Raymond Arroyo interviewed Archbp. Georg Gänswein on his recent show. (BTW… that ä means his name is pronounced like “gens-vine” not “gans-wine”). Please.
At a certain point, Raymond asked Gänswein about what Benedict XVI thought about his own motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Gänswein starts talking about Traditionis custodes and Raymond steered him away from it and back to Summorum Pontificum. Eventually they got back to TC. Gänswein says he told Benedict that he feared that TC would cause problems. Benedict responded: “I hope God will help us.” He also said that when he read TC to Benedict from L’Osservatore that Benedict’s “heart was sad” (he mixed languages a little, but that’s what he meant).
Gänswein was absolute in his insistence that Benedict thought that Francis is the true Successor of Peter.
Also in the episode were interviews with Edward Pentin and Damian Thompson mainly about the situation in Rome of Card. Burke.
Gänswein – 22:14
Summmorum – 39:25
Gänswein has a new book: Who Believes Is Not Alone: My Life Beside Benedict XVI
Loading ...
I’ll be honest, I am mystified by Archbp. Georg Gänswein. It was clear by interviews given by Gänswein, Benedict’s resignation was with the intention of continued participated in the papal ministry. How is that a resignation? Does he have buyers remorse by continuing to insist that “Benedict thought that Francis is the true Successor of Peter.” I will not hesitate to point out to one and all that it is Christ who instituted the papacy and he rested it on ONE man – Peter. Jesus did not call all the apostles together and say you will ALL be my rocks so join in whenever you want. If any man living seeks to contradict the works of Christ and reformulate this institution what must a faithful Catholic do in response? What should one think? Jesus Christ was clear and unambiguous and to put it plainly the actions taken by Archbp. Georg Gänswein and Pope Benedict XVI brought in confusion and they have contradicted Christ regardless of motivations. Am I allowed to say that here? How many will get upset? The same way many Bishops and clergy defend Christ instituting holy orders and no one has the power to change it, when will these same men defend the papacy? Because guess what, it is Christ who instituted that too!
For what it’s worth, there’s an image that keeps coming to mind: a bow string is pulled tighter and tighter, almost to breaking point, so when the tension is suddenly released, the arrow will fly swiftly and firmly to its intended target … in the opposite direction.
I hear you, DeeEmm. If B16’s intention was something which he could NOT have chosen, which seems obvious at this point (with the expanded ministry), isn’t his intention flawed in such a way as to effect the act, thereby nullifying it? As an example, if a bishop were to attempt to ordain a priest and the bishop himself didn’t believe in transubstantiation and therefore didn’t intend to pass along the ability to bring about the Eucharist (sorry for the non technical language), would not that ordination be substantially erroneous and therefore invalid?? Honest question.
Thank you – though I have not had time to watch!
DeeEmm,
Under correction, I have the impression Pope Boniface VIII could have treated Pope St. Celestine V much better than he did, and wonder if they could have worked together as they seem to have done when Boniface was Cardinal. Formally, how different was the situation with Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis?
How is this not the worst case in the history of the Church of a shepherd running away from the wolves?
@Venerator Sti Lot
I am ignorant of the workings of Pope Boniface VIII and Pope St. Celestine V. I will not compare or comment because that will make me a pretender. What I am examining is what has been done before our very eyes to the Papacy that Jesus Christ instituted in a very specific way without ambiguity. I do not pretend to know what the machinery was that set this all in motion, people can come up with about 10 different reasons, but I’m not a mind reader. It really is irrelevant to a point. A change was intended to the very nature of the office, such that 2 men wore papal white, 2 men giving Apostolic blessings, 2 men living being called Pope (Emeritus is quite an elegant invention). While having this intention Benedict said he resigned, yet visibly stayed. So which is it? He used the word “resigned” but acted to the contrary. The whole Church heard the word “resigned” and have repeated it dutifully since then but where is the evidence? As I said, Archbp. Georg Gänswein freely admitted to an expanded Papacy (expanded but “resigned”). So, they knew better than Jesus? Is the Papacy there to be reshaped and reformed in whatever way that suits a particular generation? Maybe a further iteration will require an expanded 3 Popes? Let’s get real here folks, this is quite frankly nuts!!! Jesus Christ is my God and my King. Every word, every action, every breath was and is perfection. Nothing in the Church he set up was wanting or insufficent, his divinity perfected it all. It is man that is the imperfect element. And we have witnessed with horror how far over the edge that has taken the Church, but Jesus promised it will not fail, we will not crash at the bottom. But I do feel compelled to point out that this grotesque aberration was not what was instituted by Christ. I will concede that God has allowed it so he will make an even greater good out of all this because his plans are beyond anything we can fathom, and they are perfect.
There are two issues with the Pope Benedict argument. The first, which most folks address, is whether or not he could legitimately expand the papacy to include two people. Many (most) think this is a novelty at best or illegitimate to the point of invalidating the entire effort.
But the second issue is to whether or not Pope Benedict could have resigned. And the answer to that is “yes.” There’s a precedent for a pope resigning. The Church accepted his resignation. A conclave was held. A new pope (God help us) was elected. There’s nothing illegitimate about any of that so far as we know.
Folks have conflated the first issue with the second issue and believe that, because the expansion of the papacy might not legitimate, therefore his resignation was not legitimate. I think this is faulty reasoning. It’s the immediate object that should be addressed first, and that was the resignation. It was clear that Pope Benedict’s intention was to resign from the papacy, as he and everyone else understands the concept, and pass that office on to another man. If his further on motive was to expand the papacy into a two man job is illegitimate (and personally, I think it was) it just means that his claim to still be a “contemplative” pope was bogus, NOT that his resignation was bogus.
Best case scenario – Cardinal Ratzinger died as Cardinal Ratzinger and not as still-some-sort-of-Pope Benedict. Someone would have to provide some sort of crystal clear statement from Benedict from before he resigned stating, without any ambiguity, that he did NOT intend to resign but was instead making room for a second man to join him as another pope in order to invalidate the election of Jorge Bergolio. And such a statement simply does not exist.
Francis was legitimately elected as pope. I don’t see where there’s any wiggle room on that. Whether Pope Benedict was still pope is a separate matter, and one that actually doesn’t hold much consequence either way.
DeeEmm, what you said makes some sense, but I wonder how useful it is to spend time on. Benedict, apart from his admittedly ambiguous initial statement, made all indications of relinquishing the office of the papacy, and never said anything to the effect that Francis was not the pope. Moreover, Benedict has now fallen asleep in the Lord. The papacy is not a sacrament, it is an office, and my view on this is: if all of the bishops act as though Francis is the pope (which they do) and there is no one else who could possibly be considered the pope, he is ipso facto the pope. There is no hidden mystical aspect to it. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck… Even if Francis was a “fake pope,” would that change anything you do in your life? This whole question seems like a distraction from very pressing and obviously real issues such as the state of the liturgy and of catechesis. (A conspiratorially-minded person might even say that such questions are planted by those who seek to distract traditionalists and send them on wild goose hunts.)
To Patrick K’s point, Benedict / Ratzinger himself once referred to papal elections as “dogmatic facts”…meaning whomever the Church recognizes to be the Bishop of Rome is indeed the Bishop of Rome.
Regarding the novelty of a Pope Emeritus, it really is just an expansion of the idea of the Bishop Emeritus, which is also a novelty. The ancient principle is that each city can only have one bishop. The bishop is the groom and the local church is the bride. Yet today when bishops retire they are no longer given a new titular see (as happened in the past) but simply become the Emeritus of the same see.
Right or wrong this has become the universal practice of the Church.
Yes, but I particularly cheered when Damien Thompson of UK Spectator gave his Pope as Genghis Kahn interview, and view that the wolves are already out to shed themselves of PF. He predicts a strong reaction against this pontificate come next Conclave.
DeeEmm at 1 Dec. 7:38 PM, WVC, Patrick-K, and TWF,
Thanks! I will not pretend I know what-all Benedict said about “an expanded Papacy”, or any details about the novel use of the “idea of the Bishop Emeritus” prior to his resignation. The observation “Emeritus is quite an elegant invention” is intriguing, since Lewis and Short tells me variously that ’emereo’ means “To obtain by service, to gain, earn, merit, deserve” – but “Far more frequent”, “To serve out, complete one’s term of service”, and the substantive ’emeritus’ “a soldier who has served out his time, a veteran, an exempt” and by transference beyond the military sphere “that has become unfit for service, worn out”, “burned out, extinguished”. I do not immediately find any ‘modern’ definition of ’emeritus’ which does not include the senses “retired from office”, or “from active service or occupation”. Having been ordained bishop in 1977, was Benedict after resigning other than a bishop-who-had-been-Pope-until-he-resigned-as-Pope? Do ‘we’ know of circumstances that obtained – or failed to obtain – whereby Benedict as bishop could – or could not – give Apostolic Blessings after he resigned?