The Problem with Benevacantism

Started by Lucy_Helene, September 21, 2019, 05:38:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Santantonio

#15
I've heard all the arguments, but the bottom line is he quit. He said he was free to do so and the reason was old age.
That is not an uncanonical reason. He acknowledges the spiritual nature of his resignation, it is not bifarcated.

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.  And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

From the Vatican, 10 February 2013

King Wenceslas

#16
Quote from: John Lamb on October 25, 2019, 04:58:56 PM
Quote from: Santantonio on October 24, 2019, 06:47:26 AMYou also did not address the glaring issues coming to Benevacantes who will not be able to hold to their non-sede (as in VII sede) positions after the passing of B16 and F. If F dies first, the conclave is invalid. If B16 dies first, F is still invalid and this means the conclave is invalid even if F stays in it until his death, because he appointed invalid cardinals.
Thus, Benevacantes become Sedevacantes unless B16 is Pope again.

"Benevacantism" is not a claim about the future of the Church, or how the Church or the papacy will proceed in the future. It is only a claim about the Church/papacy's present status, and how to address it, i.e. it is a provisional theory based on our current circumstances, not a once-for-all declaration that we need to maintain for the rest of our lives regardless of how things actually develop.

Both good thoughts on the subject but the overall pressing problem about the situation of the Church still begs to be answered if Benedict is not the Pope:

QuoteActually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith ... The cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws.  (cf Mystici Corporis, Pius XII)

Then of course one could answer that Mystici Corporis does not pertain to a Pope since he is above all and could actually be an Arian or a Nestorian without any consequences.

Lucy_Helene

#17
Quote from: John Lamb on October 25, 2019, 04:55:44 PM
And this is precisely what's been happening, for the last 6 years and moreover for the last 60 years ? Catholics have it in their heads that they have no opinion (no right to an opinion) except what their superiors provide and tell them.
Straw man; you'll have to point out to me where I said that Catholics shouldn't have opinions except what their superiors provide and tell them. In fact, I explicitly stated in my original post that Benevacantism might very well be correct, and that Catholics are permitted to hold such opinions, provided that they do not pretend they have the canonical authority to declare their opinions as facts definitively as though they were judgements of the external forum.

Quote from: John Lamb on October 25, 2019, 04:55:44 PM
All that is needed on our part to make the public announcement is reasonable grounds to believe that these crimes or errors have indeed taken place; and we certainly have reasonable grounds to believe that Bergoglio is an antipope; and we certainly have grounds to believe that Pope Benedict's resignation was defective.

All propositions I myself stated in my original post: "The circumstances surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's resignation and the election of Pope Francis raise several questions, and I am in agreement with those who are calling for an investigation". Why would I be in favour of an investigation if there were no probable grounds of invalidity?

Lucy_Helene

Quote from: Arvinger on October 27, 2019, 10:11:23 AM
You are correct from the epistemological point of view, but that does not refute Benevacantism or prove it is wrong. All you demonstrated is that Benevacantists use incorrect epistemological principles, but nevertheless they could be correct. If Benedict was really blackmailed, if his resignation was indeed forced, it is still invalid and he remains Pope, even though there is now way to know it for sure and private judgment is insufficient to determine that.

Since I am in complete agreement with your position, and said just as much in my original post, I must admit I am puzzled as to why you felt the need to say this to me. I already expressed that I am completely open to the possibility that, for one canonical reason or another, the Benevacantists are actually correct, and the 2013 conclave was invalid, which is precisely why in my first post I said that an investigation is needed. The purpose of this thread is not to refute Benevacantism, as it is a perfectly valid theory, provided that those promoting it do not exceed their bounds and usurp canonical authority that they do not have, or conflate the internal and external forums.

abc123

Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on September 22, 2019, 02:50:08 PM
Quote from: Lucy_Helene on September 22, 2019, 12:38:18 PM
But perhaps having a really bad pope (Francis) is the only way for people to wake up and realise that the entire revolution needs to be overturned.
I am on a FB page with other Catholic mothers with big families....you would be amazed how many are clueless to Francis being a bad pope, and how many are just fine and dandy with the way the Church is  :(

Seems the natural result of 150 years of Ultramontanism. Despite what others may protest to the contrary, receiving with docility what comes out of Rome and the Papacy is the essence of traditional Catholic piety.