Benedict XVI did not resign the "munus." He resigned the "ministerium." 

The word "munus" can be translated as "office" but in the context of the Pope, another translation should be considered. Theologically and liturgically, the latin word "munus" means "gift," as in "the gift of the Holy Spirit" which is discussed on Pastor Aeternus as the reason for Papal Infallibility. 

We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. 

The Pope is not infallible because he was elected by some Cardinals to be Pope. The Pope is infallible because of the divine assistance or gift, the word is munus in Latin or charisma in New Testament Greek. Pastor Aeternus uses all of those terms in different places when referring to the special power possessed by the Successors of St. Peter. Put another way, we do not follow the Pope because he happens to be the highest human authority on earth, we follow the Pope because Jesus has promised that he cannot err on questions of faith and morals when speaking ex Cathedra. Jesus never breaks a promise.

So, Benedict did not renounce the "munus," the "charisma," the gift of the Holy Spirit. As he said, he "remains in the enclosure of St. Peter." Only one man alive on earth possesses the "munus," the charisma. If Benedict did not renounce it (and he did not), then he retains it. Therefore, Benedict XVI and only Benedict XVI is infallible regarding pronouncements on faith and morals. Bergoglio is a usurper and a destroyer. Don't let this SSPX analysis confuse you.

Benedict XVI did not resign the "munus." He resigned the "ministerium."

The word "munus" can be translated as "office" but in the context of the Pope, another translation should be considered. Theologically and liturgically, the latin word "munus" means "gift," as in "the gift of the Holy Spirit" which is discussed on Pastor Aeternus as the reason for Papal Infallibility.


The Pope is not infallible because he was elected by some Cardinals to be Pope. The Pope is infallible because of the divine assistance or gift, the word is munus in Latin or charisma in New Testament Greek.

Munus is not the Latin equivalent of charisma, and the divine assistance that Pastor Aeternus speaks of it not the Papal munus. It is "the charism of truth."

The charism of truth is a property of the teaching office of St. Peter.  It is a divine assistance attached to the office (munus) which prevents the Pope from erring when he exercised the office by defining a doctrine of faith and moral ex cathedra.  

.
Those two words mean pretty much the same thing. Buy yourself a Latin dictionary (or use one online) and see for yourself! They are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Don't use a Latin dictionary.  Use the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Bennyvacantism should be right up their alley.  After all they spent the last 30 years claiming that the NOM didn't violate the disciplinary infallibility of the Church because Paul VI didn't use the right magic word to promulgate it.

they spent the last 30 years claiming that the NOM didn't violate the disciplinary infallibility of the Church

How does the NO violate disciplinary infallibility?  If you attempt to answer, be sure to begin by explaining in what disciplinary infallibility consists.

The Church is incapable of promulgating a Rite of Mass that's harmful to souls and displeasing to God.  Of course, you claim that it isn't, so in your world it wouldn't violate disciplinary infallibility.

The Novus Ordo Mass, even in its most pristine and purely realized form per VII rubrics, is an intrinsically harmful rite and has demonstrably pernicious influences on souls.

I recommend RomanTheo read Fr. Cekada’s Work of Human Hands and Fr. Wathen’s The Great Sacrilege.

Just as I suspected.  You don't know how infallibility applies to universal disciplines.  

What in the prayers of the NO, as it was promulgated, is harmful to souls or displeasing to God.

I guess that Van Noort doesn't know either.

Van Noort:

The Church’s infallibility extends to….ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living….But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above – and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls….

I'm not particularly interested in debating the evil of the NOM with you, as you're about the only one on this forum who doesn't think that it's "conductive to the injury of souls".