Italian Daily Doubts Francis' Papacy

Ultraviolet, you must read and research more carefully the sources you quote. Note the following:

1. In the 2021 interview, you quote Benedict as saying "Some men of the Vatican Gendarmerie and the Swiss Guards are already there to organize all possible protective measures around Pope Francis." But that quoted statement was not a quote from Benedict but, instead, background material provided by the journalist writing the article.

2. Your other quotes are from an article referring to a mysterious letter, supposedly written by Benedict to a journalist named Andrea Tornielli in 2014. Tornielli claimed in his article that Benedict's letter referred to Bergoglio as "Pope Francis." This Tornielli article caused quite a stir. To return the favor, in 2018, Bergoglio appointed Tornielli to be the Vatican's new propaganda chief. Tornielli has never produced the letter that he claims to have received from Benedict, even though he has been asked publicly to do so as recently as March 2021. Anything Andrea Tornielli has said about Benedict must be backed up by proof before one should be believe him.

So your entire argument rests on a misquote and the testimony of a journalist who is now the propaganda henchman of Bergoglio. Maybe you should try again?

1.) I see no correction from you on the Italian translation you mention. It's possible. My Italian is, I admit, very bad. Regardless, you've made a claim without showing proof for it.

2.) "supposedly written by Benedict to a journalist named Andrea Tornielli in 2014"

First, Tornielli was writing on La Stampa's behalf. Further, CNA makes this point very clear. "Benedict XVI’s letter to La Stampa addressed..." and... "His (Benedict's) letter was a response to La Stampa’s inquiries...".

Andrea Tornielli was merely the author of the article in La Stampa. You haven't shown any evidence of falsehood from the author, either. You're trying very hard to insinuate it, but that simply isn't good enough here. Absent proof, your insinuation is nothing more than thinly-veiled libel.

Until you show Tornielli's claims are false, the validity of the articles and quote stand. Worth noting Benedict's letter written to La Stampa confirmed the quote related by Hans Kung in La Repubblica. This is was the first instance of the quote you're so desperately trying to discredit.

From the CNA link above...
"Kung had quoted a passage of Benedict XVI’s letter as reading, “I'm grateful to be bound by a great identity of views and a heartfelt friendship with Pope Francis. Today, I see my last and final job to support his pontificate with prayer.”

Benedict XVI responded to La Stampa’s question about the accuracy of such a quote by writing, “Professor Kung quoted the content of my letter to him word-for-word and correctly.”

Kung made this claim in La Repubblica (news item clarifies this here. La Stampa didn't take La Repubblica's word for it, or Kung's, and asked for confirmation. Once they realized Benedict's quote was legitimate, they acknowledged what, sadly, Benedict's fan-boys are still doing years later..

--A few weeks ago, the Swiss theologian Hans Kung quoted a passage from a letter Benedict XVI received regarding Francis. Words which leave no room for doubt: “I'm grateful to be bound by a great identity of views and a heartfelt friendship with Pope Francis. Today, I see my last and final job to support his pontificate with prayer." Some on the web questioned the validity of these words or tried to twist them. We asked the Pope Emeritus to comment on this too. “Professor Küng quoted the content of my letter to him word for word and correctly,” he wrote in his reply. He ended by saying he hoped he had answered our questions in “a clear and adequate way”--

Your second point of rebuttal is nothing other than an ugly genetic fallacy ...and your supporting evidence is just as fallacious.

"To return the favor, in 2018, Bergoglio appointed Tornielli..."

You're implying motive even though you haven't shown evidence it. Correlation does not prove causation. Particularly four years after the fact. Congratulations. You've just supported your Genetic Fallacy with a Post hoc fallacy

Worse, this isn't just Tornielli's claim in La Stampa. What of Hans Kung and La Repubblica? :D You need to successfully discredit two writers and two newspapers if you're going to erase that oh-so-embarrassing "Pope Francis" Benedict wrote to Kung. :D

The fact Brother Bugnolo saw fit to tweet his demand as the fancy-sounding "Ordo Miltaris Catholicus HQ" shows even he recognizes just how little importance his own name carries. :D La Stampa and Tornielli have no reason to answer, and thus legitimize, the likes of Brother Bugnolo and whatever new money raising gimmick he's posting under.

"So your entire argument rests on a misquote and the testimony of a journalist..."

Wrong. Today is just not your day.... I also raised...

a.) Benedict differentiates between himself and the Pope, with supporting quotation.

b.) Benedict directly contradicts the notion of a diarchy, with supporting quotation, meaning he contradicts your claim he split the Papacy with his "Declaratio".

c.) How the word "pope" can be thought of has no bearing on how the word applies here.

d.) Different Papal titles for one man do not presuppose different men currently carrying on distinct Papal functions under each title.

Not a word out of you addressing any of that.

Thus, your claim that my "entire argument" rests on the two points you described (however incorrectly) fails outright.

I pointedly avoided the mistake of attacking Andrea Cionci's credentials even though he's precisely the sort of "propaganda henchman" Benedict's fan-boys obviously like.

So your entire rebuttal rests on an unsupported claim, a genetic fallacy, a post hoc fallacy, and simply claiming every point you didn't answer doesn't exist.

Maybe you should try again. ;-)

1.) You claimed that Benedict said "Some men of the Vatican Gendarmerie and the Swiss Guards are already there to organize all possible protective measures around Pope Francis."

Here is the original Italian text of the sentence you provided along with the sentence before that:

«Purtroppo cade in un momento molto difficile che lo rende anche un viaggio pericoloso: per ragioni di sicurezza e per il Covid. E poi c’è la situazione irachena instabile. Accompagnerò Francesco con la mia preghiera». Alcuni uomini della Gendarmeria vaticana e delle guardie svizzere sono già lì per organizzare tutte le possibili misure di protezione intorno a papa Francesco.

Here is that same two sentence text in English translation (Google translate):

"Unfortunately, it falls at a very difficult moment that also makes it a dangerous trip: for security reasons and for Covid. And then there is the unstable Iraqi situation. I will accompany Francis with my prayer". Some men of the Vatican Gendarmerie and the Swiss Guards are already there to organize all possible protective measures around Pope Francis.

Note that the quote marks in the original Italian text end after the word "preghiera" ("prayer"), which is the last word in the first sentence. The sentence that you claimed was from Benedict was not inside the quote marks (in italian quotes look like this: « or »).

So, as I said before, the quote you provided to make your point was a quote from the journalist, not from Pope Benedict.

2.) You have used the article by Tornielli as your "evidence" that Benedict used the title "Pope Francis." According to Tornielli, the use of the words "Pope Francis" was found in a letter that Benedict supposedly sent to Hans Kung. This Benedict-Kung letter has never been revealed publicly. Tornielli has refused to provide documentary evidence of the "letter" to prove that Pope Benedict actually used that title in that letter. You assume that Tornielli has told the truth. I do not make that assumption. Remember what they say about those who ass/u/me.

3.) Now to your specific questions:

a.) Here again you ass/u/me that the quotes attributed to Benedict can be trusted without any evidence.

b.) Here again you ass/u/me that the quote attributed to Benedict can be trusted without any evidence. Although, I am not proposing "diarchy" anyway. I am saying that Benedict is "Peter," and retains the spiritual authority of the papacy as dogmatically defined by Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I. Bergoglio is something like Benedict's prime minister, carrying out the daily duties of government as Bishop of Rome.

c.) You are welcome to your opinion as to whether the various meanings of the word "Pope" apply in this case. I stated my opinion.

d.) The fact that Bergoglio specifically rejected certain titles from his entry in the Vatican Yearbook, most importantly "the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles" and "Vicar of Christ," should make clear that Bergoglio's status is "unique," to say the least.

4.) Here is how the Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus defines the Papacy:

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence,[49] which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by Our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

The 2020 Vatican Yearbook specifically says that the underlined words above DO NOT apply to Jorge Bergoglio. So by Bergoglio's own admission, he not "the successor of blessed Peter," etc.

Note also that this identity as the "successor of blessed Peter" is not some optional title that can be dropped by a future "Pope," but is rather a "definition" "promulgated" at "the ecumenical Council of Florence" and confirmed at the ecumenical Council of Vatican I.

This I am certain about: Benedict XVI did not renounce the munus [spiritual gift] of the Papacy as required by the Canon Law of 1983. He did or attempted to resign from the ministerium [the daily activities of governance] of the papacy. Regardless, Benedict remains "the successor of blessed Peter" and "Vicar of Christ," until he abdicates using that proper canonical form.

Some may ask, why should we care about this? Isn't this just an academic, legalistic concern? No, the teaching on Papal Infallibility (as delimited in the document Pastor Aeternus) is a dogma of the faith, meaning you are not Catholic if you reject it. Here is a syllogism combining what Pastor Aeternus teaches and Bergoglio's actions:

The "successor of Peter" cannot undermine the authentic, traditional Magisterium (de fide). Bergoglio is undermining the authentic, traditional Magisterium. Therefore, Bergoglio is not the "successor of Peter."

Since Bergoglio is not "Peter," Catholics must look for the true Peter and follow him. The true "successor of Peter" is Pope Benedict XVI.

All right, I'll concede your first point on the translation. Hopefully it will soothe your ego after what happens next.

"2.) You have used the article by Tornielli as your "evidence" that Benedict used the title "Pope Francis."

Your use of false-quotes is unwarranted and factually unsupported. The article is evidence and you have yet to discredit its information in any way. Nor have you shown any falshood on the part of the author..

"According to Tornielli, the use of the words "Pope Francis" was found in a letter that Benedict supposedly sent to Hans Kung."

...thus corroborating Hans Kung's own claim. Try not to forget that. :D

"This Benedict-Kung letter has never been revealed publicly."

Not all correspondence is.

"Tornielli has refused to provide documentary evidence of the "letter" to prove that Pope Benedict actually used that title in that letter."

Tornielli is no reason to legitimize Brother Bugnolo by answering his demands. If anything, that's a perfect reason to ignore them.

If you, Bugnolo, or anyone else wish to prove Tornielli and Kung lied, that La Stampa and La Repubblica both published false stories, the burden of proof is on you to do so.

"You assume that Tornielli has told the truth. I do not make that assumption. Remember what they say about those who ass/u/me."

Wrong. An assumption is a thing accepted without proof. I have not made an assumption because there IS proof. Tornielli's published account of the reply La Stampa received from Benedict corroborates Kung's original published quote in a separate publication. Thus, there is proof for the proof. It's just proof that Benedict's fan-boys don't like.

I also remember people are innocent until proven guilty and you have not shown any proof of falsehood.

"3.) Now to your specific questions:"

First, my points weren't questions. They are counter-evidence you did not previously address.

Second, you're tacitly conceding that you didn't answer them before. Therefore you are also conceding your previous claim "So your entire argument rests on a misquote and the testimony of a journalist." is also incorrect.

"a.) "Here again you ass/u/me that the quotes attributed to Benedict can be trusted without any evidence."

Here again, you mis-state the facts. The articles citing Tornielli and Kung (both of them) are evidence. What you probably meant to say is there isn't any evidence supporting the articles. That's incorrect as well. You simply haven't seen it. It's unlikely either newspaper would risk an explosive debunking.

I suspect but can't prove, La Stampa was trying to do just that to La Republlica by fact-checking Kung's statements with Benedict. What a nasty shock they got! A prompt reply from Benedict himself and confirmation a rival was telling the truth.

There's some bad faith in this line of argument from you of all people since you're taking Andrea Cionci's claims at face value without any "evidence" as well. ;-)

"b.) Here again you ass/u/me that the quote attributed to Benedict can be trusted without any evidence."

Wrong again, both on your misuse of the word "assume" and your claim regarding evidence. See my reply to point a.)

"Although, I am not proposing "diarchy" anyway."

By suggesting Benedict "split these two elements of the traditional papacy" (again, your words) you did propse a diarchy. Both elements as you call them are halves of the same papacy. One can not be "half" a Pope. This just a theoretical point, since Benedict did no such thing and your suggestion itself is incorrect.

"I am saying that Benedict is "Peter," and retains the spiritual authority of the papacy as dogmatically defined by Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I. Bergoglio is something like Benedict's prime minister, carrying out the daily duties of government as Bishop of Rome."

The Pope is the spiritual and temporal head of The Church and that includes being The Bishop Of Rome. Your claim, "Bergoglio's power extends to his diocese alone, that is, to Rome" is false. The Bishop of Rome is an office (and title) of the Pope.

Benedict can't be the Pope since the Pope is, according to The Church, The Bishop of Rome and....you've already acknowledged "Bergolio" (as you stubbornly and incorrectly keep calling the man) governs "as the Bishop of Rome" (your words). You're painting yourself in a corner here. :D

"d.) The fact that Bergoglio specifically rejected certain titles from his entry in the Vatican Yearbook, most importantly "the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles" and "Vicar of Christ," should make clear that Bergoglio's status is "unique," to say the least."

Apply your reasoning equally to Benedict.

"Rather than being called by his papal name 'Benedict XVI,' the retired pontiff revealed that since his retirement he has wanted to return to his original priestly title and be called simply 'Father Benedict.'

...meaning, Father Benedict has shed all titles beyond that one. Incidentally, that also places him hierarchically beneath the Pope who is the Bishop of Rome. :D

"The 2020 Vatican Yearbook specifically says that the underlined words above DO NOT apply to Jorge Bergoglio. So by Bergoglio's own admission, he not "the successor of blessed Peter," etc."

Unsupported claim, particularly when you state the Vatican Yearbook "specifically says" the underlined words do NOT apply to Pope Francis.

Let's see a scan of the page expressly showing the proviso you claim. Let's see what the Vatican Yearbook actually says as opposed to what you claim it says. For chap who's so insistant everyone provide proof for their claims, you certainly don't provide very much of it for your own.

For now, let's just run with your claim, unsupported as it is. From that argument, Benedict XVI wasn't Pope, either.

His titles post 2006 were: "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God."

Is "the successor of blessed Peter" in that list? ;-) That is a "yes" or "no" question.

Based on your quotation from Pastor Aeternus and the argument you derive from it, Benedict wasn't pope. Gotcha. ;-)

Perhaps happily for you, the argument you advance is in itself incorrect.

Pastor Aeternus states the Pope "is the successor of blessed Peter". That's a factual statement describing who the Pope is, a definition, it is not an ennunciation of his title. Further the passage you cited does NOT say the Pope must be called that nor does it say he loses authority if he is not.

"Note also that this identity as the "successor of blessed Peter" is not some optional title that can be dropped by a future "Pope, but is rather a "definition" "promulgated" at "the ecumenical Council of Florence" and confirmed at the ecumenical Council of Vatican I."

Please quote verbatim in the passage you cited from Pastor Aeternus where "The Successor Of Blessed Peter" is a mandatory title of the Pope. You just said it "is not some optional title" then it must be a mandatory one. Show proof because the quoted passage from Pastor Aeternus clearly does not say that.

A definition is not a title. and you, yourself, just said the "successor of blessed Peter" is "rather a definition". Gotcha again. ;-)

If you wish to argue that by dropping a traditional title, Francis stops being pope, apply your reasoning equally to Benedict. Francis is only following his lead. He, too, abandoned a traditional title as well. If your argument were true, Benedict XVI stopped being pope in 2006. :D

"The true "successor of Peter" is Pope Benedict XVI."

Lousy verb choice. It should be was. Benedict resigned. Sloppy reasoning even on a secondary point because Francis was also what you choose to call the "successor of Peter" at the time of his election and for years afterward. Lastly, you're capping your rebuttal off with another fallacy.