Perhaps, then, it’s your tone. And we have to agree to disagree about the meaning of shooting the messenger. Peace, always.
Serenity prayer God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change The courage to change the things I can And the WISDOM to know the difference.
It was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who chaired the working committee that drafted the Ottaviani intervention. +
Sg, I still did not come away with the observations that you made from that video. Bishop Schneider states several times in the segment that you have pointed out that the council was ambiguous on the idea of humankind having the right to choose other religions. We, of course, have free will to choose good or evil in any situation this would include choosing a religion other than Catholicism. The point of the video was not any of things that you took away from it and I still stand by what I stated which is that Bishop Schneider has defended the Second Vatican council numerous times in the past and I did not garner the same points that you highlighted in regard to the video. I am going to reach out to Cardinal Burke and ask him what he thinks of the heresy that Pope Benedict XVI is still pope, I'll let you know if I hear back from him. I also thought that you were addressing those questions to me, obviously. Maybe in the future you should not reply to someone's post if you want to make a general statement about something. The truth does set us free but twisting the facts does not. Peace to you, as always. +
This might be helpful, I hope so. The Testimony of a former Benevacantist Posted on May 3, 2019 by Steven O'Reilly https://romalocutaest.com/2019/05/03/the-testimony-of-a-former-benevacantist/ May 3, 2019 (Roma Locuta Est) – The argument that claims Benedict is still pope is sometimes described as “Benevacantism.” Roma Locuta Est has avoided the use of this term. Instead I have used the terms “BIP” (“Benedict is Pope”) or “BISP” (“Benedict is still Pope”) to describe the argument, and “BIPPers” and “BISPers” to describe adherents of the argument. On rare occasions on Twitter, I have used “Sede Vacationist,” tongue-in-cheek, to suggest Benedict is gone, but only temporarily so – as if on vacation. We live in confusing times in the Church, and I am fully sympathetic with those – including BISPers – who have grave concerns about Pope Francis. I share those concerns as well. That said, regular readers of Roma Locuta Est well know that I absolutely reject any suggestion Benedict is still pope. Roma Locuta Est has provided a number of rebuttals on the topic. Some of the articles deal with questions related to whether Benedict’s resignation was forced (see Thoughts on Free Will and Hypothetical Papal Plots) or was it a “partial” or bifurcated one (see Benedict is NOT pope; Benedict is STILL not Pope; and Benedict is really, really still not pope! Really!). In addition, articles address other questions as well (e.g., see Against the Arguments that Claim Benedict XVI is STILL Pope, Benedict is Still Pope and Other Errors). Roma Locuta Est receives emails regarding the positions it takes, both pro and con. Perhaps the topic which draws the most heated responses is my position on Benedict XVI. These emails either agree with me or try to convince me that I am horribly wrong. However, I recently received an email this week from one reader who, self-describing himself as a former “Benevacantist,” explains how he “found his way back to sanity.” The last paragraph of this letter suggested to me it might be edifying to share it with others (i.e., BIPPers, BISPers, Benevcantists or Sede Vacationists). Here follows the email in its entirety with the original formatting. The name of the author has been withheld with his consent. Dear Mr O’Reilly, First off, I wish to commend you for maintaining such a perfect balance on your blog between recognising the errors of Pope Francis and still proclaiming the validity of his papacy. I additionally wish to thank you for engaging those who hold to the ideas of ‘Benevacantism’ (or ‘resignationism’ or the ‘Barnhardt Thesis’ or the ‘Benedict-Is-Still-Pope Theory’ or whatever you want to call it) with the degree of charity and compassion that you do. Speaking as a former Benevacantist myself, who only found his way back to sanity late last year – thanks in part to getting off my high horse and giving your posts on the Francis/Benedict controversy a fair reading – I can safely say that, if everyone were as gentle about it as you are (as opposed to simply insulting people the way some of the big-name commentators are wont to do), the debate would go a lot smoother. In that vein, I wanted to give you what I consider a ‘pro tip’ in terms of arguing for the validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation. For me personally, the biggest sticking points were his ambiguous language in the Last General Audience of 27 February 2013 – in which he spoke of resigning the ‘active exercise of the Petrine ministry’ and declared that he would ‘remain, so to speak, within the enclosure of Saint Peter’ – and the English translation of the Declaratio of 11 February 2013 itself, where it does indeed seem that he makes a false distinction between the ‘ministry of the Bishop of Rome’ and the ‘Petrine office’, claiming to renounce the latter instead of the former. Besides your articles and a very pointed sermon on the question by Fr Shannon Collins, the biggest catalyst in my departure from Benevacantism was an article by Ryan Grant at OnePeterFive [https://onepeterfive.com/benevacantists/] examining the original Latin text of the Declaratio, in which the controversial lines read as follows: Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingraviscente aetate non jam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum. […] Quapropter bene concisus ponderis hujus actis plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopae Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse. From the standpoint of a Benevacantist, that still looks like Benedict is convicting himself of substantial error regarding the nature of the papacy. That is, until you look up what the words munus and ministerium actually mean in Latin. To wit, courtesy of the Oxford Latin Dictionary: munus ~eris, n., 1. The action demanded of or requisite for a person, a function, task. 2. A duty owed to the citizen by the State or by a community, an official post or appointment. 3. Something given as a duty, a tribute, offering. 4. A public show. 5. Something freely bestowed, a present, gift. ministerium ~i(i), n., 1. The activity or condition of a servant or attendant, service, attendance. 2. A function exercised on behalf of a superior, duty, employment, a particular task, service, commission. 3. Help given in a subordinate capacity, support, agency, instrumentality. 4. The management or administration (of). 5. A servant, attendant, an instrument, tool. 6. The utensils used at meals, a dinner-service. Contrary to the violent denunciations of the Benevacantists, while the two terms may not be 100% the same, the plain, simple truth is that ministerium and munus are in fact much closer to each other in Latin than the corresponding terms ‘office’ and ‘ministry’ in English. In fact, just to drive the point home, consider the translations one receives for munus and ministerium when entered in William Whitaker’s Words: munus, muneris, n., service, duty, OFFICE, function, gift, tribute offering, bribes. ministerium, ministeri(i), n., OFFICE, attendance, service, employment, body of helpers, occupation, work. Since the original Latin text of the Declaratio is the only one that actually bears ecclesial weight and the Latin terms munus and ministerium are both synonymous with ‘office’, one of the major bases for the theory of Pope Benedict resigning in substantial error comes crashing down. Just to add a little more intrigue, the English translation of the Declaratio at the Holy See website [http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ments/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html] actually translates munus Petrinum as ‘Petrine ministry‘ – make of that what you will. While the exceptionally odd wording of his Last General Audience still bothers me greatly, because he made clear in the same audience that he intended to renounce ‘the office and governance of the Church’ – i.e., his jurisdictional authority as Bishop of Rome, without which he can’t possibly be Pope because the papacy is the top tier of the hierarchy of jurisdiction – and qualified his continued residence in the enclosure of Saint Peter as merely ‘so to speak’, the only logical conclusion is that he was speaking symbolically. But since someone somewhere will no doubt accuse me of trying to whitewash Pope Benedict’s actions merely on the basis of his resignation being valid, let me state emphatically that such is most definitely not the case. I can understand his desire to remain in the Vatican – who knows what kind of nutjobs might come after him if he went back to Bavaria without a Swiss Guard detail? – but the fact that he continues to wear the papal white and continues to use his papal name and title is nothing short of scandalous and raises serious questions about his powers of judgement. The fact that he appears to see nothing wrong with this arrangement after six years only proves to me that – when it comes to erroneous and destructive ideas – Benedict and Francis are merely different in degree, not in kind. I hope this email will be to your edification and that of your readers (if you choose to post it), I pray that you will continue to hold the middle ground of Recognising and Resisting in the years to come, and I thank you once again for helping me find my way out of the fog of Benevacantism and back into the light of our Holy Catholic Faith.
This is a clarification of just about everything I have posted about benevacantism and a validation for my feelings about the wearing of the white and so forth..... thank you
You know the young man , bless him ; was not an American but an Austrian from the heart of Liberal Europe. He was not a cranky old fart, but young and very relaxed about it all. Not as far as I could tell a Conservative but just a young happy guy who prayed about it all and did his simple duty. It kinda warns us all not to put people in boxes. The Holy Spirit can travel where He wills. It must drive the Vatican crazy that someone like him could do this. I think they would have preferred a gun toting, stetson wearing , Trump looking , oil billionaire from Texas to do have done it. But it does show the danger of making too many assumptions about people. The Holy Father does this lot. Judges people. Puts labels round their necks. Pharisees. Vinegar Hearts. Rigid. In need of help people. American Conservatives. Trads Instead of realising these are simply his Spiritual Children screaming in pain. But of course he never sticks labels on folks who are sexual perverts. (He makes these people Cardinals) Wanting to kill babies in the womb Or want to ask sticky questions about Muslim immigrants.. Or, God forbid, have any doubts whatosever about the UN and Carbon footstep buinssess Still I wish it had been Big Jake that dumped those Mama's
That was after the Vatican Council. It was Cardinal Ottaviani who stood up to the modernists before and during the Council. It's mainly thanks to him that Vatican 11 didn't completely reverse the Council of Trent. He was speaking in defence of Holy Mass when they cut off his microphone. Some might say that the trials Cardinal Ratzinger had during his spell at the CDF were the fruits of some of the seeds he had helped sow during Vatican 11. Hard to blame Archbishop Lefebvre for his suspicions of some of the high ranking members of the Curia.
If you watch the video from ~31:40 to 35:00, it is clear that I did not misinterpret Bp Schneider. The following is the transcript from ~31:40 to 35:00 :- "so we have, we have now the evil the of 31:41 the relativism, doctrinal relativism, 31:45 doctrinal ambiguity, which we have 31:49 already, partly, in some expressions of 31:52 the texts of the Second Vatican Council, 31:55 like that we are all together with the 31:58 Muslims with the one God, or that man is the center of and the culmination of all 32:06 that exists here on earth, or that you 32:13 have a natural right ,by your nature 32:16 itself to choose to have the freedom of 32:20 religion. It could be explained that you 32:24 cannot be forced to another religion, this 32:27 is another meaning, but it means also 32:30 that you have the liberty to choose a 32:33 religion. Even so the text of the Vatican 32:38 council says that every person has 32:42 the obligation to seek the truth and 32:46 this is the Catholic Church, but in 32:50 another, further, says that you have the 32:54 freedom of religion rooted in your 32:57 nature (MM: This is all from the Second Vatican Council?) Yes, this is in the text of 33:01 Dignitatis Humanae, and so it is 33:04 ambiguous. It is not clear and the 33:07 consequences after the council were 33:09 that in all Catholic, in almost all 33:13 Catholic seminaries and theological 33:15 faculties, and in the episcopate 33:18 and even in the Holy See, promoted the 33:24 doctrine that you have really a right, 33:28 every person to choose 33:32 his religion. No, you have no right to 33:36 choose idolatry. 33:38 You have no right to offend God through 33:42 idolatry, or through blasphemy. 33:46 And this is already here, rooted. I mean 33:51 if you have a right by God given to you 33:55 by nature also to be able to choose acts 34:02 of idolatry like the Pachamama, 34:06 so it, when it is rooted in your dignity 34:12 of men, even to choose a Pachamama 34:14 religion, 34:16 this is the last consequence of this 34:18 expression of the Council text. And I 34:22 repeat it was this expression is 34:26 ambiguous. It had to be in another way 34:29 formulated, to avoid these applications 34:36 in the life of the church, which we 34:37 had also in the Assisi meeting of Pope John 34:41 Paul II in 1986 and the other repeated, 34:48 where even idolatrous religions were 34:53 invited to, to pray in their manner, so 34:58 in the idolatrous manner, for peace. 35:02 We see already these moments present but 35:07 now this which we witnessed in the 35:10 Vatican, in the formal performance of 35:14 idolatrous acts in the Catholic Church, 35:17 in the heart of the Catholic Church in 35:19 St Peter’s; It is the triumph of the evil… He may have defended it in the past, but it appears that Bp Schneider, now, with hindsight, sees that the errors that were promoted by Dignitatis Humanae culminated in the Pachamama idol worship in the Vatican and St Peter's. +
I quoted your post because you made a specific recommendation to me, by name, to watch that video. And I needed to refer to that video. But in my post, I did not address the questions specifically to you, by name. I hope you are not implying that I am twisting the facts. +
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change The COURAGE to change the things I can. And the wisdom to know the difference. +
This post of Steven O' Reilly's claims that munus and ministerium in Latin mean essentially the same thing. A good explanation on why this is erroneous can be found here: https://vericatholici.wordpress.com...vis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/ Also, do read the same blogger's (Steven O' Reilly) more recent post about why an imperfect council needs to be called: Time for an imperfect council to consider the case of an imperfect pope +
My response still stands. It makes sense and agrees with PEB’s own words of 2013: both the See of Rome and the See of Peter are empty and we need a conclave.
Bishop Schneider may imply a distinction between 'expressions of the texts' and the actual texts. That needs to be clarified. God created man with Free Will. We have always had the right to reject Him. What we do not have is the right to Salvation if we choose to reject Him. In that sense, described by Our Lord's own advice to the Apostles to shake the dust off their feet upon encountering those who rejected the Gospel, we have always had religious freedom. The modernist error is to believe that this freedom has no effect on Salvation. This is the error that St Pope John Paul II seems to have been making in Assisi. However, Christ Himself would not prevent a Muslim from choosing to remain one, even having been made known of His Truth. However, that Muslim could not expect to enter Heaven under those conditions. That's how I see it, anyway.
Yes, and we need also to remember that there are no perfect people, no perfect members of the hierarchy or the Papacy. We have free will. We sin. We go to Confession, we receive Our Lord in the Eucharist. He will reconcile all things to Himself in the end. Right now He is sifting the wheat from the chaff. And we are rife with Modernists in the Church, which is part of the Chastisement. This is not the Church as it was in the time of Pope St. Pius X, but it is what we have now, and where Christ is still abiding. (I see the Church becoming smaller as PEB prophesied.) We do not know how much longer we have left before everything changes.
Don't go off without the wisdom. The prayer is meant to be a personal assessment of one's needs. The courage to change the things I can really boils down to changing those things about oneself, since one lacks the power to change things on the broad scope, such as telling the Pope he is a heretic and he should resign. That is the part of accepting what we cannot change. The courage to change the things I can lies solely with the self, since that is all we can change within the scope of things. It refers to overcoming our sins, offenses and negligences with the Grace of God, and allowing Him to do the work, thus giving us peace, when we cease toiling against the goad.
It is true that the Modernists in Vatican II council shamelessly and disrespectfully cut off the mic while Cardinal Ottaviani, who was almost blind then, was still speaking. How sad. Still, we must remember that it is largely thanks to Abp Lefebvre that we still have the Traditional Latin Mass today. Otherwise, we most probably would not have enough priests who know how to celebrate the TLM, and Pope Benedict XVI may not have issued Summorum Pontificum. +
I fail to see that there is a connection. How can you say that there probably would not be enough priests who know how to celebrate the TLM without having had a schismatic group to teach them? That borders on the absurd, Sg. I believe that the Tridentine Mass is the Mass for all Ages since that was the intent of Pope Pius V when he instituted it at the Council of Trent. That has more bearing on why PEB issued the Summorum Pontificum motu proprio, imho.
