(LifeSiteNews) — Below, I reply to Dr. Edmund Mazza’s response to my critique of his first article.
Dr. Mazza’s recent reply quotes various individuals, including Archbishop Gänswein [1], Dr. de Mattei [2], and even Pope Francis. [3] However, none of these citations prove that Benedict believed the “papacy is a sacrament.”
Another passage from Cardinal Ratzinger’s Principle of Catholic Theology is cited by Dr. Mazza to support his thesis that the former believed the “papacy is a sacrament” [4], or that there is a ‘sacramental munus attached to the papacy.’ Ratzinger is quoted as follows:
I think we should be honest enough to admit the temptation of mammon in the history of the Church and to recognize to what extent it was a real power that worked to the distortion and corruption of both Church and theology, even to their inmost core. The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite was continued for reasons of prestige and financial benefits. [5]
Dr. Mazza proceeds to attempt to link Ratzinger’s discussion of “office of jurisdiction” and “office of rite” to the reason why Benedict ultimately “chose to become ‘pope’ emeritus instead of ‘bishop’ emeritus.” However, this is a non sequitur.
READ: What Benedict meant by ‘Pope Emeritus’: a response to Mr. O’Reilly
A closer look at the passage will show there is no such linkage.[6] It is sufficient to understand the quote above, in its original context, has nothing at all to do with the papacy or a papal munus, sacramental or not, indelible or not. Rather, in this section on “Sacrifice, Sacrament and Priesthood in the Development of the Church” in the aforementioned book, Ratzinger is commenting on certain negative developments in the Middle Ages. [7] These include the priest who “became a cult-minister in the retinue of a feudal lord,”[8] and the “employment of the sacerdotium in the services of the imperium“ [9], i.e., where the bishop became something of a “functionary of the Empire.” Related to these, Ratzinger adds the “privatization” of the Mass, how it “became the private possession of the pious (and the impious),” etc. [10]
Ratzinger describes a situation in the German Empire of the Middle Ages where “the bishop was concerned only secondarily with the ecclesial assembly and, of necessity, allowed its concrete functions to be carried out by others.” [11]
Though his discussion is more involved than can be given justice here, the highlights above get closer to what Ratzinger meant when speaking of “the separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite” in the cited material.
The key takeaway is that Ratzinger does not discuss, address, or even touch upon, not even tangentially, a supposed “papal sacramental munus” or the “pope emeritus” or anything like it at all.
What did Benedict mean by ‘pope emeritus’?
Benedict XVI did not provide an official document explaining what he meant by “pope emeritus.” Still, canons 185 and 402 may shed light on what Benedict XVI intended by the title by way of analogy.
Canon 185 states that anyone who loses an office due to resignation may use the title “emeritus.” [12] Thus, “emeritus” is used in reference to a lost office; it is not used of an office still held in some way. [13] Thus, “pope emeritus” would obviously speak of a man who is a former pope, one who has lost the office by resignation; just as “professor emeritus” applies to a former professor.
Canon 402§1 states in part: “A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese.” [14] Again, as with canon 185, this canon is not directly applicable to the Pope, as it speaks of a resignation that “has been accepted” (a pope’s resignation is not accepted). Still, significantly, a respected commentary on canon law, speaking of Canon 402, says the title of bishop emeritus or former bishop of N. “…symbolizes an ongoing relationship to the people whom he had previously served as diocesan bishop.” [15]
And, indeed, speaking of this “ongoing relationship,” in his “last audience,” Benedict spoke of gaining “brothers and sisters,” indeed “sons and daughters,” upon his papal election. He spoke of forming a mutual, special relationship with these new “sons and daughters”; a bond of charity, whereby “he belonged to them,” and “they belonged to him,” etc. Though he resigned the papacy, this “bond,” this loving “relationship,” still persists. It is this “bond of charity,” this “special relationship” that continued for him after his renunciation, not the papacy. This is the true context of the “always” and “forever” of which he spoke. [16]
This is the essence of what Benedict meant and intended by “pope emeritus.” Is this mind reading? No. It is what he explicitly said.
Consider, in an interview with Peter Seewald, in response to the question, “What is an emeritus bishop or pope?” Benedict answered as follows (all emphasis added):
The word ‘emeritus’ meant that he was no longer the active holder of the bishopric, but remained in a special relationship to it as its former bishop. So the need to define his office in relation to a real diocese was met without making him a second bishop of it. The word ‘emeritus’ said that he had totally given up his office, but his spiritual link to his former diocese was now properly recognized. In general, a titular see was a pure legal fiction, but now there was a special relationship to a see where the retired bishop had formerly worked. This real, but hitherto legally unrecognized, relationship to a former see is the new meaning of ‘emeritus’ acquired after Vatican II. It does not affect the legal substance of the office of the bishop but acknowledges the spiritual link as a reality. So there are not two bishops but a spiritual assignment, whose essence is to serve his former diocese by being with it and for it in prayer with all his heart and with the Lord.[17]
Above, Benedict states clearly “emeritus” meant one “was no longer the active holder of the bishopric but remained in a special relationship to it as its former bishop.” Here, we see Benedict acknowledging by implication his position as a “former bishop,” that is, “former bishop” of Rome – and not the “second bishop” of it. Therefore, he certainly recognized he was no longer Bishop of Rome, i.e., no longer Pope.
Moreover, Benedict explicitly stated “the word ‘emeritus’ said he had totally given up his office [Amt], but his spiritual link to his former diocese was now properly recognized.”
Two things to note here. In brackets I inserted the German used in the original text of the interview for “office,” which is Amt. Amt is used in the official German translation of Canon 332§2 in place of munus. [18] Therefore, in the Seewald interview, we have Benedict saying “emeritus” meant he had “totally given up his office” – his Amt, his munus. He said, “Totally.” There was nothing left of it. This alone should put to rest the Benepapist claims.
The second thing to note is that Benedict speaks of what remains after totally giving up the Amt or office or munus. What remains is a “special relationship” or “spiritual link.” For a ‘regular’ bishop, this is a relationship to his former diocese, i.e., it’s people. But for Benedict, as his former jurisdiction of office encompassed the Church, his “special relationship”, his “bond of charity,” is between him and the whole Church, i.e., the “sons and daughters” he speaks of in the last audience.
Seewald asks a follow up question: “But does that apply to the pope?” Benedict replies (all emphasis added):
It is hard to understand why this legal concept should not also be applied to the bishop of Rome. In this formula both things are implied: no actual legal authority any longer, but a spiritual relationship which remains even if it is invisible. This legal-spiritual formula avoids any idea of there being two popes at the same time: a bishopric can only have one incumbent. But the formula also expresses a spiritual link, which cannot ever be taken away. I am extremely grateful to the Lord that Pope Francis’s warm and generous attitude towards me has made it possible to implement this idea in practice. [19]
Benedict explicitly says that by the formula (i.e., “pope emeritus”), two things are implied: (1) “no actual legal authority any longer” but (2) a “spiritual relationship remains even if it is invisible.” So, again, there is no “legal authority any longer” because he no longer holds the office. Therefore, there is no suggestion of an indelible, sacramental, papal munus remaining. No, only a “spiritual relationship” remains, a spiritual relationship between the former pope who has totally given up his office, and those he had formerly governed as pope. Again, this cannot be stressed enough, Benedict is speaking of a relationship which remains, not an office or munus that remains.
Also, it is important to note that Benedict explicitly says the following about the legal-spiritual formula of the “pope emeritus”: “This legal-spiritual formula avoids any idea of there being two popes at the same time.” [20]
As can be seen, Benedict makes an absolute universal exclusion, explicitly stating the formula (i.e., pope emeritus) avoids “any idea of there being two popes at the same time.” Thus, there is no place for any sort of “kind of” pope, “partial pope,” or “sacramental-munus-only pope” as claimed in Dr. Mazza’s theory.
Thus, expressed in his own words, Benedict saw the title of “pope emeritus” as (1) a recognition that he had “totally given up the office” of the papacy while (2) still recognizing an “ongoing” and “special relationship” – i.e., a mutual “belonging”, a bond of charity – between himself and his ‘sons and daughters’ and ‘brothers and sisters’ who he had once governed as pope before his resignation. His moral duty as he saw arising from his this bond of charity, his “spiritual assignment,” was to continue to love and pray for those in this “special relationship”, i.e., to pray for the Church – just as he said in his Declaratio, his last audience, and the Seewald interview.
Munus and ministerium, again?
In my first article, I went into some detail on the munus vs. ministerium question. Dr. Mazza returns to it briefly, commenting in part:
O’Reilly also alleges that munus and ministerium mean the same thing – at least in Benedict’s mind. (Who’s doing the mind-reading now, I wonder?) Again, let’s let Benedict speak for himself for, fortunately, in addition to Benedict’s Declaratio, we do possess a document wherein he admits of a distinction between munus and ministerium: between the transcendent gift and the functional use of it. In the early 1980s, Ratzinger expresses his approval of the reform of the rite of ordination carried out in 1947.
In response, I did say munus and ministerium are synonyms, which they indisputably are. Indeed, I cited Dr. Anna Slowikowska, who Dr. Mazza cites favorably in his book as an expert, to this effect.[21] Dr. Slowikowska wrote that the meaning and synonymy of munus, ministerium, and officium depend “on the context of the utterance, the author’s intent, or the purpose for which they are used.” [22]
In my last article, agreeing with Dr. Slowikowska’s guidance, I affirmed with respect to the Declaratio “all three of these criteria applied either individually or together to the resignation statement clearly support the case that Benedict validly resigned,” and I explained why. I invite Dr. Mazza to explain why he believes munus and ministerium are not synonymous in the 2013 Declaratio; and not why they are not synonymous in a 1947 ordination rite.
READ: Why Pope Benedict’s resignation was valid: a response to Dr. Mazza
As a brief addendum here, we note a tantalizing bit of new evidence. In a new open letter, Archbishop Vigano reveals the existence of correspondence between Monsignor Nicola Bux and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI dating back to 2014. In Benedict’s letter to Bux, Benedict is said to reject any separation between the ministerium and munus. While the full letter has not yet been released for review; if eventually authenticated, such a clear statement would be the final nail in the coffin of any Benepapist theory that relies on the claim Benedict gave up the ministerium only, and not the munus.
Schismatic path or not?
Finally, Dr. Mazza takes exception to the fact that I (and others) either label or insinuate that “that those who seek answers concerning Benedict and Bergoglio are “confusing” others and leading them down the primrose path to ‘schism.’”
Dr. Mazza defends his position by citing Fr. Franz Wernz and Fr. Pedro Vidal as saying, “they cannot be numbered among the schismatics who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they are not sure of him or hold him doubtfully.”
However, I would cite the same scholars to support the contrary position. Wernz and Vidal wrote :
…they cannot be numbered among the schismatics who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they are not sure of him or hold him doubtfully elected because of rumors that have been spread, as happened after the election of Urban VI, or because they resist him as a civil prince, not as the pastor of the Church. [23]
Yes, Wernz and Vidal allow for a doubt arising from a papal election due to rumors surrounding it, but they qualify the sort of circumstances they have in mind by adding “as happened after the election of Urban VI.” However, as Matt Gaspers notes, the case of Urban VI “is simply not applicable to our present circumstances.” [24]
Furthermore, considering the universal acceptance of Francis’s election, [25] Gaspers goes on to quote Cardinal Billot, who in the case of when there has been universal acceptance such as in our present situation, says: “it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.” [26] Thus, the universal acceptance of Pope Francis is itself a proof of the validity of Benedict’s resignation.
In summary, Dr. Mazza’s objections are unpersuasive. Given the case of Pope Urban VI – the type Fr. Wernz and Fr. Vidal had in mind – does not apply in our present circumstance, and given there has been universal acceptance of Pope Francis, “it is no longer permitted to raise doubts.”
Therefore, I continue to hope and pray that the Benepapists will stop confusing the faithful, and that they will depart from the schismatic path upon which they are treading, and down which they are leading others.
Steven O’Reilly is the author of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and of PIA FIDELIS: The Two Kingdoms (Book I of coming trilogy). He is the publisher of the blog Roma Locuta Est (www.RomalocutaEst). He is a graduate of both the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and is a former intelligence officer.
Footnotes
[1] While I do not address Dr. Mazza’s citation of Archbishop Gänswein in this article due to space constraints, I point the reader to my articles on his speech (e.g., Regarding Ganswein’s Speech), and in my book, to which I devote an entire chapter. Bottom line, Gänswein’s speech and other comments are entirely consistent with the full validity of Benedict’s resignation.
[2] For Dr. de Mattei’s opinion as of 2014, see https://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350868bdc4.html?eng=y;Dr. de Mattei does not affirm the position taken by Dr. Mazza, coming only as close to say: “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.” Even so, despite saying that much, Dr. de Mattei affirms quite solidly, “Benedict XVI has renounced not a part of the pontificate, but the whole papacy, and Francis is not a part-time pope, but entirely the pope.”
[3] Pope Francis explicitly disclaims that the papacy is a sacrament (“I do not believe that”). Furthermore, he associates the idea of the “papacy as a sacrament” with the “Germans”; but, significantly, not to Benedict. This is important because Benedict in one of his Seewald interviews says, “I am extremely grateful to the Lord that Pope Francis’s warm and generous attitude towards me has made it possible to implement this idea in practice.” Consequently, this is further evidence, albeit indirect, that Benedict did not believe in a sacramental papacy either, as Francis would not likely go along with an idea with which he had expressed disagreement.
[4] See Dr. Mazza on Patrick Coffin’s show. See Patrick Coffin, “#248: Is Benedict XVI Still the Pope?—Dr. Edmund Mazza”. Time stamp 30:01 to 30:55, retrieved 4/21/2022. Unofficial transcript available in Chapter One of my book Valid; and it is available here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/
[5] Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, trans. M.F. McCarthy, (Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 254; as cited by Dr. Mazza in his reply. Below, I provide a lengthier citation relevant to the additional points I make in the article:
I think we should be honest enough to admit the temptation of mammon in the history of the Church and to recognize to what extent it was a real power that worked to the distortion and corruption of both Church and theology, even to their inmost core. The separation of office as jurisdiction from office as rite was continued for reasons of prestige and financial benefits; the isolation of the Mass, its separation from the unity of the memoriaand, therefore, its privatization were products of the amalgamation of Masses and stipends.
[6] See O’Reilly article, Dr. Mazza and the Pope Emeritus, for a more in depth discussion of Ratzinger and the context he was speaking to.
[7] See Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology. Ratzinger’s discussion of “Development in the Middle Ages” begins on p. 254 and ends on p.257.
[8] Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology. P. 255
[9] Ibid, p. 255.
[10] Ibid, p. 256.
[11] Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 255.
[12] Canon 185: The title of emeritus can be conferred upon the person who loses an office by reason of age or by a resignation which has been accepted.
(Source: James Coriden, et al, eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 109.)
Also of note, in the official German translation “Amt” is used for office. See HERE. See discussion in footnote 19.
[13] Dr. de Mattei is cited by Dr. Mazza on the “pope emeritus” question. Mattei does say “If the pope who resigns from the pontificate retains the title of emeritus, that means that to some extent he remains pope” (see https://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350868bdc4.html?eng=y;). However, in the absence of an official declaration of what Benedict defined as “pope emeritus”, Mattei is dealing with an analogy to “bishop emeritus.” Here, it must be remembered all analogies limp. As a result, Mattei’s analysis and conclusion suffers in our opinion, e.g., the canons and Benedict in Seewald speak of a “lost office”, etc. Mattei may be forgiven for his overstated conclusion in that he did not have the benefit of having Benedict’s Seewald interviews (2021) before him at the time of his article’s publication (2014).
[14] John P., James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, eds. New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, New York NY/Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 2000, p. 538)
[15] Ibid.
[16] See my discussion of Gänswein speech on my blog (Regarding Ganswein’s Speech), and in my book, to which I devote an entire chapter.
[17] Benedict XVI: A Life, Volume Two: Professor and Prefect to Pope and Pope Emeritus 1966—the Present, Peter Seewald, Kindle, English version
[18] 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.]
[19] Benedict XVI: A Life Volume Two: “Professor and Prefect to Pope and Pope Emeritus 1966—the Present.
[20] Ibid.
[21] See Edmund Mazza, PhD, The Third Secret of Fatima &the Synodal Church, Vol. I: “Pope Benedict’s Resignation,” (2023), p.55. Dr. Mazza quotes Dr. Anna Slowikowska in part as saying that munus, officium, and ministerium are synonyms, see p. 55-56.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum (1937), Tomus VII, Part III, Chapter 29, n. 398 (p. 439). Note: My thanks to Matt Gaspers who provided the citation and fuller quote. See also his article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-pope-francis-and-peaceful-and-universal-acceptance
[24] See Matt Gaspers, https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-pope-francis-and-peaceful-and-universal-acceptance; Gaspers goes on to describe how in “1378, there was legitimate confusion because the Cardinals rejected the true Pope (Urban VI) and elected an antipope (Clement VII). In 2013, no such thing happened. On the contrary, not a single Cardinal or bishop publicly challenged the results of the conclave; and 99.9% of Catholic prelates throughout the world, including the entire College of Cardinals (not to mention the vast majority of the laity), continue to recognize Francis as the true Pope.”
[25] See my response to Dr. Mazza on the question of universal acceptance (see https://romalocutaest.com/2024/04/15/dr-mazza-ph-d-and-universal-acceptance-another-failed-argument/) and Viganò (see https://romalocutaest.com/2023/10/05/thoughts-on-viganos-mens-rea-thesis/)
[26] See Gaspers.