimaPilgrim Powers

    yeah, it matters
  14. FatimaPilgrim

    FatimaPilgrim Powers

    which is why we are being warned over and over to follow the true Magisterium
  15. Christy1983

    Christy1983 Guest

    Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the magisterium.

    “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (CCC 85)

    There is one magisterium in the Catholic Church.
    PurpleFlower, HeavenlyHosts and AED like this.
  16. thomas21

    thomas21 Angels

    Where's the contradiction? Obviously these alleged prophecies are talking about false teachings that people think come from the authority of Christ.
  17. Christy1983

    Christy1983 Guest

    The term True Magisterium seems to come from current, unapproved private revelations, particular those of Pedro Regis. It is obviously open to misuse and misunderstanding. It implies a False Magisterium co-exists within the Church. It undercuts the Catholic doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church.

    The indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church is the teaching that it will endure to the end of the world and never become corrupt in faith, authority, morals, or sacraments. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church will always be the proper representation of Christianity even though its members may err.
    • “In the process of testing such formulations, the Church has moved cautiously, but with confidence in the promise of Christ that it will persevere and be maintained in the truth (cf. Mt 16.18; Jn 16.13). This is what is meant by the indefectibility of the Church . . . “1
    • “The apostolic tradition in the Church cannot undergo any essential corruption because of the permanent assistance of the Holy Spirit which guarantees its indefectibility.”2
    As you can see, the Roman Catholic Church claims that it cannot be corrupted. Why? Because it claims to be the one true Church (CCC 2105) that was founded by Jesus (Lumen Gentium 8.1) and the apostles (CCC 857). It is necessary for salvation (CCC 846), has the authority to “reconcile sinners with the church” (CCC 1444), to represent Christ (1548), dispense indulgences (CCC 1471), absolve sins (CCC 553, 1495), instruct people in what they should do before God (CCC 2036), and perform exorcisms (CCC 1673). It possesses infallibility in the deposit of divine revelation, doctrine, and morals (CCC 2035). It is “guided by the apostles until Christ’s return” (CCC 857), and people are moved to believe the gospel through the Church (CCC 119). Only the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to interpret scripture (CCC 85, 100, 119) and administer sacraments (CCC 1598). It is the minister of redemption (CCC 1471) because only through it can full salvation come (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3). Its ordained ministers act in the authority of Christ (CCC 1548) but only when such authority is united with the Pope (CCC 883, 895) who has been “endowed with the authority of Christ” (CCC 2034) as has also its Magisterium (CCC 88) which is infallible (Lumen Gentium 18).
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2021
  18. thomas21

    thomas21 Angels

    That is true. The gates of hell will never overcome the Church founded on the successor of Peter.

    In the context of this thread, I would like to point out that the promise only applies to the Church in union with legitimate successor of Peter, which this article is disputing.

    I'm not saying the article is true, just that if you accept the premise under consideration there is no contradiction.
  19. Christy1983

    Christy1983 Guest

    Would God allow a situation in which the bishops of the world are united under a False Pope, or a Pope with only partial authority? Wouldn't that be the gates of hell prevailing?
    Mary's child likes this.
  20. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    There were other times in the history of the Church where there were two Popes. I think St Catherine of Siena’s time frame.
    Jason Fernando likes this.

Share This Page