Tag Archives: Pope Celestine V

Pope Benedict XVI’s shell game against the Mafia of St. Gallen

“Ein Leben”: In the second book of Interviews with Pope Benedict XVI, we find another story about His resignation

by Andrea Cionci

Here is an unofficial English translation

A few days ago, we became aware of strange inconsistencies and the possibility of a shocking subtext in the interview book by Peter Seewald – Benedict XVI “Last Conversations” (Garzanti 2016) HERE .

On a deeper reading, the writing seemed to be able to coincide with a scenario now outlined by various theologians, journalists, Latinists and legally explained by the recent volume “ Benedict XVI: pope emeritus? ” By the lawyer Estefania Acosta HERE .

According to this thesis, Benedict XVI, now besieged by the internal modernist frond and by external globalist powers, never left the Petrine throne in 2013 : he only announced his resignation from the exercise of his functions, moreover without ever ratifying them. HERE

In this way he would have allowed his enemies to seize power, effectively constituting an anti-papal party . Why all this? It would be a strategic retreat to allow anti-Christ forces to manifest themselves and then be canceled, thanks to the recognition of the only true pope, Benedict, for a redemption-purification of the Church. Over the past eight years, Ratzinger, kept under control by the antipapal power, has thus sent us continuous messages through a subtly logical language to facilitate our awareness.

The question, incredible as it may seem, is serious and there are even priests who are excommunicated for their fidelity to Pope Benedict. The latest is Don Enrico Bernasconi , whose interview we propose HERE .

So we also went to read the second book by Peter Seewald ” Ein Leben – Una vita” of 2020 (Garzanti), of which few and disorganized fragments filtered out in the press.

The voluminous biography contains eight pages with new questions to Ratzinger . Let’s try to read them according to the above perspective and see if the sense can spin.

First of all, Ratzinger declares: “My intention was not simply and primarily to clean up the small world of the Curia, but rather in the Church as a whole” . And then: “The real threat to the Church comes from the universal dictatorship of apparently humanistic contradicting ideologies, which entails exclusion from the basic consensus of society. […] Modern society intends to formulate an anti-Christian creed : whoever challenges it is punished with social excommunication. Being afraid of this spiritual power of the Antichrist is all too natural ” .

And so far we would be there . Benedict immediately after, underlines the differences with one of his illustrious predecessors.

“ The visit (2009) to the tomb of Pope Celestine V was actually a chance event; in any case I was well aware of the fact that Celestine V’s situation was extremely peculiar and that therefore it could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent ”.

One could read this as meaning: “Celestine V legally resigned in 1294 because he did not feel like taking on the burden of the papacy, which I absolutely did not do, since I did not resign as pope, but I only declared that I wanted to renounce to the exercise of practical power, for the purposes we know. Celestino and I have nothing in common “.

Then the Holy Father continues:

“It was absolutely not my intention to take an extreme distance from the conditions in which the Church finds itself. If you study the history of the popes, you will soon realize that the Church has always been a net in which good fish and bad fish end up. The Catholic conception of the Church and of the managerial roles within it excludes the adoption of an ideal Church as a parameter and instead foresees that one is ready to live and work in a Church besieged by the forces of evil ”.

Or rather: “I have not in the least abandoned the role of pope. We know that the history of the Church is full of antipopes and we must be ready to face the siege of the forces of evil”.

Seewald then tackles the key question: according to Church historians there is no “emeritus” pope , since there cannot be two popes . It is true that, since the 1970s, a bishop can resign and become an emeritus, but this – he asks – also applies to the pope?

Ratzinger replies: “It is not clear why this juridical figure should not also be applied to the bishop of Rome. The formula manages to account for both aspects: on the one hand no concrete juridical mandate, on the other a spiritual charge that is maintained, even if invisible. Precisely the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus allows us to avoid even the idea of the coexistence of two popes, given that a bishopric can have only one holder “.

There is therefore only one pope. But when he says “the juridical and spiritual figure of the emeritus”, to which of the two does he refer, to the pope or to the bishop? The ambiguity does not seem accidental, but the Latinist Frŕ Alexis Bugnolo , an expert in canon law , explains :

“If we mean BISHOP EMERITUS , the argument is invalid from the canonical point of view because a bishop receives an ecclesiastical office and, since his mandate as ordinary bishop has been created by the Church, two persons can be allowed in the dignity of the bishop. If we mean pope emeritus, the argument is still invalid since there is no juridical figure of pope emeritus and since the munus is not shared iure divino (by Divine insitution)”.

Also for the theologian Carlo Maria Pace , who HERE analyzed the invalidity of Ratzinger’s resignations due to their deferral, confirms: “Benedict XVI erroneously stated that a Pope who resigns remains Pope in the same way that bishops who resign remain bishops “.

In essence, the pope emeritus would himself be THE pope. In fact, if A bishop resigning (from the post of human origin) can become A retired bishop, IL Pope, renouncing the ministerium is always THE Pope, although retired, since it keeps the munus which is given directly by God. That’s why Ratzinger continues to say for eight years that the pope is only one and never specify that it is Francis.

Benedict seems to reiterate the concept, a few lines later, with an example: “A father remains so until death (even if he passes the management of the company to his son) and the human and spiritual meaning of being a father is not revocable”.

But what would be the spiritual purpose of these fake resignations?

An explanation is offered by Seewald’s own question:

“The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben says he is convinced of the fact that the real reason for (Ratzinger’s) resignation was the desire to awaken the eschatological conscience (concerning the ultimate destinies of man). In the divine plan of salvation, the Church would also have the function of being together “the Church of Christ and the Church of the Antichrist” . The resignation would be a foreshadowing of the separation between “Babylon” and “Jerusalem” in the Church. Instead of engaging in the logic of maintaining power, by her resignation from office she would have emphasized his spiritual authority, thereby contributing to its strengthening .”

And here is Pope Benedict’s response:

“St. Augustine said that on the one hand many are part of the Church only in an apparent way, while in reality they live against it, and that, on the contrary, outside the Church there are many who – without knowing it – deeply belong to the Lord and therefore also to his body, the Church. We must always be aware of this mysterious overlap of internal and external, an overlap that the Lord has exposed in several parables. We know that in history there are moments in which the victory of God over the forces of evil is visible in a comforting way and moments in which, instead, the forces of evil obscure everything ”.

Let’s say, in conclusion, he doesn’t seem to have exactly denied Agamben’s opinion.

Uber Pope Mundabor explains the Renunciation

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I have not infrequently read the petulantly declamatory Blog, known as Mundabor. It’s a blog that can be counted on to insult Bergoglio at every turn and nearly every day. As its author often says, in other words, what is worthy of vituperation, should be daily excoriated. He has in the past identified himself as an Italian living in the U.K., and an ardent fan of Ronald Reagan and Pius XII

I am all for excoriating heretics and Antipopes. But as a Catholic I realize the danger in putting oneself up in judgement over a pope, because then you are putting yourself in a position between him and Jesus Christ, if not above Jesus Christ Himself.

The munus of the office of Saint Peter is something tremendous. If you really believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of the Eternal Father, then you must cower at the words: You are the Rock, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail over Her. . .  I give to thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.

I know from experience and by faith and reason, that I am not God. I know from the facts of history I am not the Pope.  The conclusion I draw is that I cannot judge the man who is the pope.

Pope Innocent III said it clearly, though not exactly in these words:  My status is such that no man can judge me, except in matters of the Faith.

Thus my preamble.

Now, my critique of Mundabor’s recent post, entitled, The Celestine Issue, which was published today, where the author goes after Pope Benedict with knives. The post is his commentary on Dr. Roberto de Mattei’s piece at Rorate Caeli.

Let me start by saying, that I welcome a discussion on the Resignation. It shows that both Dr. de Mattei and Mundabor have come to the point, psychologically, that the feel they must address the issue of who is the real pope. They are both convinced, therefore, implicitly that evidence is so overwhelming that it appears to many that it cannot be Francis. However, they both publicly still hold that Bergoglio is the Pope.

And in this vein, Mundabor writes of de Mattei’s assertion that Benedict acted out of theological error, thus:

I do not think that Benedict confuses the papacy with the Episcopacy. The man is, if you ask me, far too smart for that. I also think that, when he abdicated, Benedict did not have in mind a Bishop Emeritus, but rather the well-known figure of the Professor Emeritus in the University system; that is, a title that indicates the persistence of the role and of the attached prestige in the relevant person, without any reference to sacraments.

Why Benedict did this is evident enough to me: a man deeply rooted in history, and extremely informed about the Italian cultural environment, Benedict wanted to eat his cake and have it, which is what he has done his entire life. 

Bishop Ratzinger wanted to look progressive to “revolutionary” V II thinkers, but still appear conservative to the solid faithful when he was a theologian. As a Pope, he wanted to look like the Pope of the Latin Mass to us decent Catholics, whilst proceeding to countless progressive appointments and not only tolerating, but promoting inter faith rubbish to appease the progressive lobby.

I recommend you read the entire piece by Mundabor, at
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2020/01/23/the-celestino-issue/

From that point onwards in the piece, however, Mundabor descends to character assassination of a Roman Pontiff. He has no idea at all what really went on in the Vatican, at any time — none of us do — and he presumes that everything was such as to merit the judgement he imposes.

He wrote this attack piece after I tried to gentle correct him in a comment, some days ago, which he promptly erased. I pointed out that a man cannot be blamed for accepting the Papacy without knowing how difficult a job it is.* The ones we should blame are those around the pope that do not help him when he has good will, to do what is good and do it well. Pope Benedict XVI had good will, but was clearly badly served by all about him. They did not fear Benedict and Benedict was not the kind of man to make others fear him. He had seen to much of that in Nazi Germany, and he found none of that in the Life of Jesus Christ.

But Mundabor would hear none of it.

So, in critiquing Mundabor’s arugment, I ask all to first recall here the words of Our Lord: With the measure you measure out, so shall it be measured back unto you.

Whenever I hear these words, I shudder. These words should make everyone cringe with terror and urge them to reexamine themselves in their judgements of others. Yes, we might have to condemn the deeds of others, but we must be always open to being merciful to all.

It would be crude and inaccurate to say that Mundabor’s argument boils down to: Accept the Resignation as valid, because, you see, Ratzinger was a whishy-washy, two-faced coward, who wanted it both ways and did not get what he bargained for. But I think that is an approximate summation, even if it is but a petulant act of emoting which does not amount to a rational argument. For, a Pope does not renounce, unless he renounces the munus, cf. Canon 332 §2. That is what the law says, and you cannot argue around it. Not even with psychology or insults.

As an ironic aside, the subtitle of Mundabor’s blog is, Tradidi quod accepi, which is Latin for I have handed down what I have received.  From this post, I guess that means that Mundabor studied under Freud or Jung, the founders of psychiatry and psychology, because he certainly did not receive this way of speaking about a Pope from Pope Innocent III or the Catholic Church.

__________

FOOTNOTES

* Moreover, this faultlessness in accepting being elected in Ratzinger’s case has solid historical grounds, for,  in the conclave of 2005, the Cardinals only succeeded in presenting Ratzinger as a viable candidate to the St. Gallen Mafia’s man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Accepting his own election, therefore, would then have been the duty of every man, not only of Cardinal Ratzinger, even if he felt disinclined to the magnitude of it.

___________

CREDITS:  The Featured image is a screen shot of the Article discussed above. The quotation is verbatim, and is republished here according to fair use standards.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]