Questioning Benedict XVI's Resignation? Habemus Papam

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Questioning Benedict XVI's Resignation? Habemus Papam Dec 14, 2019 16:09:26 GMT

Post by Admin on Dec 14, 2019 16:09:26 GMT

This video, published December 11, 2018, speaks to the opinion that despite his resignation in 2013, Benedict is still the Pope.

* * *

The following in an excerpt from a document published by Catholic Candle, "Against Sedevacantism":

The Man Whom the Whole Church Accepts as Pope, Is the Pope

Because the pope must be visible, a necessary corollary of this truth is that whoever is accepted as the pope by virtually all Catholics, we know must be the pope by that very fact, since the pope must be visible to the Church as the pope. This is true because, if virtually all Catholics accepted the legitimacy of an anti-pope, then the true pope would be “invisible”, i.e., unknown to the Church. Thus, because the pope must be visible to all, whoever is accepted as pope by virtually all Catholics, we know must be the pope.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explained this truth as follows:

It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud. It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff. Verità della Fede Part 3, Ch.8, §9, emphasis added.¹

When teaching this same truth, Cardinal Louis Billot identified the cause of this truth, viz., the indefectibility of the Church:

Beyond all doubt, it ought to be firmly held, that the adhesion of the universal Church would, in itself, always be an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a particular pope, and even for the existence of all conditions which are required for his legitimacy as pope. Nor does it take long to identify the reason for this fact. For the reason is taken directly from the infallible promise of Christ and from Providence: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against Her [the Church]". And again: "Behold, I am with you all days", which is equivalent. Cardinal Billot, Tractus De Ecclesia Christi, Book 1, Q.14, De Romano Pontifice, Thesis 29, §3; emphasis added.

When discussing the invalidity of simoniacal elections to the papacy, Bishop Kenrick teaches that the Church’s acceptance of a pope cures any defect in his election but that the pope nonetheless has a moral duty to resign:

Should the contemplated case unfortunately occur, the guilty individual must know that he cannot conscientiously exercise the papal power. . . . [T]he acquiescence of the Church heals the defect as far as the faithful are concerned, although it does not relieve the delinquent from the necessity of abdicating the high office which he sacrilegiously assumed. Bishop Francis Kenrick, The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated 3rd Ed., 1848, Dunigan & Bro., New York, pp. 287-8.

There are Five Consequences of the Fact that Whoever the Whole Church Accepts as Pope, is the Pope.

1. Pope Francis is the pope now.

More than 1.2 billion people worldwide, profess to be Catholic.

Virtually all 1.2 billion Catholics accept Pope Francis as pope. Thus, we know that Pope Francis is the pope currently.

2. Pope Benedict XVI is no longer pope.

The fact that Catholics universally accept Pope Francis as pope, is one of many reasons why it is wrong to suppose that Pope Benedict XVI did not “really” resign, and is still pope (instead of Pope Francis). Virtually the whole Church accepts Pope Francis as pope, and the whole Church could never accept an anti-pope.

3. Each of the other post-conciliar popes was pope, in his turn.

Over the last 57 years, the whole Church accepted each of the other post-conciliar popes, as pope, in his turn. Thus, we know each was the pope.

4. This is a further reason we know Cardinal Siri was not pope.

It is clear that Cardinal Siri was not pope (as a tiny group supposes). Not only was his supposed “pontificate” invisible, but it would have opposed the pontificate of the pope universally accepted by Catholics.

5. This further shows the impossibility of the Church being now in a papal interregnum.
The Church accepts Pope Francis as pope and accepted each of his post-conciliar predecessors. This is one of many compelling reasons why we know the Church is not in a papal interregnum because, when the Church accepted each post-conciliar pope in his turn, each one became the true pope (if he wasn’t pope already). St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Verità della Fede Part 3, Ch.8, §9.

1. This entire work of St. Alphonsus is available in an online library, for free, in Italian. Here is the original Italian version, of the sentences quoted above: "Niente ancora importa che ne’ secoli passati alcun pontefice sia stato illegittimamente eletto, o fraudolentemente siasi intruso nel pontificato; basta che poi sia stato accettato da tutta la chiesa come papa, attesoché per tale accettazione già si è renduto legittimo e vero pontefice."

Last Edit: Dec 14, 2019 16:09:47 GMT by Admin

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Questioning Benedict XVI's Resignation? Habemus Papam Jan 9, 2020 13:04:44 GMT

Post by Admin on Jan 9, 2020 13:04:44 GMT

Fr. Hewko has recently spoken against the "Resignationist" opinion in this January 3, 2020 sermon. This opinion postulates that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation from the Papacy was not valid and therefore he is still the reigning pontiff:

A few things to consider, in no particular order and in no way comprehensive:

Pope Emeritus Benedict has recognized Pope Francis as Pope and in 2016 made the following statements in an interview:

Benedict stated, "I approve, definitely [of Pope Francis' "style"];Pope Benedict sees no "break" in Pope Francis' Pontificate with that of his own; and when asked if he [Benedict] was "content" after the first three years of Pope Francis' Pontificate, Benedict replied, " Yes. There is a new freshness in the Church, a new joyfulness, a new charisma which speaks to people, and that is certainly something beautiful."

The Freemasons have applauded Pope Benedict's resignation: "The revolutionary act of Benedict XVI, the abdicating Pope, in renouncing the throne, makes [the Pope] a bishop among bishops and fulfills that collegial spirit that had strongly permeated Vatican II..."

The Resignationist focus on the Latin term "munus" that is supposed to be essential but is lacking in Benedict's form of his resignation may be irrelevant since Latin dictionaries give it multiple meanings. Indeed, Michael Davies, in his book The Order of Melchisedech cites an expert on this very word, decades before it was an issue in Benedict's resignation:
The form for the ordination to the priesthood was changed by I.C.E.L. in 1975, and approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1976. The Newsletter did not specify whether Catholic bishops in any other country had been given the opportunity of approving the new translation. It reads:
Almighty Father, grant to these servants of Yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew within them the Spirit of holiness. As coworkers with the Order of bishops may they be faithful to the ministry that they receive from You, Lord God, and be to others a model of right conduct.
... I asked Professor van der Ploeg for his opinion on this translation and he commented that the phrase in question, secundi meriti munus, is not an easy one to render accurately in English; in themselves the words have a certain vagueness and could be interpreted in a number of ways. The word munus alone can be translated as (1) office, duty, task, work; (2) military service; (3) ministry, favour, grace; (4) gift. [Emphasis mine.]

The most recognized proponent of this opinion in traditional circles is Fr. Paul Kramer, who has recently written a book, To Deceive the Elect, numbering over six hundred pages, which advocates the Resignationist opinion among other topics. Fr. Kramer has previously made a sedevacantist declaration on November of 2013, a few months after the election of Pope Francis, that Francis was not the pope due to heresy. Screenshots of Fr. Kramer's Facebook page announcing this opinion can be seen here. Here is a transcript of Fr. Kramer's words in November of 2013:
“Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. ... The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. [Emphasis mine.]
I will say nothing here of the accusations of heresy that have been leveled at all the Conciliar popes, not the least of whom is Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI - why Pope Francis is singled out is a mystery. The sedevacantists who posted Fr. Kramer's words on their site, applaud this statement of Fr. Kramer's and heartily commend him for this "gigantic step in the right direction":
While, of course, Kramer still believes the Vatican II Church to be the true Church and Francis’ five predecessors of unhappy memory to have been true and valid Popes, nevertheless this is a gigantic step in the right direction. We commend the Rev. Kramer for taking this (emotionally difficult) step of finally recognizing the undeniable: Jorge Bergoglio cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church! Let’s finally be done with all the excuse-making and willful blindness; these matters are serious! [Emphasis mine.]
Again, one finds it interesting (or suspect?) that Pope Francis is singled out for such attention while the other Conciliar popes are given a free pass. As an aside, it was a few weeks later I believe that Fr. Kramer (?retracted) changed the above declaration in favor of declaring Benedict still the reigning pope. It was very sad to see Fr. Kramer stoop to frequently using bitter and insulting language against anyone who questioned or disagreed with him on another forum where he himself debated and defended his stance in the last several weeks to months.

The advocates of the Resignationst opinion claim that Pope Emeritus Benedict still retains papal infallibility and papal jurisdiction. Yet a relatively simple response to this is that Benedict has not invoked these supposedly retained powers in the six, now nearly seven years since his resignation. He acts as if he truly did resign. In other words, his actions match his words.

I know of a few people who are sympathetic to this opinion. I asked them once, "Benedict is 92. What would happen to this opinion if Benedict was called by God today to his judgement?" The answer was, "I don't know."

One of the more aggressive proponents of this theory, aside from Fr. Kramer, Ann Barndhart, and a few others, is a certain Br. Alexis Bugnolo. He is, I believe, a Franciscan friar of private vows, a supposed hermit who lives in Rome, and who has multiple websites and initiatives. It appears that perhaps his particular motivation for advocating the Resignationist opinion may be that he perceives Benedict as a living saint. On one of his websites, he published a "Benedictine Appeal." For a certain monetary donation, Br. Bugnolo offers as a gift, a portrait of Benedict XVI:

- To promote investment in our defense and security initiative, Ordo Militaris Inc., the Order is offering as a free gift, the unique collectible of a printed canvass work of art as a Memento of a most memorable Pontificate, to all who purchase at least 1 share of the common stock of Ordo Militaris Inc..

- This art work was commissioned by Ordo Militaris Inc. to commemorate the pontificate which defended liturgical tradition in an extraordinary way. It is an original work of art which stylizes this great man in a uniquely creative manner, which is near life like.

- The Latin Inscriptions on the image recall its most famous moments: Summorum Pontificum, when the ancient liturgy’s validity was declared perpetually valid; Non solum propter, when the Pope abdicated. The Latin above and below the central image proclaims: We will not forget you! [Emphasis mine.]
This doesn't give the impression that the reason for Br. Bugnolo's Resignationist opinion is because of a love for the 1983 Code of Canon Law [which by the way enshrines and codifies Vatican II into Conciliar law] that is always invoked in claiming the invalidity of Benedict's resignation. It gives the appearance of being more an emotional response. It speaks loudly of an Indult-mentality, 'just give me my Latin Mass and all is good.' The above quoted effusions of praise and admiration don't give the impression that Br. Bugnolo has a deep love of Tradition. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is well known in traditional circles for coming close to or even expressing heresy. See here, here, here, here, and here, for just a few instances where we see a definite break with Tradition from Joseph Ratzinger, as priest and peritus at Vatican II, as Cardinal, and as Pope.

The Resignationist opinion really does appear an "absurd" response, as Fr. Hewko called it, to the dark days we are in.

Let us continue to beg and implore Our Lady for Her guidance and Her assistance. This sweet Mother, who is also known as the Hammer of Heretics, has promised that the triumph will be Hers, through Her Immaculate Heart.

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.

Last Edit: Jan 9, 2020 17:35:20 GMT by Admin

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Questioning Benedict XVI's Resignation? Habemus Papam Jan 9, 2020 17:54:46 GMT

Post by Admin on Jan 9, 2020 17:54:46 GMT

Speaking of absurd responses, the above mentioned Br. Alexis Bugnolo has come up with five step plan for removing Pope Francis and re-installing Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI back onto the papal throne. Without further ado:

How to remove Bergoglio

Anthony Hopkins stars as a priest, performing an exorcism, in a scene from the 2010 movie “The Rite.”

From Rome |Sep 17
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.

First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:

As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus. Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter. I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.

Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.org for more information.)

Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.

Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.

Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor. [All emphasis in the original.]

I have zero inclination to analyze this ridiculousness in any great detail. Suffice it to say, the whole crux of this argument is based on the New Code of Canon Law, "established by Pope John Paul II." That should speak volumes!

And if I may be so bold to offer the following three comments:

step number five should, by any normal line of reasoning, be offered as step number one;

step number four presents a rather comical image in one's head;

step number 2 is superfluous and downright dangerous because the laity have no authority to decide such an important matter; this is revolutionary, it is reminiscent of the evils of the French Revolution because it promotes the idea of Equality, that the laity have just as much authority as the Church's Magisterium to make such judgements and pronouncements, not to mention being in opposition to the hierarchical order of authority established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

This 'blueprint' is madness disguised as piety.

Last Edit: Jan 9, 2020 17:55:46 GMT by Admin

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Questioning Benedict XVI's Resignation? Habemus Papam Jan 13, 2020 15:19:40 GMT

Post by Admin on Jan 13, 2020 15:19:40 GMT

Benedict XVI affirms validity of his resignation [and the pontificate of Pope Francis]

Vatican City, Feb 26, 2014 / 03:47 am (CNA).- Today the Italian newspaper La Stampa has published excerpts of a letter from Benedict XVI, who wrote to affirm the existence of only one Pope, Francis.

“There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry,” wrote Benedict XVI in a letter published on Feb. 26.

His letter was a response to La Stampa’s inquiries regarding “various interpretations that have been circulating in the press and on the web regarding his gesture,” the article noted. Some have questioned whether or not Benedict XVI’s resignation was valid, a speculation the retired Pontiff roundly rejected.

“The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd,” he wrote.

The article’s author, Vatican expert Andrea Tornielli, described Benedict XVI’s words as “brief and to the point.” ...

According to today’s article, the Italian newspaper had also queried Benedict XVI about a letter he had written to Swiss theologian Hans Kung regarding Pope Francis.

Kung had quoted a passage of Benedict XVI’s letter as reading, “I'm grateful to be bound by a great identity of views and a heartfelt friendship with Pope Francis. Today, I see my last and final job to support his pontificate with prayer.”

Benedict XVI responded to La Stampa’s question about the accuracy of such a quote by writing, “Professor Kung quoted the content of my letter to him word-for-word and correctly.”

The retired Pontiff concluded by expressing that he hoped he had answered La Stampa’s questions in a “clear and adequate way.”

[Emphasis mine.]