"...2013 conclave was invalid from the start because it was called while pope (Benedict XVI) was still alive and not renounced to his munus."
Challenging the Francis' Papacy | Fr. Giorgio Maria Faré and the Church’s Crisis
A. The Validity of the Demission of Pope Benedict
a) The Demission
On 11th February 2013 Pope Benedict declared in writing that he no longer had the strength necessary to administer adequately the Petrine office (munus petrinum); that he was well aware that the office (munus) according to its spiritual essence should be accomplished not only by actions and words, but no less by suffering and prayer; that he was renouncing the ministry (ministerium) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, so that the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter, would be left vacant and a Conclave could be convoked to elect a new Pope (Summus Pontifex) by those who had the competence to do so.
b) Theological Ground for the Thesis of the ‘Extended Ministry’
b)
Commenting on this action in a speech at the Gregorian University on May 20th 2016, Archbishop Georg Gänswein explained that, after the election of Pope Francis, there were not now two Popes, but rather ‘an extended ministry with an active member and a contemplative member… that the Petrine Ministry was not the same as before… [but]… transformed.’ This was why Pope Benedict had not given up his name or the white soutane, he added, and was still living on Vatican precincts. The intention of Pope Benedict was to participate in the munus petrinum in its sense of ‘service/duty/guide/gift’ and he had built up ‘a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension.’ The Pope’s Private Secretary also said: ‘He left the Papal throne but has not abandoned the ministry – something quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005’ [1].
Clearly the Pope’s vision of a extended Petrine Ministry derives in some way or another from the doctrine of “collegiality”, that doctrine of the Second Vatican Council which purports to limit the Church dogma of the Monarchical Hierarchy of the Church and particularly of the Papal Primacy [2]. We know that the cleric who was later to become Pope Benedict, even when already present at the Council as an expert, was an ardent supporter of the doctrine. In the book ‘The Episcopate and the Primacy’ for example we read [3]: “The Church is not like a circle, with a single centre, but like an elipse with two foci, papacy and episcopate”.
c) The Case for the Invalidity of the Demission
c On the basis of Pope Benedict’s Declaration, as expounded by his private Secretary’s speech from which we have just quoted, it has been claimed that his demission was invalid because it relied upon an error: the error, namely, that the Petrine office could be divided into two parts the Munus petrinum (envisaged as a contemplative part of the Papacy) and the active ministry; the truth being rather that the Petrine ministry constitutes an integral and indivisible whole.
The claim that the demission was invalid is of the legal order, and is based on two Canons of the Codex of Canon Law 1983. Canon 126 states of juridical acts that: ‘An act placed out of ignorance or out of error concerning something which constitutes its substance or which amounts to a condition sine qua non is invalid... Actus positus ex ignorantia aut ex errore, qui versetur circa id quod eius substantiam constituit, aut qui recidit in condicionem sine qua non, irritus est…’; similarly Canon 188 states that: A resignation made out of… substantial error… is invalid by the law itself’: Renuntiatio…errore substantiali. … facta, ipso iure irrita est.’
Those that claim that the demission was invalid on the basis of these two Canons, hold that Pope Benedict’s error concerning the possibility of an extended Papal ministry is a “condition sine qua non” of, or a “substantial error” regarding, the demission. In other words they hold that Pope Benedict’s error about the extended ministry was such as to invalidate his resignation. They conclude from this that he remained Pope until his death and that Pope Francis’ election was invalid.
d) Questions arising in regard to the Invalidity of the Demission
a)
d) Since the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s demission can only be established by a process of law, then at most only an opinion can be given as to the strength of the case. To do so, various questions must be addressed:
The first question is one of evidence. To demonstrate that his demission was invalid, one would have to show that, at the time of demission, he was prey to an error of the type that we have just specified. But no such error is apparent in the declaration of demission. All that Pope Benedict writes in it corresponds entirely to a simple renunciation of the Papacy:
a) As to himself, he expresses no intention to remain Pope in any sense: it is true that he mentions the Munus Petrinum (the Petrine Office) and the Ministerium (ministry) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, but he does not define either function, nor express any intention to exercise either in any way.
b) As to a prospective successor, he explicitly states (as we have already quoted above) that he is “renouncing the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, so that the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter, would be left vacant and a Conclave could be convoked to elect a new Pope by those who have the competence to do so”. He expresses no intention to hamper or to limit the actions of any potential successor in any way at all.
The evidence that Pope Benedict intended to remain Pope in a certain (spiritual) sense derives not from the declaration but rather from the speech of his private secretary (albeit with the putative agreement of Pope Benedict), and at a distance of more than 3 years from the date of the declaration. To demonstrate the invalidity of the demission at a distance of a further 7 years, its advocates would then first have to show that his secretary’s claim corresponded precisely to the Pope’s intentions, and second, to his intentions at the very time of the demission.
The second question is whether the error, namely the erroneous thesis of the “extended ministry”, was such as to invalidate the act of demission. To show this, one would have to show three things:
a) What the thesis of the “extended ministry” is;
b) In what sense it is an error;
c) How this error would invalidate an act of demission.
(a) In the most general terms, the thesis of the “extended ministry” is the thesis that a Pope who resigns can remain in some sense Pope even when a new Pope is elected;
(b) It is an error because prima facie this contradicts the dogma that there is only one Head of the Church: the (one) Pope;
(c) It would invalidate the act of demission because this act would consist in embarking upon a course of action not corresponding to the truth.
In the light of these clarifications, we must ask in what sense Pope Benedict manifested his belief that he remained Pope after his demission. To do so, we refrain from speculating on his personal opinion as a theologian - was his mind not inscrutable? was his not one of the most brilliant and subtle minds of our times? - expert in reconciling contradictions by the Neoconservative “Hermeneutic of Continuity” - and no greater symbol nor example of such a Hermeneutic was there to be than that of the “extended Petrine ministry”. Instead we limit ourselves to his official words in the declaration of demission and to his subsequent actions.
He did not purport to share the Papal ministry with his successor on equal terms, for example governing the Church in the Eastern hemisphere while his successor governed it in the Western; nor did he purport to exercise a purely spiritual ministry, with his successor exercising a purely active ministry like a chamberlain. Rather, both in his document of demission and in his subsequent life, he envisaged his successor as exercising the Petrine ministry fully: both actively and spiritually, while he himself was effectively to supplement this ministry with a spiritual contribution of prayer and suffering after the model of the Bishop Emeritus.
Such a course of action clearly does not contradict the dogma of the unicity of the Papacy - even though it obscures it, especially by his insistence on being dressed and addressed as Pope - ; nor does it thereby invalidate his demission.
Those, by contrast, who claim that his act of demission was invalid, would have to defend Pope Benedict from the charge of heresy and from the forfeit of the Papal office. For in imputing to Pope Benedict the error that there can be two Popes, they have imputed to him a prima facie heresy, which again prima facie would have made him forfeit the Papacy.
The third question is whether Pope Benedict’s election was valid. For if Pope Benedict’s flawed vision of the Papacy can in some way cast doubt on the validity of his demission, then with all the more reason can it cast doubt on his election to the Papacy. For if he had a mistaken view of the Papacy on election [4], as seems eminently likely, then one could argue that his consent to the Papacy would have been invalid [5], and from the time of his putative election to the See of Rome, the See would in fact have been vacant, which, in its turn, would have rendered the election of Pope Francis prima facie valid - unless of course we wanted to argue that the election of Pope Francis was not valid either [6] - but where do we stop?
The fourth question is whether a case that Pope Benedict’s demission was invalid would be likely to succeed. If such a law-suit were to be brought, it would have to be brought by the Church, that is concretely by the Pope himself, since only a Pope can adjudicate a Pope. Yet, if Pope Francis were to undertake such a process, it is unlikely that he would judge the demission to have been invalid.
One of the reasons for this is that any law-suit based on the word and the spirit of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 would a priori favour Pope Benedict’s thesis of an extended ministry, since the Code of Law has been brought into conformity with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, including collegiality, and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, particularly on collegiality, correspond perfectly to Pope Benedict’s views.
We conclude that if it is proved that Pope Benedict resigned in order to exercise an extended ministry, then it has not been proved that this invalidated his demission; that, if it were capable of so doing, then it would be capable of invalidating his assent to the Papacy; that it is unlikely that Pope Francis or the Code of Canon Law would favour the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s demission.
Don Pietro Leone: Is Pope Francis Pope, and If Not, What Then?
Time install one of those Bond type seats on whatever Bergoglio uses as his 'papal throne'. (Due to his 'humility' it will likely be a lawn chair or a repuprosed deck chair from the Titanic.
So where does that leave us?
I am not sure what principle is involved in Fr Fare' approach but if you think the JPII Cardinals are all legit you find yourself with the comrades of Bernadine ,McCarrick,Mahoney and many other very suspicious characters. I will leave it that Francis is pope albeit a particularly evil one and wait for Christ to act when He has finally had enough. What we need to do what He asked us to do,the rosary,first Saturdays,prayer and penance and the brown scapular. That is how we best fight these heretical imposters.
123jussi /SHJ-IHM in such extra ordinary circumstances an imperfect Council may consist of Catholic hierarchy , including bishops. Unfortunatrely in between them there is division due to their different positions on the crisis... Most are waiting for the situation to solve by itself and for God's intervention what only accounts for further destruction of Church... This June Andrea Cionci with lawyers have filed a motion with the Vatican tribunal to recognize the invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI's abdication..
@123jussi Good answer! I know you would have also included the Nine First Fridays too. Isn't it wonderful that a sinner can ask forgiveness through the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary and by Their intercession we can make a Divine reparation for our sins! God bless you!
Jeffrey Ade how you can avoid becoming a spiritual glutton ? St Benedict has already told you...
123jussi sin doesn't automatically cancel a Churchman's legitimacy otherwise Our Lord would have cancelled 11 Apostles who betrayed Him before His Crucifixion.
"...Cardinals are all legit you find yourself with the comrades of Bernadine"
SIMPLE: "...2013 conclave was invalid from the start because it was called while pope (Benedict XVI) was still alive and not renounced to his munus."