Fact-Checking the "Pope Emeritus"

Benedict XVI's Brilliant Canonical Maneuver to Outwit the Anti-Church

More facts, just plain facts. Because the Catholic faith is built on facts – the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension – and if we pay attention to the facts, we will be able to hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to the churches (Rev 3:13).

What the facts will show:

The non-canonical term “pope emeritus” was a brilliant euphemism used by Benedict XVI to deceive the Church’s enemies and allow the hidden anti-church to expose itself so that it will be defeated. The canonical term for the situation in which Benedict found himself is an impeded see, which then-Cardinal Ratzinger had long foreseen and prepared to confront by revising canon law.

---

Consider the plight of Benedict XVI in 2012 and understand his brilliance in acting decisively and creatively to save the Church by severing her off from the anti-church just as the Saint Gallen Mafia unleashed its final assault on the papacy.

Fact: From 2005-2013, Benedict XVI was surrounded by enemies within the Church and understood that his practical authority to “fix” the situation was severely limited if not non-existent.

As early as 2005, Benedict had lamented to Bishop Fellay, “My authority stops at the door of my office.” At the 2005 conclave, the “Saint Gallen Mafia” wanted to get their man Bergoglio elected as pope but lacked sufficient votes to accomplish their plan. So they threw their votes behind Ratzinger as a “transitional” pope after John Paul II but with a plan to remove him as soon as it was expedient. This was the commissum per manus cardinalium or crime of a band of cardinals of which Ratzinger would speak in his 2013 Declaratio.

Fact: In the early 1980s, as the cardinal tasked with overseeing the reform of the Code of Canon Law under John Paul II, Ratzinger had foreseen the possibility of a future pope being surrounded by his enemies and carefully laid the canonical groundwork to address it.

In his 2016 interview-book with Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI spoke about how John Paul II gave him full power to create “new norms and legal structures” in canon law to address the startling amount of abuse and evil within the Church (Ultime Conversazioni, p. 188). This development was subsequent to the 1981 assassination attempt on John Paul II’s life, which had led Pope Wojtyla to look closely at the dossier Paul VI had left him concerning ecclesiastical freemasonry and its assault on the holiness of the Church from within.

It was Ratzinger who revised the canon governing the resignation of the Roman Pontiff in such a way that, for the first time, it required a resigning pope to specifically renounce his munus or office.

In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 221 stated:

Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex renuntiet, ad eiusdem renuntiationis validitatem non est necessaria Cardinalium aliorumve acceptatio.

Should it happen that the Roman Pontiff resign, for the validity of his resignation it is not necessary that it be accepted by the Cardinals or any others.

However, in the 1983 Code of Canon Law revised by Ratzinger, canon 332.2 contains a new distinction:

Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

Should it happen that the Roman Pontiff resign his munus [office], it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it is not required that anyone accept it.

The novelty of canon 332 is that it required the specific renunciation of the papal munus for a pope to resign. Why does this distinction between munus and ministerium matter? Read on.

Fact: The distinction of munus and ministerium is present in Germanic dynastic law as a tool to be used by the monarch to protect the throne from usurpation.

Italian journalist Andrea Cionci’s unparalleled investigation into these matters has brought to light the importance of this new Ratzingerian canonical distinction between the title to power (munus) and the exercise of power (ministerium): it is a distinct characteristic of Furstenrecht or princely law in Germanic countries that enables the monarch to protect the kingdom from usurpation in time of dire necessity. Cionci quotes Dr. Andrea Borella, an expert on dynastic law, who explains the Central European tradition of Furstenrecht as follows:

“Within the context of Royal Houses, whether sovereign or deposed, and especially within the German sphere (specifically in what is termed Fürstenrecht – princely law – in German-speaking countries), there exists precisely this dualism between the title to power and the exercise of power; indeed, it has been well-known for centuries. Within Princely Houses, it is possible to renounce the Throne, or the exercise of political rights, while nonetheless remaining a member of the Royal House and, in some instances (depending on the specific dynasty, as each possesses its own distinct dynastic law), retaining the royal title or dynastic rights. In practice, this distinction has existed since the most ancient times, exactly as was the case regarding the figure of the Pope, who serves as the sovereign of an absolute, theocratic, elective monarchy: a form of government that is, in itself, exceedingly rare. […] Everything I have stated serves to demonstrate once again the superior, exceptional aptitude displayed, in his capacity as a jurist of the highest caliber, by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, both in foreseeing future facts and events, and in adapting to the utterly unique nature of the Petrine Throne a specific variant of the various dynastic and succession laws originally devised for secular Thrones in centuries past.”

One salient example of a monarch who employed this uniquely Germanic Furstenrecht is Blessed Karl I of Austria, who, as his Empire collapsed in 1918, announced that he was “relinquish[ing] every participation in the administration of the state” but without abdicating.

Karol Wojtyla was specifically named after Karl I of Austria, whom he beatified in 2004, and was well aware of how the heroic monarch dealt with an impossible situation by renouncing his exercise of sovereign power but without abdicating - that is, retaining his munus while renouncing his ministerium.

Fact: Benedict XVI was well aware of the distinction between munus and ministerium as a fundamental part of the reform of the Roman Curia.

In his 2020 book-interview Ein Leben, Benedict XVI also spoke of John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus as providing a foundation for the reform of the Roman Curia:

“I knew that mine would not be a long pontificate, that I could not undertake long-term projects or carry out spectacular initiatives. […] Nor was this even necessary, for the reform of the Curia desired by John Paul II and established through the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus had only just entered into force.”

From its opening paragraphs, Pastor Bonus speaks of the munus of the Petrine office and its role in supporting “the task (munus) and ministry (ministerium) of the other apostles” (Pastor Bonus 3).

It is not plausible to suggest that Ratzinger/Benedict was unaware of the refined linguistic and canonical aspects of a specifically Germanic legal distinction that he himself had been instrumental in introducing in his pivotal role under John Paul II.

Fact: In 2013, Benedict XVI unexpectedly created the title of “Pope Emeritus,” a title that does not exist in canon law.

On February 26, 2013, Father Federico Lombardi announced that Benedict XVI would bear the title of “Pope Emeritus” and would continue to wear his white talare or habit, without the mantellina or shoulder cape, and that he would still be addressed as “Your Holiness.”

At the time it was naturally assumed by the majority of observers – including Benedict’s Masonic enemies within the college of cardinals – that Benedict’s status as “pope emeritus” was something akin to the resignation of a diocesan bishop, who is referred to in canon law as a “bishop emeritus.” But that assumption was erroneous, because there is a fundamental difference between a pope who resigns and a bishop who resigns.

Fact: A “bishop emeritus” exists in canon law because a bishop may resign his ministerium while retaining his munus.

Canon law is simply applied theology, according to what we believe about the Sacrament of Holy Orders: one who is ordained as a bishop receives the indelible mark of the highest level of Holy Orders; he is permanently a bishop.

Thus, a sitting Ordinary holds both the office/munus and ministry/ministerium of bishop.

Canon 401.1 requires bishops to submit their resignation to the Holy See when they reach the age of 75. Canon 402 states that once a bishop’s resignation has been accepted “he retains the title of emeritus of his diocese.”

The title “bishop emeritus” thus shows that a retired bishop retains his munus – he remains ontologically a bishop – and thus has a certain spiritual bond with the flock he once served as Ordinary or chief Shepherd. But a retired bishop no longer possesses his ministerium, his practical authority as bishop.

And so, the same possibility would appear to be true for the pope – but anyone familiar with Latin and canon law knows this is not the case.

Fact: A pope cannot ever be “emeritus” – one is either the pope or is not the pope, period.

Credit for this somewhat obvious and yet very astute observation goes to canonist Geraldina Boni of the University of Bologna. The pope is not “ordained” beyond the ontological level of bishop when he becomes pope. He has no mandatory retirement age. In the event he decides to resign, he does not submit his resignation to anyone. The munus of the pope is not a sacrament. The pope thus cannot be an “emeritus” in the sense that a diocesan bishop can become “emeritus.” The pope cannot voluntarily choose to “resign” his ministerium while retaining his munus.

A pope cannot retain a certain ontological status as “pope but retired.” A man either is the pope or is not.

Fact: From 2013 to 2022, Benedict XVI repeatedly said, “There is only one pope” – without ever specifying who it was.

In 2020, Benedict XVI was asked by Peter Seewald in Ein Leben (p. 1205) about the meaning of the term “emeritus” as applied to a pope. Benedict XVI said:

“The formula successfully accounts for both aspects: on the one hand, the absence of any concrete legal mandate; on the other, a spiritual charge that endures, albeit invisibly. It is precisely this legal and spiritual status of the “emeritus” that serves to avert even the mere notion of two Popes coexisting.”

Thus, Benedict clearly said there cannot ever be two popes (this should be obvious to any Catholic).

There is, furthermore, as shown above, no possibility that a pope could be “retired” yet still possess a special connection to the See of Rome as “pope emeritus” – the concept of a “retired pope” is completely non-canonical/non-existent.

And yet, Benedict XVI was no fool, so what did he mean when he said in 2020 that there was “the absence of any concrete legal mandate”???

He was referring to a little known and rarely invoked canonical situation that can be involuntarily imposed on a bishop, that of the impeded see – when a bishop has lost his concrete legal ability to govern due to some external force. In his remark to Seewald about “the absence of any concrete legal mandate,” Benedict was saying that HE had no concrete ability to govern despite his enduring invisible spiritual charge – he was prevented from governing and thus was impeded.

Fact: Canon 412 defines the situation of an impeded see.

Canon 412: “An episcopal see is understood to be impeded if by reason of captivity, banishment, exile, or incapacity a diocesan bishop is clearly prevented from fulfilling his pastoral function in the diocese, so that he is not able to communicate with those in his diocese even by letter.”

Canon 412 has been largely overlooked in the American discussion of the question of Benedict’s ostensible resignation, but it is of paramount importance. The canon provides for a situation in which a bishop is “prevented from fulfilling his pastoral function.”

In this unique canonical situation, a bishop remains bishop of his see - that is, he retains his munus - but because of some external force he is unable to exercise his governing authority - he loses his ministerium.

Fact: At his last General Audience on February 27, 2013, Benedict XVI specifically stated that the decision he made on April 19, 2005, was “always and forever.”

One day before he boarded the helicopter to go to Castel Gandolfo, Benedict said with astonishing clarity: “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.”

He then repeated the words “always” and “for ever” and further specified exactly what he was resigning:

“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.”

He would be renouncing his ministerium but in no way would lose his munus, which on April 19, 2005, he accepted always and forever.

—

Based on all of the above facts, we can now connect the dots and understand that:

Because Benedict XVI was unable to communicate freely due to the crime committed against him by a band of hostile cardinals, he created the non-canonical title of “pope emeritus” to deceive his enemies that he had “retired” so that the anti-church would seize power/ministerium and expose itself so that it could ultimately be defeated.

Benedict was “prevented from fulfilling his pastoral function” - the canonical requirement for an impeded see - precisely by the convocation of the 2013 conclave that put into effect the crime of a band of cardinals – per manus Cardinalium commissum – the plan to put Jorge Bergoglio on the Throne of Peter that had been hatched at the 2005 conclave.

At the exact moment when the 2013 conclave was convoked, Benedict was placed involuntarily in a situation where he could not exercise his ministerium as Bishop of Rome. His ministerium was seized by the band of cardinals who called their illegitimate conclave. This is the precise meaning of an impeded see – the only situation in which a pope can lose his ministerium but retain his munus.

Benedict did not call himself “pope emeritus” – that is, announce that he was in an impeded see – until the precise hour when the illegal conclave of 2013 had been convoked, the hora vigesima of February 28, 2013 (more on that in our next article).

Fact: Benedict knew that there was a group of cardinals determined to elect Bergoglio as pope and Benedict knew that if he died in office as pope this election could not be stopped.

Consider that Benedict did what he did to save the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Because think about it: if he had died before the next conclave – either by natural causes or by being assassinated by his enemies – then Bergoglio would have been validly elected as pope.

Instead, Benedict baited his enemies to call an illegitimate conclave and only then declared himself to be in an impeded see, thereby retaining his munus as pope until his death on December 31, 2022.

And that is why for over nine years, Benedict XVI repeatedly told the world, “There is only one pope” – a brilliant mental reservation since he was unable to communicate freely with his flock.

Note that this unique canonical situation also explains the famous comment made by Archbishop Ganswein in 2021 about the “expanded ministry” of having an active and contemplative member of the papacy – a combination of an impeded Pope (who “always and forever” retained his munus but had lost his ministerium, much like a bishop emeritus) and a usurping antipope actively reigning and illicitly exercising the ministerium. But the entire time, as was clearly and repeatedly said by Benedict, there was only one pope.

Ganswein also said on October 6, 2022 at LUMSA University, “Before coming here I prayed with Pope Benedict, as every Catholic priest does, vespers. And this says it all.”

A clear indication, for those with ears to hear it, of Benedict’s status as the one true pope.

In those same remarks, Ganswein also said that Benedict XVI had said to him, “Believe it or not; if you do not believe it, read either Jeremiah or Isaiah. I won’t say which verse or which chapter, but the answer is there.’ Cionci points out that we find in the prophet Jeremiah 36:5 these words: “So Jeremiah instructed Baruch: ‘I AM IMPEDED and cannot go into the temple of the Lord.’

The prophet communicates through his secretary at a time he is thrown into a well because of the apostasy of the people.

Jeremiah 36:5 is the only place in Scripture where the statement “I am impeded” appears.

Fact: If it is true that Benedict was the one and only pope in an impeded see until his death in 2022, then neither Jorge Bergoglio or Robert Prevost have any legitimate claim as a true pope; they are antipopes.

This realization is simultaneously relieving and disturbing, consoling and maddening.

“Let the one who has an ear hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” – Revelation 3:13