, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pope Benedict and Francis

It’s not me, it’s the MODEL!

As promised, the second of two posts for today is below.

In this post, I will comment on the Archbishop Gänswein speech as presented and commented on by Signor Guido Ferro Canale as per Sandro Magister post. (see here). The reason that I am doing this is that, in essence, the MODEL can “back out” Pope Benedict’s position (INTENT) through the speech of Archbishop Gänswein. Furthermore, Signor Canale provides excellent supplemental information in his own right. Collectively, this information allows us to better define the REALITY in which the Catholic Church finds itself in Anno Domini 2016.

First order of business then is to establish the HYPOTHESIS that your humble blogger, with the help of the Pierce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (POPM) (see here) will be testing.

If you recall dear reader, in the post titled Pope Benedict XVI Declared A State of Necessity! (see here), your humble blogger drew the following conclusion:

“…the highest Catholic Church authority (…) has de facto declared that the Catholic Church is under a “State of Necessity” with his resignation on the 11 of February 2013.”

Given the above, in the last post titled Wielding Ockham’s Razor “Unmercilessly” (the malapropism is intended), we took the DATA POINTS (please cross reference all DP’s to this post) from the Canale analysis and ran them through our POPM. We provided the RAW DATA in that post. We also defined the HYPOTHESIS that we were testing as:

Did Pope Benedict XVI declare a State of Necessity in the Catholic Church?

The reason that we are asking this question is that if the answer is in the positive, supporting our earlier position, then the REALITY that Catholic Church finding itself in a State of Necessity brings with it a whole host of consequences, both intended and unintended. Please see here and here. So below, we will try to pin down the SPECIFICS and highlight some of the resulting consequences.

So let’s get cracking.

Supporting Evidence that BXVI declared a State of Necessity in the Universal Church

From the evidence presented in the Guido Ferro Canale analysis of the Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the answer to the above HYPOTHESIS is in the affirmative.

Proof comes from both Archbishop Georg Gänswein (AG) and from Guido Ferro Canale.

With respect to AG, the following are the pertinent passages:

AG titled his speech “Benedict XVI, the end of the old, the beginning of the new.” [DP3]

AG identified the new” as beingprecisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates”. [DP6]

AG identified the new” as follows: He (AG) also uses – although in a much less evident way – another category: the state of exception. [DP8]

AG stated that: “Many continue to perceive this new situation even today as a sort of state of exception intended by Heaven. [DP10]

And naturally, the “state of exception” is the same as the State of Necessity as we demonstrated in our post titled “NECESSITY HAS NO LAW” And The “Resignation That Wasn’t”? (see here)

With respect to what “the new” is not, and contrary to what AG claims, the following is the case:

The “new” does not, and cannot mean, is any manner or form a “dual papacy” with one active pope and one passive pope. The reason that the “new” CANNOT be referring to the dual papacy is that a “dual papacy” DOES NOT EXIST, since it is contrary to the Papal Office as Our Lord founded it.  As George Weigl explains: [DP1] (see here) (emphasis added)

The papacy would seem to be one of these you-are-or-you-aren’t realities.(Ed Note: binary opposite) According to the law of the Church, a man becomes pope the moment he accepts election (assuming he’s a bishop; if not, he becomes pope after he’s immediately ordained to the episcopate). A man ceases to be pope when he dies or when he abdicates the office by a clear and free manifestation of his will to do so. So there are never “two popes.”

That there is no such thing as a “Pope Emeritus”, the following is the pertinent passage:

Whatever else a “pope emeritus” may be, he is emphatically not “the pope.”

And Weigl follows up with this:

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.

Quick question. Who believes that the “decisions about these matters (Ed note: to create a “pope emeritus”) made in 2013 were mistaken”? Implying that Benedict “made a mistake”? Yet the following appears in the text: (Benedict was) capable of evaluating difficult texts and books in a brilliant way [DP32].

I will leave this question open for now.

More supporting evidence that “the new” is not a “duel papacy” is that a “dual papacy” would, by definition constitute an INNOVATION. Benedict in turn, even as a neo-modernist was the antithesis of an INNOVATOR. This was the reason why he was hated by the Team Bergoglio cabal. Support for this observation is provided in the following passage: Gänswein does not see the “beginning of the new” in any of Benedict XVI’s many acts of governance or magisterium [DP5]

Further evidence that “the new” refers to the State of Necessity comes from Guido Canale. Here are the pertinent quotes:

GFC: The analysis seems fairly clear: that of Benedict XVI becomes a “pontificate of exception” precisely by virtue of the resignation and at the moment of the resignation. [DP16]

GFC: his (AG) mother tongue makes it clear that Gänswein has no such banality in mind, but rather the category of “state of exception” (Ausnahmezustand).[DP18]

GFC: A category that any German with an average education immediately associates with the figure and thought of Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). [DP19]

I think the point is made.

Next questions that are answered are:

Who can declare a State of Necessity?

According to AG,“The sovereign is the one who decides on the state of exception. [DP20]

When did the State of Necessity become “visible” (declared)?

GFC: Gänswein does not see the “beginning of the new” in any of Benedict XVI’s many acts of governance or magisterium, but precisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates. [DP6] This is also confirmed by [DP4] that speaks about the “demarcation” between “old” and “new”.

As to consequences, OBJECTIVELY speaking, of the declaration of the State of Necessity, the following is the case:

“Aus-nahme” literally means “out-law.” A state of things that cannot be regulated a priori and therefore, if it comes about, requires the suspension of the entire juridical order. [DP22]

An “Ausnahmepontifikat,” therefore, would be a pontificate that suspends in some way the ordinary rules of functioning of the Petrine ministry, or, as Gänswein says, “renews” the office itself. [DP23]

The consequences that the above entail is that under a State of Necessity, as per St. Thomas Aquinas:

The Church (Sovereign) may, for instance suspend the application of a positive law like some aspect of canon law.” and in extraordinary situations, acquire extraordinary duties and therefore extraordinary means”.

What this means is that a Sovereign (read pope), in this case Pope Benedict XVI, provided that he still is the Sovereign (POPE) can suspend the ordinary rules and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own, as per Herr Schmitt and referenced by Archbishop Ganswein.

Let that sink in for a second.

Now let us return to the Weigl passage: “decisions about these matters (Ed note: to create a “pope emeritus”) made in 2013 were mistaken”. The specific decisions that were made in 2013 were as follows:

Title of Pope Emeritus was created for Benedict,

Benedict became the Pope Emeritus,

it was decided that the Pope Emeritus would live in the Vatican,

and it was decided that Pope Emeritus would continue to wear a white cassock, i.e. a form of the vesture proper to a pope.

And why is the above important?

Here is George Weigl to explain:

“In a world of images, the white cassock and zucchetto worn by the man who is no longer pope sends the wrong  signal.” (Ed note: maybe yes, or maybe no!)

Summa summarum

Given the above, let us return to the original Magister post titled A “Pontificate of Exception.” The Mystery of Pope Benedict (see here) and examine the following passage (given according to a apparent FORMULA) in light of what we have established above:

Gänswein – with the weight of one who is in the most intimate contact with the “pope emeritus” in that he is his secretaryhad said that Joseph Ratzinger “has by no means abandoned the office of Peter,but on the contrary has made it “an expanded ministry, with an active member and a contemplative member,” in “a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a shared ministry.”

The above passage appears to be an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT statement, in light of the fact that, 1) the title of Pope Emeritus is not real, “a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.”  (sound familiar – Benedict’s revenge?) , 2) was created for Benedict, whereby Benedict became is the Pope Emeritus, 3) lives in the Vatican and continues to wear a white cassock, i.e. a form of the vesture proper to a pope.

And the reason that the above is most likely an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT statement is that Pope Benedict XVI, by his actions, “precisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates” [DP6], FORMALIZED “a situation in another category: the state of exception” [DP8]. Furthermore,“Many continue to perceive this new situation even today as a sort of state of exception intended by Heaven. [DP10]. This “state of exception” describes the same “state” which, according to St. Thomas Aquinas “HAS NO LAW”.

This “new situation”, a “state of exception”, “intended by Heaven” is what is defined as a STATE OF NECESSITY.

Notice how all the pieces fall into place.

But before we conclude, there is still one question left unanswered. From what point (time) did Pope Benedict decide that the Universal Church was in a State of Necessity?

Answers are also provided to for this question. Here is how the facts line up:

This suspension would be justified, or rather imposed, by an emergency impossible to address otherwise. [DP24] The “emergency impossible to address otherwise could have been caused by “what he says about the election of Benedict XVI “following a dramatic struggle”. [DP26] Gänswein also indicates the protagonists of the clash, as the cardinals of the “group of St. Gallen” (I.e. Team Bergoglio at the 2013 conclave- see here) [DP28] And so it comes as no surprise that Benedict XVI was the first pope who immediately after his election asked the faithful to pray for him, [DP30]. I [Canale] believe, therefore, that Benedict XVI was confessing a concrete fear. And that he was thinking of very concrete wolves. I also think that this explains the shock, uneasiness, and dizziness. [DP31]

What the above clearly points to is that Benedict, DECIDED that the State of Necessity existed at the time of his election, i.e. when he, as the Sovereign could enact a State of Necessity. He could not enact it earlier, since he was not Sovereign. He did not need to declare it (FORMALIZE) while he was officially Pope since he was in control. It was at the moment of his resignation, that he enacted, through his actions, the State of Necessity. Proof is the following passage with [comments]:

Gänswein does not see the “beginning of the new” in any of Benedict XVI’s many acts of governance or magisterium, [DP5 Benedict is NOT AN INNOVATOR] but precisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates. [DP6 The “beginning of the new” is in fact the “resignation”].

And the above is consistent with Canale’s inference:

The analysis seems fairly clear: that of Benedict XVI becomes a “pontificate of exception” precisely by virtue of the resignation and at the moment of the resignation. [DP16]

Notice that Gänswein used the term “pontificate of exception”, i.e. “pontificate” of necessity.  The ENTIRE pontificate.

In other words, it was at the “resignation” when the “pontificate of exception” (State of Necessity) went from being “material” to being “formal”, so to speak.

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate!

And how are the above actions of Benedict justified:

“Benedict XVI was aware that he was losing the strength necessary for the most burdensome office” [DP33]

In other words, by “resigning”, i.e. “the resignation that wasn’t” (see here), Benedict freed himself of not only the administrative duties of the Petrine Office, but also eliminated the attacks on his person that cost him much of his strength.

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate!

By maintaining the “teaching office”, i.e the REAL Petrine Office given Peter by Our Lord, (notice the AG terms “contemplative” and “active” offices of the “fabricated, banal product of the moment” “bifurcated papacy” (Oh… the irony)- what does the term “active” mean in the canonical sense? Hell if I know.) Benedict de facto made Bergoglio the False Pope.

The 38th by Cardinal Pells count, and Card. Pell still is the Vatican’s head accountant. (see here)

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate!

Can one ignore the FORMULA containing the term ‘state of exception’ used by AG?

I do not believe it is possible to free the resignation from the shadow cast on it by that expression as heavy as a boulder: “Ausnahme.” [DP35]

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate!

As to the following:

One question remains open, however: in what way, in what terms would the resignation, with the introduction of the “pope emeritus,” constitute an adequate reaction to the emergency? [DP36]

Since there is no “pope emeritus, there is no open issue, as per George Weigl.

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate!

And now concluding.

What the Pierce/Ockham pragmatic methodology is finding is the following:

  1. Benedict XVI is still the reigning Pope
    1. BXVI’s resignation enacted a formal State of Necessity.
    2. The 2013 Conclave was invalid since there was no vacancy in the See of St. Peter. (Here one can say that the 2013 conclave was as REAL as Benedict’s appearance at Assisi III. Once again, “necessity has no law”.)
    3. The State of Necessity allowed BXVI to effective keep the Petrine Office while creating a “pseudo-pope” to manage the day to day operations of the See of St. Peter.
      1. Proof of this is the FORMULA (“active” and “contemplative”) used by BXVI’s secretary, Archbishop Gänswein acting on behalf of BXVI,
      2. Maintained the visible vesture proper of a pope, along with the proper residence,
      3. Benedict explicitly demonstrates that he maintains the papal teaching office. (see here)

2. Francis is a False Pope in that he was never able to ascend to the throne since Benedict, through the imposition of the State of Necessity, never relinquished the Petrine Office. Francis being pope is as REAL (in this scenario) as the 2013 conclave and Assisi III. Please recall, “necessity has no law”.

Besides, Francis requested that he be referred to as bishop of Rome. How many still remember?

3. The Universal Catholic Church has been put under a State of Necessity by Benedict XVI at the time of his ascension to the Throne of St. Peter, i.e.  April 24, 2005. The State of Necessity was “formalized” by Benedict’s “resignation that wasn’t”. The current state is that the Catholic Church is under Benedict’s “pontificate of exception”.

4. And finally, the evidence above suggests that this issue will be decided at a time in the future when the NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ reaches its conclusion.

The Council of Econe has a nice ring to it!

And finally, finally, finally, it is not ME.



PS This is where the evidence, the rules of evidence and logic, and the analytical model have led.  If anyone sees a mistake in the above, please drop me a line in the comment box. I will gladly correct any error that might have crept into the analysis if needed.