The Problem with Benevacantism

[Lucy_Helene]

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. However, I have found myself increasingly annoyed with what is often called "Benevacantism", because some proponents of the claim that the 2013 papal resignation was invalid, and/or that the subsequent conclave was invalid, have gone too far. It is one thing to express concerns and call for an investigation, but quite another to claim that one's personal conclusion constitutes a judgement of the Church in the external forum.

Those who claim as absolute truth that Benedict XVI's resignation was invalid, or that Pope Francis's election was invalid for whatever reason, cannot exceed the bounds of speculation and discussion. A private individual has no canonical competence to determine for himself whether a resignation or an election was invalid; he may very well be correct in his conclusion of invalidity, but such determinations can only be definitively settled and made known to the universal Church by the competent authority, in the external forum. The blogs of individuals, whether they be run by anonymous laymen or prominent bishops, do not constitute the external forum.

And while many of their arguments are quite substantial and I am in favour of an investigation, declaring anything definitively without due process in so serious a matter crosses a line. To be honest, those who take the Benevacantist theory to the extreme are committing an error that was also espoused by Amoris Laetitia: the conflation of the internal and external forums. To declare a resignation or conclave invalid according to one's personal judgement is similar to refusing to petition for a declaration of nullity by a Tribunal, instead relying on one's own grounds of the internal forum to determine nullity for oneself.

St. Vincent Ferrer unknowingly prayed for an Antipope during the Western Schism but was yet raised to the altars. We will not go to hell for accidentally praying for the "wrong pope" during the Mass, but we will go to hell for usurping ecclesiastical authority by pretending to have jurisdiction we do not have, and for causing scandal by conflating the internal and external forums.

[Mono no aware]

Benedict XVI has tried to quell the speculation himself: "the only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision.  Speculation regarding its validity is simply absurd."  But his devotees insist that that's exactly what a blackmailed pope would say.  It's like that scene in Life of Brian: "But I'm not the Messiah!"  "Only the true Messiah would deny it."

The thought experiment for the so-called Benevacantists is this: suppose Francis were to predecease Benedict, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider was elected, taking the regnal name of Julius IV and immediately instituting sweeping traditionalist reforms of the Vatican II scheme.  Would his papacy and his actions be as null and void as Francis', so long as the living Benedict still holds the chair?

[Lucy_Helene]

The thought experiment for the so-called Benevacantists is this: suppose Francis were to predecease Benedict, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider was elected, taking the regnal name of Julius IV and immediately instituting sweeping traditionalist reforms of the Vatican II scheme.  Would his papacy and his actions be as null and void as Francis', so long as the living Benedict still holds the chair?

Indeed; it appears that some just wish to return to that comfortable conservative "middle zone" they were able to maintain during the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. With Francis, that option is slowly slipping away day by day, and one of these days everyone will be forced to choose sides. Fence-sitting is no longer a viable solution. If Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church, then Benedict XVI is Napoleon; he brought temporary stability, but he still operated within the revolutionary structure. 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.

[Traditionallyruralmom]

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 

[Prayerful]

Benedict holds to various post V2, modernist positions and quite likes Teilhard de Chardin. Not being remotely as appalling as Francis does not make him a paladin for tradition. Francis has one major advantage. While he treacherously encouraged Mohammadan invasion, and wrecks rather than restores the Church, no one has better exposed V2, not 10,000 traditional sermons or blog posts. Benedict coming back might seem oh so comfy, but if he returns or a new Pope follows his course, we return to the slow rot of V2. Benedict is no basis for the hopes some seem to have.

[Lucy_Helene]

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.

An uninformed public is a dangerous one. This is how the modernist leaders turn the average pewsitter into promoters of their destructive agenda, without anyone batting an eyelash.

Benedict holds to various post V2, modernist positions and quite likes Teilhard de Chardin. Not being remotely as appalling as Francis does not make him a paladin for tradition.

Exactly; Benedict brought temporary normalcy, but he still operated within the Novus Ordo paradigm. Hence my comparison between him and Bonaparte, who brought temporary order but still operated within a revolutionary system.

While [Francis] treacherously encouraged Mohammadan invasion, and wrecks rather than restores the Church, no one has better exposed V2, not 10,000 traditional sermons or blog posts.

I wholeheartedly concur. This is why I don't understand why conservative prelates like Cdl. Burke and Bp. Schneider appear to simply be waiting for divine intervention now; this is the plan they have decided on, I suppose. It isn't very coherent. Isn't Francis already living proof that God is intervening?

[dellery]

Pope Emeritus Benedict has got to be one of the greatest hope destroyers ever.

Just when you're beginning to have hope the Church is starting to rid herself of the wolves, Pope Benedict resigns, and in comes His Holiest, Francis, to tell you you're just a self-absorbed, neo-palagian, pharisee.

[Gardener]

Benedict XVI has tried to quell the speculation himself: "the only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision.  Speculation regarding its validity is simply absurd."  But his devotees insist that that's exactly what a blackmailed pope would say.  It's like that scene in Life of Brian: "But I'm not the Messiah!"  "Only the true Messiah would deny it."

The thought experiment for the so-called Benevacantists is this: suppose Francis were to predecease Benedict, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider was elected, taking the regnal name of Julius IV and immediately instituting sweeping traditionalist reforms of the Vatican II scheme.  Would his papacy and his actions be as null and void as Francis', so long as the living Benedict still holds the chair?

The argument varies, but the one I've seen gain the most traction is that Benedict thought he could bifurcate the Papacy. As such, he could intend all he wanted, but his resignation would be invalid and he would remain pope, just like two men can intend to be married but won't be due to material defect. 

The argument that Francis can't be pope because he's a heretic fails given that goes back to at least John XXIII, but certainly Paul VI. So it's inconsistent to claim it while holding they were real popes.

Anyone who would follow a pious anti-Pope isn't really believing Benedict is still pope, if it's just in comparison to Francis/Jorge. 

[Miriam_M]

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 

TRM, that's merely an indication of the shallow (or modernistic) catechesis they have received.  Priests in traditional apostolates, no matter whether formally the apostolate is "in communion with Rome," will say privately that Francis alarms them for many reasons, not only for his pronouncements but also for his definitive refusal of certain roles and acceptance of authority. They consider him radically problematic to a far more serious degree than other modern popes.

"Moms with big families" might be conservative in their orientation, rather than trad.  Even in secular realms, the definition of a conservative is someone who "conserves," or doesn't rock the boat.  That's why the bulk of the support for the modern hierarchy lies not in the most casual wing (the loosely practicing and largely unorthodox N.O. parishes) but in the conservative segment.

[Santantonio]

The Pope can do what he wants, Benedict resigned, he still has the soul of a pope but is not pope.

I considered it all and it only results in chaos.
Even if Benedict dies first, the chaos will not end, because they will say Francis appointed illegitimate cardinals to the conclave.

[Gardener]

The Pope can do what he wants, Benedict resigned, he still has the soul of a pope but is not pope.

I considered it all and it only results in chaos.
Even if Benedict dies first, the chaos will not end, because they will say Francis appointed illegitimate cardinals to the conclave.

No, the Pope cannot just "do what he wants." This isn't 'Nam, Smokey; there are rules. Particularly when it involves the office he holds and did not establish, insofar as its essential nature being changed.

Soul of a pope? Wth is that? The papacy isn't a sacrament and imprints no indelible mark on a man. He's either the pope or he isn't.

[Santantonio]

The Pope can do what he wants, Benedict resigned, he still has the soul of a pope but is not pope.

I considered it all and it only results in chaos.
Even if Benedict dies first, the chaos will not end, because they will say Francis appointed illegitimate cardinals to the conclave.

No, the Pope cannot just "do what he wants." This isn't 'Nam, Smokey; there are rules. Particularly when it involves the office he holds and did not establish, insofar as its essential nature being changed.

Soul of a pope? Wth is that? The papacy isn't a sacrament and imprints no indelible mark on a man. He's either the pope or he isn't.

I did not say the Pope can do WHATEVER he wants. I said he can do WHAT he wants (in regards to resignation). Benedict resigned. His ideas about carrying the indelible mark of AD VITAM Petrine office but not the MUNUS are well known. These ideas of his are personal theological concepts. Canon Law does not account for ways to FORCE an unwilling ex-Pope who RESIGNED to resume the papacy.

I appreciate the arguments of those who say Benedict XVI did not validly resign. Resignation in error is meaningless because the man left the papacy and another conclave was held. Have you considered that to hold at once, that an erroneous (not under duress) resignation is in error, and also that there is no AD VITAM -- is contradictory. The only resignation that would hold up as invalid is under duress, and there is still not ENOUGH hard evidence or cooperation among ANY part of the Church's hierarchy (including B16) to make that case with resolution.

You 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.

[John Lamb]

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. However, I have found myself increasingly annoyed with what is often called "Benevacantism", because some proponents of the claim that the 2013 papal resignation was invalid, and/or that the subsequent conclave was invalid, have gone too far. It is one thing to express concerns and call for an investigation, but quite another to claim that one's personal conclusion constitutes a judgement of the Church in the external forum.

I think this may well be a false and scrupulous distinction, and it may well be this over-scrupulosity (particularly on the part of faithful prelates) which is preventing any serious action being taken against papal crimes. When a theft, rape, or murder takes place: we do not require the legal judgement to be passed before announcing the crime in public; granted, we cannot formally condemn the criminal before a legal declaration, but we can still announce the crime and denounce the criminal — and we ought to do so, inasmuch as the slumbering authorities need to be aroused to take legal action. The consequence of being slothful in publicly announcing crimes and publicly denouncing criminals, and waiting for the word of the authorities to have settled the matter before saying anything ourselves, is that: if those in authority are corrupt, they can get away with permitting the crimes while the scrupulous majority remain silent in public.

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.

This wasn't how it worked in the patristic era. Back then heretics were called heretics: they were called to account.

In my opinion, those of us who believe that Bergoglio is a non-Catholic, infidel, apostate, and antipope, and that Ratzinger has failed to resign the papacy — either through his own contrivance or incompetence — shouldn't be afraid to announce it "as a fact", since the burden of proof rests on those in charge to prove this is not the case; it is not on us to prove that it is, precisely because we do not have the legal competence to settle it (they do). 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.

[John Lamb]

You 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.

[Arvinger]

Benedict XVI is a modernist heretic just like Francis, it is appalling how many Traditionalists see him as a solution to current crisis. Just like all post-V2 claimants to the Papacy, he was likely an anti-Pope. But let's leave that aside and say, for the sake of argument, that he was a valid Pope.

And while many of their arguments are quite substantial and I am in favour of an investigation, declaring anything definitively without due process in so serious a matter crosses a line. To be honest, those who take the Benevacantist theory to the extreme are committing an error that was also espoused by Amoris Laetitia: the conflation of the internal and external forums. To declare a resignation or conclave invalid according to one's personal judgement is similar to refusing to petition for a declaration of nullity by a Tribunal, instead relying on one's own grounds of the internal forum to determine nullity for oneself.

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. In regard to your example of delaration of nullity - yes, such a person would certainly be wrong in insisting on determining nullity by himself and refusing to petition a Tribunal, but nevertheless he could be ontologically correct and a marriage could be invalid.