Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Benedict's statement from May 2021  (Read 1163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Merry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
  • Reputation: +407/-99
  • Gender: Female
Benedict's statement from May 2021
« on: July 15, 2022, 08:16:38 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

  • From May 2021 - (the article also happens to mention St. Henry II, whose Feast Day is today) - this article was sent to me today:

    https://www.fromrome.info/2021/05/04/pope-benedict-xvi-i-have-not-abdicated/








    NEWS

    BREAKING: POPE BENEDICT XVI: “I HAVE NOT ABDICATED”!

    MAY 4, 2021 EDITOR 50 COMMENTS

    In today’s Libero:

    AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY FROMROME.INFO
    Cliccare l’immagine per il testo originale italiano.
    For the Portuguese translation, click here.
    For the French translation, click here.
    For the Spanish Translation in PDF, click here.
    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 docuмented 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 nαzιs. 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 Pontificuм), 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.


    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4719/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Benedict's statement from May 2021
    « Reply #1 on: July 15, 2022, 09:11:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 Pontificuм), to live in the Vatican and mysteriously enjoy other papal prerogatives.
    For the sake of argument, if Benedict XVI were in fact the true Pope, the statement bolded above is anathematized and, therefore, heretical, according to Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 3.9:

    Quote
    So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
    let him be anathema.

    Yet, Benedict XVI, being a manifest heretic prior to his "election" as "Pope", is not a valid Pope regardless.
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9640
    • Reputation: +9359/-1016
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Benedict's statement from May 2021
    « Reply #2 on: July 15, 2022, 10:01:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • This is more proof that Francis meets the classical definition of an anti-pope.
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48418
    • Reputation: +28583/-5349
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Benedict's statement from May 2021
    « Reply #3 on: July 16, 2022, 10:53:49 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • This is more proof that Francis meets the classical definition of an anti-pope.

    Well, he re-defines Antipope and takes the term to a new level.  All prior Antipopes (the "classical" ones) were at least Catholics and did not want to become Pope in order to destroy the Church ... but just for selfish reasons (money, power, ego, etc.).

    This is more akin to an Arian having somehow been elected pope during the Arian crisis.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48418
    • Reputation: +28583/-5349
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Benedict's statement from May 2021
    « Reply #4 on: July 16, 2022, 11:10:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For the sake of argument, if Benedict XVI were in fact the true Pope, the statement bolded above is anathematized and, therefore, heretical, according to Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 3.9:
    ...
    Yet, Benedict XVI, being a manifest heretic prior to his "election" as "Pope", is not a valid Pope regardless.

    With regard to your first point, the poster did say that he was devoid of "practical" power ... but most likely (according to the Bennyvacantists) simply by his own choice, but would not deny him the prerogative to exercise the full power of the papacy if he chose to do so.  There have been popes who did nothing papal their entire time in office, but simply spent their time on various pleasures and mistresses, etc.

    As for the second statement, that's a major problem with Bennyvacatism.  I believe that the position was developed as an answer to the "problem of Bergoglio".  But the problem of Bergoglio is the problem with all the V2 papal claimants since Roncalli, and is not "solved" by Bennyvacantism.  This notion that Ratzinger was somehow this staunch Traditionalist is an absurd mischaracterization.  And this image or public persona of "God's Rotweiller" was fabricated out of nowhere precisely in order to fool Traditional Catholics.  Similarly, the characterization of Wojtyla as a staunch conservative on moral issues (he definitely held the Catholic lines on those) was to create the impression that Wojtyla was some great, saintly, orthodox pope ... so that people would imbibe the errors of his religious indifferentism.  Wojtyla was the greatest promoter of religious indifferentism in history and makes the Pachamama episode look like childsplay.  But people fell for the schtick that he's some great conservative (because he reaffirmed Church teaching on various moral issues and the priesthood being for men only).  Of course, while Wojtyla TALKED a good game about abortion and other moral evils, he did absolutely nothing about them, but just sat back and allowed the destruction of morals to go on under his watch.  It's the same game Bergoglio plays.  Every once in a while he'll reaffirm Catholic teaching that abortion is evil, but in practice he's doing everything he can to undermine it ... praising and welcoming to the Vatican and appointing to Vatican commissions some of the most notorious pro-abortionists (who made careers out of promoting abortion).  In any case, Ratzinger was a PR creation of his handlers, and he was created and put into office for the express purpose of absorbing or at least neutralizing Traditional Catholicism.  That's why, shortly after he failed to absorb the SSPX, thanks to some comments by Bishop Williamson, he was told to step aside so they could move on to the next step of their agenda.  But their frustration with Ratzinger got the better of them, and they overplayed their hand.  Bergoglio was such an obvious heretic that now significant numbers of conservative Novus Ordites are waking up and questioning whether he's a Catholic and whether he's a pope.  This ended up being a bad move, as Bergoglio has had the effect of waking people up, at least partly, to what's been going on.  And some seeds have been planted in people's minds where ... hey ... perhaps it's no longer absolutely taboo to question a pope's legitimacy.


    Offline ServusInutilisDomini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 529
    • Reputation: +249/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Benedict's statement from May 2021
    « Reply #5 on: July 16, 2022, 11:14:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The title is misleading. I agree that Ratzinger means to imply he has resigned, not abdicated. Very clever of him and Francis to make fools out of poor confused laymen, seriously only the devil could conjure up this mess.

    Unfortunately for you Ratzinger was a controlled opposition ploy, see Ladislaus' answer above.

    Offline ServusInutilisDomini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 529
    • Reputation: +249/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Benedict's statement from May 2021
    « Reply #6 on: July 16, 2022, 11:16:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • With regard to your first point, the poster did say that he was devoid of "practical" power ... but most likely (according to the Bennyvacantists) simply by his own choice, but would not deny him the prerogative to exercise the full power of the papacy if he chose to do so.  There have been popes who did nothing papal their entire time in office, but simply spent their time on various pleasures and mistresses, etc.

    As for the second statement, that's a major problem with Bennyvacatism.  I believe that the position was developed as an answer to the "problem of Bergoglio".  But the problem of Bergoglio is the problem with all the V2 papal claimants since Roncalli, and is not "solved" by Bennyvacantism.  This notion that Ratzinger was somehow this staunch Traditionalist is an absurd mischaracterization.  And this image or public persona of "God's Rotweiller" was fabricated out of nowhere precisely in order to fool Traditional Catholics.  Similarly, the characterization of Wojtyla as a staunch conservative on moral issues (he definitely held the Catholic lines on those) was to create the impression that Wojtyla was some great, saintly, orthodox pope ... so that people would imbibe the errors of his religious indifferentism.  Wojtyla was the greatest promoter of religious indifferentism in history and makes the Pachamama episode look like childsplay.  But people fell for the schtick that he's some great conservative (because he reaffirmed Church teaching on various moral issues and the priesthood being for men only).  Of course, while Wojtyla TALKED a good game about abortion and other moral evils, he did absolutely nothing about them, but just sat back and allowed the destruction of morals to go on under his watch.  It's the same game Bergoglio plays.  Every once in a while he'll reaffirm Catholic teaching that abortion is evil, but in practice he's doing everything he can to undermine it ... praising and welcoming to the Vatican and appointing to Vatican commissions some of the most notorious pro-abortionists (who made careers out of promoting abortion).  In any case, Ratzinger was a PR creation of his handlers, and he was created and put into office for the express purpose of absorbing or at least neutralizing Traditional Catholicism.  That's why, shortly after he failed to absorb the SSPX, thanks to some comments by Bishop Williamson, he was told to step aside so they could move on to the next step of their agenda.  But their frustration with Ratzinger got the better of them, and they overplayed their hand.  Bergoglio was such an obvious heretic that now significant numbers of conservative Novus Ordites are waking up and questioning whether he's a Catholic and whether he's a pope.  This ended up being a bad move, as Bergoglio has had the effect of waking people up, at least partly, to what's been going on.  And some seeds have been planted in people's minds where ... hey ... perhaps it's no longer absolutely taboo to question a pope's legitimacy.
    Yes, Bergoglio was actually an enormous blessing and instrumental in the conversion of many.