Fighting to Maintain the Catholic Faith Whole and Inviolate and the Line of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in This Period of Sede Vacante
11 years ago today, Pope Benedict attempted to create an Expanded Petrine Ministry, failed to do so out of Substantial Error, and thus remained Pope until his death
6 thoughts on “11 years ago today, Pope Benedict attempted to create an Expanded Petrine Ministry, failed to do so out of Substantial Error, and thus remained Pope until his death”
I agree, the only time this can happen is with the Impeded See. I was referring to Prof. Viglione and his latest book HABEMUS PAPAM, when I mentioned the theory of an expanded papacy.
I admit I did not read his book but I saw some exerts from it. In one of these Professor Viglione agrees that Pope Benedict did not renounce the munus, making his abdication “very likely invalid”. In his opinion, and to this I add that he does not provide evidence to support it, Pope Benedict did not write the Declaratio with the intention of making Bergoglio a schismatic. He did it instead with the intention of changing the nature of the papacy in a sort of diarchy split between the sacramental aspect (the munus) and the jurisdictional one (the ministerium). Absurd. This is something that was discussed among the modernists (Rahner, Küng). To me this is total nonsense because in the book Massimo Viglione also admits that Pope Benedict was induced to resign by the same modernists. That is why I was citing Arch. Gäinswein speech. In it, before talking about the expanded ministerium, the secretary reminds us that when he was talking (Pope Benedict was still alive) there was only one legitimate successor of Peter, just like at the beginning of the Church. We thad two popes present: if only one was legitimate, by logical deduction, the other one was illegitimate, and I let you guess which one it was. If Pope Benedict intended to put in practice the idea of his opponents, the modernists, he would have never remarked that there was only one legitimate successor of Peter, like in the time of S. Peter. I hope I was clear enough with this concept. That is why Professor Viglione contradicts himself in his book. Since the election of Bergoglio, Pope Benedict has always said clearly that there was only one Pope and he NEVER said it was Bergoglio.
The expanded ministry can be understood better if we read a previous statement that Gaiswein gave in that speech and that is often omitted. He said, in synthesis: “Like at the time of Peter, even now the one, saint, catholic and apostolic Church still has only ONE legitimate Pope”. If there is only one legitimate Pope but two successors of Peter, it means that one is legitimate and the other is illegitimate. Then he talks about the expanded ministry, with one active member and a contemplative member. Because of the non abdication of Pope Benedict it is easy to identify the contemplative member in the person of Benedict, who has the munus, being therefore the legitimate Pope, and the acting member in the person of who is governing, Bergoglio, who is inevitably not legitimate. This does not tell us much more than what we knew already by reading well the Declaratio. It becomes very relevant again now because it goes against Viglione’s theory that Pope Benedict wanted to modify the papacy into an expanded one with two popes. If that was his intention, why would he have made his secretary say that now, like at the time of Peter, the Church has only one LEGITIMATE Pope? Not a very good selling point if it allows the presence of an illegitimate pope out of the two in the expanded ministry. This is another significant piece of the puzzle supporting the impeded see.
I don’t think Archbishop Vigano is saying that Benedict XVI wanted make a double papacy. Even the idea of an expanded ministry is problematic because no pope can hand over the exercise of the governing power to another.
I agree, the only time this can happen is with the Impeded See. I was referring to Prof. Viglione and his latest book HABEMUS PAPAM, when I mentioned the theory of an expanded papacy.
But is it clear what Professor Viglione holds regarding the expanded papacy?
I admit I did not read his book but I saw some exerts from it. In one of these Professor Viglione agrees that Pope Benedict did not renounce the munus, making his abdication “very likely invalid”. In his opinion, and to this I add that he does not provide evidence to support it, Pope Benedict did not write the Declaratio with the intention of making Bergoglio a schismatic. He did it instead with the intention of changing the nature of the papacy in a sort of diarchy split between the sacramental aspect (the munus) and the jurisdictional one (the ministerium). Absurd. This is something that was discussed among the modernists (Rahner, Küng). To me this is total nonsense because in the book Massimo Viglione also admits that Pope Benedict was induced to resign by the same modernists. That is why I was citing Arch. Gäinswein speech. In it, before talking about the expanded ministerium, the secretary reminds us that when he was talking (Pope Benedict was still alive) there was only one legitimate successor of Peter, just like at the beginning of the Church. We thad two popes present: if only one was legitimate, by logical deduction, the other one was illegitimate, and I let you guess which one it was. If Pope Benedict intended to put in practice the idea of his opponents, the modernists, he would have never remarked that there was only one legitimate successor of Peter, like in the time of S. Peter. I hope I was clear enough with this concept. That is why Professor Viglione contradicts himself in his book. Since the election of Bergoglio, Pope Benedict has always said clearly that there was only one Pope and he NEVER said it was Bergoglio.
If I were you, I would get Professor Viglione’s book to understand more deeply his position on the matter.
The expanded ministry can be understood better if we read a previous statement that Gaiswein gave in that speech and that is often omitted. He said, in synthesis: “Like at the time of Peter, even now the one, saint, catholic and apostolic Church still has only ONE legitimate Pope”. If there is only one legitimate Pope but two successors of Peter, it means that one is legitimate and the other is illegitimate. Then he talks about the expanded ministry, with one active member and a contemplative member. Because of the non abdication of Pope Benedict it is easy to identify the contemplative member in the person of Benedict, who has the munus, being therefore the legitimate Pope, and the acting member in the person of who is governing, Bergoglio, who is inevitably not legitimate. This does not tell us much more than what we knew already by reading well the Declaratio. It becomes very relevant again now because it goes against Viglione’s theory that Pope Benedict wanted to modify the papacy into an expanded one with two popes. If that was his intention, why would he have made his secretary say that now, like at the time of Peter, the Church has only one LEGITIMATE Pope? Not a very good selling point if it allows the presence of an illegitimate pope out of the two in the expanded ministry. This is another significant piece of the puzzle supporting the impeded see.
I don’t think Archbishop Vigano is saying that Benedict XVI wanted make a double papacy. Even the idea of an expanded ministry is problematic because no pope can hand over the exercise of the governing power to another.