Opinion
Featured Image
Pope Benedict XVI Screenshot/Twitter

(LifeSiteNews) — My last article addressed certain problems with Dr. Mazza’s analysis of Bishop Schneider’s appeal to Universal and Peaceful Acceptance. Below, I will address Dr. Mazza’s claim in his reply to His Excellency that “Benedict XVI’s own words prove his resignation was invalid.”

Do Benedict’s words prove the invalidity of his resignation?

Dr. Mazza argues Benedict’s resignation was invalid due to Benedict’s defective intention with respect to the Petrine munus. Dr. Mazza disputes Bishop Schneider’s objection that “God alone judges intentions whereas canon law merely limits itself in evaluating the outward behavior of the baptized,” or in other words “a judge does not judge interior things.” [1]

In response to Bishop Schneider, Dr. Mazza points to a papal document from 1896, Apostolicae Curae, in which Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders to be invalid. Dr. Mazza notes that in rejecting Anglican orders, Pope Leo XIII “attributed this partly due to defect of intention even though intention is normally part of the internal forum.” [2]

While Dr. Mazza admits a resignation “is not a sacramental act,” he still suggests there is a “traditional expression of resignation” from which one apparently cannot deviate – as if it were a sacramental rite. In doing so, Dr. Mazza has fallaciously created a false equivalence between a sacramental act (e.g., Holy Orders, Baptism, Consecration, etc.), which has specific, necessary words associated with the rite, and a papal resignation, which does not. Dr. Mazza is comparing apples to oranges. I have addressed this point in my first reply to Dr. Mazza (Why Pope Benedict’s resignation was valid: a response to Dr. Mazza).[3]

However, let us look at the Declaratio – Benedict’s instrument of resignation, and Dr. Mazza’s assertion it manifests a “defective of intention.” Below, is the relevant portion of the Declaratio:

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, 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 munus. I am well aware that this munus, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministerium entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio/ministerium] of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, 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, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.[4]

Using the Declaratio, Dr. Mazza explains his view of how Pope Benedict manifests a ‘defective intention’ in his resignation. Dr. Mazza’s tells the reader:

Benedict, in his Declaratio, manifested his intention externally when he explicitly said: “I am well aware that this munus [office], due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering;” he will continue the prayer and suffering, therefore, he will continue participating in the Petrine munus.” And Can. 331 specifically states that a pope’s power comes from making the munus his own: “The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the munus given by the Lord uniquely to Peter…and to be transmitted to his successors…By virtue of his munus, he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power…

Benedict never renounced the munus and so it appears he implicitly attempted to share it with the new Bishop of Rome. This amounts to a bifurcation of the papacy, which is not canonically or metaphysically possible. [5]

Dr. Mazza and others seem to interpret Benedict’s words to mean “I am too weak to fulfill the Petrine munus, so I renounce only those parts of the Petrine munus I can’t do, but keeping a part of the Petrine munus for those things, such as prayer and suffering, which I can do.” This is where Dr. Mazza finds Benedict’s defective “intent;” in other words, Dr. Mazza claims Benedict intended to “continue participating” in the Petrine munus. However, this is a nonsensical reading.

While Benedict does say the Petrine munus is “carried out not only with words, deeds, but no less with prayer, and suffering” – these words cannot be reasonably construed to either mean or imply he intended to “continue participating in the Petrine munus” through prayer and suffering.[6]

Indeed, Benedict begins the very next sentence with “however” (attamen in Latin) [7], indicating that in spite of the aforementioned considerations, he lacks the strength of mind and body to adequately fulfill the Petrine ministerium to govern the “barque of Saint Peter,” i.e., the Church. His words at this point in the Declaratio are not the words of someone intending to continue holding onto — fully or partially — the papacy.

RELATED: Is Francis really the pope? — The debate

This is confirmed in the very next sentence, where Benedict says “for this reason” he renounces “the ministry [ministerio/ministerium] of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter…in such a way…that the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.” Benedict clearly says the see of Rome, the See of Saint Peter will be “vacant” because he is saying and intending that he will no longer be the pope. This intent is also clear when he says a conclave would be necessary to elect a “new Supreme Pontiff. Indeed, Benedict would later repeat this same intent less than three hours from his effective resignation, telling a group of pilgrims: “I am no longer Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church…[U]ntil eight o’clock in the evening I still am but then no longer.” [8]

Dr. Mazza goes on to claim Benedict “never renounced the munus,” but this is misleading. The use of the word “munus”is not part of a required rite or formula for a papal resignation under canon law. Even setting that aside, the word ministerium is a synonym of munus – as both can mean “office.”  See my First Reply and Second Reply to Dr. Mazza on these points, as well as my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. [9] In sum, in renouncing the Petrine ministerium, Benedict renounced the papacy.

Moreover, in my second reply, I showed that in a Peter Seewald interview Benedict had said that he had totally given uphis office. [10] The German word used by Benedict here for office is Amt. In the official German translation of the canon on papal resignations, Canon 332§2, the Latin munus is translated using the German Amt. [11] Consequently, Benedict is saying that “pope emeritus” refers to a man who had “totally given up his office [munus/amt]”, i.e., a man who has totally given up the papacy. There is no suggestion of a “continued participation” in the Petrine munus (Amt).

Dr. Mazza has still not addressed any of these points which speak directly to Benedict’s words and intent.

Benedict’s Correspondence with Monsignor Bux

As we have seen in the debate over the Declaratio, the theories of Dr. Mazza and other Benepapists have wrongly maintained there is a distinction in the meaning of munus and ministerium.

The “substantial error” theory of Ann Barnhardt/Dr. Mazza claims Benedict used this distinction in a failed attempt to resign only partially the Petrine munus, while the self-impeded See theory of Andrea Cionci claims Benedict intended this distinction in order to retain fully the Petrine munus. Both theories deny munus and ministerium are used synonymously in the Declaratio.

However, there is new evidence regarding the munus and ministerium which absolutely refutes the claims of the theories above with respect to the words and intent of Benedict XVI.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò recently published an open letter wherein he describes an exchange of letters between Monsignor Nicola Bux and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI back in the summer of 2014 – the year following Benedict’s resignation. Bux is a respected theologian who has served as a consultant to several Vatican congregations under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, including the former Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. In this correspondence, Bux and Benedict XVI discussed the munus-ministerium question in relation to the Declaratio.[12]

Viganò reports he has seen Benedict’s 2014 letter to Bux. Viganò writes that  it “supposedly constitute(s) the definitive denial of the various theories that are out there about the invalidity of Benedict’s Renunciation.” Viganò concedes that “in the cited letter” that Benedict “did not want to separate munus and ministerium.” [13]

The implication is clear. Benedict considered the words to be synonyms, which is also corroborated by other things Monsignor Bux has both said and written – to be seen later in this article.

Because of this new evidence — and to save Benepapism in some form, Viganò attempts something of a strategic pivot away from theories which rely on the now disproven munus-ministerium distinction. While I discuss Viganò’s evolving theories elsewhere (see Vigano and the Spontaneous Combustion of Benepapism), it is not necessary to go into them in this article.

Here, it suffices to understand that Viganò informs us of the essence of Benedict’s letter which he has seen — and what he says of it is an unmitigated disaster for the Benepapists. Indeed, speaking of the implication of Benedict’s letter, Dr. Mazza made a startling admission on a recent appearance on Tim Gordon’s R4R podcast [14], saying:

…it seems as though he [Benedict] were saying “I resigned not only the ministry but the munus of the bishop of Rome,” and if that is true, my thesis is wrong, the Cionci thesis [“The Ratzinger Code”] is definitely wrong… [15]

Now, granted, Dr. Mazza goes on in the same podcast to describe how his theory might possibly be salvaged, but this attempt amounts to little more than whistling past the graveyard.

The reality is, in a 2023 interview with Rosa Benigno of Roma, Monsignor Bux spoke of his 2014 exchange of letters with Benedict. In reply to one question, Bux said, The munus and the ministerium, although they seem to be two different Latin terms, are synonyms, and both translate as ‘office’ or ‘task.’” [16] In response to another question, Bux replied:

Even if the two terms were considered one, the munus, the office of pope in itself, the other, the ministerium, the exercise of papal jurisdiction, they remain inseparable. One cannot renounce one without also losing the other;Benedict himself confirmed this to me, in response to the question I posed to him in a conversation, the year after his resignation. On that occasion, I left him a text of mine that explained it in detail, to which he responded a month later. [17]

Above, Bux confirms the existence, dating, and substance of the correspondence as reported by Archbishop Viganò. Furthermore, Bux makes the important point that even if one considered the munus and ministerium as distinct, “they remain inseparable.” As cited in my book, this is the very point made by Fr. John Rickert in his discussion of Canon 331[18] (italics and parentheticals are Rickert’s):

If a pope renounces the administration of his office, he necessarily renounces the office itself, because the office per se (vi muneris) [19] entails the right to act. Thus, Pope Benedict’s renunciation of his administration entails renunciation of the papal office. That is why he goes on to express the results, which he is clearly cognizant of: the Chair of St. Peter will be vacant, and a new pope must be elected.[20]

The two — the Petrine munus and Petrine ministerium — are inextricably linked. If you have one, you necessarily have the other. If you renounce one, you necessarily renounce the other.[21] And what is important here to note is that in the above interview, Bux says “Benedict himself confirmed this to me, in response to the question I posed to him in a conversation, the year after his resignation.”

As a side note, Gänswein wrote in his book on his life beside Benedict: “The simple reality is that, for the sake of stylistic elegance, Benedict decided to use two Latin synonyms to indicate what had been entrusted to him at the conclave and what he had accepted” (see Who Believes Is Not Alone: My Life Beside Benedict XVIp. 220 Kindle version).

In addition to the interview, Monsignor Bux also commented on the munus-ministerium question in a preface he wrote for a book authored by Frederico Michielan and Francesco Patruno on the resignation controversy, published in 2023.[22] In this preface, Bux provides us Benedict’s view of the munus-ministerium question, all of which is consistent with the description in Viganò’s open letter on the subject. In this preface, Bux wrote in part (italics and bold added):

…. In truth, Benedict XVI has never hidden that he has renounced both, maintaining only a sort of mystical task (munus) in spiritual support of the new pope and the universal Church: nothing else. A bit as prescribed in the monastic context: semel, abbas, semper abbas, but the abbot of a monastery, once replaced, is no longer its head. The essence of the papacy is the ministry or, better yet, the institution, not the munus. Whoever renounces the ministry is no longer pope. For this reason, in his declaration, Benedict said: “I declare that a conclave must be convened to elect a new Supreme Pontiff.” [23]

Elsewhere in his preface, Bux clearly affirms that Francis is pope as he has been recognized “by the whole Church.”  He also observes that the evidence for the invalidity of the election cannot withstand serious examination. As in his interview, Bux in his preface quite clearly and directly writes: “Whoever renounces the ministry is no longer pope.” This is consistent with his interview wherein – speaking of the munus and ministerium — he said: “One cannot renounce one without also losing the other.” This, he explicitly said, was confirmed to him by Benedict himself.

According to Bux, Benedict maintained “only a sort of mystical task (munus) in spiritual support of the new pope and the universal Church: nothing else.” This is, essentially, the position I have argued on my blog, Roma Locuta Est, from 2017 onwards [24], and in my book.

Conclusion

I do hope Monsignor Bux publishes Benedict’s full letter. Regardless, it is inescapable that what we know to date is devastating to the various Benepapist theories (see Intellectual Honesty and the End of Benepapism). We began this article considering Dr. Mazza’s claim that “Benedict XVI’s own words prove his resignation was invalid.” The evidence above demonstrates Dr. Mazza’s assertion is wrong. Rather, Benedict’s own words prove his resignation was valid.

Monsignor Bux says in his interview that the arguments against the validity of the Benedict’s resignation are “pure fantasy,” elsewhere referring to them as a “saga constructed with a mixture of ignorance and bad faith.” And from his interview, one can easily surmise what Bux thinks of Cionci’s “Ratzinger Code.”  Even Viganò – who rejects the legitimacy of Pope Francis – appears to include the “substantial error” and “self-impeded See” theories among the “inconsistent theories” he speaks of in his open letter. He describes them as “[i]nconsistent theories not supported by any evidence [that] have taken hold of many of the faithful and even some priests, increasing confusion and disorientation.” [25]

Due to the revelations described above, the Benepapists’ two major theories are in an existential crisis, whether they recognize it or not – or, whether they admit it or not. The “substantial error” theorists cannot reasonably – or honestly — claim Benedict XVI intended to resign partially the Petrine munus. The “self-impeded See” theorists cannot reasonably – or honestly — appeal to a gnostic Ratzinger code to claim Benedict intended to retain fully the Petrine munus. The facts contradict them.

The truth is now undeniable. We now know Benedict did not intend a distinction between munus and ministerium. They are synonyms. However, even if one were to still press this point, Benedict explicitly confirmed to Monsignor Bux that the two are inseparable. The Petrine munus and Petrine ministerium are inextricably linked. If you have one, you necessarily have the other. If you renounce one, you necessarily renounce the other.

So, what will the leading Benepapists do now that they are confronted with this devastating evidence? Perhaps, there might be the temptation to fall into an all too human reaction. That is, to retreat into a state of cognitive dissonance; simply ignoring the obvious reality because it disturbingly conflicts with preconceived notions and pet theories. However, there is also the possibility for the intellectually honest reaction that recognizes that Benedict’s exchange with Bux is the death knell of the Benepapism championed up till now by Ann Barnhardt, Dr. Mazza, Andrea Cionci, and others.

RELATED: ‘The Benedict Code’ author says late Pope’s Declaratio was not an abdication

Whither the Benepapists? Let us hope and pray these leading voices of the Benepapist movement will now reconsider their positions. There is still time to avert the schism to which these theories will inevitably lead.

ENDNOTES

[1] See Dr. Edmund Mazza, https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/benedict-xvis-own-words-prove-that-his-resignation-was-invalid-a-reply-to-bishop-schneider/

[2] Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896, 33.   As cited by Dr. Mazza.

[3] I have provided arguments as to how ministerium and munus are synonyms, both in the linked article, and in chapter one of my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. In addition, I have pointed to the fact there is no set formula for a papal resignation, and there are various words that can be used. I provided additional commentary on the munus-ministerium question in my second reply to Dr. Mazza (Here’s what Benedict XVI meant by ‘pope emeritus’: a second reply to Dr. Mazza).

[4] The excerpt from the Declaratio is from the Vatican website. I have inserted the Latin words “munus” and “ministerium” (or ministerio) where they would appear, in order to understand their position in the document. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

[5] See Dr. Edmund Mazza, https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/benedict-xvis-own-words-prove-that-his-resignation-was-invalid-a-reply-to-bishop-schneider/

[6] Peter Seewald, interviewing Benedict in his book Last Testament (p.19, Kindle version), asked “But is a slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?”  Benedict replied there are so many “priorities” and daily “decisions” as Pope, that:

…Even if you say a few of these things can be struck off, there remain so many things which are essential, that, if the capability to do them is no longer there – for me anyway’ someone else might see it otherwise – now’s the time to free up the chair.

Benedict XVI here makes the point that even if you can strike some things from the list of the many papal duties, there are so many things “which remain essential,” that if you can’t do them, in his opinion, “now’s the time to free up the chair.” That is, time to step down from the Chair of Peter, i.e., time to resign from the office. As if in response to Dr. Mazza’s argument, Benedict is essentially saying that even if you can still do some parts of the papacy, there are so many important things that one must still resign. That is, one resigns all of the papacy – not a part of it.  Thus, there was not for Benedict a severable, Petrine ‘praying and suffering’ munus.

On a side note, for a fuller treatment of Benedict’s quote, see Dr. Mazza’s post and my reply here: https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/50753/

[7] The Latin can be translated “however”, “in spite of”, “nevertheless”[ https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?parola=attamen]).

[8] GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANO, February 28, 2013 (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130228_fedeli-albano.html); Separately, I address Andrea Cionci’s attempts to dismiss these words in my Chapter 4 of my book, as well in an article exchange with him, see https://romalocutaest.com/2022/10/17/ratzinger-code-dont-believe-your-lying-eyes/  and  https://romalocutaest.com/2022/10/22/a-response-to-andrea-cionci-and-his-ratzinger-code/

[9] The following may also be noted. In his Declaratio, Benedict says his age and diminishing strength are “no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine munus.” But two sentences later in essentially the same terms, Benedict says his “strength…has deteriorated in me to the extent” that he recognizes his “incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministeriumentrustedto him. In other words, Benedict describes himself as not being able to adequately fulfill the munus and ministerium in essentially the same terms because he is speaking of the same thing. Munus and ministerium are used here as synonyms.

[10] Benedict XVI: A Life, Volume Two: Professor and Prefect to Pope and Pope Emeritus 1966—the Present, Peter Seewald, Kindle, English version

[11] On the Vatican website, the German language translation of the Latin in Canon 332§2 uses “Amt” for the meaning of “munus” in the sense of office.

Canon 332§2: Falls der Papst auf sein Amt verzichten sollte, ist zur Gültigkeit verlangt, daß der Verzicht frei geschieht und hinreichend kundgemacht, nicht jedoch, daß er von irgendwem angenommen wird. (see HERE)

Here is the English of the canon (emphasis and bracket comments added):

Canon 332§2: If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [Latin: munus; German: Amt], it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.

[Source:  Coriden, James A., et al, eds. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 437.  Latin and German translations added in brackets by O’Reilly.]

[12] see Archbishop Caro Viganò, The “disassembled“ Papacy Emeritus. munus, ministerium (November 30, 2024)

[13] Ibid.

[14] See Timothy Gordon, Rules for Retrogrades podcast, IS Francis the TRUE POPE? What do YOU Think? w/ Dr. Ed Mazza; (December 5, 2024), see discussion picking up at circa 6:16

[15] Ibid. O’Reilly’s unofficial transcription; see beginning around the 11:15 mark.

[16] See Rosa Benigno interview with Monsignor Nicola Bux, https://www.ilroma.net/news/cultura/314176/codice-ratzinger-chiacchiere.html (February 21, 2023)

[17] Ibid.

[18] The canon and translation as cited by Fr. Rickert in his article (see “Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert”. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39718/ )

Can. 331 (Latin) — Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, Collegii Episcoporum est caput, Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor; qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet (emphasis added).

Can. 331 (English) — The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely (emphasis added).

[19] Here, Fr. Rickert emphasizes that the word “muneris” is in fact a form of the same word, “munus.” See Leo F. Stelten, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), and its entry on munus.

[20] Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, Ph.D., “Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert”. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39718/

[21] Ibid.  See also: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/11/04/lumen-gentium-destroys-benepapism-in-toto/

[22] See Frederico Michielan and Francesco Patruno, Non era più lui: Una risposta al Codice Ratzinger sulla rinuncia di Benedetto XVI (Italian Kindle version), Preface by Nicola Bux, p. 4.  Translation: Google

[23] Ibid.

[24] Compendiums of articles on the Roma Locuta Est blog include https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/21/the-case-against-those-who-claim-benedict-is-still-pope/ and https://romalocutaest.com/2020/02/11/summa-contra-the-bip-theory-why-benedict-xvi-is-not-the-pope/

[25] Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, The Disassembled Papacy: Emeritus, munus, ministerium (November 30, 2024)

34 Comments

    Loading...