Benedict still the Pope - a legitimate option?
#11
I'm not sure that it's impossible, but either way it's beyond our authority to say otherwise. I do think it would be awfully strange if Benedict outlives Francis.
Reply
#12
If Pope Benedict declared that he was retiring, I as a layperson have nothing to say against it. I don't find the idea that he accidentally used the wrong formula, or did it wrongly a properly respectful view of it.

Like it or not, Pope Francis is pope, as properly elected as St Peter himself, sitting in the chair of Peter and requiring the full and total assent of will as to his decisions.

While I have great brotherly respect for the SSPX, and I pray for them, I don't see their'recognize and resist' position as all that well grounded in tradition, and I find the sedevacantist position completely nonsensical.

If Pope Francis isn't a pope, I only see two choices to pick from: The Eastern Orthodox are right, or Christianity is false. I'll never know enough about the Eastern Orthodox to even be able to tell whether their case is better, and I believe Christ rose on the third day. Ergo I believe that Pope Francis is our pope, and I treat him as such.
Reply
#13
We know for certain that the "health concerns" Benedict invoked as a pretense for his renunciation were false.
One among his best friends, Mgr Luigi Negri, archbp of Ferrara (Italy) recently declared to the media "riminidue" that Benedict resigned under huge pressures from both inside and outside the Vatican.
http://www.riminiduepuntozero.it/gravi-r...ons-negri/
Regarding the pressures from ouside the Vatican, Mgr Luigi Negri pointed to the Obama administration.
The cath traditional website remnantnewspaper.com asked  Pdt Trump to trigger an investigation in that regard with a serie of 8 questions to investigate. 
See: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.ph...nvestigate
In my opinion not only the renunciation of Benedict therefore was invalid, but the election of Bergoglio was invalid too since a "mafia" of cardinals engineered it in blatant contradiction to Universi Dominici Gregis apostolic constitution issued by Pope John Paul II in 1996.
Card. Danneels, the most influential member of this "mafia" happily boasted to have plotted Bergoglio's election with a bunch of other prelates. He couldn't hide his satisfaction to see Francis elevated to the papacy.
https://onepeterfive.com/vatican-conspir...e-francis/
Knowing the many heresies and nonsenses uttered by the Pope Francis, one may legitimately wonder whether truly the Holy Spirit sides with him.
My opinion in no way is sedevacantist since I am convinced that Benedict XVI remains the true Pope.
Our prayers for the Holy Father are directed to him, not Bergoglio. Period.
Reply
#14
This seems like a rehash of the old Cardinal Siri stuff.  Anyway, I find the following reasoning sound from Hunter's Outlines of Dogmatic Theology:

Quote:First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.
https://archive.org/details/outlinesofdogmat01hunt
Reply
#15
(05-10-2017, 10:43 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: This seems like a rehash of the old Cardinal Siri stuff.  Anyway, I find the following reasoning sound from Hunter's Outlines of Dogmatic Theology:

Quote:First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

How does this fit with the schism in the late 1300s, when the same cardinals elected multiple popes?
Reply
#16
(05-10-2017, 11:22 AM)Paul Wrote: How does this fit with the schism in the late 1300s, when the same cardinals elected multiple popes?

The episcopate was not in agreement in that case--ie the whole episcopate did not go long with an antipope, just some did.  That's why it is called a schism.  In the cases mentioned by Hunter and in the case at hand, they are in agreement.
Reply
#17
(05-10-2017, 11:51 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(05-10-2017, 11:22 AM)Paul Wrote: How does this fit with the schism in the late 1300s, when the same cardinals elected multiple popes?

The episcopate was not in agreement in that case--ie the whole episcopate did not go long with an antipope, just some did.  That's why it is called a schism.  In the cases mentioned by Hunter and in the case at hand, they are in agreement.

Hunter mentions that it must be possible to determine who is the correct Pope, but in the Western Schism, there were multiple canonised saints on both sides. Isn't that good evidence that at the time it wasn't possible to conclusively determine that?

From newadvent.org:

Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope? The saints themselves were divided: St Catherine of Siena, St. Catherine of Sweden, Bl. Peter of Aragon, Bl. Ursulina of Parma, Philippe d'Alencon, and Gerard de Groote were in the camp of Urban; St. Vincent Ferrer, Bl. Peter of Luxemburg, and St. Colette belonged to the party of Clement.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm
Reply
#18
(05-10-2017, 10:43 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: This seems like a rehash of the old Cardinal Siri stuff.  Anyway, I find the following reasoning sound from Hunter's Outlines of Dogmatic Theology:

Quote:First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.
https://archive.org/details/outlinesofdogmat01hunt


Then one may wonder why St John Paul II strived  pondering and  writing his apostolic constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis that strictly forbade what exactly happened in the 2013 conclave, under threat of excommunication. This was a waste of the Pope's time.
Cardinals Danneels and Kasper, two eminent members of the "St Gallen mafia", who are since then ipso facto excommunicated, are members of the closest circle advising the Pope, and nobody cares.
There are many serious concerns of heresies uttered by this Pope: If there is a suspicion about the validity of his election, then an "imperfect council" of cardinals should be convened to depose him canonically.
Reply
#19
(05-10-2017, 07:55 AM)maso Wrote: In my opinion not only the renunciation of Benedict therefore was invalid ...

Good for you!

Thankfully, opinions of those who have no competency in theology or canon law are pretty much worthless in such a case ...

Benedict is not the Pope. He resigned the Papacy. That is a demonstrable and morally certain fact.

That would be incorrect only if his abdication was not free. Only Benedict could testify to that, since it involves his internal dispositions. So far, there's no such testimony, thus quod gratis affirmatur, gratis negantur.

How about you just try to be a good Catholic—say your daily Rosary, go to Mass, do your duty of state, fix what your can in your own life and that of your family. Leave the theological "opinions" to theologians, and what you can't fix, leave to God.
Reply
#20
(05-10-2017, 10:44 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: How about you just try to be a good Catholic—say your daily Rosary, go to Mass, do your duty of state, fix what your can in your own life and that of your family. Leave the theological "opinions" to theologians, and what you can't fix, leave to God.
:thumb:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)