Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He Is Still Pope (Antonio Socci Book Review)  (Read 2446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nottambula

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Reputation: +60/-53
  • Gender: Female
The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He Is Still Pope by Antonio Socci

Review by Giuseppe Pellegrino

For those who may feel discouraged by the present state of affairs in the Church, Antonio Socci has provided an Advent gift with his newly released Il segreto di Benedetto XVI. Perché è ancora papa (The Secret of Benedict XVI: Why He Is Still Pope) (Milano, 2018 ). Socci, a veteran Italian journalist who has already delved into the mystery behind the story of the secrets of Fatima with The Fourth Secret of Fatima and the subterfuge surrounding the 2013 conclave with Non è Francesco, again delivers a highly detailed investigation of a topic of extreme interest for the Church in the midst of the present unprecedented crisis, inviting his readers to a more deeply spiritual reflection on “the signs of the times.”

The most obvious “sign,” and the central focus of the book’s investigation, is the fact of the enduring presence of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the heart of the Vatican and the Church. Since his resignation on February 28, 2013, “Joseph Ratzinger has remained in the ‘enclosure of Peter’ [the Vatican], he still signs his name Benedict XVI, he calls himself ‘Pope Emeritus,’ he still uses the papal heraldic insignia and he continues to dress as pope” (p. 83). In contrast to past popes who resigned, Benedict has not chosen to leave the Vatican or to return to the state of a cardinal or bishop. Rather, he has done something unexpected (above and beyond the extraordinarily unexpected act of resignation), resigning without fully resigning, what Socci calls a “relative” resignation: “It is evident that, although he made a relative resignation of the papacy (but of what sort?), he has intended to remain as pope, although purely in an enigmatic way and unofficial form, which has not been explained (at least not until a certain [future] date)” (p. 82).

From the outset, it will be important to head off all the outcries of “Preposterous!” and “Absurd!” that seem to be greeting Socci’s work from many corners of the Church by clearly specifying what Socci is not saying. He is not saying “Benedict did not really resign”; he is not saying “Benedict was coerced into resigning, therefore it doesn’t count”; he is not saying “Francis is not really the pope.” Rather, he is saying that there is something unprecedented and mysterious going on in the Church in which the Holy Spirit is at work, something nobody yet fully understands, and which calls for silent reflection and prayer as a more effective response to the battle going on in the Church and the world than raised voices and critical judgment. The first one giving the example of such a prayerful response is Benedict XVI himself, who has freely chosen (perhaps directed to do so, Socci wonders, by God himself?) to respond to the crisis by offering himself in prayer and intercession for the Church and for the world.

The Origin of the Drama

In Part One of Il Segreto, “The Mystical, Economic, and Political Origin of the Drama,” Socci meticulously documents the facts of the present situation in the Church, in which he observes that, since 2005, there have de facto been two parties struggling for control: those favoring Ratzinger and those favoring Bergoglio. These two parties may be broadly defined as those favoring a revolution in the Church (the party of Bergoglio) and those who oppose such a revolution by calling for fidelity to the Tradition of the Church (the party of Ratzinger). Far from being limited to an intra-Church struggle, Socci observes that there is a movement of “neo-capitalist globalization that is ideologically anti-Catholic” seeking to dominate the entire world and that it is this anti-Catholic ideological movement that has actively worked to undermine the Church from within by seeking and obtaining the ascendance of Jorge Bergoglio to the papal throne. This “politically correct” ideology, says Socci, was imposed on the world at a new level under “the presidency of Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton,” seeking “the planetary dominance of the United States and of financial globalization,” and one of the greatest obstacles to this worldwide agenda was the pontificate of Benedict XVI (p. 20). Benedict, who had worked for decades as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith resisting the advance of Modernism within the Catholic Church, became as pope “a great sign of contradiction with respect to the mainstream, the media, and the designs of worldly powers who were aiming at a true and proper ‘normalization’ of the Catholic Church, by means of what they called an ‘opening to modernity,’ that is, a Protestantization, which would sweep away the fundamental connotations [of Catholicism]” (p. 22-23). Socci maintains that Benedict was aware of the enormity of this global and ecclesial struggle from the moment of his election, and he sought to help the Christian people become aware of it by placing these extraordinary and surprising words in the midst of his homily at his solemn enthronement as pope on April 24, 2005: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves” (p. 25).

Socci advances the thesis that these wolves were and are far more than hostile elements within the Church, but also include geopolitical elements seeking the political ascendance of Islam and also the marginalization of Russia. Benedict got in the way of both of these agendas because of his willingness to challenge Islam to embrace a dialogue based on reason that would cause it to renounce violence (recall his 2006 Regensburg speech) and also his ecumenical overtures to the Russian Orthodox Church. The “wolves” of globalization sought to stir up a revolution within the Church analogous to that of the “Arab spring” in the Muslim world. Just as the United States government actively sought regime change in other nations to advance its political agenda, so the Obama-Clinton alliance worked in coordination with financier George Soros to seek to “change the priorities of the Catholic Church.” Socci also documents other elements that sought the election of Bergoglio as pope, who upon his election as Pope Francis embraced an agenda fully in accord with the “politically correct” agenda of Obama-United Nations globalization: “catastrophic environmentalism (with pollution and global warming replacing the notions of sin and original sin), ideological immigrationism (replacing the new commandment), the embrace of Islam and pro-Protestant ecumenism, the obscurance of doctrine and attacking the sacraments, the abandonment of non-negotiable principles, and a ‘merciful’ opening to new sexual practices and new forms of ‘marital’ union” (p. 75). It would be difficult to find a more succinct summary and explanation of the agenda of the Francis pontificate than this list given by Socci, complete with geopolitical context.

The Mystery and Paradox of the “Pope Emeritus”

Part Two of Il Segreto is called “That Which Is Not Understood: Benedict Is Pope Forever.” Socci introduces the section with a quotation from the Italian author Gianni Baget Bozzo’s 2001 book L’Anticristo: “The history of the Church is full of states of exception,” along with a quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Ephesians, which Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI used in his preface to Cardinal Robert Sarah’s 2017 book The Power of Silence: “It is better to remain in silence and be, than to speak and not be.” It is evident that Socci finds these words corresponding, respectively, to Benedict and Francis.

Socci analyzes Benedict’s statements in February 2013 prior to his resignation and notes that Benedict clearly “with full liberty” intended that there would be “a conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff,” and yet, at the same time, he declared, “I want to serve the Holy Church of God with all my heart, with a life dedicated to prayer” (p. 90-91). He further specified on February 27, 2013, that his “yes” in accepting his election as pope was and is irrevocable: “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ – 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.” Benedict also declared: “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty” (p. 104). What is this novelty? According to the canonist Stefano Violi, whom Socci cites, it is “the limited resignation of the active exercise of the munus” of the Roman pontiff (p. 108.) This entirely new action by Benedict – which makes his pontificate, in the controversial words of Archbishop Georg Gänswein, a “pontificate of exception” – was necessitated by the emergence of an entirely new situation in the life of the Church. The present crisis – unprecedented in all of Church history – has called for an unprecedented response. Benedict’s “choice to become ‘pope emeritus’ represents something enormous and contains a ‘secret’ of colossal importance for the Church” (p. 111). There is clearly, in Socci’s analysis, something that Pope Benedict is holding back and not saying, “a true and personal call from God,” “a mystery which he guards” of which at the present time he can say no more (p. 131). Socci proposes that this “secret of Benedict XVI” is “exquisitely spiritual,” rooted in wisdom “according to God” which the present world – and also the present Church – cannot understand.

Socci observes the many ways that Benedict’s present life as pope emeritus is bearing great fruit for the Church during the “Bergoglian epoch.” First and foremost are the rich texts of his papal Magisterium, which remain a guiding light for the Church because they are in union with the unbroken Tradition of the perennial Magisterium. There is also his unceasing prayer for the Church, offered within the “enclosure of Peter.” But Socci further avers that the restrained silence of the pope emeritus has done far more to prevent the Bergoglian Revolution from doing all that it would like to than most people yet realize. Socci likens Benedict to the figure of Christ silent before Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, saying “the same precious silence has thus far averted the most serious doctrinal splits” from taking place within the Church, because as long as Benedict is alive, the Bergoglian revolutionaries know that one word of condemnation from the pope emeritus could delegitimize Francis in the eyes of much of the Church (p. 152). Benedict has chosen not to abandon the flock to the wolves, but rather to resist the wolves with the logic of the Gospel, with “the weakness of God” that is “stronger than human strength” (1 Cor. 1:25), aware that this is a historical moment when, as he observed at Fatima in 2010, “the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from her external enemies, but is born from sin within the Church” (p. 166).

The Connection to Fatima

Socci concludes his work with Part Three, entitled “Fatima and the Last Pope.” He draws on his prior extensive study of the message of Fatima, seeing it as a key to understanding the present moment in the Church, and reminding his readers that the message of Fatima emphasized the strong link between the intercession of the Mother of God and the protection of the pope. At the center of the vision of Fatima, there are two persons: “the ‘bishop dressed in white’ and an old pope,” and Socci ponders whether perhaps this vision could refer to the present situation, noting that on May 21, 2017, while visiting Fatima, Pope Francis called himself “the bishop dressed in white.” Socci sees in Benedict a figure similar to the pope in the children’s vision: “half tremulous, with faltering steps, afflicted with pain and sorrow, crossing a large, half-ruined city” (p. 182). Socci undertakes a detailed examination of overlooked words of the children of Fatima, stating that the Blessed Virgin told them that if humanity did not do penance and convert, what would happen was “the end of the world” (p. 195). Sister Lucia declared in an interview in 1957 that “Russia will be the instrument chosen by God to punish the whole world, if we do not first obtain the conversion of that wretched nation” (p. 198 ). Implicit in Socci’s analysis and reflection is the sense that the outcome of the present crisis is of the utmost importance for the fate not only of the entire Church, but also of the entire world.

Socci’s final observation is that the medieval “Prophecy of Malachy,” which proposed to give a mysterious title to each future pope, ends with Benedict XVI. After this pope, it mysteriously says that there follows “the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church” and the figure of “Peter the Roman.” When asked in 2016 whether this prophecy could mean he is “the last one to represent the figure of the pope as we have known him up until now,” Benedict mysteriously replied, “Tutto può essere [Everything can be].” Further asked if this means he would be seen as the last pope of the old world or the first pope of the new world, Benedict replied, “I would say both. I do not belong anymore to the old world, but the new one in reality has not yet begun” (p. 213). Socci understands these astonishing comments to mean that both the world and the Church are on the cusp of epochal upheavals, inviting his readers to further reflection on the various prophecies in Scripture of the destruction of the Temple and on paragraphs 675-677 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the final trial of the Church.

Socci writes with an engaging and dramatic style, inviting the reader to understand that something far greater than has yet been understood is at work in the life of the Church and in human history. He offers a thoughtful proposal and an invitation to pray and reflect and ponder, not certainty or legal explanations. This book, with its meticulous journalistic analysis and spiritual reflection, offers hope to a discouraged Church and an invitation to prayerfully believe that perhaps more good is at work in a hidden way than the obvious evil that currently is so active within the Church and on the global stage.

Socci offers his work as a gift of love for the Church, broken and battered, to reflect upon and ponder. “It is not power which redeems,” said Pope Benedict in his inaugural address, “but love.” It is this same love that Socci says Benedict is daily offering to the Church by his unprecedented and heroic, albeit widely misunderstood witness: “He is the great sentinel of God of our time, and it is he who has raised a great wall of defense for all of us in the time of the mysterium iniquitatis” (p. 189). May this book inspire many to pray ever more incessantly and fervently for and with our Holy Father emeritus, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

https://onepeterfive.com/in-new-book-antonio-socci-speculates-on-the-secret-of-benedict-xvi/
"I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

Offline trad123

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1087
  • Reputation: +170/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!4
  • Trading one heretic for another, what's the point?
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.


    Offline Prayerful

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 430
    • Reputation: +153/-24
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trading one heretic for another, what's the point?
    Things like Jews not needing conversion or parts of the Gospel, particularly parts in Matthew related to the trial of Our Saviour lacking authenticity, do certainly suggest that Ratzinger is deeply prone to holding expressing erroneous positions condemned before the age of doubt. Not being as bad as Bergoglio isn't good enough. Jews not needing conversion or selectively denying parts of the Gospels suggest a man of V2, not a strongly Catholic spirit.

    Offline Quid Retribuam Domino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 487
    • Reputation: +248/-354
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ratzo is complicit in the lie and coverup of the false 2000 "3rd Secret" revealed to the public by anti-pope Karol Wojtyla.
    From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

    International Women's Day is a day we all celebrate Eve's rebellion at the Tree and our plummet into sin.

    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Fr. David R. Belland - April 9, 2017

    "The new psychology so prominent today seems to have been unwittingly absorbed by society today, even by traditional Catholics. The idea of conversion appears to be totally abandoned. the avant-garde AA has been one of the culprits convincing the poor alcoholics that they have a "sickness" that can't be cured and by means of transferring dependency on the bottle to dependency on the group actually keeps them "sick". But practically for all modern psychology there is no sin (indeed no such thing as a soul even), only sickness, and that as long as sin (of which a large portion of all the psychosis and neurosis being but the symptoms) is not treated properly, that field is perpetuating the "sickness" and the "patient" rather the penitent keeps coming back to increase the psychologist's or psychiatrist's bank account--the poor patient comes to believe he can't be cured.


    And so goes society. Hence, Benedict, because he was a liberal can't be cured; he's always going to be a liberal. But anyone who has a conscience, while not involved with the B'ni B'rith (Cardinal Bea among others), Masons, Communism or some other secret society, cult, Lobby or Mafia, and is exposed to the 3rd Secret of Fatima IS going to be converted. Fr. Malachi Martin and Cardinal Luciani (the future Pope John Paul I) are just two examples of those who were directly acquainted with the 3rd Secret and converted; perhaps even John Paul II to a certain extent, for example, in his effort to consecrate Russia.

    I challenge anyone, therefore, to prove that his knowledge of the 3rd Secret of Fatima did not change Benedict. He freed up the Old Mass; had the humility to admit that it had never been forbidden; lifted the excommunications of the SSPX; changed the vernacular editions of the Consecration of the Chalice to the proper wording ("for you and for many") and many other things he would not have done back in the '60's and '70's; he went against the Party Line of Sodano and Bertone concerning the Fatima Message.

    Furthermore, no one can make the claim that they know more about what is going on in the Church than Benedict--indeed he has more first hand knowledge in his little finger than everyone in the streets or on the internet! I exaggerate a bit, of course, but he does know what is going on. And going around publicly proclaiming the past liberalism of Joseph Ratzinger is still present today, even by insinuation if not by direct accusation, is tantamount to calumny, if one cannot prove what he says--a most serious sin and a grave injustice, especially when one takes into consideration the honor due to Benedict.

    And only when one knows all the facts, all the circumstances and details of a situation can one make a proper decision concerning that situation. Lets face it, the work of the Devil HAS infiltrated the Church (Our Lady at Akita) and unless one understands how Satan works, and I mean has an in depth understanding of his tactics, he will never know how to handle the situation. And I can tell you that one man, even if he is Pope, will not be able to "clean up" the Church as it is today; it will have to be by a Divine intervention, such that there is a division within the Church so that the faithful Cardinals and Bishops can make the Consecration of Russia according to Our Lady's wishes--it's the only way. And under Francis, since it looks as if there is not going to be an effort to disinherit him, with all the Cardinals he's appointed it will be his modernist cohorts that will win any Papal election; the Consecration will NEVER be made under those circumstances! Let's face the FACTS.

    I think it is time we start divesting ourselves of the cultural psychological brainwashing we've been subjected to for the last 60 years.

    In the meantime we must be faithful to the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the last two remedies for us, as Sr. Lucia told Fr. Fuentes."
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4491
    • Reputation: +2102/-649
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!4
  •  :sleep:

    More apologetics for Bennie.  Wake me up when he condemns Vatican 2.
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17257
    • Reputation: +9590/-4144
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!4
  • :sleep:

    More apologetics for Bennie.  Wake me up when he condemns Vatican 2.

    Get back to me when he recants all the heresies he's professed.

    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I noticed that trad123, 2Vermont and Ladislaus each received a downvote for their "anti-Benedict" comments. For the record, they didn't come from me. But I find it interesting that someone (more than one?) went out of their way to downvote similarly made comments, yet offered no defense of why they did.

    I guess what I might be wondering is, do I mysteriously have someone on "my side"?   ;)
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson


    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  

    Veri Catholici‏ 
    Where Catholic Family News goes insane, by ignoring entirely canon 332 §2 and claiming a faux Conclave makes an invalid resignation valid, demands obedience to AntiPope

    ************

    Scroll through the rest of the Twitter thread here:

    https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1081482900195995649
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Veri Catholici‏ 



    The SSPX desire to be reconciled by Bergoglio, in turn necessitates that the SSPX herd all Catholics into their fold, support the validity of Bergoglio as pope (both in his election and in B16 resignation) and deny any recourse against Public Heretics & nix the PCED



    Veri Catholici 


    Accordingly orders have come down to Catholic Family News, Adelante del la Fede and One Peter Five. We await the other Trad organs to likewise comply. We at Veri Catholici denounce all this as a fraud and damnation to souls!

    https://twitter.com/VeriCatholici/status/1081567401152602113
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson

    Offline nottambula

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 156
    • Reputation: +60/-53
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/where-robert-de-mattei-is-wrong/


    Where Robert de Mattei is wrong
     

    byThe Editor

    This week, Catholic Family News, the traditional private Catholic Newspaper founded by the late John Vennari, publishes an article entitled, “Socci’s Thesis Falls Short: Review of the Secret of Benedict XVI“, an English translation of some article or talk, the Italian title of which they do not report on line. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino.

    The author, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, I have long admired, and have had the occasion to meet in person. His foundation, the Lepanto Foundation does much good work, and thus I bear him no animus. Nay, if the author of that article was someone unknown or not influential at Rome, I would probably have paid it no attention at all.

    Moreover, the purpose of this present article is not to defend Socci’s book.  Rather it is to address the grave errors contained in De Mattei’s article, which on account of his personal reputation are magnified in the minds of many, and thus represent a danger to souls.

    Here, then, I will discuss the errors briefly in the order they appear in that English translation by Signor Pellegrino.

    The first error of which is that De Mattei sustains that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid, because there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

    I will put aside the fact that several recent polls (not scientific) have shown that as much as 70% of Catholics reject Bergoglio as pope, because there is a more serious error to address, than disputing whether there is in fact a peaceful and universal acceptance of Bergoglio’s election.

    Signor De Mattei is learned enough to own a copy of the Code of Canon Law. So I humbly suggest he read Canon 359 and consider publicly withdrawing his assertion that a peaceful and universal acceptance of an apparent papal election establishes it to be held as valid by Catholics.  For, that canon reads in Latin:

    Can. 359 — Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur.

    When translated into English — here I give my own translation — that canon says:

    Canon 359 — When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals only enjoys that power in the Church, which is granted to it in particular law.

    This is the reference to the power of the College to elect the Pope.  So, according to Canon 359, when there is no pope, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a pope.

    Now, if the resignation of a pope is in doubt, then obviously, there is a doubt whether the Apostolic See is vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have doubtful authority. And when a resignation of a pope has not taken place, or a pope is not dead, the Apostolic See is not vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have NO power to elect another.

    So, it should be obvious then, that “the peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of a pope by a College of Cardinals” which HAS NO POWER to elect a pope, because the See is NOT vacant, DOES NOT MAKE THE ELECTION VALID.

    Second, De Mattei claims this principal regarding the acceptance of the election of a pope on the basis of commonly held opinion. But if he has studied Canon Law, he should know that Canon 17 does not permit common theological or canonical opinions to be interpretative guides to reading any canon, when the text of the canon expressly forbids an act to take place by denying the body which acts the power to act. For in such a case the mind of the Legislator takes precedence.

    Third, what is worse, De Mattei then cites the Vatican translation of Canon 332 §2, where he admits that it denies that a papal resignation is valid on the grounds that anyone accepts it (in its final condition)! How that squares with the theory of peaceful and universal acceptance is impossible to imagine, since it undermines the validity of its application to the case of a disputed resignation. It does so, because obviously a Conclave called during the life of a pope who has not resigned, is called either because that College knows he has not and does intend to elect an Anti-Pope, and then it does not matter who accepts him, his election is invalid; or in the case the College opines that a resignation is valid, and they proceed to act as if there is no pope. But as canon 332 §2 declares, that they think it is valid, does not make it valid. Therefore, even if they think it is valid, when it is not valid, they cannot appeal to Canon 332 §2 to claim the authority in Canon 359 to lawfully elect another. Rather, they must follow Canon 17 and apply it. And so, whether the subsequent election be accepted or not, in the case of elections which follow papal resignations, the principal cited by De Mattei is improperly cited at best because it pertains to another case.

    Finally, De Mattei is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest, when he says that Violi’s canonical study of Pope Benedict’s act of Feb 11, 2013 contributes to the confusion. Because that study, which is cited in the preface of the Disputed Question, published here in November, is a very scholarly well thought out and precise study without any animus or polemic, which gives great clarity to the canonical signification of that papal act. To say that it causes confusion therefore is not based on Violi’s work, but rather seemingly on a desire to advance his own opinion by insulting a scholar who shows greater knowledge of Canon Law than himself.

    As for Archbishop Ganswein’s discourse at the Gregorian University, at first glance it does seem to be confusing. But when you research, as Ann Barnhardt has done, what opinions regarding the mutability of the Papacy were being discussed at Tubingen, when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of Theology there, then you would rather say its revealing, not confusing at all.
    "I think that he [Pope Benedict] was pushed... he semi-resigned... he didn't completely resign, he semi-resigned... he made way for another pope to take his place... but he kept, nevertheless, the white habit, he kept various things of the Papacy." - Bishop Williamson


    Offline ggreg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3002
    • Reputation: +168/-173
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Benedict resigned.  When it was questioned whether he did this of his own free will he confirmed he did and that speculation about it was silly.

    What better evidence can you have than the man's own testimony?

    If he resigns, then he is not the Pope.  A new conclave was called which was ever bit as canonically proper as B16's.



    For years, Trads refused to believe JP2 was a right baddun and used to say he was "a prisoner in the Vatican".  I remember the early 1980s and people in the tea room defending JP2 until they couldn't do it anymore.  What used to be the standard Trad excuse, in the wishful hope that JP2 was really a good Pope trapped by an evil bureaucracy turned into the realistic observation that he was a heretic and as bad as any of them.

    Having been though YEARS AND YEARS of observing wishful thinking I am tend to apply Occam's Razor wherever I can.  It is nearly ALWAYS correct.

    No doubt....no benefit of the doubt.

    Offline Quid Retribuam Domino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 487
    • Reputation: +248/-354
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Benedict resigned.  When it was questioned whether he did this of his own free will he confirmed he did and that speculation about it was silly.

    What better evidence can you have than the man's own testimony?

    If he resigns, then he is not the Pope.  A new conclave was called which was ever bit as canonically proper as B16's.

    Start at 6:54. According to this analysis, Benedict XVI's resignation isn't legal, and it's not because he was under duress as a main reason. I'm not saying Benedict XVI is a real pope (there's been anti-popes since John XXIII all the way up to Frank), but for argument sake, if Benedict XVI is a legitimate Pontiff, then he's still the pope and his "resignation" is null and void as detailed in the video, and, again, it's not because the main reason was he was under duress.

    From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

    International Women's Day is a day we all celebrate Eve's rebellion at the Tree and our plummet into sin.

    Offline ggreg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3002
    • Reputation: +168/-173
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear Brothers,
    I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
    Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.  And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
    From the Vatican, 10 February 2013


    For 40 years Trads have complained about ambigous documents from the Vatican.

    Finally, Ratzinger says and then reconfirms for clarity, something that even a 12 year old could read and understand, and we look for hidden meaning because we don't like the next Pope?

    Answer this question and please TRY be honest.  If a more conservative Cardinal had been elected and was restoring Tradition would a single traditionalist in the world question the validity of Ratzinger's resignation? Would they?

    If a liberal made the same arguments that the new conservative Pope Pius XIII was not really Pope, would a single Traditionalist give it the time of day?

    Offline Quid Retribuam Domino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 487
    • Reputation: +248/-354
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For 40 years Trads have complained about ambigous documents from the Vatican.

    Finally, Ratzinger says and then reconfirms for clarity, something that even a 12 year old could read and understand, and we look for hidden meaning because we don't like the next Pope?

    Answer this question and please TRY be honest.  If a more conservative Cardinal had been elected and was restoring Tradition would a single traditionalist in the world question the validity of Ratzinger's resignation? Would they?

    If a liberal made the same arguments that the new conservative Pope Pius XIII was not really Pope, would a single Traditionalist give it the time of day?

    I don't have a dog in the fight. Both Ratzo and Bergo are anti-popes. In fact, Ratzo was more dangerous because he convinced so many people that he was a "conservative Catholic". Conversely, Bergo's flagrant liberalism, worldliness, heresies/apostasy in casual speech to others, and hostility to Catholicism, has awakened Novus Ordoites to jump ship from the counterfeit church to real Holy Tradition.
    From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

    International Women's Day is a day we all celebrate Eve's rebellion at the Tree and our plummet into sin.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16