8 thoughts on “It is de Fide that there cannot be two popes”

  1. Yes, and Ratzinger has defended that dogma since he was Cardinal and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. So it is absurd to think that, all of a sudden, he “changed his mind” in February 2013 and “made way” to a “juridically valid” “Papal diarchy”.

    If I say: “the rotational movement of the Earth takes 48 hours”… That proposition is clearly FALSE.

    But… the mere fact that I affirm such a thing, is per se proof that I am in error with regards to the rotational movement?

    Of course not! There are multiple possibilities regarding my *psychological perception* about the rotational movement… So, with said FALSE proposition:

    (i) I could be lying (and trying to deliberately “teach” someone a wrong “doctrine”).

    (ii) I could be joking.

    (iii) I could be in error.

    (iv) I could be trying to send some message to my interlocutor (linked to, for example, the 48/24 proportion).

    So, the mere fact that I affirm a FALSE proposition does not necessarily imply that I am in error.

    In Ratzinger’s case… The fact that his Declaratio has led to an *apparent* (de facto) Papal diarchy, does not necessarily means that he is in error (i.e. that he wrongly *believes* that such a diarchy is juridically possible).

    The error, as a psychological phenomenon, must be proven, it requires proof that are *additional* to the mere proposition (or act) in question.

    Again, in Ratzinger’s case, we have abundant proof that he is completely orthodox regarding the necessarily unipersonal character of the Papal Office (i.e., we have abundant proof that in his case, there is NO error whatsoever on that matter)…

    1. What, then, do you make of his defective abdication? You hint, but do not say outright, that he is “sending a message” to some one or more persons….

      1. In any case, the why is a secondary question.

        The *defective* abdication is due to a deficiency in the *object* of the act. Benedict did NOT resign from the Papacy, the munus, the charge or office of Roman Pontiff. The act is, in the first place, *objectively* defective, it does NOT exist as a “resignation from the Papacy”.

        So, we do not need to go to the psychological aspect of Benedict’s perception about the Papacy in order to establish the *defective* character of his (non)-abdication. We can perfectly disagree about the why, and still see the nullity.

        But again, if we do go there (the psychological), we see that there’s NO mistake on his part whatsoever. He has always rejected the (theological/juridical) possibility of a “colegial Papacy”.

        Now, is he sending a message? Of course he is! When he says “Holy Father” to “Pope Francis”, while appearing himself as a “Holy Father”… He is sending a message… When he preserved the munus and at the same time said that a conclave should be convoked… He was sending a message… When he said there are no white clothes in the Vatican, he is sending a message… What’s the message (considering that he has always rejected the “colegial Papacy” thing?) The message is simple: what apparently would be “two Popes”, it’s not so really…: there is a true Pope (me) and a false Pope (Bergoglio).

  2. A very difficult theory to swallow, given our Blessed Lord’s explicit teaching, “Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ & your ‘no’ mean ‘no’; anything else is from the devil.” Ms Barnhardt has uncovered evidence, contrary to your claim, that Ratzinger INDEED entertained the prospect of a “shared” papacy. The eminent question arising: which body of evidence carries greater weight? It is one which cannot be considered rendered moot inasmuch as SOMEONE — apparently, not B16 — will have to render an account to a deceived Church & world, in that process which enables the papacy to get back on its tracks. May Christ bestow the grace for this speedily.

    1. I have looked at the evidence Barnhardt has cited regarding what you allege here. I found it inconclusive to say that he approved of such an opinion. Ratzinger was a librarian of ideas, he considered and spoke about all of them, as an observer sometimes making comments for or against, but rarely adopting any as his own. But also avoiding the kind of declaratory expression of his own views which is more common in Scholastic authors.

    2. Barnhardt’s evidence is nonexistent. It amounts to essentially: Ratzinger was in TĂĽbingen at he same time these crazy ideas were being discussesd (as per the Miller dissertation). 40 years later he appears to attempt to split the papacy, ergo he must have agreed with them.

      Yet in the Miller dissertation that Barnhardt keeps touting nowhere is it reported that he supported this view. The only reference in Ratinger’s own writings concerned some Russian writer’s ideas of a tripartite papacy, an idea which Ratzinger himself dismissed in the same essay.

      Barnhardt needs to abandon this position. She is charging Benedict with a grave theological error for which she has no evidence, and in doing so she is unwittingly playing into the hands of the sedevacantists who slanderously claim he is a heretic. He knew what he was doing . Every step of the way.

    3. (i) The veracity about the position or action of a person (in this case, the position and action of BXVI with respect to the papacy) does not depend on the moral considerations or judgments that you or I or anyone else can make regarding said position or action.

      (ii) As has been said a thousand and a thousand times, in this and in other spaces, there is, in the moral doctrine of the Church, the teaching on “mental reservations”, referring to when and how the use of ambiguity is permitted and licit. Ratzinger’s case fits into this context.

      (iii) However, it is interesting to note that an extravagant heresy about an impossible “Collegial Papacy” would be more acceptable to you than the legitimate use of ambiguity.

      (iv) There is NO evidence whatsoever regarding such an heresy on Ratzinger’s part. Have you directly read the sources, the writings in which Ratzinger supposedly affirms such barbarity? I suspect you haven’t. Because, in fact, those articles say quite THE CONTRARY. Cfr. https://www.communio-icr.com/articles/view/the-primacy-of-the-pope; https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html; https://marisabelcontreras.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/la-sal-de-la-tierra.pdf (p. 125, Q and A regarding the future of the Papacy – you might translate it with google).

      As for Miller’s doctoral thesis, there is not a single sentence from which it can be inferred that Ratzinger defends the heresy of a collegial Papacy.

      (v) So, again, there is no “substatial error” at all on Ratzinger’s part with regards to such heresy. We must stop with this false accusation against the Holy Father. Otherwise, the Papacy, instituted by our Lord as the Rock of Unity, will become, for many of us, a stumbling stone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.