Grateful that he isn't Marx, Kasper, Schonborn, Cupich or, Heaven forbid, Maradiaga. He might wear the red shoes to show off his moves and we could get a Pope single topping the charts to raise money for the catch-all agenda aka "The Common Good".
Home » News » US Can bishops require Communion on the hand? 3.6K28 https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/can-bishops-require-communion-on-the-hand-82862
The Mazza Hypothesis: Benedict resigned as Bishop of Rome but not Vicar of Christ. Wherein Fr. Z ponders with a heavy heart. Posted on 4 June 2020 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf I’ve been pondering lately. One needs to do this out of love. [...] Is it okay to say that I am still feeling the gravity of the abdication of Benedict XVI and its aftermath? I don’t think I am alone. Something truly ponderous must have driven Benedict – whom I knew a little, personally, before his election – to have left the Apostolic Apartments for the tiny house in the back of the Vatican gardens. [...] Thus, the thesis of Edmund Mazza. Mazza was also on a podcast with Ann Barnhardt, whom I am sure you know has for a long time now been adamantly saying that Francis is an antipope and the Benedict XVI is still Pope. Benedict did not resign the papacy. He could have been pressured to resign. He didn’t use the proper language or terms. Etc. [...] Perhaps I can summarize the main line of Mazza’s argument. Based on Benedict’s wording of his resignation, and based on comments made by Benedict’s secretary and confidant and, still, head of the Papal Household, Archbp. George Gänswein, Benedict may have tried to “split” the two-fold role of the Successor of Peter, namely a) Bishop of Rome and b) Vicar of Christ. So, Benedict resigned as Bishop of Rome, calling himself Pope Emeritus, like a Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Rome, but he retained for himself the role of Vicar of Christ. My immediate reaction is, “No, can’t happen. These offices are inextricably tied together and are embodied in one man who is elected to the See of Rome, because that was Peter’s See.” Not so fast. In the podcasts, Mazza brings up the fact when Christ conferred on Peter what was clearly intended to an office that was to be handed down, when Christ gave Peter the “keys” and clearly made him head of the Apostles, earthly head of the Church built on his “rock”, when Christ at the Sea of Galilee confirmed Peter’s office, intended to be handed down, Peter had not yet been anywhere near Rome. Peter was Vicar of Christ before he was Bishop of Rome. When Christ takes the Apostles to Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:16-18) he gives people the “keys”. About a year later, the Apostles are ordained at the Last Supper. Peter has the keys from Matthew 16 onward, but he is not a “bishop” until the Eucharist and Holy Orders were established by Christ. Consider that when Christ gave primacy to Peter, there were no sees or dioceses. Peter later would found the Church at Alexandria and Antioch. Wouldn’t Antioch have been the primal see? But Peter left Antioch and went to Rome. So there seems to be nothing absolutely necessary about the one we now call “Pope” being Bishop of Rome. As a matter of fact, the Successor of Peter could divorce the papacy from Rome and move it somewhere else … or nowhere. It is his person that matters. But there could still be a Bishop of Rome, appointed by him, if Rome still existed. [...] There is nothing holding a Pope in Rome except for custom, property, tradition, international laws, finance, etc. Not theology. In his person a Pope is Vicar of Christ and Successor of Peter whether he is BISHOP of Rome or not. In the podcasts, Mazza brings up the debate about Romanitas and the papacy in the 19th c. at the time of Vatican I. Is Romanitas of the very essence of the papacy or not? The answer is: “No.” Mazza checked with Archbp. J. Michael Miller of Vancouver (with whom I used to live in Rome in a clerical residence) about the possibility . Miller had written an amazing doctoral thesis: “The divine right of the papacy in recent ecumenical theology”. There are relevant sections in the thesis about the nature of the papacy. Miller confirmed that it is not wrong to to say that Romanitas is not of the very essence of the papacy, that is, the office of Vicar of Christ as Successor of Peter. It would obviously be of the essence of being Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter in that sense. So, cutting though the verbiage. There is a strong argument to be made that Benedict might have intended to renounce the active ministry (office of the Bishop of Rome) while retaining the spiritual ministry (Successor of Peter). Hence, while juridically Francis can be called Bishop of Rome, because he was elected by the “clergy” of Rome (the College of Cardinals), Francis is not, in fact the Successor of Peter on the other, spiritual level, even though he succeeded to the office of bishop that Peter held. The distinction is to be made about Peter qua (insofar as he is) Vicar of Christ and Peter qua (insofar as he is) Bishop of Rome. Hitherto there has been a strong correlation of the two aspects, so much so that, with the conferral of the one, the other came also. However, consider also that the papacy can be conferred on any baptized male! At the moment that baptized male accepts the election, he has full authority in the Church. Period. Afterwards it is prescribed that he is to be immediately consecrated as a bishop so that he can simultaneously be Bishop of Rome. On the Barnhardt podcast the possibility is raised that, if the hypothesis is right and that Benedict tried to split these roles, that Benedict was in error that this could be done. However, if that is the case, then his abdication would have been void. If the reason for his abdication was precisely to bifurcate the roles of the Successor of Peter, and if that is impossible, then Benedict acted erroneously and his act of abdication would be null, nothing. If a Pope is forced to resign by some third parties, the resignation is void. For example, say that someone threatened the life of, say, his brother Georg. If the Pope resigns according to some erroneous notion that he is doing something impossible, the resignation would be void. There’s a lot more to be said. However, let me wrap up with a point about: WHAT NOW?!? When Benedict announced his resignation, he declared: For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter [ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri], entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter [sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri], will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is. The office of the Successor of Peter qua Bishop of Rome is conferred on a man through his election to the See of Peter by the College of Cardinals. The Cardinals are the “clergy” of Rome. Every Cardinal is assigned a church in Rome, even though he may be Archbishop of, say, Ouagadougou. The original Cardinals were the clergy of Rome, deacons and priests, and the bishops of the closest sees. However, the office of Successor of Peter qua Vicar of Christ is conferred not by the College of Cardinals – nemo dat quod non habet – but rather by Christ Himself. The 1870 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ of Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, deals with the Petrine Ministry. Pastor aeternus says from the onset: “Docemus itaque et declaramus, iuxta Evangelii testimonia primatum iurisdictionis in universam Dei Ecclesiam immediate ct directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse… Therefore we teach and declare, according to the Gospel’s witness, that a primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised to and conferred on the Blessed Apostle Peter by Christ the Lord.” Not the College of Cardinals. Remember: this happened before Christ’s Passion and was confirmed afterwards long before Peter went to Antioch, much less to Rome. [...] So, the Mazza Hypothesis is that Benedict renounced being the Bishop of Rome without renouncing the papacy, being Vicar of Christ. [...] Did Benedict think that the primacy, the papacy, being Successor Peter qua Vicar of Christ root in him ontologically, such that he thought he could divorce the active ministerium given by the College without giving up the petrinum munus given by Christ? I’m pondering all of this and it is rather heavy. https://wdtprs.com/2020/06/the-mazz...rist-wherein-fr-z-ponders-with-a-heavy-heart/ +
(The full essay of Dr Mazza is published in this article: https://fromrome.info/2020/03/08/resigned-to-the-papacy-does-benedict-still-claim-he-is-pope/) Resigned to the Papacy: Does Benedict still claim he is Pope? March 8, 2020 From Rome Editor At the request of the author, who was cited incompletely in Edward Pentin’s report, yesterday, FromRome.Info publishes the full essay with its original title by Dr. Edmund J. Mazza Ph.D. Medieval History An excerpt: .....ever since February 11, 2013 speculations have circulated that Benedict’s renunciation may have been invalid, that he—in some way—still retains the papacy. These allegations were fueled in part by Benedict’s own rather bizarre measures after formally stepping down, such keeping his name “Pope Benedict XVI,” his title “His Holiness,” his white cassock, imparting his “Apostolic Blessing,” and lastly—never departing the Vatican. These claims even received an unexpected boost thanks to a speech by Benedict’s Personal Secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household. At Rome’s Gregorianum in 2016, Gänswein declared “he has not abandoned this ministry at all. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi-shared ministry.” Gänswein adds: “He has not abandoned the office of Peter, a thing which would be completely impossible for him following his irrevocable acceptance of the office…” (2) Then in 2017, Last Testament: In His Own Words, was published in which journalist Peter Seewald conducted a lengthy interview with Benedict. At one point, Seewald pointedly asks His Holiness: “Is a slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?” Benedict replies: One can of course make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The follower [successor] of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office [munus] (3) enters into your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion. (4) (Emphasis mine) What “misunderstanding”? A simple “yes,” would do. But Benedict does not give a “yes” or “no” answer to this straightforward question. All the more bizarre since his answer, in fact, must be a “yes,” or otherwise he is contradicting the very reason he gave for stepping down in his official resignation speech: I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine office [non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum]… strength…has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry [ministerium] entrusted to me. For this reason…I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter… But in his answer to Seewald, Benedict explains that a physical “slow-down” only affects the “functions” or “ministry” of a pope, his day-to-day tasks like any other official. But being Pope, Benedict insists, is not fundamentally about doing this or that, it’s about being. His answer is an ontological one: “the office [munus] enters into your very being,” not the “function” or “ministry,” but the office. Seewald then observes: “One objection is that the papacy has been secularized by the resignation; that it is no longer a unique office but an office like any other.” Benedict replies: I had to…consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy …Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign…a number of bishops…said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply: even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such…If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function…one comes to understand that the office [munus] of the Pope has lost none of its greatness… Benedict again goes to great lengths to contrast the difference between I. “the office of the Pope” and II. the ministry or “function” associated with it. How to “decode” Benedict? By examining the words he has chosen and the ways he has deployed them before. +
Guest Post: Dr. Edmund Mazza’s Position Paper on the Invalidity of Pope Benedict’s Resignation Ann BarnhardtMay 27, ARSH 2020 Pope Emeritus Enigma: An Explanation at Last Edmund J. Mazza, PhD “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes “I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” More than seven years after Pope Benedict XVI resigned the papacy, Catholics still find themselves baffled and divided over his abrupt act. This is especially so because unlike every other ex-pope, he did not return to being “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, but instead announced himself as “Pope Emeritus.” Indeed, he is still called Benedict, still dresses in papal white, is still addressed as His Holiness, still gives Apostolic blessings, and still lives in the Vatican. Then, in 2016, Benedict’s personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein unexpectedly heaped fuel onto the fires of speculation and confusion when in an address at the Gregorianum he declared in dramatic overtones that Benedict has been daring enough to open the door to a new phase, to that historical turning point which no one five years ago could have ever imagined. Since then, we live in an historic era which in the 2,000-year history of the Church is without precedent. As in the time of Peter, also today the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues to have one legitimate Pope. But today we live with two living successors of Peter among us… Many people even today continue to see this new situation as a kind of exceptional (not regular) state of the divinely instituted office of Peter (eine Art göttlichen Ausnahmezustandes)… Since February 2013 the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation which Benedict XVI has profoundly and permanently transformed… And I, too, a firsthand witness of the spectacular and unexpected step of Benedict XVI, I must admit that what always comes to mind is the well-known and brilliant axiom with which, in the Middle Ages, John Duns Scotus justified the divine decree for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: “Decuit, potuit, fecit.” That is to say: it was fitting, because it was reasonable. God could do it, therefore he did it. I apply the axiom to the decision to resign in the following way: it was fitting, because Benedict XVI was aware that he lacked the necessary strength for the extremely onerous office. He could do it, because he had already thoroughly thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of popes emeritus for the future. So he did it… The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” [i.e. munus] He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst)… …he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope).But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role— allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII…To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary, as entirely consistent with the Gospel… read the rest at: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2020/05/2...the-invalidity-of-pope-benedicts-resignation/ +
Remember that Bergoglio has, right from the very beginning, called himself the Bishop of Rome and more recently, dropped the title of Vicar of Christ from the Vatican Yearbook. Benedict XVI still wants to be called Pope (Emeritus), wears the papal white, lives in the Vatican, gives his Apostolic Blessing and signs off as PP Benedictus XVI. +
This is like trying to find the way out of a maze. It makes my head hurt spiritually. But it is also a compelling hypothesis. As Winnie the Pooh would say "I am a bear of very little brain." What do I know? Nothing. What can I know? Nothing.(I just edited out the middle part of this. My conscience tells me to not say anything. Apologies for having spoken impulsively)..I ponder. I with Fr. Z ponder with a very heavy heart.
Will History repeat itself? After King Louis the XVI of France was dethroned, he was hanged. The same thing happened to the imprisoned and massacred family of Czar Nicholas of Russia by the Bolsheviks. Will Pope Benedict too suffer thee same fate?
I agree with you, it would take a canon lawyer to figure it all out. In the end, it just sounds like a lot of verbiage from people who are trying to find a legal way to get rid of Pope Francis. That's not going to happen.
Katfalls, there are many canon lawyers trying to figure it out. I'm with you. Lots of verbiage, wishful thinking, and unprecedented events. Edit: and in the end, what can really be accomplished, what can really be done, and by whom?
We are BOUND to seek the truth… All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know. Canon 748.1 I’d say the identity of the Vicar of Christ on Earth falls under the general category header of “things which regard God and His Holy Church.” https://www.barnhardt.biz/2020/05/29/we-are-bound-to-seek-the-truth/ +
An Illuminated Second Look at Pope Benedict Leaving His PALLIUM at the Tomb of Pope Celestine V Ann BarnhardtJune 6, ARSH 2020 https://www.barnhardt.biz/2020/06/0...-his-pallium-at-the-tomb-of-pope-celestine-v/ First, and I’m going to keep repeating this just so that we don’t lose focus on the point, POPE BENEDICT XVI did NOT validly resign the Papacy in February of ARSH 2013. Period. He is the one and only living Pope, and has been since April ARSH 2005. THAT is the core issue, and that is a binary objective reality. Either he is the Pope or he isn’t. Yes or no. And, it turns out that the objective reality is YES, Pope Benedict is still the Pope because he did not validly resign. For all of those who say, “What does it even matter?” I would respond with a few more questions. What does it MATTER if Our Lord is Divine or not? What does it MATTER if the bread and wine are Transubstantiated into the Real Physical Substance of God or not? What does it MATTER if the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is 3.1415? Tell me more about how TRUTH ITSELF DOES NOT MATTER, considering that TRUTH ITSELF is OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. Tell me more about how lies and error are “the same” as The Truth. I’m all ears. Tell me more about this luciferian philosophy of shrugging indifference to the Author, Sustainer and Foundation of reality itself – TRUTH. Now, here’s an interesting historical tidbit that we have talked about previously in this space, but given Dr. Mazza’s breakthrough thesis that Pope Benedict tried to resign only being the Bishop of Rome, I think we need to revisit Pope Benedict’s visit to the tomb of Pope Celestine V, the first Pope to resign in a juridically verifiable way (the events surrounding the death of Pope Pontian in ARSH 235 necessitate a hedge here). Here’s a video of the event. Now LOOK at the caption for this video – and remember, CTV is the Vatican’s in-house media arm: On April 29, 2009, after the earthquake, Benedict XVI stopped off in Aquila, Italy, and visited the tomb of an medieval Pope named St. Celestine V (1215-1296). After a brief prayer, he left his pallium, the symbol of his own episcopal authority as Bishop of Rome, on top of Celestine’s tomb! That’s right folks. The Pallium is the symbol of episcopal authority given to METROPOLITAN bishops. The Pallium is the symbol of METROPOLITAN authority and unity with the Vicar of Christ. Non-Metropolitan archbishops, like for example Archbishop Viganò who was in the diplomatic corps, or Archbishop Georg Ganswein, who is a Curial archbishop, they do NOT receive a pallium. Only archbishops who are given a Metropolitan See, whether that See be Mobile, Alabama or Rome, receive the Pallium. In the clip above, Pope Benedict’s Pallium is NOT symbolic of the Papacy in toto – it is, exactly as the caption from ARSH 2009 says: the symbol of his own episcopal authority as Bishop of Rome. The fact that Pope Benedict left his Pallium, the symbol of his EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY AS BISHOP OF ROME is … illuminating, to say the least. Oh – good news: Marco Tosatti has published Dr. Mazza’s position paper now as well. So now ALL of the Italians will see it. YEEESSS!!!! Pray for Pope Benedict XVI, the one and only living Pope whether he likes it or not, the Papacy, and Holy Mother Church. +
You're right, SG. I highly recommend listening to Professor Mazza's two interviews with Ann Barnhardt and Mark Dougherty. They thoroughly discuss the details of each point supporting Mazza's hypothesis. It makes their arguments easy to understand and much more compelling. https://www.barnhardt.biz/category/barnhardt-podcast/
What can be done and who would do it? Even if the truth were shown to be as you so avidly hope? I still pray that the truth will come out and people will be helped but maybe we are not supposed to know this, or know this right now. I don’t think I’m supposed to be digging around on this issue at this time. To me, it’s something God will take care of.
St Malachi's prophecy of the last two popes being the 'glory of the olive'and 'Peter the Roman' is discussed by Ann and Prof. Mazza within the context of Pope Benedict's resignation. Glory of the olive is Pope Benedict and perhaps Peter the Roman may be Francis and whoever succeeds him as the bishop of Rome. They speculate that God is protecting the main role of the pope by separating these two roles: the Petrine ministry from the bishopric of Rome. Ann speculates that this may be the lead up to the prophecy of "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist" (LaSalette prohecy). Pope Benedict still dresses in white, lives in the Vatican, gives apostolic blessings, and just wrote the book saying that priests cannot be married which likely stopped Francis from allowing it. The other two popes who resigned, Celestine and Gregory, never did this.
In St. John Bosco’s prophetic dream of the Barque sailing between the two columns, the Pope is killed during the fierce battle taking place. A new Pope is quickly elected and the furor dies down. The two columns are Holy Communion and the Blessed Mother. I really find it hard to believe that just because PE Benedict is still wearing white that he is still the Pope. Sorry. I’ve heard it so many times. And as I’ve said so many times, what can be done and who can do it, whatever “it” is. It’s above my pay grade and I have moved on to abiding in prayer. I recoil inwardly from anything coming from Ann Barnhardt or that “brother” who has no sanctioned religious affiliation. It’s sordid.
