Introit Wis 1:7. The Spirit of the Lord fills the world, alleluia, is all-embracing, and knows man’s utterance, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia. Ps. 67:2 God arises; His enemies are scattered, and those who hate Him flee before Him. V.Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. R.As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. The Spirit of the Lord fills the world, alleluia, is all-embracing, and knows man’s utterance, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.
(I originally wrote and posted this on June 23, ARSH 2010, almost a full year before I went viral. Wow. It’s almost as if you could see this all coming, or something. Actually, I have seen this coming since the late summer of ARSH 2008 when I realized that the United States was about to elect and install a Communist plant who wasn’t even an American citizen. Things like that tend to end . . . badly.)
I have received many emails and have heard much talk about the U.S. breaking into two countries ‐ one Constitutional Republic built on a foundation of Christian principles consisting of the Mountain, Central and Southern states (essentially a Second American Republic), and a Marxist‐Socialist‐Atheist confederation consisting of the Pacific Coast states, the Upper Midwest (IL, MI, MN, WI) and the New England states.
While it is sorely tempting to think about drop‐kicking the liberal states and going our separate ways, the reality is that this would be a MASSIVE mistake, and would almost certainly set in motion a chain of events that would end Western Civilization.
If this sort of “divorce” were to happen, we all know that the Second American Republic (SAR) would thrive while the Marxist Confederation (MC) would quickly fail catastrophically. When that failure happened, the MC would come begging to the SAR to bail it out. Now, you might be thinking, “Screw ‘em. They made their bed, now they can sleep in it. They’ll get no help from us.” That’s a knee‐jerk reaction, and it would be the WRONG reaction. Why? Because if the SAR turned down the MC’s requests for help, who would be the ONLY other nation capable of bailing out the MC? China. And as we should all understand with crystal clarity, the liberals in the MC states would be, without question, idiotic enough to actually INVITE the Chinese to take over their economy, and eventually their land ‐ purely as a “peacekeeping force” to control the food shortage riots, you understand. So, in order to stave off Chinese involvement in North America, we would have to bail the MC out anyway. It’s a textbook “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
In the event of a divorce wherein the SAR didn’t prop up the MC, the ports of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle would be completely vulnerable, and eventually would be thrown wide open to a cold invasion by the Chinese – almost certainly by invitation. The same could also be said for the East Coast ports. Boston, New York and Washington D.C. would be vulnerable and/or invite a “peacekeeping force” from the U.N., probably led by Russia.
Now we need to talk military tactics. Assume that what I have just laid out actually came to pass. The SAR and Constitutionalist refugees from the MC states are now compressed into the geographic center of the continent. To the west lies the Chinese Army. To the east lies the UN/Russian army.
This is called a “Strategic Flanking”. In fact, this would be the largest strategic flanking in world history. To be “flanked” is very, very bad. If you are fighting any sort of battle, you want to keep your adversary in front of you at all times and your sides CLEAR. You must NEVER allow the adversary to move along your sides (flanks). Combat tacticians are CONSTANTLY looking for a way to move their troops in such a way so that they “gain the flanks”. Once a force loses its flanks, it becomes nearly impossible (without a massive advantage in weaponry) to escape. The most famous tactical flanking in history was executed by Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. With fewer than 40,000 men, Hannibal drew the Roman army of 90,000 men into his center, and then wrapped around their flanks on both sides, thus forming a semi‐circle around the Romans. By doing this, Hannibal was able to COMPLETELY DESTROY the Roman army with fewer than HALF the number of men.
The most famous strategic flanking to date is probably the flanking of Nazi Germany by the Soviet army to the east and the Allies to the west. While this involved the entire European continent, the flanking I describe above on the North American continent would dwarf the Nazi flanking in size and scope. It is not hard to imagine a massive Chinese force pushing and compressing the SAR from the west, eventually wrapping around the northern flank, with a UN/Russian force compressing from New England in a southwesterly direction, pushing the people of the SAR south towards the Gulf of Mexico – which is at this moment being taken out of strategic play by the Russians via the cold lodgements of Cuba and Venezuela – and utter defeat.
Given these obvious tactical realities, I hope that one and all now see that the TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE FIRST AMERICAN REPUBLIC MUST BE PRESERVED. Integrated sovereignty MUST remain intact from “sea to shining sea”. Amicable divorce is NOT an option. We can not allow Marxism to establish any quarter, even in the spirit of “compromise” and the avoidance of possible hostilities, because that “compromise” and “avoidance” would be to sign our own death warrants, and the death warrant of Western Civilization. It would be far better to fight a civil war of territorial preservation than to fight a war against a conquering Sino‐Russian invasion.
How sick is it that I have to post this crap? I’m a 33 year old single woman (when this was written). I should be planning my next business move, or thinking about recreational travel. Instead, I’m standing here, mid‐morning on a Wednesday, writing essays on secession dynamics and military tactics for the North American theater. This is the living, breathing definition of FUBAR. God save us.
June 23, AD 2010
Because this clip can never, ever be posted too much, here is Larry Grathwohl, the man who infiltrated the Weather Underground, outlining Bill Ayers’ and Bernadine Dohrn’s plan for balkanizing the former U.S. territory after overthowing and collapsing the Republic, and delegating administration of the quadrants of the landmass to Russia, China, Cuba and Vietnam. Since Cuba and Vietnam are mere satellites, the dynamic today is clearly that of a Sino-Russian axis.
Bill Ayers, you will remember, wrote Obama’s fictional “autobiography” Dreams From My Father, and Ayers’ family supported and groomed Obama for the Presidency from the time he was a teenager. It appears that Chicago Communist Frank Marshall Davis handed Obama off to the Ayers group in Chicago in the early 1980s. Bernadine Dohrn’s fingerprints are also all over Obama’s course syllabus when he was an adjunct lecturer at the University of Chicago. And of course, Obama’s entire adult life and political career has had Ayers and Dohrn as the main enablers and drivers.
Oh, and just as an aside, Grathwohl’s eyewitness testimony confirms that Ayers and Dohrn have planned on and anticipated the need to murder fully 10%-15% of the population as “unreformable, die-hard capitalists.” In the early 1980s when this interview was recorded, the population of the U.S. was 250 million, thus Grathwohl’s number of 25 million that Ayers and Dohrn were planning on killing. Today, that number would be 30-45 million Americans that will need to be “eliminated” in order to quash the “counter-revolution.”
In this episode, Mark Docherty and Ann are joined by special guest Dr. Edmund Mazza, PhD, scholar, professor, author, and as of this week, central figure in the question of who is the one true pope of the One True Church. ICYMI, Dr. Mazza was interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall on his YouTube podcast on 27 May, where Dr. Mazza laid out his thesis regarding the defective resignation of the papacy by Pope Benedict XVI (long may he reign). Supporting evidence includes the +Ganswein speech at the Greg in 2016 (h/t Duns Scotus and the Immaculate Conception), Benedict’s last General Audience 27 Feb 2013, Benedict’s Declaratio, Seewald book interview 2017, +Miller book/dissertation, St Peter’s transfer of the Holy See from Antioch to Rome, the Prophecy of Malachi, etc etc. We ran out of time, so Part Two of this episode is Coming Soon!
Collect for the Feast of Saint Augustine of Canterbury:
O God, Who by the preaching and miracles of blessed Augustine, Thy Confessor and Bishop, didst vouchsafe to illumine the English people with the light of the true faith: grant that, through his intercession, the hearts of those who have gone astray may return to the unity of Thy truth and that we may be of one mind in doing Thy will. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God for ever and ever. Amen.
SuperNerd Media produces the Barnhardt Podcast; if you would like to support the technical maintenance of the podcast and the hosting of Ann’s website you can send donations to “SuperNerd Media” to 10940 Parallel Pkwy #K303, Kansas City, KS, 66109. Alternatively, you could email an Amazon.com gift certificate to [email protected]
The Infant Jesus of Prague handles Ann’s financial stuff. Click image for details. [If you have a recurring donation set up and need to cancel for whatever reason – don’t hesitate to do so!]
All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.
I’d say the identity of the Vicar of Christ on Earth falls under the general category header of “things which regard God and His Holy Church.”
And being within the category of “All Persons”, we do what we are BOUND by Divine Law to do.
Pat Archbold: At what point is it legitimate to take up arms against this illegitimate government? I think that armed resistance might be legitimate as a defensive act if several states secede. Just war theory requires a reasonable chance of success? Without secession of multiple states, can armed defense be legitimate?
Alpha Bravo: Well, isn’t that the question du jour? I always snicker at Dennis Miller’s old joke that George Washington started blowing people’s heads off for taxing his breakfast beverage… and it wasn’t even coffee. First, as we discussed earlier, the whole American paradigm was and is deeply, deeply flawed and contained in itself from the beginning the seeds of its own inevitable collapse and destruction as John Adams himself was sure to point out, so we must be careful when citing the American Revolution as a positive example. But, those of us still capable of nuanced thought can tease out useful information from even a Deist-Freemasonic construct.
First, the founders of the American Republic did in fact do what I referenced as a current impossibility earlier. Namely, they FIRST established a replacement government so that there would be no absence of government, no state of anarchy. As St. Thomas teaches, it is gravely, gravely sinful to take up arms against a tyrant without first providing for a replacement government. If a people simply liquidate a tyrannical oligarchy (because there is in actuality no such thing as a pure tyranny consisting of one man – even the most powerful tyrants are still undergirded and enabled by an oligarch class) without providing for the replacement, the result of the state of anarchy will be the ascendancy of an even worse tyrant. Anarchy, by definition, enables the biggest psychopath thug to take control. Anarchy, therefore, is an always-fleeting interstitial period between a bad government and an even worse government.
The primary problem with the post-American populace is a near-unanimous unwillingness to defend itself against tyranny, and thus even contemplate or discuss the formation of a replacement government. As long as the Mickey-D’s is still slinging burgers and Cokes, and they can still watch all of their favorite agit-porn teevee shows and gaze upon this year’s popular and oh-so-lovable psychopath characters and their wacky, psychopathic hijinks, the very notion of rocking the boat, much less laying down one’s life, will engender nothing but contempt and hatred of the Jeremiahs by even the so-called “conservative right”. Believe me, I know.
But for the sake of the discussion, another problem with the former United States is the fact that the post-Christian, modernist cancer has so thoroughly metastasized. Any notion of geographical boundaries representing a sufficiently clean ideological compartmentalization is pure delusion. Every urban area will be its own discrete theater. There is no “Mason-Dixon Line”. Take Wichita, Kansas for example. One might be tempted to think that central Kansas, bordered on the south by Oklahoma, would be a “gimme”. No way. Wichita is a cesspit and stronghold of the rap/hip-hop culture, which is, of course, the Stepin Fetchit of the Washington DC regime. Every urban area is poisoned. Only the tiniest rural towns could establish a physical perimeter without sealing the enemy inside.
Beyond that, the possibility of establishing any sort of redoubt or new country by those attempting to flee is, for the first time in human history, impossible. The migration, spread and settlement of the entire planet has largely been driven by people trying to get the hell away from some other group of people. For some it was done with a handshake, for most it was done as a pure matter of survival: either go elsewhere or be killed. That is no longer possible as there is no more “unsettled land” and technology has effectively put us all in the same room. But more importantly, the forces of evil will not permit any competition. Any state secessions will be instantly crushed. The (former) US military “can’t” fight a few dozen inbred musloid retards to anything better than a draw, but rest assured that the full force and power of the American military AND economic complex would be brought to bear on any group of people that simply wanted to relocate to Montana, delink from Washington and be left the hell alone. Any sane, Christian state established anywhere on the planet would be instantly crushed, both militarily and economically, without mercy, because in the age of “tolerance”, “dialogue” and “accompanying one another, body-to-body, with tender caresses of mercy”, the jackboot stomps the face forever.
Having said all that, we return to supernatural. The Battle of Lepanto was a supernatural victory. On paper, it was suicide, and on a purely natural level would not have passed the Thomistic requirement that there be a reasonable chance of victory. But through Our Lady of the Rosary it was a decisive victory. The Battle of the Milvian Bridge was a supernatural victory. As was, in all likelihood, the Battle of Tours. St. Joan of Arc, by virtue of her very command, much less her victories, enjoyed supernatural support. I heard it said not long ago that a group of people “with nothing to lose” must be assembled to advance the cause. I disagree. Only when people who have EVERYTHING to lose lay down their lives and sail into a battle that, like Lepanto, looks impossible on paper, will there be hope. Has that time come? Oh, yes. Most definitely it has.
I can’t say I’m surprised at the actions in Minnesota yesterday, though I remain horrified and saddened. As a young black man, I can’t imagine how the mass looting and arson will do anything but cement that manufactured racial division that the communist Obama stoked. Funny, it comes about right after the demented corpse of Joe Biden made another public oopsie of a racial nature that, if left to be digested and reported, could have led to at least a small fracture in that plantation hive-mind mentality that has plagued the majority of us blacks for so long. Another strange coincidence.
It’s all just too obviously cooked up. The sick evil people running this show aren’t just saying the quiet part out loud anymore: they’re standing on the rooftop screaming it through a bull horn. I just can’t help but think that with this time of abject self-inflicted chaos with this bee-ess virus, and the publishing of Dr. Mazza’s paper outlining yet another explanation to add to the obvious reality of the Bergoglian Antipapacy, we’re on the cusp of a divine intervention. Especially after a parish priest in Cleveland just basically announced to the satanists of the world where to go to desecrate Our Lord by announcing that the Eucharist will be distributed at his parish by drive-thru in plastic bags on Pentecost Sunday. Either way, that triumph of the Immaculate Heart can’t come soon enough.
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
More than seven years after Pope Benedict XVI resigned the papacy, Catholics still find themselves baffled and divided over his abrupt act. This is especially so because unlike every other ex-pope, he did not return to being “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, but instead announced himself as “Pope Emeritus.” Indeed, he is still called Benedict, still dresses in papal white, is still addressed as His Holiness, still gives Apostolic blessings, and still lives in the Vatican. Then, in 2016, Benedict’s personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein unexpectedly heaped fuel onto the fires of speculation and confusion when in an address at the Gregorianum he declared in dramatic overtones that Benedict
has been daring enough to open the door to a new phase, to that historical turning point which no one five years ago could have ever imagined. Since then, we live in an historic era which in the 2,000-year history of the Church is without precedent.
As in the time of Peter, also today the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues to have one legitimate Pope. But today we live with two living successors of Peter among us… Many people even today continue to see this new situation as a kind of exceptional (not regular) state of the divinely instituted office of Peter (eine Art göttlichen Ausnahmezustandes)… Since February 2013 the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation which Benedict XVI has profoundly and permanently transformed… And I, too, a firsthand witness of the spectacular and unexpected step of Benedict XVI, I must admit that what always comes to mind is the well-known and brilliant axiom with which, in the Middle Ages, John Duns Scotus justified the divine decree for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: “Decuit, potuit, fecit.”
That is to say: it was fitting, because it was reasonable. God could do it, therefore he did it. I apply the axiom to the decision to resign in the following way: it was fitting, because Benedict XVI was aware that he lacked the necessary strength for the extremely onerous office. He could do it, because he had already thoroughly thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of popes emeritus for the future. So he did it… The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.”[i.e. munus] He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst)…
…he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope).But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — isentirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII…To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary, as entirely consistent with the Gospel… (emphasis mine)
Gänswein’s musings left many veteran Vatican commentators nonplussed. Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican wrote:
So both the Catholic Left and Right were equally disturbed by Gänswein’s remarks.
Besides adding to the scandal of Catholics not knowing who our real Pope is (its Francis, in case anyone is wondering), or thinking there are two Popes at the same time, the irony of the archbishop’s speech is that neither the papacy nor Benedict’s pontificate needs to be artificially enhanced by anyone, or for any purpose. Vatican Councils I and II made clear that the Church is ruled by one, and only one Pope — at a time — and also gave the papacy all the “expanded” powers it needs, including the charism of infallibility, under clearly defined circumstances.
There is one Pope, and one Petrine Ministry — end of story.
Historian Dr. Roberto De Mattei similarly takes issue with “Pope Emeritus”:
If the pope who resigns from the pontificate retains the title of emeritus, that means that to some extent he remains pope. It is clear, in fact, that in the definition the noun [pope] prevails over the adjective [emeritus]. But why is he still pope after the abdication? The only explanation possible is that the pontifical election has imparted an indelible character, which he does not lose with the resignation. The abdication would presuppose in this case the cessation of the exercise of power, but not the disappearance of the pontifical character. This indelible character attributed to the pope could be explained in its turn only by an ecclesiological vision that would subordinate the juridical dimension of the pontificate to the sacramental.
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. There does not exist, except in the imagination of some theologians, a spiritual papacy distinct from the juridical papacy. If the pope is, by definition, the one who governs the Church, in resigning governance he resigns from the papacy. The papacy is not a spiritual or sacramental condition, but an “office,” or indeed an institution. (emphasis mine)
Or as Pope St. John Paul II’s biographer, George Weigel, put it:
The Petrine Office is not divisible in any fashion, nor can it be a dyarchy in which one exercises the mission of governance and another exercises a mission of prayer. The entire Church welcomes the prayers of Joseph Ratzinger, for the Body of Christ, for the world, and for Pope Francis. But these prayers do not constitute some sort of extension of the Petrine ministry Benedict XVI laid down as of 8 p.m. Central European Time on February 28, 2013. These prayers are the prayers of a great and good man; they are not, since that date and time, the prayers of a pope or a kind of demi-pope.
Archbishop Gaenswein’s reference to title and vesture confirms what many of us thought three years ago: the decisions about these matters made in 2013 were mistaken. Yes, the former bishop of a diocese is its “bishop emeritus” while he lives, for he retains the indelible character of episcopal ordination; but there is no such character to the Petrine office. One either holds the Office of Peter or one doesn’t. And it thoroughly muddies the waters to suggest that there is any proper analogy between a retired diocesan bishop and a pope who has abdicated. (emphasis mine)
And yet, in Peter Seewald’s just released biography, that is precisely the analogy that Benedict uses:
Peter Seewald points out to Benedict that there are church historians who criticize the fact that he calls himself “Pope emeritus,” since such a title “does not exist, also since there are not two popes.” After first saying that he himself does not see why a church historian should know more about such matters than anybody else – after all they “are studying the history of the Church” – , Benedict quotes the fact that “up to the end of the Second Vatican Council, there also did not exist any resignation on the part of bishops.”
After the introduction of the position of a retired bishop, the retired Pope goes on to say, there arose the problem that “one can only become a bishop with relation to a specific diocese,” that is to say, each “consecration is always relative” and “connected with an episcopal seat.” For auxiliary bishops, for example, the Church chose “fictional seats” such as those of formerly Catholic countries in North Africa. Since with the increasing numbers of retiring bishops, these fictional seats were quickly filling up, one German bishop – Simon Landersdorfer of Passau – just decided he would become simply an ’emeritus of Passau.’”
It is here that Pope Benedict then draws a comparison with the papacy. For, such a retired bishop, he adds, “does not anymore actively have an episcopal seat, but, still finds himself in a special relationship of a former bishop to his seat.” This retired bishop, however, thereby “does not become a second bishop of his diocese,” explains Benedict. Such a bishop had “fully given up his office, yet the spiritual connection with his former seat was now being acknowledged, also as a legal quality.” This “new relationship with a seat” is “given as a reality, but lies outside of the concrete legal substance of the episcopal office.” At the same time, adds the retired Pope, the “spiritual connection” is being regarded as a “reality.”
So who is right? Benedict or his critics? The answer is—both!
There is only one explanation that satisfies all and it’s been staring us in the face for seven years.
Firstly, Benedict tells Seewald his “new relationship with a seat” is “given as a reality, but lies outside of the concrete legal substance of the episcopal office.” Translation: Benedict is no longer Bishop [Episcopus] of Rome—Francis is. At the end of his 2013 renunciation, Benedict says as much:
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.
However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.
For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry ofBishop 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. (emphasis mine)
[Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem. Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.
Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam. Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commissum renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20 sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.]
Yet, the “key word” in that statement, as Gänswein first pointed out in 2016, “is munus petrinum, translated —as happens most of the time— with ‘Petrine ministry.’ And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.” Again, Benedict tells Seewald in 2019, the “spiritual dimension…is alone still my mandate [munus].”
But how can Benedict acknowledge his successor as bishop of Rome and yet still cling to the Petrine munus? After all, as Weigel says: “The Petrine Office is not divisible in any fashion, nor can it be a dyarchy in which one exercises the mission of governance and another exercises a mission of prayer.”
Indeed, Benedict has not created a dyarchy of two “popes,” in the sense of two bishops of Rome. For it is true, a see cannot have two bishops and the Petrine munus is not divisible either. Benedict has kept it for himself. Which is why in his declaration he renounced the “ministry” and not the munus. And why Gänswein, himself, draws our attention to that word.
And here we come to it at last: the ultimate solution to the “Emeritus enigma” is not to conclude that Benedict has divided the Petrine munus—but that he has divided the Petrine munus from the episcopal See of Rome!
Now, it is of Faith that Christ made St. Peter an Apostle and that he conferred on him the Keys of the Primacy—but nowhere is it recorded in Scripture that Christ made him bishop of Rome. Peter made Peter bishop of Antioch and then Peter made Peter bishop of Rome. As De Mattei once wrote: “He is bishop of Rome in that he is pope, and not pope in that he is bishop of Rome.”
Being, in fact, Pope, Benedict had/has by his munus, all the authority of Peter, so what did he do on February 28, 2013? It seems he separated Peter from the See of Rome: “The papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation which Benedict XVI has profoundly and permanently transformed…” If true, Benedict still retains his Primacy—but is only a former bishop of Rome. Conversely, Pope Francis would now occupy the chair—but would not be the Vicar of Christ (something of which he, himself, is seemingly unashamed to boast).
But can a pope actually withdraw the Primacy from the See of Rome? Here is what Thomas Livius wrote in his classic 1888 work on the Papacy:
To say, then, that the Popes are St. Peter’s true successors, and have the Primacy by Divine Right, is to assert a Catholic truth that has been defined by the Church and belongs to her faith. But…[Christ] did not determine what were to be the conditions in concreto of such [Peter’s] true succession, but left all this to the determination of St. Peter and his successors…Even granting that the union of the Primacy with the Roman See is jure divino, the particular question may still be raised: whether a Pope, in some evidently most grave and urgent necessity, could validly separate the Primacy from the See of Rome. The solution here is not an easy one, and grave theologians may be cited on either side… (emphasis mine)
Such was the case at the First Vatican Council, whose sesquicentennial, coincidentally, the Church commemorates this year:
Intense debate on romanitas preceded the final statement in Pastor Aeternus. Disagreement was first evident in the vota of the Preparatory Theological Commission. [Philip] Cossa argued that no human authority, including that of the pope, could separate Petrine succession from that in the Roman episcopate. [Franz] Hettinger was also convinced of the inseparability of perpetuitas from romanitas…
[But] Eighteen Fathers asked for a clarification of the chapter’s statement: “Whoever succeeds Peter in this chair holds Peter’s primacy over the whole Church according to the institution of Christ himself”…Since there was no divine promise that Rome be the see where the successors of Peter should preside as bishop, [Bishop] Dupanloup [of Orleans] thought that romanitas by divine right could not be proven.
Bishop Mariotti’s remarks were in the same vein: only succession in Peter’s primacy was of divine right…it had to be evident that it originated with the will of Christ, a condition which was met for Petrine primacy, but not for romanitas. Peter himself chose Rome as his episcopal see. Since this choice did not involve the revealed will of Christ, Peter’s successor was not by divine right the Roman bishop. In general, the Fathers who opposed the formulation of the Deputation wanted to leave open the question how the relation between perpetuitas and romanitas could be qualified, a question they accused the Deputation of attempting to decide authoritatively. (emphasis mine)
So, in the end, the Council’s
Deputation did not want wish to commit itself to a statement on the right by which the Roman bishop succeeds to the primacy, though it did hold that “it was a dogma of faith that whoever succeeded Peter in his cathedra was also successor to the primacy.”
To reiterate then, it is not against the teaching of the Church to argue that a pope has the power to remove the Petrine Primacy from the See of Rome, especially in a situation of grave and unprecedented danger to the Faith. Gänswein used the German word “Ausnahmezustandes” or “state of exception” to describe Benedict’s munus of Peter/Petrine ministry. Now, a state of exception is defined as “a concept in the legal theory of Carl Schmitt, similar to a state of emergency (martial law), but based in the sovereign’s ability to transcend the rule of law in the name of the public good. This concept is developed in Giorgio Agamben’s book State of Exception…” (emphasis mine)
Or as Archbishop Gänswein (quoting Scotus on Mary’s Immaculate Conception) said: “Decuit, potuit, fecit.” It was fitting…God could do it, therefore he did it. In this case, so did Pope Benedict. If he truly separated Peter’s Primacy from the Roman See, then Gänswein’s gushings over Benedict’s maneuver, at last, appear apt: “profoundly transformed,” “extraordinary courage,” “daring,” “spectacular,” “unexpected,” “a new phase,” “turning point,” “historic,” “entirely different,” “never been a step like it,” “unprecedented,” terms that fall flat describing a simple bishop’s retirement—even a pope’s! Only a “Captain Kirk” “Kobayashi Maru” solution by Pope Benedict could justify the use of such superlatives while simultaneously answering all the criticisms of his “renunciation” and satisfying all the parameters of the “Pope Emeritus” controversy. (What it means for Pope Francis and the future of the Church is, quite frankly, a matter for a different article.) In the end, as Sherlock Holmes declared: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
COMPANION INTERVIEW TO THIS POSITION PAPER, RECORDED TODAY, 27 May, ARSH 2020:
DO NOT EVER allow your name to be put on ANY “Contact Tracing” list. It is a pure ruse to imprison ANYONE at ANY TIME, INDEFINITELY, suppress all practice of religion, and have total state control of the economy. This makes Mao and Stalin look like benevolent pushovers with a deep respect for human life.
It’s a COLD. It’s a COLD. It’s a COLD. Everyone gets exposed to it. It CANNOT be avoided, by definition, which is precisely why Gates et al chose it. The only reason it has the death count it has is because the books have been cooked, people have been mass-murdered by the calculated infection of nursing homes, and people having their lungs blown out on ventilators.
And buy more ammo. Because we’re going to need it. There is no way, barring supernatural intervention, that this ends without just war. We’re already at war. It’s just that the good guys aren’t fighting.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a 14 day quarantine that lasts – forever.