do we have two popes : (a thread that was sunk?)
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,933
    I started the thread in 2014 and unbeknownst to me, it was sunk.

    In trying to add another update, it did not come to the top.

    Here is the link to new developments on the theme:

    https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/11/14/edward-pentin-reports-respected-vatican-theologian-questions-juridical-validity-of-pope-benedicts-attempted-partial-resignation-calls-for-in-depth-study-and-investigation/

    here is the link to Pentin:

    https://edwardpentin.co.uk/monsignor-bux-pope-francis-must-urgently-issue-profession-of-faith/
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,595
    I have given up trying to understand Pope Francis. I place him in God's hands and will let Him determine the outcome.
  • I can’t tell if the first article is serious or a sarcastic attempt at neo-sedevacantist conspiracy theories.

    On the off chance a reminder is needed, just because y’all might not like everything about Pope Francis doesn’t mean he isn’t Pope Francis.
  • I'm very disturbed by all of this. I think that posting articles such as these, while they may be intended to spark a debate, also serve to some who are extremely unhappy with the current Pontiff (such as me) as a source of great temptation to forget our loyalty to the Pope.

    It's not my responsibility for another's article, yet I do feel the need to express my concern and a warning to read everything here with a grain of salt, and of course, to go back and check the sources and read the documents for yourself to get a good idea of what's actually going on. Ite ad fontes, semper!
  • The Pope is the guy doing the Poping. I understand the appeal of the Barnhardt thesis, because it eliminates the constant parsing of the Holy Father's relationship to the Magisterium. I even think that it's possible someday that the Church will decide that's exactly what happened. That time is not yet.

    Nobody said any of this was going to be easy.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,933
    Nothing changes in our allegiance to the pope. What is being asked is s very serious question... did Benedict have the power, right or authority to split the Petrus Munus? That has been the issue from the getgo all the way back to his resigning.
  • davido
    Posts: 310
    I’m not clear on how the Petrine office is split? The Francis is doing the poping, Benedict is an old man who stays home and prays. Benedict gave everything up except the white outfit.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • MarkB
    Posts: 374
    Benedict didn't have the ability to split the papacy. Nobody says he did. Was that Benedict's intention when he resigned, thus making his resignation invalid? That's one question. Either Benedict validly and fully resigned as Holy Father, in which case Francis is the legitimate Successor to Peter, or Benedict's resignation was invalid, in which case he is still the reigning pontiff.

    As a speculative matter, yes finding that Francis's pontificate and papal magisterium have been invalid would solve a lot of problems in one fell swoop because everything Francis has done, said, appointed, written and decided would be nullified and the magisterium and Church government, college of cardinals, appointments to vacant sees all revert to conditions as they were on the day of Benedict's attempted resignation.

    I consider Francis to be the pope. If the Church determines otherwise, I'll accept that judgment at that time.
  • I wasn’t planning on arguing this one, but does anyone actually believe that Benedict’s resignation in 2013 was somehow incomplete? Deliberate or not?

    For one, Benedict is without a doubt the greatest theological wiz on the last century or so; I have an incredibly hard time believing that he of all people could mess up his own resignation, or that he would sit idly by as succession proceedings took place for in invalid successor that he certainly would know would be invalid.

    As to the possibility of him being coerced, come on. His personal secretary Archbishop Georg Ganswein has gone on record saying the Pope Emeritus had been mulling resignation “for quite sometime beforehand,” and that he went ahead anyway despite multiple attempts to change his mind. Is that even that unbelievable? Benedict never looked like he enjoyed being Pope, and he looks happy as can be to not have to deal with the constant hustle and bustle of being Pope. We also now know the only reason he took the job in the first place was because then-Cardinal Bergoglio begged the College to stop voting for him in 2005 (he came around eight years later obviously), and they had no one else to turn to than their then aging semi-retired dean in then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

    But let’s say for a minute that Benedict’s resignation somehow was invalid, and that Francis by extension really is an Antipope. What does that say for the many previous popes of ages past who left office under much more controversial circumstances? Has every pope since Celestine V been an antipope? Does the whole sedevacantist conspiracy actually go back centuries instead of years or decades? Were the Protestants actually right that the Catholic Church broke apostolic succession long ago in some Great Apostasy?

    Unless one thinks this is all some Matrix-like conspiracy to subjugate the whole human race, this whole matter is not nearly as complicated as some are making it seem. Benedict resigned. Francis is Pope now. Done. Boom goes the dynamite. What is a problem is that to few otherwise faithful orthodox Catholics realize that these preposterous sedevacantist conspiracies pose as great of threat, if not more, to the Faith and Church unity than anything coming out of National Catholic Reporter, Call To Action, or your boogieman of choice. Let’s put our heads together and try to solve the real problems in the Church today instead of these petulant attempts to relitigate the past in a vain attempt to justify sinful disobedience to the successor to Peter.
    Thanked by 2Elmar Liam
  • MarkB
    Posts: 374
    Benedict's theological acumen is precisely what feeds the speculations of some who believe that he concocted a subtly and cleverly invalid attempt at resignation -- a ruse -- in order to bring out into the open forces and prelates in the Church he otherwise felt powerless to oppose. Give them enough rope to hang themselves with, in other words, by appearing to hand things over to them but doing so invalidly so that at the right time it can all be undone after they have sufficiently exposed themselves. The ecclesiastical/papal equivalent of the hidden ball trick?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,933
    MarkB

    That is one take that is widely held.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,349
    It's not very plausible, though. The requirements for a papal renunciation are low: it has to be given freely and be plainly manifested. Pope Benedict XVI declared his renunciation before the cardinals and not under any condition of confinement or grave danger.

    He didn't and doesn't expect to assume the papal office again; on the other hand, he probably has faith in divine providence to take care of the Church and keep her from going completely off the rails.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • Elmar
    Posts: 240
    Give them enough rope to hang themselves with, in other words, by appearing to hand things over to them but doing so invalidly so that at the right time it can all be undone after they have sufficiently exposed themselves.

    Apart from plausibility of the argunent, this would imply that he was willing too feed hundreds of millions of souls to the wolves as some kind of collateral damage.
    Can't imagine that Benedict XVI would ever have considered such a deception of his flock.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • MarkB
    Posts: 374
    Benedict has claimed that God told him to resign during a mystical experience. Maybe some would say God told him to "resign." Who knows?
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,655
    I think the sinking of the original thread was for the best. Maybe this one too.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,595
    Too much conspiracy theory, and this from an easterner who takes popes with a large grain of salt to begin with. Benedict, although possessed of a formidable intelligence and excellent mind, was an older man with medical issues. Had he taken the office twenty years earlier, he would have been fine. But he was too old and in poor health for the rigors of that job and wisely realized it. I don't think there is any more to it. As for Francis, maybe the church got the pope it deserved.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    Rigors of the job?
    Chop at least half the rockstar travel.
    Use internet tools for meetings.
    Enjoy zero synods with problematic wrapup docs.
  • Benedict wanted to retire for a few years before Pope St. John Paul the Great passed away. To think his resignation was a hoax is to ignore this.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Liam Elmar
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,933
    I am sorry some are offended or put off by the subject but we must be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Wolves devour doves. Be not afraid, but be not an ostrich either.
  • Francis,

    As long as we're not instructed to follow Papal catechetical style in our liturgies,...….
  • There are posts like this where it makes me wish that Father Anthony Cekada had an account on this forum. Just to hear his input - On music, as well as this situation! (And no, I don't agree with his position.)
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,912
    and keep her from going completely off the rails.


    Small comfort to those watching friends and relatives depart the Church over Francis-ine faddletwarp.
  • Francis,

    Oh well.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,595
    Small comfort to those watching friends and relatives depart the Church over Francis-ine faddletwarp.


    One of my close friends has decided to jettison anything Catholic and go Orthodox. He says there is too much craziness in the western church.
  • Ask him to let you know if Bart is treating him any better than Frank.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,595
    I wondered about that. Orthodoxy has its issues, to be sure. But Bartholomew is not the only patriarch and my friend is joining with OCA which is Russian in origin. Not sure how much they connect with Bartholomew.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    Folks like Rod Dreher warn that it's a fool's errand to flee Roman Christianity into Orthodoxy: eventually, you will find divers flavors of craziness in Orthodoxy. Rod's Orthodoxy might be described as Protestant at the parochial level - very much rooted in finding a small, like-minded group of converts following a trusted spiritual father (but without 100% trust, because you never know until you know...).
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Elmar
    Posts: 240
    Isn't departing the Church over a pope's actions a protestant thing? How can real 'traditional catholics' even consider doing so?
    Thanked by 2francis dad29
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    That starts the rabbit hole...
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,933
    we do not ‘follow’ a pope or a bishop. We follow the Faith. Don’t be sifted by questionable actions.
  • Liam,

    To your point, what weight do Papal instructions have on the work we do as musicians?
  • MarkB
    Posts: 374
    It's more complex than that. To some Magisterial statements (truths taught as divinely revealed) Catholics owe the obedience of faith. To others (definitively proposed statements on matters closely connected to revealed truth) Catholics owe firm and definitive assent. To still others (ordinary teaching on faith and morals) Catholics owe religious submission of intellect and will, but there can be room for disagreement. To a fourth type of Magisterial teaching (prudential teaching on disciplinary matters) Catholics owe external obedience that doesn't exclude the possibility of disagreement. Finally, Catholics owe no assent to merely personal opinions or unofficial remarks offered by a pope or a local ordinary.

    I would distinguish that Catholics do indeed follow the pope and their local bishop and that they are obliged to, but in a secondary sense because Catholics first and foremost follow God through Christ, but the pope and bishops are authoritative representatives of Christ on earth to whom varying degrees of obedience are owed as set forth in the paragraph above. The Church is both hierarchical and the People of God.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,933
    If a pope tells you to jump off a cliff, must you obey?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,595
    If a pope or bishop tells you to sing, "City of God," should you obey?

    Popes and bishops have been genuine hypocrites when it comes to church music. They consistently say one thing then do another. You can't believe a word they say.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 374
    If a pope tells you to jump off a cliff, must you obey?


    I'd say, "You first, Holy Father. I'll follow you."
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Rigors of the job?
    Chop at least half the rockstar travel.
    Use internet tools for meetings.
    Enjoy zero synods with problematic wrapup docs.


    When one's physical infirmities do not include mental ones, this would be possible.

    When one's mind is impacted, either through actual dementia or because brain fog is a significant symptom of one's physical illness, this is not possible. It is especially difficult for one who has enjoyed a rigorous life of the mind to believe he is still mentally competent when his mind is far less competent than it once was. He can only judge by his prior competence and brain power, and he no longer measures up to his own standards.

    I'm not talking about ordinary aging. I'm talking about physical illnesses that sap not just one's energy but one's ability to think.
  • Assuming that the stories about JPII not allowing Cardinal Ratzinger to retire, and that Cardinal Bergoglio refused the papacy at the 2005 conclave, are both true, then I can only be even more grateful that Benedict accepted his election and served any time at all as pope. Only look at how much he accomplished during his short tenure to point us in the right direction. We will still be feeling his impact for decades (I hope). Imagine if we had gone straight from JPII to Francis.
    Thanked by 2MarkB CHGiffen
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,933
    MarkB

    And if he jumped you would follow? And Charles, you would follow Mark?
  • MarkB
    Posts: 374
    It's intended to be humorous and rhetorical. Like Jesus saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus knew nobody would cast a stone, and he upheld both the Torah and mercy by saying what he did. Just as I know the pope probably wouldn't jump, so I uphold respect for the Holy Father by saying what I did. And if he did jump I'd dismiss him as crazy, and I wouldn't be bound by a promise to follow a crazy man because that wouldn't be rational.

    But since you insist on pushing your absurd hypothetical scenario to absurd extremes, if you want to give it a serious analysis: There isn't enough context. Why is the pope asking me to jump off a cliff? Which cliff? Any cliff? A particular cliff? To what end or purpose? What is the good that would be achieved by jumping off a cliff that would supposedly be a sin of omission were I not to jump off a cliff? Or is the pope capriciously ordering me to jump off a cliff? I'm not a cleric, so I'm not bound by a promise of obedience to a religious superior. Regardless, a pope's command cannot substitute for my own judgment of conscience. I can take into account that the pope is telling me to jump off a cliff but I must weigh the content and circumstances of the order as well as my own analysis of the moral good of jumping versus not jumping before I conclude in my own judgment of conscience whether to jump. A pope's statement does not substitute for my own judgment. Furthermore, such an order from a pope wouldn't come under the purview of papal prerogative anyway, which is restricted to faith and morals: he cannot tell me to jump off a cliff in his capacity as pope even though he can tell me to jump off a cliff as in his capacity as a man. I do not have to follow nor even consider what a man tells me to do if that man doesn't have proper authority over me. I can take it as a suggestion, but I am not compelled to do nor consider what someone tells me to do simply because he told me to do it.

    But francis apparently believes that Catholics would be obliged to jump under penalty of sin if the pope told them to jump off a cliff because Catholics have to blindly follow anything and everything a pope says. Is that really how you think Catholics understand papal authority, francis? You can't be serious. Catholics are not such exaggerated and unlimited and irrational ultramontanists.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,933
    Catholics are not such exaggerated and unlimited and irrational ultramontanists.


    hAHAHA... many have already jumped!

    Here's a picture of one of the many cliffs.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/16/will-pope-francis-cause-a-schism-in-the-catholic-church

    However, this is a distraction to the OP's question... if you want to discuss following a pope, I recommend another thread.

    This thread is addressing the validity of Pope B's splitting the Petrus Munus.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,093
    But the Pope Emeritus hasn't done or said anything, apart from looking serene, and of course pray. A Bishop Emeritus has no jurisdiction, unless he takes on a new role, such as parish priest, as many do. I see no evidence that Papal authority is being shared.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,912
    Rod Dreher warn that it's a fool's errand to flee Roman Christianity


    I've read a lot of his work and find him to be a hyper-sensitive kinda guy. He did--correctly--observe that Catholics who have been around and have seen this act before are FAR less likely to jump ship.

    We had a significant problem in this Archdiocese in the early 2000's (like Boston did). Between that and knowing a lot of Jesuits, well.....we're inured.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,595

    And if he jumped you would follow? And Charles, you would follow Mark?


    As an easterner, I don't always follow him to begin with. Much of what he says is irrelevant to the east. He's not talking to us.