In a speech reflecting on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has confirmed the existence of a group who fought against Benedict’s election in 2005, but stressed that "Vatileaks" or other issues had "little or nothing" to do with his resignation in 2013.
Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”
Reflecting on Benedict's time as Pope, Archbishop Gänswein said that although he was “a classic ‘homo historicus’, a Western man par excellence who embodied the richness of the Catholic tradition like no other,” at the same time he was “so bold as to open the door to a new phase, for that historic turning point that five years ago no one could have imagined.”
Gänswein drew attention to “brilliant and illuminating” and “well documented and thorough” passages of the book, written by Father Roberto Regoli and entitled Oltre la crisi della Chiesa. Il pontificato di Benedetto XVI — “Beyond the Crisis of the Church, The Pontificate of Benedict XVI.”
The German prelate especially highlighted Regoli’s account of “a dramatic struggle” that took place in the 2005 Conclave between the “so-called ‘Salt of the Earth Party’” (named after the book interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) comprising “Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medina" and their adversaries: "the so-called St. Gallen group” that included “Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor” — a group Cardinal Danneels referred jokingly to as “a kind of mafia-club,” Archbishop Gänswein recalled. (His reference to that struggle backs up an interview German journalist Paul Badde gave the Register last November and EWTN Germany, during which Badde also mentioned German Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann as being part of the St. Gallen group).
“The election was certainly the outcome of a battle,” Gänswein went on, adding that the “key” to the Conclave was Cardinal Ratzinger’s “dictatorship of relativism” homily that he gave on the first day of the election when he was Dean of the College of Cardinals.
Benedict’s personal secretary then referred to how Regoli highlights the “fascinating and moving” years of Benedict’s pontificate, and his “skill and confidence” in exercising the Petrine ministry. He recalled, in particular, the “black year” of 2010, when Manuela Camagni, one of the four Memores Domini consecrated women who assisted Benedict, was tragically killed in a road accident in Rome.
The year, which he attests was a dark one, was further blackened by “malicious attacks against the Pope” and the fallout from Benedict’s lifting of the excommunication on Bishop Richard Williamson who denied the extent of the Holocaust.
But nothing affected Benedict’s “heart as much as the death of Manuela”, whom he considered part of the “papal family” of helpers. “Benedict wasn’t an ‘actor pope’, and even less an insensitive ‘automaton Pope’,” Gänswein said. ”Even on the throne of Peter, he was and remained a man… ‘a man with his contradictions’.”
Then, after having been so affected by the death of Camagni, Benedict suffered the “betrayal of Paolo Gabriele”, his “poor and misguided” former valet who was found guilty of leaking confidential papal documents in what became known as the ‘Vatileaks’ scandal. That episode was “false money” traded on the world stage as “authentic gold bullion” he said, but stressed that “no traitor, ‘mole’, or any journalist” would have caused Benedict to resign. “The scandal was too small” for the “greater, well considered step Benedict made of millennial historical significance.”
Such assumptions that they did have something to do with it, he said, “have little or nothing to do with reality”, adding that Benedict resigned because it was “fitting” and “reasonable”, and quoted John Duns Scotus’ words to justify the decree for the Immaculate Conception: “Decuit, potuit, fecit” — “He could do it, it was fitting that He do it.”
Various reports have suggested that pressure was exerted on Benedict to step down. One of the latest came last year from a former confidant and confessor to the late Cardinal Carlo Martini who said Martini had told Benedict: "Try and reform the Curia, and if not, you leave.”
But in his speech, Gänswein insisted "it was fitting" for Benedict to resign because he "was aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”
Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.
“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“
Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: "cooperatores veritatis", which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”
Archbishop Gänswein pointed out that the motto is not in the singular but in the plural, and taken from the Third Letter of John, in which it is written in verse 8: "We must welcome these people to become co-workers for the truth".
He therefore stressed that since Francis’ election, there are not “two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.”
“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”
Archbishop Gänswein repeated that Benedict’s resignation was “quite different” to that of Pope Celestine V.
“So it is not surprising,” he said, “that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel, while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.”
An English translation of Archbishop Gänswein's speech has now been published here.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
Pope Benedict certainly was, and still is a GREAT Pope! Likewise, he was and still is also a GREAT Theologian—-All of his writings testify to this….His HUMILITY is also most admirable…..Indeed, it is a GREAT consolation to KNOW that this “man of God” is still “with us”....Having him “here” is a special blessing, indeed, for the entire Church!
The manipulations behind the scenes, we probably will not live to see exposed, but manipulations there most certainly exist.
We can conjecture all we want but only The Truth will set the Church free.
God’s intervention is all we can hope for, as man is certainly incapable of fixing this mess.
“then the disciples all leaving Him, fled away ”
Matthew 26:56
Mark 14:50.
The first act of “collegiality” by the princes of the Church.
They fled for fear of the “wolves”. (To use P. Benedict’s analogy).
We are seeing this re-lived. We must pray that they all come back to Christ (and to their senses, that is to say).
May heaven help us to the re-establishment of the one true pope who stands in the place, the mind and the heart of Our Lord.
Dear Anne Lastman, you have such strong feelings. We are indeed a people under attack by the Enemy, and all of us can indeed contribute to the confusion. But in our prayer for each other, for the world, we bring the clarity of Jesus, Who is the One Truth. How do you pray? I recently began to pray seven Hail Marys, one each for the Seven Sorrows of Mary. (Exorcist Chad Rippinger suggests this prayer to help fight evil.) Meditating on the Seven Sorrows is one way to help the prophecy of Simeon to come to pass—through the sword piercing Mary’s heart, the secret thoughts of many are laid bare. (Luke 2:35) What have you tried?
There are not two “Peters” one “active” and one contemplative” There is a “false” Peter. And I am sorry But Archbishop Ganswein is wrong is wrong Benedict DID abandon his flock. He did abandon the papacy. No matter how he words the event He did abandon the Church. He did not “transform” it. He changed the beautiful charism of “Peter” from Universal Pastor to job. No amount of word manipulation will change the fact. There is No “Pope Emeritus” And another thing is he had truly resigned he should have resigned and gone back to Germany and been out of sight and allowed Pope Francis to do his work and not loiter in the background, to cause confusion. There is confusion in the Church Benedict is part of that confusion.
Oh James, your idolatrous fixation is getting the better of you.
Pope Benedict lives in the monastery of Mater Ecclesiae within the Vatican Gardens. Pope Francis abandoned the Apostolic Palace to live in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, a residence for those ecclesiastics visiting the Vatican. It is sometimes referred to as a hotel. At the time of the papal relocation in the winter of 2013 I believe at the time, Pope Francis said, with his characteristic humility, if he were not around people he would go crazy.
Don’t know what happened to my “Comment!” ....Will just add my last thought here: “Just knowing that our Great Pope Benedict is still “there” in the Domus Sanctae Marthae and Pope Francis has chosen to go back and live there, too, is an incredible consolation for the Church!
Steve, at some point Catholics such as yourself need to take a gander in the mirror and ask if they really do want the Church recreated in their own image. They need to reflect on just how “funny” that is as it comes to fruition. Your levity and lack of gravitas bespeak someone unaware of the treasure with which we have been graced by our Lord, Jesus Christ. Rendering a heartbreaker into a joke has been a tactic of the Catholic left since the council. It isn’t new, it is unattractive and it speaks loudly of the state of those who employ it in the effort to demean others and the Faith.
Dear Nancy D, no, we do not have 2 popes. If you have a chance to read the terrible confusion of historical times when anti-popes made their claims, you will easily see the difference. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is making no claims to be pope after his resignation. Pope Francis (who is validly elected, despite the lies and smoke-screens which our Enemy the Satan wants us to concentrate on instead of thinking and talking about God) is our one and only pope.
What we have, in essence, is two popes. One, we know for certain is not validly elected, and is a member of the lobby, due to the fact that prior to the election, he condoned certain same-sex sexual relationships as long as they did not include children, and were not called marriage.Condoning same-sex sexual relationships, is condoning same-sex sexual acts. One cannot be a validly elected pope if one condones same-sex sexual acts.
@James “a tragedy for the Church”? LOL
I love Pope Benedict XVI! I often reflect on the tremendous courage and humility he had in resigning as Pope. God’s church is enlarged in many ways from his action. Pope John Paul II gave the modern world the vision of life lived, through tremendous suffering, to its natural end. Pope Benedict XVI gifted us a vigorous Pope Francis who has the physical energy to actively engage with the world which has tremendously expanded through technological advances. And now Pope Benedict XVI in his new role as a contemplative is a vivid example for the world of the power of prayer. Most importantly, both Francis and Benedict are setting a powerful example for the future of how their completely different roles complement and respect one another.
Does anyone believe for a moment that Archbishops Ganswein’s comments are not held with approval by Pope Francis? If they aren’t, and they shouldn’t be, once again the corrective need be applied. But it won’t. And that is the proof of the pudding.
This absurdity is rolled out to provide credence to a pontificate that is held in esteem only by those whose only interest in the papacy is to buttress heterodoxy. There are those of us for whom it is simply another confirmation that something radically wrong is afoot. Then the vast majority of low info Catholics and the remainder of the world could hardly care less because it is just another grind in the background noise of Western culture in mid-flight over the cliff. Could it be that that which should be the agent of rescue in the midst of tragedy has been reconstituted into a propellant?
This this pronouncement should be the cause for much more comment. It is truly startling.
The Papacy is not a pushmi-pullyu, with a head at each of its body. Benedict is no longer Pope - Francis, and only Francis, is Pope. http://satisfactorycomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/alphabeasts-p-is-for-pushmi-pullyu.html Christ appointed not three Apostles to hold the place He gave to Peter; not two; but one and only one, Peter himself. The Papacy is not divisible.
The election of Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy was without question one of the great joys of my life. That being said, his resignation had the expected effect for me interiorly, and it has proved to be nothing less than a tragedy for the Church.
We are reduced to speculation as to why this transpired. The explanation that was offered does not make any sense at all. No one on this planet or in the Eternity we all long for requires a globetrotting pope. Indeed, at this point in history we can reasonably wonder if the lot of them stayed at home, kept things moving and dropped the urge to recreate the Church in their own image we would not be far better off. How can it be that John Paul packed the episcopacy with the apples we got there now? What happened in that sterling pontificate that routed us to the present state of affairs?
Benedict was incredibly adept at living in the bureaucracy. As the pope he had “some leverage” as to how he wants the day to be organized. As an elderly man with power he could have tailored his day to suit his energy level as he wanted, and indeed employ that leverage to say “make it happen or you’re out” to any recalcitrant cleric who raised an eyebrow. Could it have caused any more chaos than what we presently endure? Clearly not. Surely it would have provided so much more productive entertainment than “hagan lio.”
It is fairly clear to anyone who has run the track in business that Pope Benedict was run out of office. How, why, what leverage was employed we will not know during our lives. He was called to that office and he dropped it – absolutely uncharacteristic for a priest such as him. Be aware, the reflex proposal of pious confections for the event are not helpful and only provide cover to “poor behavior” in the ecclesiastical class.
Pope Benedict accepted the papacy, but some people think that he did not really want it. He has said that he was looking forward to returning to Germany and writing, but then, he was elected and due to his sense of duty, could not turn it down. Perhaps he resigned when he realized that he was no longer capable of the kind of effort necessary to be an effective Pope. Pope John Paul II appeared to enjoy being Pope, where Pope Benedict seemed to regard the office as a burden. A burden that he willingly accepted, but that he would like to be released from when the time was right.
When a bishop resigns, he no longer exercises the office of bishop. He become ‘emeritus’ and his successor assumes all authority. I’m not sure what this article is suggesting, or the interpretations of the commentators, but there is no confusion that Benedict’s resignation as bishop of Rome vacated the office that Francis was elected to fill. Period.
God bless Benedict XVI with good health.
I do not purport to understand Benedict XVI’s true reasons for “resigning”; however, at the time I was not surprised. It may take many years or decades or generations to realize the full significance of his action, but I believe he was way ahead of everyone, and led by the Holy Spirit. Stay tuned…
well…there is one successor of Peter, yet objectively there are two Popes (apparently with different ministries/functions).
Certainly, most will agree that if Pope = successor of St. Peter, the individual/person, then the Pope = an individual/person…and there cannot be two Popes.
Throughout history, when there have been multiple Popes claiming legitimacy, only one was authentic and the others anti-popes. The same will hold true for this period.
Even though there appears to be a peaceful coexistence within the “office”, there are two with the title, both claiming some legitimate ministry…and in truth there can only be one.
Thus, for many, it will likely be difficult to agree on who is the authentic successor at this time.
Although, it seems more likely that an objective lack of authenticity in word and deed, as it relates to the Magesterium, will be the revealing factor that confirms who is who, rather than an affirmation of authenticity.
Then the key for all should be knowing the Magesterium.
O ye of little faith
There is one, and only one, Peter. There can be one and only one Pope at any given time. Others helping by their prayers, advice, or whatever is one thing. But the Petrine ministry in itself belongs to and is exercised by one and only one validly elected man at a time. If a pope resigns, he no longer exercises the Petrine ministry.
My recollection is that Benedict, when he resigned, simply indicated he would continue to serve the Church generally through a contemplative life.
As for this new claim or idea: who knows what is actually said or meant when people speak these things and we get them through translation. But faithful Catholics certainly will not accept a diarchy or multiple so-called popes (or whatever one would call them) serving at one time.
My thoughts:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2529-archbishop-ganswein-and-the-two-headed-papacy
For haven’t sake, stop being over reacting! If you know Benedict XVI, there is no way he would contract or disrespective on the sitting pope. I believe that when he said, expanding Petrine Petrine Ministery, he meant that his uncessing prayers for the church as Angels do in the court of heaven. He never did any active roll in Petrine duty after resignation beside of prayers. However I know this article will stire up a lot of dust! Just wait to see which gang of the power from vatican will come to insult this humble, holy father! As young bishop in Philippine insulted Benedict after his resignation (trader!) got a big promotion to cardinal. We shall see who would take that ride!
I highly doubt that Our Holy Father, Benedict, sees his resignation as expanding the Petrine Ministry; these two do not see eye to eye on the essence of God, or the essence of man.
Page 117, of the pope’s book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity. - Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts.
“The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.”
Donald, what we are witnessing in The Catholic Church is a recycling of The Arian Heresy; when placed in the context of History, no doubt, this denial of The Divinity of God, in a quest to serve Common Ground v. The Common Good, will be unveiled as a Great Apostasy.
@dear Paula, you have wasted a lot of time!
Uh…no matter how many quotes you pull out thin air - this makes absolutely no sense at all.
Filioque.
taad:
I totally agree “It seems as though we think a lot of ourselves, that we can re-create what has been in place for 2000 years. Jesus told the One, Peter, he was THE Rock, not one of Two Rocks!” Right on! Only One can hold the Keys.
Also: (in reference to the “St. Gallen group”) Any Cardinal electors who in the time before the election, even while the reigning Pope is still alive, deigns to form a pact, agreement, etc. will incur automatic excommunication: “latae sententiae” His vote becomes null and void.
This is so wise. In my opinion not following this law cuts off the efforts of The Holy Spirit to guide the electors.
See :
UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS promulgated by Pope John Paul II on February 22, 1996 in reference to standing Canon Law on the election of Popes. especially article 81.
81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
There can ever only be one Pope. There is no such thing as shared Petrine ministry and I might say Francis has been a disappointment because he is full of self will and fails to articulate and recapitulate Christ teaching in an integral way. Anyone with any knowledge of history will be aware of the period in Church history in which 3 claimed the See of St Peter. It was chaos. I don’t agree with Benedict’s resignation. He could have relied on others to support him. Instead he fled. Death will deliver us from men like Kaspar, Mahoney and Daneels. Benedict could have relied on Burke and others to strengthen him. We need to expunge liberals from the positions they have.
What “expanded Petrine ministry”? Is Josef trying to create another dogma out of wholecloth again - that back door attempt to gender caste ordained ministry didn’t go too well, and Gänswein is way over his head to make any sense of this fantasy.
I believer he the keyword in Benedict’s new role is “contemplative”. While pope Francis handles the governance of the Church, pope emeritus Benedict spends most of his time, daily, in suplicative prayer to God with the objective of seeking His guidance and protection of the Church and Christians through the the world during the upcoming head-on collisions with Satan and his forces. I stand with Benedict’s decision, and hereby ask all Christians to do likewise—-pray often for victory in this historic battle.
Offensive and outrageous.
Dear Matthew W. I. Dunn, Dominicans (who celebrate their 800th anniversary this year) send out preachers 2 by 2—one to preach, the other to pray. Only one speaks. Only Pope Francis is the voice we need to listen to, with the keys of the Kingdom Jesus gave Peter. But Benedict XVI is still involved in God’s Kingdom in a unique way.
I was very disappointed that Benedict, after he resigned, decided to wear slightly modified papal garb, to be addressed as “Your Holiness,” and to live in the Vatican. Benedict had the opportunity (taken by Celestine) to make as plain as a pikestaff the theological certainty that, because he is no longer Bishop of Rome, he is no more a successor of Peter than anyone else on earth except Francis.
I’m seriously dismayed by Archbishop Ganstein’s remarks, trusting as I do that they faithfully represent the mind of Benedict. The best I hope for at present is that the report omitted explanations, nuances, and qualifications that would make Benedict’s understanding of his present ministry less shocking to Catholics. If Bishop Benedict has an expanded theology of the Petrine office to offer the Church, let him submit it to the judgment of the Magisterium of which he is no longer the head.
I hope the NCR will give its readers more data, especially clarifications that will allay the confusion that has been sown.
Does it not appear the “dictatorship of relativism” has taken out two of its most ardent holdouts? Classical Roman Catholicism is not given to such confected reasoning. It is a sad day when those regarded as irrational conspiracy theorists are given credence by the actions and words of those one has held in esteem. My olfactory sense is picking something up and it is not the odor of sanctity. Codswallop?
There is a convergence of events and utterances that are not adding up to anything good, and you wonder who is orchestrating all of this. Our pastors are called to pastor, not lobby and run interference for aberrance. It is as if there is a clerical chorus that is all giving voice but that has lost the lyrics, improvising as they muddle along. There is no substitute for the Gospel, the Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium. You can’t reinvent the wheel, to gild the lily is an exercise in futility. Cease.
There are a host of issues of the recent past upon which many would wish to hear beloved Benedict and his confreres comment. There is only silence and camouflage.
Gita - Chennai - INDIA
Sometimes this sort of papal-episcopal theological gymnastics seem to escape me…
Come on! Give me bread to live, drink for my thirst.
Clothe me as I am naked and visit me when I am locked up.
I knew there was something to Benedict keeping the identifying “pope” in his title, continuing to wear the white cassock of the pope and continuing to live in the Vatican. Everyone else just shrugged it off as meaningless. I’m not even going to pretend to understand what is going on here or what it means in the context of all the other stuff going on in the Church and in the world right now. I’m just going to pray and try to follow the Church’s teachings as best I can.
I don’t trust anything this man says.
Pope Emeritus, who contemplate God in prayer, thank you for your prayer for His Church.
I am pretty sure the reasonning behind then-Pope Benedict’s view of the relationship between “Petrine ministry” and the “power of governance for the Church” is sound, even though I, today, cannot quite connect the dots. There is probably more that he could say than what he said at his last general audience. Here is an excerpt : “Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.
The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.”
“Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes ‘in competition’ with one another, but represent one ‘expanded’ Petrine Office with ‘an active member’ and a ‘contemplative.’”
No, . . . not at all . . . not ever. Let’s nip this nonsensical gloss on the doctrine of the Papacy in the bud. There is one Bishop of Rome - EVER. There is His Holiness Pope Francis I, dully elected and installed as Bishop of Rome. Then, there is that other guy, who once was the Bishop of Rome, but who now is not. If Benedict XVI wants to “contemplate” on the actions of the Roman Pontiff, then he may do so . . . as part of the episcopate in communion with the Pope. Only the Pope, however, exercises the Petrine ministry.
Benedict, the Good.
God bless him.
This explanation doesn’t seem rational. How does an expanded ministry of the Papacy, one active & the other contemplative, combine to make a whole unit? The next thing we will have (if Pope Francis decides to retire) is a threesome - something mirroring the Holy Trinity. This doesn’t adhere to Tradition which the CC always upheld until Vatican II. Pope Emeritus Benedict could be still be contemplative if he properly retired. As it is, if he has no influence what is the purpose of this expanded ministry? We are still waiting for the Consecration of Russia and the visible proof that the Third Secret has been fully revealed.
It was foretold the papacy would come to an end before the Second Coming. And that the other side, Satan would replace it with something else. It seems as though we think a lot of ourselves, that we can re-create what has been in place for 2000 years. Jesus told the One, Peter, he was THE Rock, not one of Two Rocks! Sorry, this all goes into the scenario that something has happened in Rome. The Church is disappearing, and something not so good is attempting to replace the Catholic Church. It will all fail.
Confused and confusing. If as Ganswein maintains, Benedict still exercises the Petrine ministry than Benedict is still Pope. Sorry, our Lord did not establish the Petrine office as a committee affair. Like it or not there is one pope and he is Francis.
Matthew
For over a hundred years, beginning with Leo XIII, the Church has presented a view of unification and single purpose to the world. Many forget that there have been periods in history where “politics” in the Church were much more divisive that may appear now. In fact, things were so bad there have been anti-popes and the Great Western Schism. Today’s factions, though real and rather irritating, seem quite minor when placed in the context of history.
We will long know Benedict XVI for all that he was: brilliant, exemplary and one of the best pontiffs in the Church. Moreover, he tok a major step, on his own and created a way for another, and nonetheless left us all an example. Bless him and allow him to enjoy these days of reflection on so much that he has seen and witnessed.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.