Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce the divine office that in 2005 made him Vicar of Christ, but only to the ministry of Bishop of Rome and to the administrative offices of the Papacy, by declaring (speech of February 27, 2013) that he would maintain the ” petrino primacy “, for which he showed that he still carries on his shoulders the burden and the vocation of being the Vicar of Christ. That can not be renounced, it is a quality “ad vitam” granted by Christ to Peter and his successors.
Pope Ratzinger pronounced, one day before taking the helicopter to temporarily retire to Castel Gandolfo, a speech that clarifies the situation that keep the two “Popes” who currently live in Rome.
In that speech he referred to the invitation he received from God when he was elected San Pedro’s successor on April 19, 2005. On that occasion he said (paragraph 23) that the vocation he received from Christ is ad vitam (for life) and that, for that reason, he will never be able to renounce it (as all Popes always understood in the history of the Church): “He is always also a forever, there is no more a return to the private”. “My decision to renounce the active exercise of ministry does not revoke this (the Petrine primacy).”
In addition, Benedict established, before the legal organs of the Church, that he would keep the white cassock, keep the name “His Holiness”, keep the keys of Peter on his shield, and continue to be Pope, simply adding the epithet “emeritus”. The latter is very significant because, when Pope Gregory XII resigned, he was again a cardinal, and when Pope Celestine V resigned, he became a monk again. This was not established by Pope Benedict XVI. He established that he would continue to be Pope, a case totally unprecedented in the history of the Church.
That speech clearly expresses the conviction that he would continue to be Vicar of Christ and spiritual head of the Church, and that he was only resigning from the administrative offices of the papacy. In his mind, one thing is the ministry of the bishop of Rome, and another thing is the Petrine primacy, which is ad vitam and can not be renounced. Sic et simpliciter.
The valid renunciation of the papacy requires renunciation of the munus, (office of Peter’s office) as expressed in the Code of Canon Law (CDC canon 332.2), not the ministerium, as Pope Benedict XVI did.
Let’s see the literal tenor of Canon 332.2 CDC:
“If contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur”. (“If the Roman Pontiff renounces his office, it is required, for validity, that the resignation be free and be formally manifested, and that it be accepted by no one.”
Reading the text of the resignation of Benedict XVI it is observed that the Pope did not renounce the Petrine munus but only the ministerium as bishop of Rome: “I declare to me the ministry of Episcopi Romae … commisso renuntiare”.
A person as wise as Benedict XVI understood perfectly that the renunciation of the papacy, to be valid, required to renounce the munus, not only to exercise it (ministerium). It is not possible here to claim ignorance. Not in him, who is one of the most learned and knowledgeable of ecclesiastical matters. Therefore, that difference in the formula used meant something. Something like: “I am still the Vicar of Christ, even if I renounce the executive government of the Church. I can not say it openly, but here I will continue, dressed as a Pope, living in the Vatican and calling me “His Holiness”, for those who want to understand it “.
Benedict XVI is still the Vicar of Christ, because he never resigned to such a position but, for clarity, he explicitly tells us that he only renounced the ministerium.
Remember that the papacy is a charge, as the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium reminds us: “Because the Roman Pontiff has on the Church, by virtue of his office (munus) as Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the whole Church, full, supreme and universal power, which can always exercise freely. ” This was also stated by Vatican Council I in 1870, repeating the previous Magisterium, in particular, that of the Council of Florence of the fifteenth century.
In the papacy, the munus is received with the election in the conclave and lost with death, and the ministerium, which is inseparable to him, is equivalent to the legal practice of the bishopric of Rome, today head of all episcopates. Having separated them, Benedict XVI is sending a very fine and delicate message to the world and to the Church.
The famous words of Monsignor Gänswein, German archbishop, jurist, personal secretary of Benedict XVI and prefect of the Pontifical House of “Francis”, on a “long ministry” (with two members) strongly confirm that same conclusion: Benedict XVI continues maintaining the investiture or munus, then Francisco is not really the Vicar of Christ.
Monsignor Gänswein recalled that Benedict XVI did not renounce either his name or his white talar habit: “He did not retire to an isolated monastery, but continues inside the Vatican, as if he had only stepped aside, to give space to his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy. ”
That is why Benedict XVI is still dressed in white, with his skullcap, the fisherman’s ring, his title of Pope and the name of His Holiness. He did not become Cardinal Ratzinger again, as happened with Gregory XII, who once again became Cardinal Angelo Correr after resigning. Benedict remains in the Vatican and has not returned to his beloved Bavaria or to some distant monastery, and is not Cardinal Ratzinger.
Needless to say that Monsignor Gänswein did not make these very serious statements without the support of Benedict XVI himself. It was only an explanation of the conclusions in his farewell of February 27, 2013.
In fact, Benedict XVI did not use the resignation formula established by Boniface VIII. The norm expresses that regulates the discipline on the papal renunciation is found in the Apostolic Constitution Quoniam aliqui, which was fixed in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, and currently in the aforementioned canon of the CDC of 1983, # 322.2.
Let’s see the text of that Decretal by Boniface VIII:
“Decree of Boniface VIII (in 6 °), 1.1, T.7, chap. 1: De Renunciatione: “resignare valeat Papatui, eiusque oneri, et honori …”. That is to say, it is established that he must explicitly renounce his position and all his honors.
Nor did he use the formula used to resign used by the only pope who did it before him, Celestino V: “cedo Papatui, and expresse resignation loco, et dignitati, oneri, et honori” (“I withdraw from the papacy and, expressly, I resign to the place and its dignities, burdens and honors »).
On the contrary, Benedict XVI uses for the first and only time the explicit and clear formula “Ministry Episcopi Romae … commisso renuntiare” (renounced the ministry of Bishop of Rome).
Conclusion: in the Declaration of renunciation read by Benedict XVI on February 27, 2013, there is no mention of canon 332.2 of the CDC, which seems strange coming from someone so knowledgeable and thorough the theologian. Neither did he use the formula of the Decretal of Boniface VIII (renuntiare Paptui) nor the formula validly used by Celestino V (oneri et onori). Great message for the Church and for the world:
Sheepdog
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
It would be most helpful to have a full citation when an article is from another source and also to know that it has been translated and by whom, particularly if it is Google unedited by someone skilled in the language.
Thank you, Your Excellency, for this post.
It’s posts like this one that really help me understand things (and understanding like that brings with it a certain peace I really appreciate!).
Is simple as this. Pope Benedict still reigns, therefore Jorge Mario Berboglio was not elected by The Holy Ghost and clearly is not representing God. The Mafia Saint Gallen, the irregular Conclave, his behaviour in Argentina, his behaviour now. How he attacks Christ and His Mother, how he distort the Dogmas, Traditions and Doctrine are just proofs oh this…. too much water under the bridge now.
There is only one Pope, and is Benedict XVI.
This was the best I could do with the original article which was posted in another language. I put it in Google translate. Anyway, perhaps he, Francis is simply “Cardinal Administrator”, claiming the title “Pope”. As Bishop Gracida has said, only Cardinals who were elected by a validly elected Pope can declare something of this level. In other words, they will sort out who is Pope, whether a Third Pope needs to be elected; or whether Benedict should go back to Cardinal Ratzinger. Something that needs explaining is how it may be possible for the Canonizations to be valid under this, but that certain other actions may not be. I believe Bishop Gracida has an explanation on that.
Thank You Father God bless you.
This reduces Bergoglio to the status of the Cardinal Vicar of Rome. Or maybe not even that.
Isn’t there a contradiction? First the author claims that the Petrine munus is “for life” and can never be renounced:
“In that speech he referred to the invitation he received from God when he was elected San Pedro’s successor on April 19, 2005. On that occasion he said (paragraph 23) that the vocation he received from Christ is ad vitam (for life) and that, for that reason, he will never be able to renounce it (as all Popes always understood in the history of the Church): ‘He is always also a forever, there is no more a return to the private.’ ‘My decision to renounce the active exercise of ministry does not revoke this (the Petrine primacy).'” [Emphasis added.]
Then he discusses the popes who have resigned and the formulae of resignation that have been used and provided, including in canon law. If the office cannot be renounced, why does canon law provide a renunciation formula? It seems that Benedict is claiming a new understanding of the papal office, a bifurcated office. But surely the administrative office exercised by the Bishop of Rome is derivative of the primary Petrine office of Vicar of Christ. If Benedict renounced the administrative but retained the Petrine, how can anyone else exercise even the administrative?
Am I missing something? Color me confused.
[Since the letters are moderated, I added another sentence to make my point better understandable and more obvious.]
There cannot be a divided papacy or two popes at the same time. The Holy Spirit would not permit it. Any suggestion to this effect can come only from Satan to further confuse the faithful, and create a basis for some authority to na impostor, the False Prophet. The author in the article uses some convoluted arguments to legitimize what cannot be legitimized!
The only possible biblical interpretation is in 2Tess 2:3 about the “mass apostasy” (The New American Bible) that will happen before the Antichrist and before the second coming. According to the comment in the Douay-Rheims Bible „it (the apostasy) may be supposed, will be more general in the days of the Antichrist.” Benedict’s resignation is invalid, so he is still the pope, but to give a strong leader to the mass apostasy that will confuse many, the Spirit permitted the appearance of Card. Bergoglio aka Francis.
Jesus put this is a question form when he asked, “when he Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on the earth?” (Lk18:8)
The Apostle also instructs us what to do: “[14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” Simply disregard Francis and all the cardinals, bishops, priest and deacons who teach against tradition.
There can be no two pope. The Holy Spirit would not permit it. Any suggestion to this effect can come only from Satan to further confuse the faithful. The only possible biblical interpretation is in 2Tess 2:3 about the “mass apostasy” (The New American Bible) that will happen before the Antichrist and before the second coming. According to the comment in the Douay-Rheims Bible „it (the apostasy) may be supposed, will be more general in the days of the Antichrist.” Benedict’s resignation is invalid, so he is still the pope, but to give a strong leader to the mass apostasy that will confuse many, the Spirit permitted the appearance of Card. Bergoglio aka Francis.
Jesus put this is a question form when he asked, “when he Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on the earth?” (Lk18:8)
The Apostle also instructs us what to do: “[14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” Simply disregard Francis and all the cardinals, bishops, priest and deacons who teach against tradition.
An editing function would be very helpful. No matter how I try, it seems typos appear in nearly every post.
@Mary Ann Parks
We’ll said and IMO a very sound theologcal stance. It is simply impossible to know what is the case without Benedict formally and clearly stating his intent. An inability or unwillingness to be clear is one of the most serious problems in the Vatican under the present Pope so it is disheartening to see the same behaviour from Benedict regardless of all the reasons for…
“of course not able to say this outright/publicly”
This “pope in secret” theory just doesn’t work in terms of true Catholicity. It would be nice to be able to accept this sentment wholeheartedly but I cannot seem to do so, no matter how much I.ight want (and pray) to be able to.
It seems a convenient solution to the anxiety over Francis, and can be easily “shoehorned” into Fatima and other private revelations’ mention of “two Popes”.
But prIvate revelation does not hold even the authoritive weight that “Amoris laetitia” now apparently holds, by virtue of the magisterial teaching status given the latter by Francis.
As much as you might want to believe Francis has been prevented from proclaiming false dictrine/dogma, many of the very people who are willing to accept that Benedict is still Pope use AL as evidence that Francis has in fact changed (or attempted to change) Church doctrine.
I don’t know how often lightening strikes St.Peter’s steeple, but the two bolts that were caught on camera striking the Dome so close to the resignation of Benedict are as difficult to do ignore as they are to interpret. If in fact there really are “no coincidences” and God’s hand is to be found n everything that happens then I truly need to pray more for “eyes to see and ears to hear” exactly what The Holy Spirit is saying to His Church in these tumultuous times.
Evil seems more and more able to present itself under the guise of goodness, to the immense confusion of many…including myself.
I pray that those who truly desire and strive for Truth are not deceive. 🎚️
Your Excellency, that may be what he intended to do. If so, I believe it to be something impossible – you cannot split the office in that manner. Christ founded the Church on one rock, not two. That mistake, if that is what he intended, would make him still pope, as Ann Barnhardt says, due to his error. However, I do not think that is what happened. I think that Pope Benedict may have done what he did in plain sight, knowing that it was invalid, and signalling by his dress and title that he was still pope. Either way, I doubt that Francis is pope. However, we cannot know that with certitude. One possible argument in favor of Francis being a true pope is that the Lord has prevented him from formally solemnly pronouncing error on faith and morals. He has pronounced aplenty but not in the strict requirements for infallibility. This situation is something we have to live with and through. In the times of multiple popes, there were saints on both sides. We cannot know with sufficient certitude to proclaim it, but there is sufficient doubt that cardinals should gather to discuss it.