Monday, May 23, 2016

I THINK THIS "REGISTER'S" ARTICLE IS A BOMBSHELL: POPE BENEDICT THINKS THERE IS ONE PAPACY WITH TWO PEOPLE, ONE ACTIVE--POPE FRANCIS AND THE OTHER CONTEMPLATIVE, POPE BENEDICT! ALL I CAN WRITE IS WOW! I WONDER WHAT POPE FRANCIS THINKS OF THIS VERY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BY POPE BENEDICT AND WHAT DOES IT PORTEND?

Pope Benedict could not resign the papacy to which His Holiness had made a lifetime vow in 2005!

Read this 2014 article which was dismissed as fantasy (press the following sentence) and the read Pentin's article:


THEN READ THIS AND COMMENT! FROM THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER!!!!!


Expanding Petrine Ministry
Prefect of Pontifical Household also recalls "dramatic struggle" of 2005 Conclave. 
Article main image
In a speech reflecting on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has confirmed the existence of a group who fought against Benedict’s election in 2005, but stressed that "Vatileaks" or other issues had "little or nothing" to do with his resignation in 2013.
Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.”
Reflecting on Benedict's time as Pope, Archbishop Gänswein said that although he was “a classic ‘homo historicus’, a Western man par excellence who embodied the richness of the Catholic tradition like no other,” at the same time he was “so bold as to open the door to a new phase, for that historic turning point that five years ago no one could have imagined.”
Gänswein drew attention to “brilliant and illuminating” and “well documented and thorough” passages of the book, written by Roberto Regoli and entitled Oltre la crisi della Chiesa. Il pontificato di Benedetto XVI — “Beyond the Crisis of the Church, The Pontificate of Benedict XVI.”
The German prelate especially highlighted Regoli’s account of “a dramatic struggle” that took place in the 2005 Conclave between the “so-called ‘Salt of the Earth Party’” (named after the book interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) comprising “Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medina" and their adversaries: "the so-called St. Gallen group” that included “Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor” — a group Cardinal Danneels referred jokingly to as “a kind of mafia-club,”Archbishop Gänswein recalled. (His reference to that struggle backs up an interview German journalist Paul Badde gave the Register last November and EWTN Germany, during which Badde also mentioned German Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann as being part of the St. Gallen group).
“The election was certainly the outcome of a battle,” Gänswein went on, adding that the “key” to the Conclave was Cardinal Ratzinger’s “dictatorship of relativism” homily that he gave on the first day of the election when he was Dean of the College of Cardinals.
Benedict’s personal secretary then referred to how Regoli highlights the “fascinating and moving” years of Benedict’s pontificate, and his “skill and confidence” in exercising the Petrine ministry. He recalled, in particular, the “black year” of 2010, when Manuela Camagni, one of the four Memores Domini consecrated women who assisted Benedict, was tragically killed in a road accident in Rome.
The year, which he attests was a dark one, was further blackened by “malicious attacks against the Pope” and the fallout from Benedict’s lifting of the excommunication on Bishop Richard Williamson who denied the extent of the Holocaust.
But nothing affected Benedict’s “heart as much as the death of Manuela”, whom he considered part of the “papal family” of helpers. “Benedict wasn’t an ‘actor pope’, and even less an insensitive ‘automaton Pope’,” Gänswein said. ”Even on the throne of Peter, he was and remained a man… ‘a man with his contradictions’.”
Then, after having been so affected by the death of Camagni, Benedict suffered the “betrayal of Paolo Gabriele”, his “poor and misguided” former valet who was found guilty of leaking confidential papal documents in what became known as the ‘Vatileaks’ scandal. That episode was “false money” traded on the world stage as “authentic gold bullion” he said, but stressed that “no traitor, ‘mole’, or any journalist” would have caused Benedict to resign. “The scandal was too small” for the “greater, well considered step Benedict made of millennial historical significance.”
Such assumptions that they did have something to do with it, he said, “have little or nothing to do with reality”, adding that Benedict resigned because it was “fitting” and “reasonable”, and quoted John Duns Scotus’ words to justify the decree for the Immaculate Conception: “Decuit, potuit, fecit” — “He could do it, it was fitting that He do it.”
Various reports have suggested that pressure was exerted on Benedict to step down. One of the latest came last year from a former confidant and confessor to the late Cardinal Carlo Martini who said Martini had told Benedict: "Try and reform the Curia, and if not, you leave.”
But in his speech, Gänswein insisted "it was fitting" for Benedict to resign because he "was aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”
Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.
“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“
Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: "cooperatores veritatis", which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”
Archbishop Gänswein pointed out that the motto is not in the singular but in the plural, and taken from the Third Letter of John, in which it is written in verse 8: "We must welcome these people to become co-workers for the truth".
He therefore stressed that since Francis’ election, there are not “two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.”
“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”
Archbishop Gänswein repeated that Benedict’s resignation was “quite different” to that of Pope Celestine V.
“So it is not surprising,” he said, “that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel,  while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.”

41 comments:

Jan said...

It has been mooted from different quarters for some time that this is the situation - Francis has only ever said he is Bishop of Rome and refused to be called Francis I and he does not wear the papal regalia. It is Benedict who wears the Papal crucifix and Francis retains the bishop's one. It definitely seems as if the papacy is split for now. It has been noted that Benedict is normally present at the consecration of cardinals etc. I doubt we will ever know the truth of what caused Benedict to "resign".

What does it portend? I think it means that if things get any worse in the Church Benedict may well be persuaded to come out of retirement. Maybe this interview is a reminder to Kasper, Daneels and that group that if they push any harder this could happen. Perhaps when Benedict dies Francis will resign and a new conclave will take place to elect a pope.

CharlesG said...

I've always liked Archbishop Gaenswein, but this kind of talk about two popes or a split papacy seems a bit irresponsible. I wish our Church's hierarchy would simply stop messing about with things like the papacy and the sacraments. The concept of tradition is important in our Faith for a reason, one of which is to avoid destruction of core concepts through poorly thought through innovations. That's one of the reason why this papacy is driving me to tear my hair out.

Anonymous said...

This insanity has to stop. It is so unjust to faithful Catholics how are trying to live a good Catholic life. Why all this weirdo stuff all the time. A moron knows there can't be two legitimate pope's at one time. If Pope Benedict truly believes that then he needs help. And if Francis believes it he needs help. And they both need to go. As a matter of fact all these weirdo bishops and priests who are trying to change and mutilate the Catholic Faith into their own personal idea of what Catholicism should be need to leave. PERIOD. End of story. Just get out. Weirdos weirdos weirdos. Okay Father do your spinning who it is correct to believe that two men at the same time can share the papacy. Go ahead. You are the self declared papist, which is an anti Catholic term by the way, so defend these weirdo statements. Go ahead.

Gene said...

I think the Church has lost its collective mind and is wandering in the Wilderness of confusion, apostasy, and doubt.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis does not call himself Francis I since, by immemorial tradition, the first pope to use a name does not call himself "the first." When a second pope chooses the name Francis, he will be known as Francis II, and the current pope will, only then, be known as Francis I. (A man does not call himself "John Smith, Sr.", until he names his son "John Smith, Jr.")

There is no such thing as "the Papal crucifix." If you google images of Benedict XVI you can see him wearing at least a dozen different pectoral crosses. "The Papal crucifix" is a conspiracy theorist's fantasy.

Regalia does not make a man pope. Long before ANY "papal regalia" came into existence, the men who served as pope were pope.

There is oen pope and he is Pope Francis. There are not two popes, one active and one contemplative. This is more fantasy. And only in this nutty fantasy world is this story portentous.

Julian Barkin said...

Father, I am not sure why you have posted this, but I am going to take this with a grain of salt. I would rather trust Papa Benedetto Emertius himself when he was asked directly in past about the supposed "illegitimacy" of the Francis papacy, that he said outright that he was not forced out of office and that Francis is the currently elected pope.

Yes, maybe there is the small nugget that maybe he intentionally did things and has a backup plan in case of things going bad, but until HE himself comes out and says it directly to the press or the world, I'll stick by the Holy Father Emeritus, and not believe in this conspiracy theory garbage being peddled about the Internet, by blogger or journalist. I've got other daily struggles of the Faith and life to worry about than this.

Anonymous said...

Are you popes, bishops and priests purposefully trying to drive people away? That's a serious question. You destroy the liturgy and we have to take it. You permitted pedophile priests to continue in the priesthood unchecked for decades and we have to take it. We have a pope who is purposefully causing confusion and error and we have to take it. And now we are supposed to believe that one pope has decided to split the papacy between two men, and we are supposed to accept this. All of you are going to pay for the damage you have done and are doing to souls. This is complete BS. I can't do much but I can stop giving what you clerics hold most dear....the money. Every faithful Catholic should immediately stop giving money to the Church and force these insane clerics to uphold the Faith. Enough is enough.

Marc said...

While the possibility of a pope and anti-pope is distressing, it is not the end of the world since it has happened before many times. The idea, though, that the papacy can have these distinct facets held by multiple people is problematic. I wonder if certain theologians are slowly working to move the papacy in line with the Orthodox conception wherein the Chair of Peter is considered to be held in common by all bishops. After all, if the papacy can have distinct components held by multiple people, then it is not a large step to a collegial understanding of the Petrine ministry.

Anonymous said...

OK, so we haver a "Contemplative Pope" who taught with precision and clarity and truth, reflecting the unchanging, true nature of a God who cannot contradict Himself and this "Contemplative Pope" is somehow sharing a dual papacy with an "Active" pope who (BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION FATHER) is not clear or precise and seems to be sowing confusion. Is confusion a fruit of the Holy Spirit?

Sorry, this is about a modernistic and silly as it gets.

rcg said...

It is purely my opinion, but it seemed that Pope Benedict did not have the temprament to deal with his attackers in a classical Italian manner. His reputation as a rotweiller seems to come from sectors with sensitivity to light as much as bite. Perhaps he had compassion for all the Gollums that surrounded him.

James said...

There's no pope and anti-pope: just a well-meaning curial archbishop who's a little too fond of the limelight.

I get the idea that a pope might have an active phase and a contemplative phase (aka "retirement") of his ministry, and that his 'popeness' can't just be set aside, even if he retires from the formal parts of the role. But Msgr Ganswein is really muddying the water with 'he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry'. Isn't that exactly the impression Pope Benedict wanted to avoid by remaining silent and in seclusion? 'Collegial and synodal' imply a clearly defined role, with formally defined duties and responsibilities. But he doesn't have such a role now, surely?

What all this does help explain is Pope Francis' behaviour on the evening of his election, and in particular his prayer for Pope Benedict and reference to himself as Bishop of Rome. But a more likely explanation is that Pope Francis was treading carefully since he didn't himself fully understand the nature of Benedict's post-papal (or post-active papal) ministry. I'm sure he understands it completely now, and won't be impressed with talk of a 'communal ministry'.

Adam Michael said...

I don't think this is a Catholic understanding of the Papacy. There can only be one valid Pope at one time.

Also, if Pope Benedict XVI believed that he was not fully relinquishing the Petrine Ministry in 2013 due to his unique conception of the Papacy that is not reflected in Catholic canonical tradition, would his intention upon his abdication/resignation make any subsequent papal elections (including that of Pope Francis) invalid since they operate under the assumption of a complete and free abdication/resignation of the papal office?

John Nolan said...

Magno cum grano salis.

Anonymous said...

Those of you who think that AB Gaenswain is kidding, or Benedict XVI changed his mind should at least consult a cannon lawyer. AB G. has a doctorate in cannon law so his statement concerning the matter at hand is authoritative. If he is wrong why has Fr. Lombardi (on behalf of Pope Francis) so far at least, not felt the need to clarify the objective situation of a shared Petrine ministry. Fr. L. does a lot of cleaning up from time to time as we well know.

Instead of despairing we should rejoice that an exceptional theologian, although Benedict is XVI quite elderly, is still capable to give prayerful assistance to the Active Holy Father (AHF or AP) behind the scenes. Some Bishops have coadjutor bishops with authority to govern the diocese because the incumbent needs such help. No one thinks this unusual. What we have here is an "organic" doctrinal development concerning the the Papacy. This development was identified by Benedict XVI. A very, very astute insight indeed.

Finally, Pope Francis rightly calls himself Pope and the Bishop of Rome since his predecessor has vacated the job. However, a Pope is elected for life and I do not think he can cease to be Pope before he dies. He can no longer active because of significant physical limitations. There is no confusion in this. And for me, this is what AB G.'s statement means.

James said...

I checked the German original version of Msgr Ganswein's speech to see if the context clarifies the sentence I found puzzling: 'he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry'.

This sentence actually refers to how Benedict's resignation impacted on the papacy itself, not on Benedict's new role, making Ganswein's claim even bolder.

http://www.kath.net/news/55276

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The Italian Machiavellianism is coming out in me and I find the timing of this bombshell interesting and i wonder what the politics is behind it. This is very fascinating to me and yes quite a breach I would say from a regime that promoting the hermeneutic of continuity and not rupture. Two personalities, one papacy sounds a bit like two forms of the one Roman Rite! No?

But as it regards the papacy, it strikes me as heterodox, unless Pope Benedict didn't completely resign the papacy and then fasten your seat-belts because in life or death this had serious ramifications for Pope Francis' papacy.

Dialogue said...

I don't understand objections to the pope emeritus participating in the Petrine ministry. It seems fitting for a former pope to dedicate himself to prayerful support of his successor, the latest successor of Saint Peter. What possible harm can this do? Everyone knows Francis is the pope.

I don't understand objections to calling the pope the "bishop of Rome". He is the bishop of Rome. The devil used the instruments of the Roman Empire--its capital, its language and its cross--to kill the Savior of the world. Now, Christ uses the same capital, language and cross to defeat the devil. "Pope" is merely a paternal title of familiarity applied to several spiritual leaders.

Marc said...

"Two personalities, one papacy sounds a bit like two forms of the one Roman Rite! No?"

Insofar as both theories are a fiction, yes!

:-)

How odd to be alive during this bizarre time in the history of the Church -- Machiavellian times, indeed.

Anonymous said...

I suspect it is more than a bit of Gaenswain trying to make his mentor look good...

Jan said...

Anonymous @ 7.58, things become conspiracy theories to those who don't know any better. I suggest that you look at the video of the election of John Paul I where he is announced as Giovanni Paolo Primi - John Paul 1. Francis refused to be called primi and was just announce as Francis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8umNO-Dsaw

Francis also refused the gold pectoral cross offered to him by Mons Guido Marini and retained his own pectoral cross as has been widely reported.

"Pope Francis refused the customary gold cross that was offered to him when he became pope, choosing instead to continue to wear the same cross he wore for many years as archbishop and cardinal in his native Argentina."

So, far from being a conspiracy theory many of the things that Francis has refused to wear lend credence to the fact that the papacy is somewhat different than it was ...

Jan said...

Like Fr McDonald, I believe what AB Gaenswain has said has ramifications for Francis' papacy. I think his statement is the result of the serious push for the Church to relax moral teaching, consideration of deaconesses, etc, and we don't know what else is in the pipeline - quite possibly a relaxation of the rule of celibacy and devolving of papal powers, which are both things Francis has mentioned in the past.

There appear to be at least two different factions in the Vatican. We know that Kasper, Daneels and others comprise the liberal side. I suspect Gaenswain is the mouthpiece for the conservative side. It has been announced that Benedict may make a rare public appearance on the 29th June, his anniversary of ordination and Feast of St Peter and Paul.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis is not Pope Francis "the First."

Vatican Press Office: "The choice of his name Francis, after St. Francis of Assisi, strongly recalls the saint's evangelical spirituality and radical poverty. His papal name is simply 'Francis', not 'Francis I', since he is the first pontiff to bear that name. If after him another pontiff chooses that name then he will be 'Francis I'.”

"Pope Francis refused the customary gold cross that was offered to him when he became pope, choosing instead to continue to wear the same cross he wore for many years as archbishop and cardinal in his native Argentina."

So what? There is no such thing as a "papal crucifix." He is pope and can choose to wear whatever cross/crucifix he wants, as can any bishop. Offering this as evidence that there is something fishy going on is nothing more than conspiracy theory fantasy.

Jan said...

Anonymous 11:47 AM, well, funny that Pope John Paul I was always known as Pope John Paul 1 from day one even though he was the first Pope to hold that name. It seems to me that you are just ready to believe the usual spin that comes out from the Vatican Press office these days. The very fact that the Press Office had to issue such a statement saying that is because Francis broke with protocol, as he did by refusing to wear the gold cross - oh, I forgot, Francis couldn't wear it because Benedict XVI was still wearing it ... funny that ... and oh he's called just plain Francis, unlike other popes, because perhaps he's just plain Francis? A simple explanation, as AB Gaenswain seems to be implying ... and when you live in a hotel rather than the papal apartments well that could mean you're just a guest ...

Anonymous said...

"...the usual spin that comes out from the Vatican Press office these days." is now 3 years old.

Francis did not break with protocol. The first pope to use a name is not styled "the first" until there is a second, just as a father is not "Sr." until he names his son "Jr."

"The gold cross" is meaningless. There is no such thing as a "papal crucifix." Pope Benedict wore dozens of different crosses.

Every pope who has lived in the Vatican has lived there as a guest.

These things are not "evidence" of anything but your wildly skewed imagination.

Anonymous said...

Here's the mailing address given by the US Embassy to the Vatican for Pope Francis:

His Holiness, Pope Francis
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City

Here are THREE choices offered by WikiHow:

•His Holiness, Pope Francis PP. / 00120 Via del Pellegrino / Citta del Vaticano
•His Holiness Pope Francis / Apostolic Palace / Vatican City
•His Holiness Pope Francis / Vatican City State, 00120

Notice what's MISSING from all of these choices?

But, of course, with your "insider" information, you know that all the world is wrong . . . and you are right.

John Nolan said...

Luciani signed himself Ioannes Paulus pp I. He was the first pontiff to adopt a new regnal name (in his case, two names) since the first millennium. At the time some queried why he used the 'I' and it may be a reason why Wojtyla adopted the same names on his election, in addition to ensuring that his predecessor's rather odd choice should become established as a papal name.

Francis should sign himself Franciscus pp, but does not do so. Why he doesn't is a mystery. Surely he regards himself as Pope? There may well be only one Pope Francis, and it will join the list of one-off papal names, like Formosus. And we know what happened to him ...

Jan said...

Anonymous 1:03 whether you like it or not, the simple fact is that Francis has refused the symbols of the papacy: gold pectoral cross, red shoes and red cloak (which symbolises the blood of the martyrs) title of Pope and resides in a hotel.

As John Nolan points out, Luciani signed himself Ioannes Paulus pp I. And when he was announced on the balcony he was called Joannes Paulus Primi - John Paul the 1st. That is an absolute fact for which I posted the video link as proof where he is clearly called Joannes Paulus Primi.

You can quote CNN all you like but the proof is in the photos where Francis appears in white wearing the pectoral cross of a bishop. And from what AB Gaenswein is saying that Pope Benedict did not entirely relinquish the Papacy, so that may well be the reason why he refers to himself as "Bishop of Rome" rather than "Supreme Pontiff". From all the controversy that has arisen since his election there will continue to be speculation about his papacy.

Anonymous said...

Jan - Whether you like it or not, a gold pectoral cross, as opposed to a silver one, is not a "symbol of the papacy." Neither are red shoes, a red cloak, or living in the Apostolic Palace.

There is no "pectoral cross of a bishop" as opposed to a "papal crucifix." Some wear gold, some wear silver, some have modern enameled crosses, a few wear simple wooden crosses.

Popes have lived in the Apostolic Palace only a few hundred years. From the 4th century to the mid-1300's popes lived at the Lateran Palace.

But, you are too grounded in your conspiratorial fantasy to be moved by facts.

Jan said...

Anonymoous 10.33, I have reported the facts, you just can't accept them. I imagine you put Bishop Gaenswein's comments into the realm of conspiracy theories as well ...

Anonymous said...

Jan - You have reported fantasy. A "papal crucifix" is a fantasy. No such thing exists. Red shoes are not a symbol of the papacy - Hundreds of popes did not wear red shoes. A red cape is not a symbol of the papacy. hundreds of popes did not wear red capes. Living in the Apostolic Palace is not a symbol of the papacy. Scores of popes did not live there.

The Good Archbishop is engaging in something - I'm not sure what - but it sounds like he's trying to elevate the status of his mentor and friend to the level of Co-Pope. And that is another fantasy, since co-popes do not exist.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

The red shoes, etc. are indeed papal symbols, and that's simply a matter of fact. However, such symbols are certainly not indispensable.

Anonymous said...

No, lots of people wear red shoes - they are not popes. (Remember Dorothy?) Lots wear red capes - they aren't popes either. (Ever see Virgil Fox perform?) Lots wear gold crucifixes, a la Madonna, and guess what? They're not popes either.

Jan said...

Anonymous 6.56, well, for your edification it is pointed out:

"The Dictatus papae preserved in the Codex of Avranches (late 11th century) had cautioned that:

"only the pope can wear the red cope as a sign of imperium and of martyrdom". The pope's red mantle is in fact the scarlet or purple mantle that the governor's soldiers threw over Jesus in the praetorium, before crowning him with thorns."

Francis never wears the red cope as his predecessors did and I think AB Gaenswein's interview explains why ...

Anonymous said...

So, is the SCARLET or PURPLE cape the one that is the symbol of the papacy? You see, this is of utmost importance to conspiracy theorists everywhere...

And, remember, a cOpe and a cApe are not the same. One is liturgical while the other is street wear.

And I googled "Pope Francis red cope" and was shocked, I tell you, to see many photographs of him in a red cOpe.

Unless, of course, you believe that some Vatican press office mole and conspiracy participant has planted false pix of him to throw you off the track...

Jan said...

Anonymous 5.16 - look closely at those photos googled. They are not the papal red cope. Francis is vested in red being the liturgical color of the day. Nothing more. He gets about normally in white with no cope. Francis refused the red cope on the balcony and has never worn it.

If there are conspiracy theories about Francis and his papacy then I suggest that he is the one that is at the root of them. By rejecting the outward signs of the papacy he appears to reject the papacy itself and Archbishop Gaenswein's interview points to something in this papacy that is completely different from others.

Anonymous said...

There is no "papal red cope" as there is no "papal crufifix." Both of these are figments of your imagination.

In the photographs I referenced, His holiness is wearing a red cope. As is his preference and his prerogative, he chooses not to wear the red cApe that some of his predecessors have donned.

The very idea that the Bishop of Rome "rejects the papacy itself" is beyond absurd. Every papacy is different from others. You and your fellow conspiracy travelers are spinning tales that beggar the imagination.

Jan said...

According to you that is - history shows otherwise. Francis refused the cope on the balcony, as he has refused all the symbols of the papacy, even going to the extremes of residing in a hotel. You just cannot accept the facts. AB Gaenswain is in more of a position than you to know the story of this papacy and so his view is to be preferred over yours, What he says is no conspiracy theory or attempt to enhance Benedict's role.

Anonymous said...

Popes don't wear a COPE on the balcony when they appear after their election. That is a MOZETTA.

That you don't mention the WHITE soutaine - the PAPAL soutaine - reveals your silliness. That is decidedly a symbol of the papacy, so your facts are simply wrong.

Jan said...

Then Francis didn't wear the mozetta - he doesn't wear the red shoes - he doesn't wear the red cope - he doesn't wear the gold pectoral cross - he resides in an hotel.

By contrast, Benedict retains the gold pectoral cross - symbol of the Pope. Francis retains his metal pectroal cross symbol of bishop of Buonas Aires.

To top it off AB Gaenswein says:

“He [Benedict] left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: "cooperatores veritatis", which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”

...

He therefore stressed that since Francis’ election, there are not “two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.”

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”

As Fr McDonald says, this may have ramifications for Francis' papacy. So, get used to it. You can spit and hiss all you like but facts are facts and I'm afraid the facts are not on your side ...

Anonymous said...

Jan - You keep making up the existence of a gold papal crucifix. None exists.

Hundreds of popes didn't wear red shoes. Many probably didn't wear shoes at all. Red Shoes are a symbol of Roman aristocracy. The pope, Servant of the Servants of God, is not an aristocrat and should not dress as one.

He has repeatedly worn a red cope - he chooses not to wear the red cape.

I am neither spitting nor hissing, nor am I making up fantastic stories about "papal crucifixes" and the room Pope Francis chooses to live in. I leave that to you.

Jan said...

There is an interesting comment on Rorate Caeli about what is circulating around Rome about AB Gaenswain's comments. Speaking about the two Popes it says:

" Theologically, this makes no sense whatsoever! One is forced, therefore, to find a "political" meaning. It could be this: in a Rome where each one may say, today, almost anything one wants to say -- considering, in any event, that there is no ambition willing to face the Bergoglian establishment head on -- Georg Gänswein, who receives everyday the cries and lamentations of the Ratzingerians, builds up, with the aid of Regali, the statue of his Pope as an accusing statue of against the Commander, as a "contemplative Pope". And, by the very fact of doing so, he weakens even more the legitimacy of the "active Pope", in the spirit of his nostalgic friends.

Are they merely nostalgic? This is the entire question. In reality, they are abandoned. They are in expectation of a strong symbolic stand, which the current situation demands. Three cardinals are in a position to give it: Müller, Sarah, and Burke.

Cardinal Müller positioned himself, in the name of his function as Prefect of the Faith (which has become almost honorific: Amoris Laetitia, if we read it well, that is, with the lenses of the preceding Magisterium, says nothing else than this preceding Magisterium. A poignant strategy, but with no effect whatsoever. Cardinal Sarah keeps discretion. A good strategy...if the future path is unblocked shortly. About which no one can be sure.

As for Cardinal Burke, he first disappointed his followers. I mean it, his followers, because having been the soul of the two books that had gathered together the Cardinals who opposed the changes on the doctrine on marriage, in 2014 and in 2015, he seemed then, nolens volens, as a leader. He has, however, chosen this strategy: to affirm, without making comments on the substance of the matter, that numerous passages of Amoris Laetitia are not part of the Magisterium. This has seemed like a weak response, but it also represents an explosive harbinger for the future.

In reality, the three Cardinals, three musketeers who are sworn enemies of the "dictatorship of relativism" are four: the fourth is Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna, one of the greatest experts on the moral work of Pius XII. In fact, for him it is is Pope Pacelli who is the "contemplative Pope", the pope of reference who is still present -- which is not false, or at least in the process of becoming true..."