CANONICALLY VALID “WAIVER” OF POPE BENEDICT? MAYBE NOT

Computer translated from Antonio Socci’s Blog

FEBRUARY 12, 2014

The “withdrawal” of Benedict XVI – a year later – is tinged with yellow. Why emerging “details” that require serious questioning about its real canonical validity.

I start with what I myself have witnessed. In the summer of 2011 I received the news from reliable source: Benedict XVI has decided to resign and will do so after having completed 85 years, i.e. since April 2012.

I wrote all of these columns, September 25, 2011. I was buried by an avalanche of responses that the Vatican entourage is derogatory Vaticanists. Arriving at the Spring 2012 one of the Vatican repeatedly made note that my prediction had not come true.

I replied that it was in the middle of the storm Vatileaks and for that reason the Pope had not yet resigned. In fact, 11 February 2013, just closed the case Valileaks, Benedict XVI announced his dramatic withdrawal (it was always in his 85th year).

Yet again yesterday rosiconi of “Vatican Insider” wrote: “Over the years, the Italian newspapers, Antonio Socci and Giuliano Ferrara spoke, for different reasons, the hypothesis that Joseph Ratzinger to resign. No one, however, was able to predict the timing. ”

Aside from the fact that mine was a news item, while the item of Ferrara, which was released months later, was a reflection of culture, in my article, the timing was very well defined.

CONFIRMATION OF BERTONE

Also yesterday, Cardinal Bertone, in an interview with “Journal”, revealed: “The Pope had reached the decision for some time, talked to me in the mid of 2012.”

Then he decided to delay a little ‘communication for the many storms that were going on. But the decision was made for April 2012. Just as I had written.

At this point I wondered how those were my sources to know for sure all of this already in the summer of 2011, two years before? Who and why he was able to know such a thing?

Or some person close to the Pope, or some group of people who had it in for him “the negotiated” and obtained. Well, in the summer of 2011, people close to the Pope did not know. So there were forces that wanted and pressed for the decision to “snatch” a date?

CONSPIRACY?

I do not think that is an exaggeration conspiracy because, in addition to strong external attacks that have characterized his papacy, Benedict XVI has been opposed so hard from the beginning within the ecclesiastical world: it is clear from the document in which a group Cardinals anonymous, just after the conclave of 2005, he broke the oath on the Gospel spreading an alleged diary of voting that Ratzinger and de-legitimized in practice throwing the signal to drop. Subtly foreshadowing of the events that then you are really made of.

That public legitimization of a newly elected pope by the cardinal of perjury, hiding behind anonymity, has no equal in the modern history of the Church.

And ‘possible to think that there has unraveled a whole strategy that clearly pointed their hostile to the resignation of the Pope in the book “Attack on Ratzinger’, 2010, Tornielli and Paolo Rodari reported the declaration of a major cardinal who, after Conclave of 2005, Pope Benedict said: “two or three years, it will not last more than two or three years” (and “made him accompanying his words with a gesture of his hands, as if to minimize”).

DISTURBING FACT

It should be mentioned also the disquieting “fact” presented to Benedict XVI December 30, 2011 by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in which they referred the things that another Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, in November 2011, would have said to some people in talks held in Beijing.

The Cardinal Romeo, according to the author of the report, would “sharply criticized Pope Benedict XVI.” Finally, “self-confident, as if he knew exactly Cardinal Romeo announced that the Holy Father would only have twelve months to live. During his talks in China has prophesied the death of Pope Benedict XVI within the next 12 months. ”

The document then went out in the press in February 2012 and caused a sensation, but was quickly forgotten, even by the media (always superficial). Downgraded to talk to some absent-minded that he had misunderstood everything, imagining attacks and the like.

Certain aspects of that relationship was strange, but in the light of what has really happened in the following twelve months, we can say that it was just a coincidence that it was foreseen with certainty the disappearance of Ratzinger?

Of course, with all this dark turmoil of the Curia, today appear very credible statements like the one made hot at the time of the resignation of the pope, Cardinal Sodano: “A bolt from the blue.”

Sodano – who was Secretary of State in 2005 and was replaced by Benedict XVI in 2006 – is also the one who, as dean of the Sacred College, he managed the new Conclave of 2013. It is the strong man of the Curia.

THE YELLOW

The story of the resignation of Pope Benedict is more mysterious. And even embarrassing. Not coincidentally, the anniversary of the withdrawal, you have read surreal things, such as the declaration of Cardinal Cottier that to “Future” said, “With great clarity he measured the forces and the work to be done. It has decided that you can not force Providence. ”

Remain at his post would have been “force Providence”? And in what bignami of theology would be written such nonsense, offensive Pope Benedict and also for Providence, which is not considered capable of guiding human lives? Perhaps the Conclave of 2005 went against Providence?

So here we are in front of the crucial question: what about the “waiver” of Benedict XVI. The February 11, 2013 he solemnly announced the “well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom.”

It is not permissible to doubt his words, and his was a free gesture.However, to obtain a decision in this regard you can press in many ways.Not necessarily with direct taxation.

Some have suggested that the Pope has heard ventilate catastrophic events for the Church, in his heart, believed to be able to avoid stepping aside. In this case, he would take his own free decision, but since his retirement would be valid?

The problem of the canonical validity of his resignation is huge. The invalidity in fact – according to some canonists – is not only the case of coercion, but also in other cases to be discussed.

SIGNIFICANT SIGNS

For example, one may wonder whether the Pope in his heart he put the decision in the contest of the will, that is, if it is remote – besides the outside – it inwardly.

It looks like a random question, but in the things of God’s heart, that he alone sees, is crucial.

In fact, even the sacraments is necessary for this requirement. In the consecration of the Eucharist takes matter, form and intention: it lacks even one of these elements, the sacrament is invalid.

For example, if there is no inner intention of the priest to consecrate, if he expresses the words, but has no intention of consecrating, consecration is invalid.

Benedict XVI has also withdrawn within?

In addition to the language of words is that of gestures. What we see is that he has chosen to continue to stay “in the yard of Peter”, to dress in white, to be called “Pope emeritus” and continue to be called Benedict XVI (signing as well).

He also refused to change his coat of arms that brought him back to the Cardinal, still holding the one with the keys of Peter. The Vatican has said that Benedict “prefers not to adopt a heraldic emblem expressive of the new situation created by his renunciation of the Petrine Ministry”.

We know that in the Church there is also the “silent teaching”. Perhaps this is the case. And of course Benedict is in agreement with Francis. A beautiful mystery.

PS I want to emphasize, bringing it back, the beautiful and meaningful tweets yesterday of Pope Francis: “Today I invite you to pray for His Holiness’ BENEDICT XVI, a man of great courage and humility.”

Antonio Socci