FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Benevacantism Thread
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Here's the deal, folks: this thread -- this one and only thread -- is for the topic of "Benevacantism" -- id est, the assertion that Benedict is actually the Pope, and that Francis isn't or never was, etc.  Let's keep talk on that subject to this single thread so that every thread doesn't end up focusing on it. OK? OK!

I may move/merge already existing posts and threads to this one.

As you were.
THANK YOU, VOX!!!
Hmmm... Benevacantism is like UFOlogy. There are true believers and there are skeptics and both hold their positions with lots of faith in the subject and some can give quite convincing arguments as to why they are right in their views.


Like with UFOs: The supporters and the skeptics are steadfast in their belief, but each argues the other is wrong, but can't provide good enough evidence for either side to prove their stance without doubt.

Did I just see a UFO?  Rolleyes
So what's the equivalent to the "Siri thesis" in Benevacantism? Smile
Benedict has so much as said he's not the pope. What more do people want? Was there something ugly and dirty about his resignation? Probably. At this point who among us would be the least bit surprised about that?
(07-02-2019, 09:50 PM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: [ -> ]Benedict has so much as said he's not the pope. What more do people want? Was there something ugly and dirty about his resignation? Probably. At this point who among us would be the least bit surprised about that?

Just a few days ago he flat out said there is only one Pope and it is Francis. Some people are just incapable of handling the truth.
(07-02-2019, 09:50 PM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: [ -> ]Benedict has so much as said he's not the pope. What more do people want? Was there something ugly and dirty about his resignation? Probably. At this point who among us would be the least bit surprised about that?

He stated he is not the active half of the Pope.  Francis now is.  He remains the contemplative Papal half, according to his Bifurcation attempt.

Benedict’s final general audience of 27 February 2013, the day before his invalid resignation did not become effective, where he exposes his erroneous notion of the indelible nature of the Petrine Ministry. In doing so, he directly contradicts all those previous statements where he claimed he was “renouncing”, “leaving”, and would then be Pontiff “no longer, but a simple pilgrim”. This is the lens through which we must evaluate the Declaratio (comments/emphasismine):
Quote:
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (Ratzinger’s elevation to the papacy). The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.

The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. ( the papal coronation indelibly anoints the pontiff in a distinct way, which is different from, and more profound than, the priestly or episcopal ordination/consecration). My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. (the indelibility is irrevocable – Benedict is pope forever, but now exercising only part of the Petrine ministry). I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God    https://nonvenipacem.com/2017/07/22/faq-...eclaratio/
[Image: img_0703.jpg]
Whoever heard of a half pope? Nope. Didn't think so. Either he is or he isn't, though yes I will admit it points with rather eery familiarity to the Fatima 3A. text. One of 'em is pope and one's a 'bishop dressed in white', and time will tell if that plays true with reagrd to these two or not. This topic makes me think of that old TV game show, "To Tell The Truth." Do you remember that old chestnut? Many here are probably too young, I only remember the reruns. 

Will the real pope please stand up?



Apparently, the idea of dissolving the Office into a "shared papacy" was not some out of the blue idea by Benedict, but a plan among the Progressivist German theologians for some time after Vatican Twice....

(Credit to Ann Barnhardt's research. Not necessarily an endorsement of this thesis, however)

The “Dissolving of the Petrine Office into a Synodal Petrine Ministry” was THE HOT TOPIC amongst German Theologians in the Church in the 1960s and 70s.

The gaslighting ends right here, right now, folks.  ENDS.

The accusation is that the notion and idea of Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation being invalid due to the Substantial Error clause in Canon 188 is “insanity” because “there is no evidence that the notion of fundamentally transforming the Papacy by bifurcating the Papacy into a “shared ministry” with a “contemplative member” and an “active, administrative member” entered Pope Benedict’s mind.”  It is further argued and cast as insanity that the distinction in Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation statement between the “munus” (Office) and “ministerium” (Ministry/Administration) has any meaning, and the words are used unthinkingly as pure synonyms.  It is argued that these very notions are “desperate grabbing at straws” and “insanity”, or indicative of insanity.


Punchline first:


Among German theologians of the 1960s and 1970s, with Joseph Ratzinger squarely and prominently at the core of the discussion, the question and desire to “fundamentally transform the Petrine Office”, namely to “DISSOLVE the Petrine Office” in favor of a “collegial, synodal PETRINE MINISTRY shared among multiple living people simultaneously” was not only discussed, it was one of the more popular topics of the day, with a veritable MOUNTAIN of texts, mostly in German, written and published.


We have found, however, a text, written in English in ARSH 1980, that is a synthesis and compendium of all of these (mostly) German theologians’ positions, written by the current Archbishop of Vancouver, J. Michael Miller.  I highly recommend that anyone with even the slightest interest in WHO THE VICAR OF JESUS CHRIST ON EARTH REALLY IS go ahead and buy this text:
The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology” J. Michael Miller, 1980
[img=625x0]https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/F04CDBBB-A9DA-443F-98F5-E777A1970A0D-1024x1004.jpeg[/img]
Joseph Ratzinger is cited and footnoted many times throughout this book.  He was at the center of the conversation along with his mentor and close friend, Karl Rahner; Hans Kung; his close associate at the University of Tubingen with whom he co-edited a 150 year retrospective compendium of the works of the Tubingen faculty, Johannes Neumann; and wait for it… WALTER KASPER. Even the American Avery Cardianal Dulles is prominently footnoted.
Again, in the interest of getting to the point ASAP, here is a screen cap of pages 196 and 197 from Chapter 8, “Contemporary Catholic Views on Papal Primacy Iure Divino”, Section 4, “Irreversibility of the Papacy” wherein Ratzinger is footnoted, and Ratzinger’s mentor and close friend, Karl Rahner is cited in Footnoted 102 stating almost word-for-word what Archbishop Ganswein stated in his May 2016 address at the Gregorianum.  So that the text will populate onto search engines, I retype that which is shown in the screen caps below:

Quote:“[Heinrich Stirnimann, for ex-]ample, holds that “the papacy as an historical form can disappear without harming the faith, in order to allow a new expression of the Petrine Ministry.” (Footnote 101)  By making use of this terminology belief in a necessary Petrine function is affirmed; at the same time the historical form it has taken in the papacy is not absolutized.

In ecumenical discussion, theologians often use this distinction between the Petrine function and the papacy, even though it is not free from ambiguity.  Non-Catholics draw conclusions from it which most Catholics would be unwilling to draw.  Although they might leave open the possibility of some different configuration of the Petrine office in the future, the majority of Catholic theologians hold that primatial authority must be personally exercised by a bishop who is recognized as the successor of St. Peter. (Footnote 102).  Their use of the Petrine function-papacy distinction is more focused on the possibility of change in the historical form of the papacy, in order to emphasize the many realizations of the Petrine ministry which are open to the Church of the future.  They do not separate the two in any radical way which would suggest that the pope is not the necessary bearer of the Petrine ministry.

The possible changes in the shape of the papacy that theologians envisage demonstrate that irreversibility and immutability are not the same.  In order to show a degree of openness to change compatible with holding that Roman primacy is of divine right, a few proposals can be mentioned.  First, some theologians maintain that when the papacy is situated within the context of other institutions of divine right, then its own relation to the constitution of the Church as an essential element is clarified.  In spite of its importance, the papacy is still just one of the irreversible elements in the Church’s structure. (Footnote 103)  Secondly, other proposals concern the need for changes in the way in which primatial authority is exercised: from a monarchical or centralist model to a more collegial and decentralized one. (Footnote 104) Thirdly, an important change in the papacy would occur if the process was clarified by which Rome has united under a single title its unique primacy originating from a special apostolic charge conferred by Christ, and its administrative role for the Western Church originating from its patriarchal status.  The pope has not adequately distinguished his exercise of Petrine authority from patriarchal authority. (Footnote 105 Ratzinger) If a careful distinction is worked out between these two roles, much of what the pope has absorbed into his primatial authority might again be seen as an exercise of his patriarchal authority.  All these proposals demonstrate that when contemporary theologians apply ius divinum to Roman primacy they do not thereby imply that there can be no changes in the way papal authority will be exercised in the future.
Footnote 102:
In this regard Rahner does not share the opinion of the majority. He holds that the Church can distinguish between and individual and a moral person as the bearer of apostolic authority.  In the case of the episcopacy, for instance, it is not its monarchical dimension which is iure divino, but the need for the presence of episcopal authority in every local church.  It is possible therefore that a small group of persons or a central body possess episcopal authority (“Basic Observations,” 19; cf. “Open Questions on Dogma,” 215-216).  Later he applies the same argument to papal primacy (Amtsverstandinis, 25-32).  In this case the Petrine function would exist iure divino, but not need to be exercised by a single individual.  Cf. J. Neumann, “Eine Verfassung fur die Freiheit,” Wort und Warheit 23 (1968) 387-400.  Dulles makes the same point as Rahner: “In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church, or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament – possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like” (“Papal Authority,” 55).  See a favorable Protestant reaction to this idea of a “shared papacy” in Andreas Lindt…. (see screen cap)
Footnote 105:
Ratzinger, Il nuovo popolo di Dio, 2nd ed. (Brescia: Queriniana, 1972) 144-146; and Ratzinger, “Primat,” 762-763…. (see screen cap)
[img=625x0]https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/95FA2D42-F5FB-40C3-93B1-74DB5B67508A-641x1024.jpeg[/img][img=625x0]https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/97917FEA-9EF5-4690-B7BA-A157E87DB8EE-649x1024.jpeg[/img]
WITHIN THE SPECTRUM of these theologians, Joseph Ratzinger was actually on the more conservative side, which is damning with faint praise, indeed.  There was OPEN TALK in this circle about the ABOLITION OF THE PAPACY OUTRIGHT by Kung, Rahner, Neumann and others. Ratzinger denied this possibility of total abolition, but did argue that the Papacy was NOT immutable (unchangeable), could be changed, and could be “synodalized” along the lines of Petrine Office vs. Ministry AND along the lines of Petrine vs. Patriarchal.


Antipope Bergoglio’s IMMEDIATE refusal to refer to himself as anything other than the Bishop (aka Patriarch) of Rome, AND his immediate citing of Cardinal Walter Kasper as his “favorite theologian”, who was up to his eyebrows in this business of, as Rahner termed it, “the dissolving of the Petrine Office” as a means of appeasing the Lutherans – now ECHOES SO MUCH THE LOUDER in the ears of every honest and Godfearing Catholic.
I’m going to wrap this post up here, just to keep it short, but there are several things that need to happen:

EVERYONE BUY THE BOOK BY J. Michael Miller and READ IT.  Chapters 7 and 8 are jaw-dropping.


I need my German readers (God bless you!!) to get to work on poring over these German texts that are cited in Miller’s bibliography and footnotes.  We need the key passages, and we need them translated into English.


We need JOURNALISTS to go to Archbishop Miller who is currently the Archbishop of Vancouver and start asking questions.

  • Archbishop Miller, when you heard the news on February 11, 2013 that Pope Benedict had announced his intention to resign the papacy were you surprised?
  • When you heard Pope Benedict’s remarks at his final audience on 27 February 2013, were you at all reminded of the 300 page text you wrote in 1980 citing Ratzinger on the expanding and transforming of the Papacy?
  • When you read the text of Archbishop Ganswein’s speech delivered at the Gregorianum on 20 May 2016, did you feel as though you had been plagiarized? (I’m being snarky here.)

Again, what this proves is that this CONCEPT of transforming the Papacy, splitting it into a synodal, collegial ministry shared by multiple people simultaneously HAD BEEN IN POPE BENEDICT’S MIND, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, SINCE the MID-1960s AT THE VERY LATEST.


He wanted to quit, which has been a life-long habit of his, because he saw how utterly overrun with corruption the Vatican and Institutional Church were (and we will leave the question of coercion for another day) and so he retreated to this wildly erroneous “hypothesis” that he and his closest friends and colleagues had been discussing, debating and publishing on at length for OVER 45 YEARS, and actually attempted it.


His attempt to do this madness – analogized in its uniqueness and enormousness to nothing less than the Immaculate Conception by Archbishop Ganswein – of course, FAILED because the Petrine Office, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself and recorded in the Gospels, is IRREVERSIBLE AND IMMUTABLE.  Any other position is SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS, and any attempted resignation of the Papacy proffered under the false premise of a REVERSIBLE, CHANGEABLE Papacy is INVALID BY THE LAW ITSELF.


It does not matter whether or not you, I or anyone else, including Pope Benedict HIMSELF “wants” him to be Pope.  Ontological realities have NOTHING to do with “wants” nor with “numbers”.  All that matters is the TRUTH of what IS. An error held unanimously is still an error.  A truth universally denied is still the truth.  Appeals to “wants” or “numbers” are pathetic, and should be taken as de facto concessions of the argument itself.
I would like to acknowledge and thank my German readers, and also to the author of the NonVeniPacem blog, without whose invaluable help this discovery would not have come to light, at least not any time soon.
TU ES PETRUS ET SUPER HANC PETRAM AEDIFICABO ECCLSIAM MEAM.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on December 25, ARSH 2018 by Ann Barnhardt.

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/12/25/the...s-and-70s/
Benedict, as Joseph Ratzinger, also gave an indication early on in his career as to his true views of the Papacy.

Seen in this light, it is not as surprising he might be inclined to do a little bifurcating.

PROGRESSIVIST DOCUMENT OF THE WEEK 

Fr. Joseph Ratzinger Defends a Horizontal Instead of Vertical Papacy

After Council Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger - then a priest and today a Pope - wrote a 20-page collaboration for the book The Great Themes of the Council. In it, he displayed his interpretation of the concept of Church in the Patristic Age. 

The topic is interesting since it gave Fr. Ratzinger the opportunity to defend his own notion of the Papal Primacy. 

He defended that the fundament of the Church is not the Papacy, but rather all the Bishops. Therefore, the Papacy should be leveled to stand at the same height as the other Bishoprics. The Sovereign Pontiff should no longer be raised above the other Bishops, with a transcendental difference between them, but should only be a horizontal central point of unity. 

This is how he understood the Papal Primacy in a "Church as communion," an expression increasingly in the pontificate of Benedict XVI. 

We reproduced here the excerpt in which he defended this idea. Indisputably it sheds light on the plans Benedict XVI has to transform the Papal Primacy. 

Top right is a facsimile of the book cover; at right, a photocopy of the Italian text. Below, we present our translation.


Quote:"The Church consists of many churches in communion among themselves; the network of communion that the Church thus forms finds its fixed points in the Bishops: as the post-apostolic continuation of the Collegium Apostolorum[College of Apostles], they are responsible for the purity of the word and communion. 

"With this as departure point, we can also realize the earliest meaning of the Primacy of the Roman Bishop .... It merely signified that the Roman Bishop of the sedes Sancti Petri [seat of St. Peter] was the central point of orientation in the unity of communion .... 

"The Primacy of the Pope was not understood, therefore, in the administrative sense, but was wholly derived from a eucharistic ecclesiology. This means .... that Rome incarnates the true communio and, therefore, is the determining point of the horizontal relationship, without which a community cannot remain truly ecclesia


(Joseph Ratzinger, "Il Concetto della Chiesa nel Pensiero Patristico," in [i]I Grandi Temi del Concilio[/i], Rome: Paoline, 1965, pp. 154-155).

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Progre...cyRatz.htm
Pages: 1 2 3