FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

(03-10-2019, 03:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Pope Francis is the Pope.

Benedict himself has made this abundantly clear. In 2014 he wrote to Andrea Tornielli to confirm his resignation and wrote : "The only condition for the validity is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations about the invalidity of my resignation are simply absurd."

 
What's up with that "petrine munus" vs "ministerium" business? What is Bugnolo's argument exactly?

(03-10-2019, 07:58 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-10-2019, 03:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Pope Francis is the Pope.

Benedict himself has made this abundantly clear. In 2014 he wrote to Andrea Tornielli to confirm his resignation and wrote : "The only condition for the validity is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations about the invalidity of my resignation are simply absurd."

 
What's up with that "petrine munus" vs "ministerium" business? What is Bugnolo's argument exactly?

I am not familiar with his argument itself, but if it is the standard Benevacantist argument, it takes either one of two threads. 

Either it will argue that Benedict tried to bifurcate the Papacy into an active and passive part, where he was giving up the active role. Since this is at variance with the nature of the Papacy, he did not resign properly and thus is still Pope. This argument will cite the resignation declaration of 10 Feb 2013 in which Benedict states that "I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome." They will argue that because he did not use the term "Papacy" this is ambiguous and other statements like "I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer," will suggest he was trying to keep the "prayer" part of the Papacy while leaving the active work to another. Since that would be impossible, the resignation was invalid.

The other argument is that Benedict was forced to resign or was pressured, and because he was not totally free he could not validly resign. If you see Canon 332 §2 this is the argument.

The problem with each is while the declaration is wordy and unnecessarily vague (why didn't he just say "Papacy"), he declares that he acts "well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom." Further statements have confirmed that the "bifurcation" thesis is also not what Benedict meant, and he by his poetic verbiage meant the Papacy. The declaration does make this pretty explicit when it says that he is doing this "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."

It really is all grasping at straws.

The only possible valid argument I see is to argue that Benedict was so pressured that he fully lacked free will and has effectively been lying or deranged since this point, since anything less and the resignation would be valid.

(03-11-2019, 01:30 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]I am not familiar with his argument itself, but if it is the standard Benevacantist argument, it takes either one of two threads.

I'm not familiar with it, either, but I suspect it has to do with the text of his resignation. The English says, "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." The Italian is "il ministero petrino". But the Latin is "munus Petrinum", not "ministerium Petrinum".

"The Petrine office" would be a better translation, but then, if one resigns the office, one no longer has the privileges or the duties that come with it.

(03-11-2019, 02:03 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2019, 01:30 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]I am not familiar with his argument itself, but if it is the standard Benevacantist argument, it takes either one of two threads.

I'm not familiar with it, either, but I suspect it has to do with the text of his resignation. The English says, "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." The Italian is "il ministero petrino". But the Latin is "munus Petrinum", not "ministerium Petrinum".

"The Petrine office" would be a better translation, but then, if one resigns the office, one no longer has the privileges or the duties that come with it.

And if one then adds, "in such a way that" and describes precisely what happens when a Pope dies and there is no Pope, it is pretty difficult to argue that one is not fully resigning that office, especially if afterward he has confirmed it numerous times and in numerous ways.

(03-11-2019, 01:30 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ](snip) Either it will argue that Benedict tried to bifurcate the Papacy into an active and passive part, where he was giving up the active role. (snip)

"Active part" and "passive part"? Say what? What a straaaaange argument!

(03-10-2019, 01:54 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]But no one said that "it doesn't matter who sits on the Chair Of Peter or what they do." It obviously matters. And quite a bit (if it didn't, no one would be wondering about it). But we've had antipopes in the past, with different Saints choosing different men as the true Pope, and with none of those Saints being "in schism." 

What would it take for "the gates of hell to prevail" over the Church? What line can't a Pope cross? What would Francis have to to do for him to be either not the Pope or the gates of hell have prevailed?

(03-10-2019, 01:54 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Me, I don't know what the deal is with re. to Francis and Benedict. It's way above my pay grade to figure it out

I don't know what the deal is either, all I know is that we have a Pope, Pope Benedict, and he has stepped down for whatever reason (coerced, forced, resisted or pressured into doing so is quite possible) and now we have this other guy who is not just making mistakes, but is driving a kind of Anti-Christ agenda.

(03-10-2019, 01:54 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Figuring this stuff out is not my job; I'm not a theologian, expert in ecclesiology, canon lawyer, etc.,

Neither, you probably know much more then me in those areas, but I do know enough to see that something is seriously, seriously wrong with Francis and the Church and IMO it's more then just a bad Pope making mistakes or being personally flawed, this one goes after teachings. There is a difference IMO between a 'bad' Pope who has personal failings and sins, and one who holds and promotes heresies.

If it were not for Pope Benedict I would have no choice but to accept Francis as a bad Pope and try to reconcile this madness as best as I can, but thankfully we have Pope Benedict, which makes much more sense IMO.

(03-10-2019, 01:54 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]but I think people can talk about it, and I'm interested in hearing what they say.

 

x2, lol that's good to read for those like myself, because it's certainly not the Francis supporters who are going to get silenced. ;)

(03-10-2019, 01:54 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]My job is to love God, love neighbor, and obey the Church's precepts. Those things go no matter who's Pope.

Yea.... but.... You can't teach marriage is indissoluble for example and then have half the Church readmitting adulterers to the sacraments and even the Pope contradicting you.

God Bless You

(03-11-2019, 06:08 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2019, 01:30 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ](snip) Either it will argue that Benedict tried to bifurcate the Papacy into an active and passive part, where he was giving up the active role. (snip)

"Active part" and "passive part"? Say what? What a straaaaange argument!

Yeah. It doesn't work, but early along there were Benedict fans in the Curia who seems to push this idea. Dr Roberto de Mattei presented the history in a April 2018 speech :

Quote:Papalotry does not exist in an abstract sense: today, for example, we need to speak in a more precise way of Francisolatry, but also of Benedictolotry, as Miguel Ángel Yáñez observed well, on Adelante la fé. This papalotry can come to counterpoising Pope against Pope: the followers, for example, of Pope Francis against those of Pope Benedict, but also of looking for harmony and coexistence among the two Popes, imagining a possible division of their roles. What took place on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Francis, was significant and unsettling. All of the media’s attention was focused on the case of a letter of Benedict XVI to Pope Francis: a letter, which turned out to be manipulated and caused the resignation of the head of Vatican communications, Monsignor Dario Viganò. The discussion, revealed however, the existence of a false premise, accepted by all: the existence of a sort of papal diararchy, of which there’s Pope Francis who carries out its functions, and then there’s another Pope, Benedict, who serves the Chair of Peter through prayer, and if necessary, with counsel. The existence of the two Popes is admitted as a done deal: only the nature of their relationship is argued. But the truth is that it is impossible that two Popes can exist. The Papacy is not dismountable: there can be only one Vicar of Christ.

Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry. This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.

Cardinal Brandmüller rightly judged as unintelligible the attempt to establish a sort of contemporaneous parallelism of a reigning Pope and a praying Pope. “A two-headed Pope would be a monstrosity”, says Cardinal Brandmüller, who adds: “Canon Law does not recognize the figure of a Pope Emeritus” (...) “The resignee, consequently”, “is no longer Bishop of Rome, not even a cardinal.”

Regarding the doubts, then, about the election of Pope Francis, Professor Geraldina Boni, remembers that Canonists have always taught that the peaceful “universalis ecclesiae adhaesio” (universal ecclesial acceptance) is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and legitimate papacy, and the adhesion or acceptance of Pope Francis by the people of God has not yet been doubted by any of the cardinals who participated in the Conclave. The acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is an infallible sign of his legitimacy, and heals at the root every defect of the papal election (for example, illegal machinations, conspiracies, et cetera). This is also a consequence of visible character of the Church and of the Papacy.

What is interesting is a big "Francis is an Anti-Pope" cheeleader, Ann Barnhardt, reads this and then suggests that de Mattei endorses this position, when in the context of his speech it is clear he is not endorsing this, but providing evidence against it, and the notion flies in the face again, of the text of Benedict's resignation and his subsequent comments. Zealots aren't interested in facts standing in the way of their theories, though.

More and more the Benevacantist crowd that I read looks like Sedevacantism. They start from an observable problem (a Pope that seems to promote heresy), and then decide on a solution that they hold as obvious and certain (he must not be Pope). Only after this do they start proposing theories to fit the conclusion, and hopefully finding evidence, or at least re-reading or re-writing things to make it all work out neatly, ignoring the consequences.

(03-11-2019, 08:57 AM)josh987654321 Wrote: [ -> ]What would it take for "the gates of hell to prevail" over the Church? What line can't a Pope cross? What would Francis have to to do for him to be either not the Pope or the gates of hell have prevailed?

The Church is a society. For the Church to fail the society would need to fail. That will usually happen by the loss of the principle of unity and the efficient cause of that society, namely the authority. It can be that a society is without an authority for a time, but eventually this will lead to the society decaying. The longest we have been without a Pope in the Church is about 3 years, 2 years and 10 month between Clement IV and Gregory X actually.

A Pope that opening, knowingly and intentionally promotes heresy and intends to teach it and bind the faithful to believe it despite that he knows it is heresy would certainly qualify. We do have Papal heretics, like John XXII. We have Popes that promote heresy, like Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. None of them have proposed heresy as Catholic teaching such that they say they know it is against the Faith and still wish to bind Catholics. Francis and John Paul II have come the closest.

Proof of this is the most recent statement by Bishop Schneider in which he said he asked the Pope about the distinction between God's active and permissive wills over the statement with the Imam. It was no worse than John Paul II asking St John the Baptist to protect Islam, or his veneration of the Q'uran.

If the church has determined John Paul II and Paul VI to be saints, then clearly we have miles to go with Francis.

(03-11-2019, 08:57 AM)josh987654321 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know what the deal is either, all I know is that we have a Pope, Pope Benedict, and he has stepped down for whatever reason (coerced, forced, resisted or pressured into doing so is quite possible) and now we have this other guy who is not just making mistakes, but is driving a kind of Anti-Christ agenda.

That statement flies in the face of traditional Catholic moral theology. Who are you to make such a determination? Where did you study theology? Where is the evidence that the man who claims to have used his free will didn't? What could Benedict say that would satisfy you that he resigned freely?

(03-11-2019, 08:57 AM)josh987654321 Wrote: [ -> ]If it were not for Pope Benedict I would have no choice but to accept Francis as a bad Pope and try to reconcile this madness as best as I can, but thankfully we have Pope Benedict, which makes much more sense IMO.

It makes much more sense only if you ignore Church history and Catholic theology. It's a neat and simple solution, just like Sedevacantism, but in fact Sedevacantist have a better more theologically-rigorous argument, even if it is flawed.

Benedict did not do much better and also promoted heretical or quasi-heretical statements.

In 2011 in Benin, he gave an address in which he said : "I call upon the Church, in every situation, to persist in esteem for Muslims, who ‘worship God who is one, living and subsistent; merciful and almighty, the creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity."

In a 2006 Speech recorded in L'Ossvatore Romano, Benedict said something very similar to the near-heretical statement of Pope Francis recently, "I am certain that religious liberty is a fundamental expression of human liberty and that the active presence of religions in society is a source of progress and enrichment for all."

Hundreds of more examples could be brought out, but Benedict was not less imbued with the conciliar spirit. His methodology was just more subtle. He did do good things for the Church, but those cannot be considered apart from the other problems.

And yet he was Pope ...

Francis is at the helm as a validly elected pope, here steers this way and that, but it doesn't matter. Because the ship is on a sort of autopilot. He can't change doctrine. So we go with what the Church has always taught... Just don't listen to anything that flies in the face of that! 

It would help if Benedict would stop wearing white, but then maybe his doing so will line up with the Fatima prophecies of "a bishop in white" who knows?

If I’m quoting the theologian right, public acceptance of the Pope heals any defect in the root of the election and reinforces that man as the Vicar of Christ.