(LifeSiteNews) — The current pontificate has been, to put it charitably, very confusing. To explain it, some have usurped to themselves the role of declaring Benedict’s resignation invalid, thereby making Francis an antipope. Doing so, these “Benepapists” have only added to the confusion of the current crisis, as well as to the risk of schism.
In my book Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, I defend the validity of Benedict’s resignation against the many Benepapist claims in an objection-reply format. Here, I respond to Dr. Edmund Mazza’s recent opinion piece.
A Sacramental Papacy?
Dr. Mazza’s central thesis is that “Benedict believed that when he became Pope in 2005, he received a sacramental munus—not simply a juridical office.” Thus, even after his resignation, per Dr. Mazza, Benedict believed he retained the indelible mark of this “sacramental munus.” This meant, per this theory, Benedict believed he remained pope in some way, which, if true, would make his resignation invalid.
However, this is a vain attempt at mind-reading, plain and simple. In his article and book, Dr. Mazza may appeal to what Carlo Fantappiè or others opine about “two rival conceptions” of the papacy, but the reality is as follows. Dr. Mazza has not provided, and cannot provide, any clear statement by Josef Ratzinger, either as theologian, pope, or pope emeritus wherein he affirms the concept of sacramental papacy or a “sacramental papal munus” which Dr. Mazza ascribes to him.
Where Dr. Mazza has attempted to produce such evidence, a closer reading of his primary sources shows he has misread key passages from which he draws his conclusion (e.g., HERE). Perhaps the most notable example of this is when Dr. Mazza, on a Patrick Coffin podcast, paraphrased a passage from Ratzinger’s Principles of Catholic Theology,[1], claiming that the cardinal “disagreed with those who said the papacy is not a sacrament.” [2] If this were true, Dr. Mazza would have his proof that Benedict believed the papacy is a sacrament.
However, in my book I have demonstrated conclusively, by showing the full context of Ratzinger’s passage, that Dr. Mazza has misread the source material. Ratzinger was in reality “offering his understanding of the Eastern Church’s general view of the problem of papal centralization, the declaration of infallibility, etc., i.e., that the West has, in the East’s view, effectively treated the papacy as if it was another sacrament — something the East rejects.” [3] In sum, Ratzinger was not claiming in this passage that the papacy is a sacrament, nor was he disagreeing with those who say it is not.
Dr. Mazza’s reading is so mistaken that even a noted Benepapist, in her own separate analysis of the same passage, would later refer to his interpretation as “a real madness.” [4]
Adding to the difficulties facing Dr. Mazza’s thesis is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), citing Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 21), teaches clearly that “the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by episcopal consecration” (cf CC 1557). As episcopal consecration confers the fullness of the sacrament, it therefore follows that election to the papacy is not a stage of Holy Orders, i.e., there is no “sacramental papal munus.” The real problem for Dr. Mazza is that Cardinal Ratzinger was Chairman of the Commission that drafted this Catechism. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably claimed Ratzinger opposed this teaching, and thus believed in an additional “sacramental munus” upon elevation to the papacy.
Separately, with regard to Dr. Mazza’s comments on a particular Peter Seewald interview, I address his argument directly in a separate article.[5]
RELATED: Doctor Edmund Mazza: Here’s why I believe the Bergoglian pontificate is invalid
Munus vs Ministerium?
Having dispensed with the absence of any clear Ratzinger statement on a supposed “sacramental papal munus,” let us return to the origin of the dispute over the munus. The key part of Benedict’s resignation reads:
For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] 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.[6]
In this text, the Benepapists claim that Benedict resigned only the ministerio (ministerium) of the papacy – which they claim refers only to the administration of the office; and not to the munus (office) as found in canon 332§2. This canon is given below:
If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office [munus], 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.[7]
However, contrary to the Benepapists’ assertion, the canon in question does not say the word munus must be used in a resignation. In fact, the canon explicitly outlines only two requirements: that the resignation be made freely and duly manifested. Canon law does not require a specific formula, no specific word, nor any set of words that must be used to validly resign the papacy. It is notable that an author of a popular Benepapist book admits the word “munus” need not be used in a valid resignation, and that other words may be acceptable.[8]
When some doubt arose over the possibility of a papal resignation in the case of Pope Celestine V, Pope Boniface VIII had both the teaching recognizing the possibility of papal resignations and a canon on papal resignations placed into the Liber Sextus. These documents neither taught nor required the word munus be used. The teaching document stated a pope may resign the “papacy,” and the subsequent canon said that the “Roman pontiff may resign freely.” [9] It is also notable the term “Roman Pontiff” was not required and that the word munus does not appear here at all.
What must be clear in whatever word or words used, is that these convey that the pope is, in fact, resigning the papacy. Even setting aside the debate over munus vs. ministerium, it is clear Benedict resigned the papacy in saying he was renouncing the “ministry (ministerio) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter…in such a way…that the See of Rome, the See of Peter would be vacant,” resulting in the need for a conclave to elect a “a new supreme pontiff.” The importance of these words is clear. If the See of Peter is vacant and a new conclave is necessary, there is no pope.
The Benepapist case is undermined by the fact that munus and ministerium are synonyms. Both can mean duty or office, as has been demonstrated by Ryan Grant [10] and Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, PhD [11]. Even Dr. Mazza’s book cites an authority on the question who affirms that munus, ministerium, and officium are synonyms.[12] This authority goes on to say their meaning and synonymy “depends on the context of the utterance, the author’s intent, or the purpose for which they are used.”[13] All three of these criteria applied either individually or together to the resignation statement clearly support the case that Benedict validly resigned.
Furthermore, in the official record of the Apostolic See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the actual title of Benedict’s resignation is: Declaratio Summi Pontificis De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione.[14] This can be translated as “Declaration of Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.” The title clearly speaks of Benedict abdicating the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome. Given this, it follows that where the text below the title declares “I renounce the ministry (ministerio) of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter,” that text must necessarily and definitively be understood as synonymous with that title.
Though the preceding is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of the resignation, we can briefly add the following as well. Lumen Gentium 20 speaks of the Lord appointing the Apostles as rulers of the Church, and that the Apostles, in turn, appointed men to take up their ministry (ministerium) when they died:
“Among these ministries (ministeria) which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office (munus) of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning, are passers-on of the apostolic seed.”[15]
Given LG 20 says the office (munus) of the episcopate is “among the ministries”, it follows that a munus is a ministry. Therefore, in the case of the papacy, if one resigns the Petrine ministry or ministerium, one necessarily resigns the Petrine munus.[16] Consequently, again, the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid.
Conclusion
In summary, Benedict’s renunciation of the papacy was valid. He intended to resign fully his office (munus). Thus, we can understand why, on the effective date of his resignation, February 28, 2013, fewer than three hours away from the effective hour of his resignation, Benedict said to a gathered crowd 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.” [17]
I hope and pray that the Benepapists will take these clear words to heart, that they will stop confusing the faithful, and that they will depart from the schismatic — indeed, Sedevacantist – path upon which they are treading.
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 the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and is a former intelligence officer.
End notes
[1] Joseph Ratzinger, Principle of Catholic Theology: Building Stone for a Fundamental Theology. Ignatius Press. 1987 Pages 194-195)
[2] 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 my book, Valid, in chapter one; and it is available here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/
[3] See Steven O’Reilly, “Regarding Benedict’s Declaratio”, February 21, 2021, https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/; See “Reply to Objections 2.1 and 2.2”; I repeated this argument in a later article, and it is also found in Chapter 1 of my book.
[4] See Estefania Acosta, “His Holiness Benedict’s Declaratio and the Myth of Substantial Error – Part IV”. September 15, 2022. Accessed 10/9/2024, 11:28 AM; https://www.patrickcoffin.media/his-holiness-benedicts-declaratio-and-the-myth-of-substantial-error-part-iv/;
[5] See “The Is-Pope-Francis-The-Pope Debate Continues. Two Views from Edmund J Mazza and Steven O’Reilly,” on the WMBRIGGS website. The single posting includes one article by Dr. Mazza, and one by me, Steven O’Reilly. Published March 1, 2024; https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/50753/
[6] Pope Benedict XVI, “Declaratio Summi Pontificis: De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. 105, Nº. 3, 2013, March 1, 2013. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. April 22, 2013. This is the official record. A more easily accessible version may be found on the Vatican website, here: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html
[7] see Coriden, James A., et al, eds. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, p. 437.
[8] See Estefania Acosta, “Adversus Fallacies: A Reply in Defense of the Book ‘Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus?”’”, Katejon.com.br, May 13, 2021. https://katejon.com.br/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/reply_complete-blqd.pdf; O’Reilly’s note: While Acosta does not accept the use of ministerium, she does concede other words may be used, such as officium, or papacy, etc.
[9] Liber Sextus (I, VII, I), UCLA Digital Library, pp. 197-198, retrieved June 7, 2022, 4:57 p.m.
https://digital.library.ucla.edu/catalog/ark:/21198/zz0014rx8d?cv=35
[10] Ryan Grant, “Rise of the Benevacantists: Who is Pope?”. https://onepeterfive.com/benevacantists/
[11] Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, Ph.D., “Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert,” William M. Briggs, April 20, 2022.
https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39718/
[12] See Edmund Mazza, PhD, “The Third Secret of the Fatima & 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.
[13] Ibid. see p. 55-56.
[14] See Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, Ph.D., “Munus, Ministerium & Pope Emeritus Benedict — Guest Post by Fr John Rickert”. https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39718/
[15] Lumen Gentium 20, from Chapter III (On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on the Episcopate).
[16] My thanks to Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, who, during the course of my research on my book, via private correspondence, brought to my attention both Lumen Gentium 20 and its relevance to the question of ministerium being a synonym of munus, i.e., that the munus of the episcopate is “among the ministries.” The argument above appears in chapter 1 of my book Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. There is also a whole article dedicated to developing this line of argumentation here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/11/04/lumen-gentium-destroys-benepapism-in-toto/
[17] 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); 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/