“I’m Am Not Saying that Francis Is Certainly Pope” – His Excellency Bishop Williamson

In the video linked below at the 1 hour, 55 minutes, and 20 seconds mark, His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson acknowledges that the arguments put forth by those who accept Benedict XVI as the current true pope are serious and that he is not saying that Francis is certainly pope.  How is it that a False Resistance bishop can acknowledge and say these things and yet not one True Resistance clergy member can publicly admit the same?  Instead, what we hear from the True Resistance clergy is that they accept Francis as the current true pope and that they will wait for the Church to decide otherwise or that to accept Benedict XVI as the current true pope is nonsense.  True Resistance clergy and faithful, please look seriously into this issue.  The identity of the current true pope is an issue of critical importance.  To acknowledge Francis as the current true pope is, objectively, an act of schism!   Why?  Because Benedict XVI, as the supreme head of the Church, decided what the nature of his “resignation” would be, and that is that it would be only a renunciation of the exercise of the active ministry.  That’s it!  As I mentioned in a previous post, if it can be shown that Benedict XVI intended to keep even one iota of the office (munus) of the papacy, he would remain pope.  Read his Declaratio.   It is clear that he did not renounce his office (munus) entirely and without qualification.  As a matter of fact, he did not renounce his office (munus) at all.  What he renounced was an exercise of a power that belongs to the office of the papacy (see this diagram).  Therefore, he is still the current true pope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=casxXTtQFPs

Renouncing the Office of the Papacy Is an All or Nothing Act

If one can show that Benedict XVI had the intention to retain even one iota of the office (munus) of the papacy, he shows that Benedict XVI remains pope.  This is because renouncing the office of the papacy is an all or nothing act.  There is no partial renunciation.  The renunciations of former popes showed unequivocally that they completely relinquished any claim whatsoever to any part, no matter how small, of the office of the papacy.  This is not the case with Benedict XVI.  In his Declaratio, he unequivocally showed his intention to retain some aspect of the office of the papacy by only renouncing the ministerium (i.e., exercise of the active ministry).  Therefore, he remained pope.  Twice in his Declaratio he used the term “munus” (office) before announcing the object of his renunciation and yet it was not the “munus” he renounced.  That the cardinals proceeded to “elect” another pope does not matter.  No cardinal, either singly or together with the whole college, can declare a renunciation of the office of the papacy when the pope himself did not renounce it.

My friends, it really is that simple.  You Catholics who know your Faith, especially you Catholics of the Resistance, need to use your reason and stop making excuses.  Your souls are in danger if you persist in foolishness.  And please stop saying that you will wait for the Church to decide because the Church has already decided; Pope Benedict XVI, the visible head of the Catholic Church, made the decision in 2013 to retain some aspect of the office of the papacy.  That is enough for you to accept that he has been the pope since 2005.

The Pope of the Catholic Church Is Benedict and Not Antipope Francis – Fr. Paul Kramer

Fr. Paul Kramer made the above comments on this Facebook post:

https://www.facebook.com/charmaine.hess/posts/pfbid02b6Y7sv9W3qpfdJcaqjTFC6fi51zhA5JaCRvbhayPfhjDTsdyC95jfuUBg79tD9SYl

The reference to Bishop Schneider is regarding the following:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-theory-that-benedict-xvi-is-pope-and-not-francis-defies-tradition-of-the-church/

Retraction and Apology regarding “True Pope” and Its Implication

I am issuing a retraction and apology for an error I made regarding the term “true pope” and its implication.  In several of my past posts I presented the following syllogism:

Every true pope is a validly consecrated bishop.
But Jorge Bergoglio, elected by the cardinals in 2013, is doubtfully a validly consecrated bishop.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is doubtfully a true pope.

Whereas the argument is valid (i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises), there is a problem with my meaning of the term “true pope” in the major premise.  What I meant by the term “true pope” is that he is a baptized male, who is validly elected, who accepts his election, and who is validly consecrated a bishop.  Only once these four things are in place, he has universal jurisdiction (i.e., the power to teach and govern the whole Church). Without universal jurisdiction, he cannot be a “true pope”.  By doubting the validity of Jorge Bergoglio’s episcopal consecration (or even that of Joseph Ratzinger), I wrote that that segment of the Catholic Resistance that has such a doubt must conclude that they doubt whether Jorge Bergoglio is or Joseph Ratzinger was a true pope.  By such a conclusion, in their eyes we have not had a certain pope since 2005 (i.e., the death of Pope John Paul II).  Therefore, I accused them of being closer to “sede vacante” (not Sedevacantism) than those (like me) who hold Benedict XVI as the current true pope.  After further investigation, I found that I made an error in thinking that a valid episcopal consecration is required BEFORE obtaining universal jurisdiction.  I used the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law to support my position.  However, looking back at them and looking at other documents, I now believe that the truth was an issue of canonical procedure rather than an issue of doctrine.

Here are some references that show that a layman may be validly elected and have the power of jurisdiction before his episcopal consecration:

1. “Even if a layman were elected pope, he could accept the election only if he were fit for ordination and willing to be ordained. But the power to teach and govern, as well as the divine gift of infallibility, would be granted to him from the very moment of his acceptance, even before his ordination.”
(Pope Pius XII, Guiding Principles of the Lay Apostolate, 1957)

2. “A layman can be validly elected to the office, since the power of jurisdiction can be exercised without the the power of Orders.  In such a case, the person elected would receive the power of jurisdiction immediately upon his election, but the power of Orders would come only through the Sacrament of Orders, which he would be obliged to receive, since Christ evidently intended that His Church be governed by bishops,- bishops by the power of Orders as well as by the power of jurisdiction.”
(Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, 1955, Chapter XII)

3. Pope Adrian V was a layman elected to the papacy on July 12, 1276.  He annulled the regulations of his predecessor, Pope Gregory X, concerning papal conclaves.  Pope Adrian V died before being consecrated a bishop.  Nevertheless, his legal act was not considered invalid by future popes.
(References: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01159a.htm, https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/14511)

I apologize to the priests and faithful of the Catholic Resistance that I accused of being closer to “sede vacante”.  I also apologize to everyone for any confusion or concern I have caused.