Non-resignationist: Benedict Still Modernist
Feb 28, 2020 14:40:08 GMT
Post by Admin on Feb 28, 2020 14:40:08 GMT
A few words that give some context and clarity regarding the stance of the author of the article below, Mr. Louis Verrechio.
Mr. Verrechio, in another recent article, noted that he believes Benedict was forced to resign and therefore he is still the Pope (i.e. a non-resignationist, a benevacantist, etc. are a few of the names assigned to the holders of the opinion that Pope Benedict's resignation was in some way invalid).
For the majority of Catholics, it is very difficult to think that Pope Emeritus Benedict was forced to resign when in his resignation stated that he resigned of his own free will ("with full freedom") and in the last seven years since that resignation he has applauded and praised the Pontificate of his successor, Pope Francis.
One also finds it interesting that Mr. Verrechio, as do most (all?) non-resignationsists, declares Pope Francis to be a heretic - which shows it's very close relationship to sedevacantism.
With more integrity than many, Mr. Verrechio acknowledges that the non-resignationists are a "small but vocal minority." He goes on to summarize the highly probable demise of this 'opinion':
Benedict is going to die, folks, in all likelihood before Bergoglio, perhaps even well before.
Then what?
Those presently taking the position that the resignation was invalid, for whatever reason, thus making conclave 2013 a total farce, will only find themselves further dismissed, and unfairly so, as a mere lunatic fringe. [Emphasis mine.]
Then what?
Those presently taking the position that the resignation was invalid, for whatever reason, thus making conclave 2013 a total farce, will only find themselves further dismissed, and unfairly so, as a mere lunatic fringe. [Emphasis mine.]
In fact, Mr. Verrechio's advice after this acknowledgment of this theory's eventual dismissal confirms exactly what most who oppose this (non-resignationist) opinion have strongly suspected - that it ends in sedevacantism:
If for no other reasons, this is the case due to the nature of the resignation debate itself and the inaccessibility of certain crucial details, not to mention the fact that very few individuals possess intimate knowledge of either canon law or Latin.
On the other hand, focusing on Bergoglio’s heresies and blasphemies promises to garner far more attention and bear much greater fruit, both immediately and in the long run. Why? Because while mystery and disagreement surround much of the resignation debate, there is room for neither mystery nor disagreement when it comes to the one true faith. [Emphasis mine.]
On the other hand, focusing on Bergoglio’s heresies and blasphemies promises to garner far more attention and bear much greater fruit, both immediately and in the long run. Why? Because while mystery and disagreement surround much of the resignation debate, there is room for neither mystery nor disagreement when it comes to the one true faith. [Emphasis mine.]
Knowing that Mr. Verrechio is a non-resignationist, his comments [below] are refreshing in the context that most non-resignationists willfully ignore Benedict's role, influence, and adherence to Vatican II, as Archbishop Lefebrve has noted.
The following article highlights the most recent example of how Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, despite the protestations and hopes of some to the contrary, is not the traditionalist some attempt to label him as, but he was and continues to be a modernist through and through.
* * *
Benedict Still Clinging to Hermeneutic of Continuity
I was recently asked to comment on the theory that Benedict XVI, in these latter years of his life, has come to see the errs of his former, all-too-modernist, ways and is taking a turn in the direction of authentic tradition.
Where is the evidence for such a proposal? As far as I can tell, there simply isn’t any. In fact, as his face-to-face meeting with Christ the King draws ever nearer, all indications are that he is doubling down on his allegiance to the Council that effectively “dethroned” Him.
On January 15, the book co-authored by Benedict and Cardinal Sarah in defense of priestly celibacy (From the Depths of Our Hearts), the same that created such a stir in conciliar Rome over the past two weeks, was published.
The Society of St. Pius X, to its great credit, wasted no time in publishing a thorough, well written, review of Benedict’s contribution to the text.
According to the review (the writer of which is unnamed), Benedict wrote that he felt it necessary to “present the priest of the New Testament as one who meditates on the Word, and not as an artisan of worship.”
Make no mistake, when Ratzinger speaks of “an artisan of worship,” there is no other way for a Catholic to receive such a comment; he is referring to the most profound worship that mankind can possibly render to God, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, an action that is absolutely central to who the priest is in the very depths of his being.
Now, where would Benedict ever get the idea that the priest should principally be presented as one who “meditates on the Word” as opposed to (“and not as”) him who offers the true Sacrifice of the Cross, with the implication being that doing so represents a return to sources [hint, hint] in this case, the New Testament?
Well, from the Almighty Council, of course!
Since no one can be saved who does not first believe, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all. (Decree on the Life and Ministry of Priests of Vatican II, Art. 4)
This is just one example of how BXVI’s latest essay reveals his stubborn adherence to the utterly false and failed “hermeneutic of continuity” approach to Vatican Council II.
And where does such intransigence lead? The SSPX reviewer informs us:
The Pope-emeritus writes: “The crucifixion of Jesus is not in itself an act of worship.” The reason he gives is absurd: “The Roman soldiers who executed him are not priests. They carried out an execution; they absolutely did not think they were carrying out an act relating to worship.”
We are talking about a counterfeit version of the Church, and not the Catholic Church. It does not teach any longer the Catholic faith. It teaches something else … It is no longer the Catholic Church. (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference given in Écône, June 21, 1978)
After describing the worship aspect of the Last Supper and denying that of the Cross, he writes: “In all this, there is never a direct question of the priesthood.”
Once again it goes against the holy Council of Trent which affirms (canon 2): “If anyone says that by these words: ‘Do this for a commemoration of me’ (Lk. 22:19; I Cor 11:24), Christ did not make the apostle priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own Body and Blood: let him be anathema” (Dz. 949).