Tags
Boris Johnson, BREXIT, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, False Pope, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, James O'Keefe, Jesuits, Jesus Christ, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Nassim Taleb, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, Net Neutrality, new springtime, New York Times, Nigel Farage, Ockham's Razor, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, Pope Pius VI, President Andrzej Duda, Project Veritas, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABC News, s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, State of Necessity, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Tags Associated Press, Tags Black Lives Matter, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, William of Ockham, Work of Human Hands
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 being “precisely 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 secretary – had 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:
- Benedict XVI is still the reigning Pope
- BXVI’s resignation enacted a formal State of Necessity.
- 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”.)
- 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.
- Proof of this is the FORMULA (“active” and “contemplative”) used by BXVI’s secretary, Archbishop Gänswein acting on behalf of BXVI,
- Maintained the visible vesture proper of a pope, along with the proper residence,
- 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.
IT’S THE MODEL!
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.
The Deus Ex Machina Blog 
Pingback: La validez de la renuncia de Benedicto debe ser cuestionada, Parte I « From Rome
Pingback: The Validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation must be questioned « From Rome
Best Ed.note ever:
“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!)
Indeed, indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How lucky are we that there wasn’t a black cassock to be found anywhere in Rome on that fateful day?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That whopper from Benedict was the single biggest “tell” of the whole con.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it was.
LikeLike
I am Orthodox but have been so appalled by some of the things Francis has been saying that I decided to look up his validity of Pope, after reading this I am even more confused. But from not having a dog in the fight so to speak, your line of thinking seems very plausible.
LikeLike
Love, rightly ordered, can make all things new again. The denial of The Filioque is the source of all heresy, including the heresy of two popes, under extraordinary conditions.
There Is only One Word of God, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, thus there can only Be One Spirit of Perfect Love Between The Father and The Son, Who Proceeds from both The Father and The Son, in The Ordered Communion of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity. (Filioque)
One can only have a Great Apostasy from The True Church, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In order to heal a schism, you must begin at The Beginning.
LikeLike
If B16 is the current Pope then Francis is a Papal Legste with Universal Plenipotentiary powers as has existed in the past.
Francis is not an anti-pope because B16 has given Universal Plenipotentiary powers to him willingly by his resignation and acceptance of the conclave’s election of Francis.
Francis is a Papal Legate not an anti-pope.
LikeLike
I completely agree with you. This analysis is the only way any of these events make sense. They are highly disturbing and confusing until seen by this light; through which is clarity.
The “bifurcated” Papacy, two Popes with two distinct functions, reminds me of the famous saying of St. Athanasius, speaking to the sorrowful Faithful worshipping God in the desert and in hiding, while heretics occupied powerful Offices and the beautiful Church structures: “They have the buildings. We have the faith”.
In my mind, this quote applies to the Papacy now. Benedict gave the buildings (“Active Office”) to Francis and the heretics. Benedict specifically retained the “Spiritual Office” of prayer and contemplation AS Pope WITH Papal privilege and Title.
We all assume by this that Francis has the true power. He is governing. He does not. Not TRUE Christian power. The essential, life-giving power behind the Seat of Peter is the SPIRITUAL connection between Christ and His Vicar. That is Benedict’s. It is NOT Francis’.
Francis has the buildings. Benedict has the Faith.
ONE Pope. Not two. There will never be two. No one can ever tell me otherwise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes Brian,
Excellent analogy. Athanasius works very well here.
When looking at the bigger picture, it simply amazes me that Francis and his ilk can’t accept that they are epic failures. They keep on doubling down on their stupidity, thinking that it will eventually work. It is like the medieval doctor that prescribes to bleed the patient even more when he sees him getting weaker and weaker from the initial treatment.
Like they say, no cure for stupid.
LikeLike
I don’t think they are stupid. I think they are being led by diabolical forces. Almost unthinkable! So terrifying, sorrowful, to say.
However, their definition of success and yours are most likely quite different. They are likely aiming for something different, which is, I believe, the elevation of Man to the Throne of God. One World Church under U.N. political union.
I think they are quite pleased with their progress.
Yet silent forces are at work. That inspires hope for me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are correct.
The One Church is just part of the One World Government of the New World Order. But that has been tried before, and it won’t work. The Soviet Union is a good example. It collapsed because it couldn’t even feed itself. And as we know, at the end of the day, even neo-modernists need to eat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Diabolical forces influence Bergoglio but,i feel,but The Holy Ghost will stop him in his tracks!
LikeLike
What will the position be for those who consider Francis an Anti-Pope and B16 the true Pope after B16 dies first?
The only position I can imagine is that of a vacant see which creates a much bigger problem for those who reject Sedevacantism. There are many arguments made against the SV position that the R&R would have to accept to justify their new unfortunate situation.
To me, this will create a much bigger schism than the one B16 would have experienced if he would have just condemned the German hierarchy and dealt with the heretical bunch of hirelings.
All stands on who dies first.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi:
If in fact the REALITY is what my model found, and it doesn’t have to be, but if it is, then the throne of St. Peter will be occupied by a False Pope. This will be a time just like the times during which the other 37 False Popes reigned.
What logic would dictate is that after Francis dies, the competent authority will convene and elect a new Pope. Provided that the ecclesiastical laws are followed, that pope will be a True Pope.
As for the SofN, it will be up to that new pope to deem it exists or not. If the Church finds itself in a similar state to that in which it is now, then that True Pope can use the extraordinary powers, constrained by natural moral law of course.
We have a precedent with the SSPX. Since a SofN exists in the Church w/r/t Faithful who feel that the NO can’t administer to them the needed Sacraments for salvation, they approach the SSPX.
So a judicious and prudent use of SofN EXISTS, and I am wondering if this was the rationale for BXVI’s actions. The SSPX case was very close to BXVI and he definately had the capacity to understand the issue. ArchG even mentioned that in his speech.
LikeLike
“constrained by natural moral law of course” Is it correct to say that in the above mentioned “state of necessity,” all parties (including the Sovereign) would also be constrained by divine positive law; for example, those affecting both validity and liciety of the Sacraments?
LikeLike
Great question.
I personally, and I am not a canonist, and working strictly on the basis of that part of the Faith that comes from Reason, am of the opinion that Archbishop Lefebvre (the founder of the SSPX) NAILED THIS ONE.
I also think, and my model suggests this likewise, that Pope Benedict actually used the Archbishops reasoning and justification when he made his “decision” to “resign”. I see that it is not coincidence that Arch. Ganswein is now using State of Necessity to justify BXVI actions. (It works… on a rational level) His second reason, the “duel papacy” is a red herring to throw the dumber neo-modernists of the scent.
Anyways, back to your question, I do not feel competent enough to answer this question fully, so what I will do is attach two videos which should satisfy your question.
One more observation. I think that this is the proper direction in which the NORMALIZATION PROCESS will travel in Restoring the Church. It also appears that BXVI has done his part to put us on this road.
LikeLike
I personally am not a canonist either, but I see a problem in using State of Necessity to justify the derogation of divine positive law, as well as the natural law. For example, when St. Aquinas is quoted: “necessity has no law,” it does not follow that rice can be used as valid matter for consecration of the Eucharist, if only rice were available. Therefore, I would affirm that the state of necessity is constrained by both divine positive law and the natural law.
Also, I think the cases cited in the SSPX video are not best suited for the State of Necessity, since they both seem to be more about the improper understanding of the Sabbath, which was then properly clarified by the Praeceptor, Christ our Lord Himself.
LikeLike
All the speculation unleashed in recent months respecting Pope Benedict’s resignation and whether it was valid and an actual renunciation of the papacy or one given in and establishing a SofN and thus actually constituting the very opposite of a renunciation of the papacy is predicated, seemingly entirely, on statements and analyses made by Archbishop Gaswein, et al, made months and years after the actual resignation. A perusal of the text of the resignation does not allow for any interpretations along the lines of what is now being discussed. Only with the advent of such statements after the fact (along with Benedict’s statement well after his resignation that he resigned with the reservation that he retained the ‘contemplative aspect’ of the papacy) has Benedict’s resignation become so analyzed.
The thesis he resigned in a state of exception (of the Church) and that said resignation was causative of a SofN (for the papacy) in order that, e.g., a future Council, would be able to see that such a SofN existed and be able to “undo” what had been done by any seeming successor seems questionable, at the least. The text of Benedict’s resignation itself is prima facie evidence of his resignation. It is easy to read back into his resignation and to attribute attitudes, reasons, mental reservations that are in no wise evident with his resignation and to thus re-construe his resignation to mean the opposite of what it in actual fact said. Would, in fact, a Council or successor approbate evidence adduced not some little time after his resignation that purported to change the meaning of his resignation? That appears very iffy.
I can wish the theses developed here were true (and I do) but it seems these are backwards reconstructions of an event that speaks for itself.
LikeLike
I wish all this would be true likewise, but we will never be 100% certain. What has me thinking is the nature of the occurrences that we are witnessing. They lend themselves to this kind of ex post analysis.
What triggered me on this one is the SofN. I know it since I attend an SSPX chapel and the Sacraments are administered (confession and marriage) under extraordinary supplied jurisdiction under a SofN. So I understand the issue quite well.
It amazed me that Arch G would use this as justification for BXVI course of action, and tie it into Benedict’s adversaries at the 2005 conclave. Furthermore, it intrigued me since the conclusions and inferences are quite dramatic for the state of the papacy. You can explain everything under a SofN. And all the “questions” are answered quite easily.
Furthermore, I assume that Arch G consults the subject matter with BXVI of the speeches that affect BXVI directly. He is his personal secretary. So one can say that AG is a proxy for BXVI. This means, BXVI wants this stuff out there.
Simply amazing, is how I will finish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am certain that since it is true that prior to the election, Jorge Bergoglio denied the Sanctity of the marital act in his own words by condoning certain same -sex sexual relationships that he defined as being private, did not include children, and were not called marriage, and according to Jorge Bergoglio, do not affect society, (see onHeaven and Earth Book page 117) and thus denied that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage- that it is not possible for the election of Jorge Bergoglio to be valid because in order to be validly elected Pope, a Baptized Catholic must be in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
LikeLike
In your article’s title you state:
“…Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2015”
yet in the text I find no allusion to 24 April, 2015.
What is the significance of this date to the Universal Church and why would the date of “the state of exception/necessity” differ for Pope Benedict/papacy (Feb 11, 2013) and the Universal Church (April 24, 2015)?
As a matter of fact, in the text, you use the quote
“…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” which establishes the Church herself as also being in a state of exception/necessity dating from Feb 11, 2013.
Clarification of this point would be appreciated.
LikeLike
Hi:
Good question.
As to what is a State of Necessity (SofN), let’s use the political science variation. According to Herr Schmitt, a SofN is:
“According to this theory, a “state of exception” is the dramatic hour of history in which the ordinary rules are suspended and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own”.
What the above indicates is that a SofN occurs in and of itself. It exists in nature, outside of whether humans deem that it exists or don’t. If we look at the CC, one can make the case that a SofN existed since Our Lord first started preaching.
The key to enacting a SofN is by the competent authority. In other words, a SofN exists, the Sovereign recognizes it as such, and then he ascribes to himself extraordinary powers do restore “the order” shall we say.
So back to the situation with BXVI. If you read the Canale commentary on the Arch G speech, you will notice that Arch G went into explaining the situation that took place at the 2005 conclave that elected BXVI. He described the situation as one where the SofN existed. One can infer that BXVI “deemed” that the SofN existed at that point. Especially since he mentioned the need of competent authority to enact it, or to be more precise, the powers that come with enacting it.
What is important to note is that it was at his election that Benedict obtained the competent authority to “deem” a SofN. If this is the case, and the evidence point to it, then BXVI could have been using the power granted a sovereign under a SofN during his reign. Therefore, I set the date of the beginning of the SofN at the coronation mass.
Futhermore, Arch G noted that at BXVI resignation, something changed. “became new”. He mentioned two things: 1) duel papacy 2) “state of exception”, i.e. SofN. Now we know that there can not be a duel papacy, as I explain referencing George Weigl. This would mean that the “new” is the state of “exception”. Yet we know that the SofN existed earlier, i.e. when BXVI ascended to the throne, so this is a constant. What changed though is, according to Arch B, “the new” was “precisely in his resignation and in the unprecedented situation that it creates”. The only situation that it could have created was that the SofN was de facto declared.
The way that the Model is looking at this is similar to the way it looks at material and formal heresy. A heresy begins as a material heresy. Then a competent authority declares it formal. And that is the significance of the 11 Feb date.
On an aside, I do this on my breaks and when the kids are sleeping. Sometimes my writing needs a good edit. Sorry for that. If you run across other issues that need clarification, feel free to drop me a line in the comment box.
LikeLike
I hadn’t looked up the date of Benedict’s and couldn’t see at that time why April 24, 2015 would be significant. I see now you meant
“…Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005”
The date in the title was simply an error – 2015 instead of 2005.
LikeLike
I corrected the date.
Thks.
LikeLike
Hi:
Good questions.
As for point 2. The premise is that Benedict never vacated. Please keep in mind Canon 188: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself”. Substantial error includes things like duress. If Benedict was under duress when he resigned, the resignation is null and void under C188. Archb. Gershwein clearly states that “Benedict “has by no means abandoned the office of Peter”. So how can one square this circle? Easy, if you declare (implicitly or explicitly) a the state of Necessity. Then you, (BXVI) in this case can do what you deem fit as the Supreme Pontiff to restore “order”. So that is how they are connected.
As to the need of a SofN, you miss the point. A SofN is something that either is or isn’t. It is not something that you adjudicate. This is why Arch G goes into the problems at the 2005 conclave that elected Benedict. He is saying that already at that conclave, the Universal Church was in a SofN and BXVI recognized it then. Therefore, BXVI just applied the powers that he had under the SofN. As to the “abdication”, what actually happened was that the SofN that existed, changed forms. Became “new” is how Arch G termed it. What this implies is that it was de facto “declared”, to those who understand what a SofN is. The reason that BXVI “declared” is that he decided to rid himself of the “administration” of the Vatican, which was taking its toll on him health wise. It also concentrated all the evil on him since he was the visible head of the CC. By “resigning” superficially, he allowed the College of Cardinal to appoint a “fill in”. This fill in thinks he is pope presently including a “teaching office”. But in the future, a Council can be called, denounce Bergoglio as a False Pope. BXVI has prepared the case for them by what he did. One other reason why BXVI did it is that he to a risk. If he would have allowed the status quo to play itself out, he would have died and had no influence on this successor. In this case, he had no influence on his successor, but he has in a sense “poisoned” Francis’ chalice. And even though Francis doesn’t know what a SofN is, the German heretics (bishops) damn well know. This is why Arch G referenced Herr Schmitt (someone who associates SofN with him even if they only have a limited education) an not say Aquinas who the Germans and the rest (public domain) would not associate as easily.
A duel papacy is a theoretical construct that does not exist in reality. No pope can change the papacy, which was instituted by Our Lord (Divine Law) any more than they can change the laws of gravity (Natural Law). So Benedict (who most likely made it up) was playing on the ignorance or stupidity of his fellow neo-modernists. Remember, he was one of them until he started to “see the light’. They most likely thought that he was “innovating”. And now Archb G claims that BXVI did not innovate during his pontificate. I.e. during the time that he was negotiating with them the “office of pope emeritus”. On an aside, I now see the joke, that cause people like Weigl such frustration 3 years ago.
As to the formal/material, just like in heresy, if it is heresy, it is always material regardless of the form. Even when it is changed to formal, the basis for the charge of formal heresy is material heresy.
As to the SofN and it’s beginning, please keep in mind that in order to be a SofN in the Universal Church (here we are speaking about a SofN that encompasses the Universal Church). We are not speaking about a case of SofN that the SSPX use to administer the Sacraments to the Faithful. In the case of the SSPX it is the Church that provides to the SSPX the supplied jurisdiction due to the Faith that approach it. The entire Church is ordered to the salvation of souls. The Faithful must be certain that they are receiving proper Sacraments. So the SSPX obtain what is called “extraordinary supplied jurisdiction” directly from the Church, outside of the local ordinary. In the case of BXVI, he deemed that the SofN is in the entire Church. This is a much larger scale. That is why BXVI had no limits on the extraordinary powers that were given to him under the wider SofN. This is important. When we deal with a SofN, like for instance the invasion of Granada by the US, the US had all the power at it’s disposal. It went in in a limited capacity, freed the US students and left a gov. that conformed to the.. say principle of the “common good”. If the US would have went in and dropped an atomic bomb to topple the Marxist gov, it would have acted excessively. It still had to right to drop the bomb under SofN, but not under natural moral law, for example. So there is a moderating mechanism of sorts. So back to the case of when SofN arose. It arises when the competent authority deems that the situation warrents it. A SofN might have existed under JPII, PVI and JXXIII, but those monarchs did not deem it existed. BXVI in turn had no authority to deem it on their behalf. Once again, read the part of Arch G speech about the 2005 conclave. He is making the case upon which a proper sovereign (BXVI) can deem a SofN and what period that SofN covers.
As to the question of the SV’s case, once again, two things are critical to understand. First is that a SofN exists in its own right. One can say that it is a part of the natural law that allows for the regulation of abnormal or unnatural situations. We know that nature by design tend to normality. Next is the issue of competent authority. If you recall from the Arch G speech, he clearly indicates that it is the supreme pontiff that can deem a SofN. It is like the law of gravity. The scientist doing an experiment with a ball, knows it’s is there, but if he doesn’t throw the ball in the air, he doesn’t have to come into contact with it. In the case of the Ionnian/Paulian line of pope, we can infer that they were delusional, but that is not enough to deem SofN.
As to the question about makes sense, I have found that Thomism is something that make sense.
S.A.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not “false” Pope but Auxiliary Pope Francis. There are already many auxiliary bishops. The diocese of Rome has one for the Vatican City State and one for the City of Rome.
Remember that the Jesuits take a vow not to seek higher office and (should) will only do so if ordered by a superior, which for a Cardinal, would be the reigning Pope. I recall one Jesuit saying stating his surprise at the election (could have been affected I grant) and saying, “Now the helpers are in charge.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not know that about the Jesuits.
Interesting.
One thing though. An “auxiliary pope” would imply that he has a teaching office. A False pope doesn’t! And it’s the teaching office that is key in this one. The heretics are hell bend on forcing the Church into error. There must be an angle in this.
LikeLike
Strong work, Sarmy!
But now we have quite a dilemma. Someone of stature, say, Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah must accept your proposition and act on it by publically declaring Francis an anti-Pope. Do you think that is something Benedict prays for?
LikeLike
Hi:
I don’t think it will play out that way. If Cards. Burke or Sarah were to act, they had the ideal opportunity at the 2015 consistory to resolve the Team Bergoglio affair. The evidence was overwhelming that all of the Team Bergoglio cabal and Bergoglio himself were excommunicated latae sententiae under UDG 81. And they did nothing.
What I think is happening is that the Catholic Card. are trying to save the institutional church. Remember, Francis can do whatever he wants. He can appoint all the homo-lobby to the Curia and the college of cardinals and secure the papacy for the likes of Cards. Shonborn or Tagle and the Bruno Forte’s. Bergoglio is oblivious to the fact that what he is doing is driving the Church to collapse.
What the sensible Cards are doing is trying to stay in positions of authority so that they can have a change at the next conclave. They can’t do this by rebellion, so they are doing it by stealth.
That is how I see this situation with Benedict. What I think he did is created enough confusion so that a future pope or Council can come back and denounce Bergoglio as a False pope. The thing with the “state of exception/necessity” is brilliant. What I did is just drew out the logical inferences that anyone can do just by examining what a state of necessity is. I did this on my breaks. Just think about what a canonist can do with it.
So chin up. All will be ok. Just as Our Lord promised us.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus,
I have been following your posts this week and am still a bit confused. I follow the logic you have put on display here but I don’t follow the conclusion. You stated that the POPM found that:
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 his position. Francis being pope is as REAL (in this scenario) as the 2013 conclave and Assisi III. Besides, Francis requested that he be refered to as bishop of Rome. How many still remember?
My question is this. Why did BXVI need a SorN to NOT relinquish the papacy? This is what does not make sense to me. The conclusion determined that he is still Pope is very much the ordinary state of things based on Church history and other Popes being sent into exile and suffering for the faith.
To me, the SofN would be better grounds for a dual papacy since it is not the ordinary.
And also, if Benedict made the SofN formal (no longer material) by announcing it, then we can also assume that the SofN materially started 50 years ago at VII and not at his inauguration. His inauguration would be to him the moment he personally realized it, not when it actually started materially.
Does it make more sense for the SofN to allow a situation where there is NO pope active as the Sedavacantists believe?
God bless.
LikeLike