FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

The choleric Steve Skojec (of One Peter Five) and Brother Alexis Bugnolo are having at each other on Twitter over the idea that Benedict is still Pope, and Bergogio never was Pope. Sjokec accepts the assertion that Benedict resigned and Francis is now Pope. He calls Bugnolo, who thinks otherwise, "schismatic."

Bugnolo writes to Skojec that "Benedict never said he resigned the papacy nor the petrine munus, but only its ministerium. Is that sufficient according to JP2 in Canon 332 §2?"

What does all that mean? And is it factually accurate that Benedict "never said he resigned the papacy" nor "the petrine munus" but only its "ministerium"? 

For reference:
 

Quote:Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

 
And what can "schism" mean in this sort of instance -- i.e., when the question of who is Pope is doubtful, even in the minds of many who are otherwise faithful and of good will? (Most here know that, in the past, Saints have chosen different sides when there've been two men claiming, or acclaimed, to be Pope, and no one would call "schismatic" those who chose wrongly.).
 
How have questions concerning doubtful pontificates/anti-Popes/etc. been resolved in the past -- and at what cost (in terms of damage to the Church, to souls, etc.)?
 
How do you Fishies see all this? And how do you see other Catholics who have a differing opinion as to who is Pope? How do you think such differences should be talked about and dealt with? (what I'm seeing on Twitter is pretty ugly...)

I'm curious about all this -- but in the end, it doesn't affect my faith at all. No matter who's Pope, we all know what we're supposed to be doing: love God, love neighbor, obey the precepts of the Church. 
 

It does look ugly out there, doesn't it? While I more or less agree with Steve that Benedict resigned, and with others that there were some irregularities, I likewise agree that we have Francis as a validly elected Pope, but not, shall we say, one of the best yet? I don't let the debate get in my way too much, and I try to recall the days of the schism that brought the Popes to Avignon and eventually, back, thanks in part to Saint Catherine of Siena. Even the saintly were divided as to the valid Pope for a time. How can I, a fairly poor slob, be more in the know than they, who were truly holy? I have enough on my plate trying to do better than my past life. I can accommodate hearing those who debate about it without focusing on it because of reading/hearing about the history of the papacy: the pornacracy, for instance, when in the 900s, well, it's better left read by one's self. I understand why people are concerned. But the most important focus should be on living the way God wants us to.

I believe Benedict is our Pope, just have to keep my head down until when the time is right Christ sets it straight again. Francis has done more then just make mistakes, 3 or 4 years into it I believed he was just making many errors and to pray for him, but we are far beyond that now IMO.

Nothing about Abortion, Gay Marriage, Euthanasia and the Anti Christ agenda, but 'Walls' are anathema lol c'mon, nobody is that dumb. The Hammer and Sickle 'Protest' art, Martin Luther 500th anniversary etc etc etc. It is an Anti Christ agenda, I'm convinced of it.

If this is still going on when Pope Benedict dies and without a successor, I will have to reassess my options at such time.

'Jesus, I Trust In You'

God Bless You

Also, just look at all the flagrant heretics in the Church, laity and hierarchy, emboldened like never before, how else will God sort them out without a schism? Heretics of all stripes will rally around Francis, but not Pope Benedict. ;)

Just heard today the murderer Nancy Pelosi wore ashes on her forehead for ash Wednesday, what kind of a Priest would allow that without first pulling her up on her murderous ways (Abortion)? Had another Priest here in Australia tell millions of people on TV it was fine for Catholics to vote yes to gay marriage and that he would do so..... no correction whatsoever. etc etc.

God Bless You

Deleted

Whether it's Benedict or Francis things are still a mess. I'm not sure what Benevacantism accomplishes except making people feel better or the desire to have the two popes prophesy from Fatima being fulfilled in our midst. Things are on a horrible trajectory and will continue to be until we by the grace of God get a truly saintly pope. Until then brothers say your prayers, take your vitamins and you will never go wrong.

Deleted

Pope Francis is the Pope.

I am of the thinking that Francis is the current pope although I have a hard time with a lot of the statements that he makes. I was disheartened when Benedict stepped down.

I would like to add that most of my existence has been under the reign of JP2. I'm sure a lot of others have had the chance to experience prior vatican leadership.

(03-09-2019, 06:59 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]And what can "schism" mean in this sort of instance -- i.e., when the question of who is Pope is doubtful, even in the minds of many who are otherwise faithful and of good will? (Most here know that, in the past, Saints have chosen different sides when there've been two men claiming, or acclaimed, to be Pope, and no one would call "schismatic" those who chose wrongly.).
 
How have questions concerning doubtful pontificates/anti-Popes/etc. been resolved in the past -- and at what cost (in terms of damage to the Church, to souls, etc.)?
 
How do you Fishies see all this? And how do you see other Catholics who have a differing opinion as to who is Pope? How do you think such differences should be talked about and dealt with? (what I'm seeing on Twitter is pretty ugly...)

I'm curious about all this -- but in the end, it doesn't affect my faith at all. No matter who's Pope, we all know what we're supposed to be doing: love God, love neighbor, obey the precepts of the Church. 
 

We all know we must be subject to the legitimate Roman Pontiff, but the throwing around of "schism" by certain people towards questioning traditionalists seems reckless.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943) 

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948) 

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8) 

So even if we are sincerely wrong about the legitimacy of a particular Papal claimant, we are not schismatic, if we are in good faith in our doubts. 

Perhaps, one day it will be seen that throwing the schism label at certain traditionalists was aiming in the wrong direction..

 "any pope who wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition would become a schismatic out of communion with the body of the church, and not to be obeyed ". --Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), S.J., "Most Exalted and Pius Doctor," De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1