Italian newspaper today " Ratzinger’s unequivocal text: “I have not abdicated”.
#1
Photo 
An interesting po


BREAKING: POPE BENEDICT XVI: “I HAVE NOT ABDICATED”!

MAY 4, 2021

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY FROMROME.INFO

Ratzinger’s unequivocal text: “I have not abdicated”.
If a pope does not abdicate, there cannot be another conclave. Bergoglio would be invalid.
We would not have two popes, but “half”: a pope without practical exercise of power.

by Andrea Cionci
“There is only one pope,” Benedict XVI has been repeating for eight years, without ever explaining which one is which.

Perhaps he can not say; nevertheless, we have located a text where Ratzinger clarifies that although he, with the 2013 Declaratio, “resigned” by renouncing the “ministerium” (the practical functions), he has not at all “abdicated”, on the other hand, the divinely created title of pope: the “munus.”  — Words are important: resigning is giving up functions, abdicating is giving up the title of a sovereign.

Boring “clerical legalisms,” as Bergoglio says? — No. This is a huge problem – one that is carefully avoided in public debate – because if a living pope does not abdicate, by completely laying aside the munus, another conclave cannot be called. Even from a theological point of view, the Holy Spirit does not direct the election of the pope in an illegitimate conclave. The “Pope Francis” therefore, would never have existed, he would only be a “bishop dressed in white”, as in the Third Secret of Fatima, and no one further, in his line of succession, would be a true pope. — It is therefore worth applying ourselves to the question.

But let me show you the documented proof.  In his “Last Conversations” (Garzanti 2016,), the book-length interview by Peter Seewald of Pope Benedict XVI, the journalist asks: “With you, for the first time in the history of the Church, a pontiff in the full and effective exercise of his functions has resigned from his “office”. Was there an inner conflict over the decision?” (p. 26)

Benedict replied, “It’s not that simple, of course. No pope has resigned for a thousand years, and even in the first millennium this was an exception: so such a decision must be pondered at length. For me, however, it appeared so obvious that there was no painful inner conflict.”

An absurd statement if we understand the word “resignation” in the common and simple sense that we use in the English language.  For in the last thousand years (1016-2016) there have been no less than four popes who have renounced the throne, (including the famous Celestine V in 1294) and, in the first millennium of the papacy (33-1033), there were six others. — Perhaps, then, Ratzinger does not know the history of the Church so well?

Yet, his sentence makes perfectly coherent sense if we understand that “resigning” (from the ministerium, as Ratzinger did) does not at all entail “abdicating” (from the munus). The – vaguely confusing – distinction between munus and ministerium was formalized at the canonical level in 1983, but it is entirely functional for Benedict XVI to get across a very clear message.

He, in fact, is not talking about popes who have abdicated, but about those who have resigned like him, that is, those who have abandoned the ministerium, without abdicating.

It all makes sense: the “exception” of the first millennium of which Ratzinger speaks is that of Benedict VIII — known in life as Theophylact of the Counts of Tusculum — who, having been ousted in 1012 by the antipope Gregory VI, had to give up for a few months the ministerium, the exercise of power, but did not lose the munus of pope,  much so that he was then reinstated on the throne by German Emperor Henry II. In the second millennium, however, no pope has ever renounced only the ministerium, while four popes have, however, abdicated, giving up the munus (and, consequently, also the ministerium).

Consulted on this historical question, Dr. Francesco Mores, professor of Church History at the University of Milan confirmed it, saying: “There is indeed this difference between the first and the second millennium. The decisive junction is the “Gregorian” reform (of 1073). Although in conflict with the secular powers, the popes of the second millennium always maintained a minimum of practical exercise of their power, unlike very few cases in the first millennium: Pontian, Silvester, but, above all, Benedict VIII”.

Ratzinger is clearly telling us that he had to renounce the ministerium like his ancient, homonymous predecessor: if Benedict XVI did it voluntarily, and Benedict VIII did it forcibly, neither of them ever abdicated the munus. If it were not so, how could Ratzinger say, as he did, that no pope has resigned in the second millennium, or that a papal resignation in the first millennium was an exception?

We can cite another proof of this, from Seewald’s other book-length interview of Benedict: “Ein Leben”.  On page 1204, Benedict XVI distances himself from Celestine V, who legally abdicated in the second millennium (1294), saying: “The situation of Celestine V was extremely peculiar and could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent.” !

Also in Ein Leben, we note that the word “abdication” appears eight times – nine in the German edition (“Abdankung”) – and is never used in reference to Ratzinger, but only to popes who really abdicated, or who wanted to do it seriously, such as Pius XII to escape the Nazis. For Ratzinger, on the other hand, there is only talk of resignation (“Ruecktritt”).

Today, therefore, we would not have “two popes”, but only “half”:  Benedict XVI, devoid of practical power. For this reason, he continues to wear white (although without a the mozzetta), to sign P.P. (Pontifex Pontificum), to live in the Vatican and mysteriously enjoy other papal prerogatives.

Are there any other explanations?

The question can not be passed over lightly: 1,285,000,000 Catholics are entitled to certain and transparent answers: a press conference by Pope Benedict, for example, or a synod with public discussion between bishops and cardinals appointed before 2013."

A clarification should not be delayed."


https://www.fromrome.info/2021/05/04/pop...abdicated/

   
[-] The following 3 users Like Sed libera nos's post:
  • AnaCarolina1, J Michael, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
#2
I loved when Pope Benedict visited the veil of Veronica.
I love that he understands the church needs more of these Traditional practices.
I can guarantee that the laity craves these things--when mass and the Holy Angels are present with us, when we Know we are going to God's house.

Nothing against Francis but it's a different mindset.

Perhaps they work in unison?
Reply
#3
(05-05-2021, 08:36 PM)AnaCarolina1 Wrote: I loved when Pope Benedict visited the veil of Veronica.
I love that he understands the church needs more of these Traditional practices.
I can guarantee that the laity craves these things--when mass and the Holy Angels are present with us, when we Know we are going to God's house.

Nothing against Francis but it's a different mindset.

Perhaps they work in unison?
Ratzinger is such a mixed bag it’s insane.
One minute he’s sponsoring all of this traditionalism and the next minute he’s citing his motives as:
1. Coinciding with the “Protestant balance of liturgy” 
2. And “cosmic” reasons (along the lines of Teilhard de Chardin)
One minute he’s talking about the necessity of the Church in salvation and seems traditional and the next minute he’s:
1. Praying at Synagogues and Mosques
2. Making prayer meetings just like the 1986 Assisi event
3. Making ecumenical declarations with Lutherans, Orthodox, and other Christian churches

I understand the traditionalist movement loves him for his work in “bringing back the TLM”, but honestly:
1. The SSPX, because of Archbishop Lefebvre, already was preserving tradition
2. The missal of John XXIII is literally just the final steeping stone to the NO, and is defunct in many ways such as:
a. Kneeling to the Jews in the Good Friday services
b. Keeping the Pius XII Holy Week reforms
c. Adding the name of St. Joseph to the thousands-of-years-old-and-preserved Roman Canon

Also Ratzinger was one of the primary forces at VII and was suspect of heresy during the age of Pius XII.

Like I said, big mixed bag.
Weep no more, Most Sorrowful Mother, for I am here. I have not wallowed in my sin any longer, for I have returned to you and your Son. Please do not cry anymore for my once cold heart; I have found your Immaculate One to guide me.
Reply
#4
"Kneeling to the Jews"?  What do you mean?
"If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.  If he is to offer service pure and unblemished in the sight of God, who is our Father, he must take care of orphans and widows in their need, and keep himself unstained by the world."  James 1:26-27.
Reply
#5
(05-05-2021, 08:42 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(05-05-2021, 08:36 PM)AnaCarolina1 Wrote: I loved when Pope Benedict visited the veil of Veronica.
I love that he understands the church needs more of these Traditional practices.
I can guarantee that the laity craves these things--when mass and the Holy Angels are present with us, when we Know we are going to God's house.

Nothing against Francis but it's a different mindset.

Perhaps they work in unison?
Ratzinger is such a mixed bag it’s insane.
One minute he’s sponsoring all of this traditionalism and the next minute he’s citing his motives as:
1. Coinciding with the “Protestant balance of liturgy” 
2. And “cosmic” reasons (along the lines of Teilhard de Chardin)
One minute he’s talking about the necessity of the Church in salvation and seems traditional and the next minute he’s:
1. Praying at Synagogues and Mosques
2. Making prayer meetings just like the 1986 Assisi event
3. Making ecumenical declarations with Lutherans, Orthodox, and other Christian churches

I understand the traditionalist movement loves him for his work in “bringing back the TLM”, but honestly:
1. The SSPX, because of Archbishop Lefebvre, already was preserving tradition
2. The missal of John XXIII is literally just the final steeping stone to the NO, and is defunct in many ways such as:
a. Kneeling to the Jews in the Good Friday services
b. Keeping the Pius XII Holy Week reforms
c. Adding the name of St. Joseph to the thousands-of-years-old-and-preserved Roman Canon

Also Ratzinger was one of the primary forces at VII and was suspect of heresy during the age of Pius XII.

Like I said, big mixed bag.
I admit I am ignorant on these sorts of matters...but what is wrong with adding St Joesph to the Roman Canon.
Reply
#6
(05-05-2021, 09:13 PM)Anon777 Wrote: I admit I am ignorant on these sorts of matters...but what is wrong with adding St Joesph to the Roman Canon.
Sets the precedent that the Roman Canon, the most preserved and sacred part of the whole Mass, the part of the Mass which went unchanged for more than a thousand-and-hundreds-of-years, can be changed out of nowhere. It was one of the Popes from Pius IX to Pius XII (forgive me for my forgetfulness) that flat out rejected including the name of St. Joseph in the Canon for the very reasons I just laid out. The liturgical reformers only had to wait a couple of decades before they could try again... and succeed...
Weep no more, Most Sorrowful Mother, for I am here. I have not wallowed in my sin any longer, for I have returned to you and your Son. Please do not cry anymore for my once cold heart; I have found your Immaculate One to guide me.
Reply
#7
(05-05-2021, 08:50 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: "Kneeling to the Jews"?  What do you mean?
Because I cannot quote Sede sources outside of the specific forum, all I will do is link this article which talks about it.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...enJews.pdf

Pretty much, the Good Friday Mass originally had a section which was specifically for the repentance of the Jews. This section was changed over and over again, adding a genuflection, removing “un-inter-religious” langauge, and then Ratzinger comes along and changes the section into some strange, bizarre prayer which is totally different from the original because of “Catholic-Jewish relations”. 

This same thing was tried before in the reign of Pius XI and during the time of Cardinal Merry del Val and was rejected completely. 

The article discusses it very well and also, since I know you are of the SSPX position, quotes from the SSPX on this same matter a lot so it isn’t too biased in any way. The SSPX responded very negatively to what Ratzinger did as well, and the article just lays out the history of the specific section I am speaking about, and why the changes Ratzinger made are contrary to the Faith.
Weep no more, Most Sorrowful Mother, for I am here. I have not wallowed in my sin any longer, for I have returned to you and your Son. Please do not cry anymore for my once cold heart; I have found your Immaculate One to guide me.
Reply
#8
(05-05-2021, 08:42 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: c. Adding the name of St. Joseph to the thousands-of-years-old-and-preserved Roman Canon

Sorry, but you can't blame that one on him. He was still just plain Father Ratzinger on 13 November 1962 when John XXIIII added St Joseph's name to the Roman Canon. I used to have an old Altar Missal that hadn't been used since the promulgation of the NO. St Joseph's name was written in the Canon very neatly in ink.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#9
(05-05-2021, 09:25 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: This section was changed over and over again, adding a genuflection, removing “un-inter-religious” langauge, and then Ratzinger comes along and changes the section into some strange, bizarre prayer which is totally different from the original because of “Catholic-Jewish relations”. 
I am not saying this was a good change, but I can't see how the prayer is bizarre:
Quote:Let us also pray for the Jews that God our Lord should illuminate their hearts, so that they will recognize Jesus Christ, the Savior of all men.
Let us pray. Let us genuflect. Rise.

All-powerful and eternal God, you who wish that all men be saved and come to the recognition of truth, graciously grant that when the fullness of peoples enters your Church all of Israel will be saved.

Through Christ Our Lord, Amen.
Reply
#10
(05-06-2021, 12:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-05-2021, 08:42 PM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: c. Adding the name of St. Joseph to the thousands-of-years-old-and-preserved Roman Canon

Sorry, but you can't blame that one on him. He was still just plain Father Ratzinger on 13 November 1962 when John XXIIII added St Joseph's name to the Roman Canon. I used to have an old Altar Missal that hadn't been used since the promulgation of the NO. St Joseph's name was written in the Canon very neatly in ink.
Did I say I blamed it on him? No, I said that the John XXIII missal has three problems, those I listed, and that Ratzinger’s approving of the 1962 missal and not the pre-1955 one leads to those problems.
Weep no more, Most Sorrowful Mother, for I am here. I have not wallowed in my sin any longer, for I have returned to you and your Son. Please do not cry anymore for my once cold heart; I have found your Immaculate One to guide me.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)