I believe it was this podcast interview josephite. I think this was the day after his interview with Dr Marshall.
I don't know of SG already posted this or not but in the event anyone would like to read through Dr Mazza's paper it is posted below in part. It is long of course so I won't post it in it's entirety. https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/0...can-scholar-attempts-an-explanation/#comments 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…[1] (emphasis mine) Gänswein’s musings left many veteran Vatican commentators nonplussed. Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vaticanwrote: So both the Catholic Left and Right were equally disturbed by Gänswein’s remarks. Besides adding to the scandal of Catholics not knowing who our real Pope is (its Francis, in case anyone is wondering), or thinking there are two Popes at the same time, the irony of the archbishop’s speech is that neither the papacy nor Benedict’s pontificate needs to be artificially enhanced by anyone, or for any purpose. Vatican Councils I and II made clear that the Church is ruled by one, and only one Pope — at a time — and also gave the papacy all the “expanded” powers it needs, including the charism of infallibility, under clearly defined circumstances. There is one Pope, and one Petrine Ministry — end of story.[2] Historian Dr. Roberto De Mattei similarly takes issue with “Pope Emeritus”: If the pope who resigns from the pontificate retains the title of emeritus, that means that to some extent he remains pope. It is clear, in fact, that in the definition the noun [pope] prevails over the adjective [emeritus]. But why is he still pope after the abdication? The only explanation possible is that the pontifical election has imparted an indelible character, which he does not lose with the resignation. The abdication would presuppose in this case the cessation of the exercise of power, but not the disappearance of the pontifical character. This indelible character attributed to the pope could be explained in its turn only by an ecclesiological vision that would subordinate the juridical dimension of the pontificate to the sacramental. It is possible that Benedict XVI shares this position, presented by Violi and Gigliotti in their essays, but the eventuality that he may have made the notion of the sacramental nature of the papacy his own does not mean that it is true. There does not exist, except in the imagination of some theologians, a spiritual papacy distinct from the juridical papacy. If the pope is, by definition, the one who governs the Church, in resigning governance he resigns from the papacy. The papacy is not a spiritual or sacramental condition, but an “office,” or indeed an institution.[3] (emphasis mine) Continued at the link...
What I said certainly is true. I listened to both interviews. Dr. Mazza tried to say that the term "Supreme Pontiff" might not have had the same meaning in the early church that it does today. He said it may only have referred to an esteemed bishop. He said maybe Pope Benedict was using the thousand-year-old meaning of the words, not what they mean in plain language today. That is the very definition of minimizing. I did not say he did not address the point. He did. What I said was that he is trying his best to twist the words of Pope Benedict's abdication in an unnatural way. It is true words do change in meaning over time, but we are dealing with the 21st century meaning of words, not what they meant in the 3rd century. If you ask anyone in the Church today what the term Supreme Pontiff means they will all say that is the title of the Pope. Period. If I said to you gay people deserve equal rights, you would not think I meant "happy" people deserve equal rights, you would think I meant homosexual people deserve equal rights. Because that is the meaning of the word today, yet 100 years ago it meant something very different. In deciphering the meaning of my words, you would not go back to what people might have meant by them a century ago, let alone 1500 years ago. That is disingenuous at best.
Don't get me wrong, the Mazza thesis is a fascinating one, but it is highly theoretical and would depend upon a large number of unknown variables and guesses. It is definitely not something one should base one's beliefs on. In order for it to be true, Pope Benedict was not only separating the Papacy from the Bishopric of Rome, but purposefully doing it in a confusing and obscure way so that it would appear hidden. Popes are supposed to teach with clarity. If Pope Benedict wanted to separate the office of the Papacy from the Bishop of Rome all he would need to do would be to state it plainly with some clear statement like "I am hereby separating the traditional union of the Bishop of Rome from the office of Supreme Pontiff. These will now be two separate and distinct positions in the Church." It would probably have left may people scratching their heads and left theologians with something to talk about for many years, but it would have been done plainly and simply. Mazza claims Pope Benedict desired to separate the two, but in a secret way. Sorry, that just doesn't seem "Pope-like" to me. It seems much more likely that Dr. Mazza is unhappy with the current Pontificate and is trying any way he can to twist the resignation of Pope Benedict so that he can make sense of the current situation to his satisfaction. It is an interesting idea, but it seems highly improbable that Pope Benedict would craft some super-secret scheme that only a layman with no theological training would figure out years after the fact. A scheme which, by the way, would likely lead to the condemning to Hell of innumerable souls. To use Mazza's own Sherlock Homles quote: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” So which is more probable, Pope Benedict resigned and we got a Pope that was much more to the "left" of him? or Pope Benedict hatched an unprecedented secret scheme to separate the Papacy from the Bishopric of Rome, something that theologians still debate over whether it is even possible. And he did this while telling no one and hoping someday some theologian might find discrepancies in his abdication and negate all pontificates after his? Which is more likely? I think Sherlock Holmes, being a good detective, would have gone with Occam's Razor in this case. The simplest explanation that works is most likely the correct one.
Dr. Mazza is apparently not the only one who is trying to twist the resignation of Pope Benedict so that he can make sense of the current situation to his satisfaction. (your words in bold). I have noticed this in people. They seem to be unable to accept a simple truth.
I don't think it is fair to judge that anyone is intentionally twisting things or being deliberately disingenuous who is not here to answer for themselves. Why after all did Jesus choose to speak in parables? Didn't he do this so that some would not understand? Did the Apostles always understand the parables or did they too need them explained from time to time? Who hears Christ's voice and follows Him? Do His own blindly follow the hired hand merely because he carries a staff of the Sheppard? From the beginning of this pontificate has the voice of the Sheppard been the voice we all know immediately and follow without a doubt or has it been a voice that sounds vaguely familiar yet is preaching a gospel that is not just vaguely off but is a radical departure from the one we know. I think we all know the answer to that question. Why did Pope Benedict give us Summorum Pontificum during his brief reign? https://taylormarshall.com/2013/01/eleven-great-quotes-from-pope-benedict.html
This is not about Pope Benedict’s papacy, but about the people who think that he has not resigned. I am grateful for the resurgence of the TLM.
Dr. Mazza said Pope Benedict was being disingenuous. So why can't I say that I think Dr. Mazza is? Pope Benedict was not there to defend himself against Dr. Mazza. Quite frankly I think this is a stain upon Pope Benedict's reputation. Mazza's thesis essentially says that Pope Benedict felt that there would be a bad papacy after his and he wanted to allow the Church to be fooled into following the directives of a false Pope by hiding the "fact" that he didn't really resign, thus costing innumerable souls their salvation. How is that not offensive to Pope Benedict? My problem is not with Dr. Mazza thinking up this idea or putting it out in the ether. My problem is that some people will latch onto it and base their beliefs upon it. That is not what we should do. These are topics for the Church to debate and decide upon. Most likely a future council will be held to figure all of this out. In fact, there are prophecies that speak of such a council. One that will right the wrongs of our age. Unfortunately, we are the ones stuck here in the "in-between" time. Lay people have not been given the authority to declare a papacy invalid. That is for Church councils to decide.
There is a small, but growing number of people who are coming to believe Benedict is still Pope. Is it true? I don't know. But neither do they. My argument has never been that people can't wonder about these things. My point has always been that they should not reject the man that the conclave told us is Pope because of a personal theory. We do not have the authority to do that. We risk schism if we reject a true sitting Pope.
It's a mess. Pope Benedict resigned but still wears white, gives Apostolic blessings and wears the Fisherman's Ring. He lives in the Vatican and still uses his Papal name and designations, only with 'Emeritus' after. People address him as 'your holiness'. Well if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it probably is a duck. So what we have in effect is two Popes, both with the charism of Peter, one (Francis) actively exercising the Petrine office, the other.... um... not. ???? The Pope Emeritus has said he would be silent, but he's answered the dubia and given an interview with Peter Seewald. This is not a criticism, because he was born to write and to teach. So why didn't he change back into a black cassock and retire to a Bavarian monastery where he could be near his brother? A German colleague asked me 'why is he still alive? Popes aren't supposed to prolong their lives (I'm still quoting her but not verbatim as I've forgotten her exact words). I had no answer. I accepted his decision because I have always loved and respected the man but I couldn't find an answer. Unlike Ann Bernhardt I would never call Francis the anti-pope. No one ever went to hell for following a bad pope. That's above my pay grade. However is it surprising that some people despair after Pachamama and Moloch and 'who am i to judge' (OK that has been misquoted but where was the correction?). All we can do is to pray.
Don, I want to thank you for your correction of me. I have been ruminating about your post while out working the past few hours. Perhaps disingenuous was too strong a word. I don't dislike Dr. Mazza, his thoughts, or think he is trying to deceive people. I think he truly believes what he is putting forth. What I do feel is that he is suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias. So much so that he is definitely twisting and stretching the wording of Pope Benedict's resignation in ways it was never meant to be. If everyone was totally happy with Pope Francis then absolutely no one would be looking at the wording of the resignation and thinking there was anything wrong with it. When Pope Benedict resigned it was clear to the world that he was resigning and that he intended a new conclave to be undertaken by the Cardinals. As I have said before if someone is looking to make an argument that he is still Pope then I think the original substantial error one is a better bet. One can point to clear, visible, and objective signs that may be a valid thesis. The Papal ring, the white cassock, the titles, the PP with his signature, the apostolic blessings, and on and on we go. Those are objective facts we can see. Mazza's theory, on the other hand, requires us to guess at what was/is going on in Pope Benedict's mind and what his intentions were/are and that is something we cannot and probably never will know.
Yes, two "bishops dressed in white", but only one "thought to be a bishop" according to the Fatima message, is martyred on a hill after walking over dead bodies of priests and others. I have no doubt that this bishop in white is Pope Benedict and his mission will be through as one credible prophecy foretells.
I don't think Pope Benedict "lacked trust" at all. I believe he is following God's script to the tee. He was a student of the Fatima messages and he has been prophetic way before becoming pope. It is his trust in God that brought him into "retirement" to pray, fast and prepare for his sacrifice as the bishop dressed in white. Time will tell if I am right on this, but I know his mission is not through at this point.
I have thought of this too HH. Yet, God will provide the strength if this is His will. He did for his Son Jesus and has done so for martyrs throughout the church history.
