The Mass It Is A Changin'

Hi HeavenlyHost. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believed Tyconius to have something to teach us about the end times. With docility, we should try to understand what this great Pope is telling us. I know you normally have such great respect for the papacy, so I'm sure you will agree with me that we must listen when the Pope teaches, right? Did you read the article? Or did you just notice that the author was "anonymous" and refuse to read it?

 

Please answer my question. Who wrote the article? Thanks.
I know. A Marian Soul and a scholar.
So who is it ?
Joseph Ratzinger in 1956 was not speaking ex cathedra. He was making an observation. He was not the pope at that time.
There’s no way I even want to guess why Joseph Ratzinger continued to speak about Tyconius who obviously had separated himself from the Church.

 

I simply do not believe what Tyconius posits. I also know he was separated from the Church. I also know I am not , and I don’t intend to be. And I will stay in the Barque and God will take care of evildoers. Simple as that. We get out of His way , stay in the Church, and He will act.
And I think you have no intention of telling me who wrote that article.

 

I don't know the name of the person who wrote that article. I also don't know your name, HeavenlyHosts. Why does it matter so much to you? Why don't you engage the article on its own merits instead of obsessing about the anonymous author?

You are correct, Benedict XVI was not speaking ex cathedra, but, you are incorrect when you said that he was not the Pope when he stated this (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090422.html):

...Ticonius, an African who lived a generation before St Augustine. He was not a Catholic; he belonged to the schismatic Donatist Church, yet he was a great theologian. In his commentary he sees the Apocalypse above all as a reflection of the mystery of the Church. Ticonius had reached the conviction that the Church was a bipartite body: on the one hand, he says, she belongs to Christ, but there is another part of the Church that belongs to the devil. Augustine read this commentary and profited from it but strongly emphasized that the Church is in Christ's hands, that she remains his Body, forming one with him, sharing in the mediation of grace. He [Augustine] therefore stresses that the Church can never be separated from Jesus Christ.
​

So, if you would had read the article, you would know that Benedict XVI acknowledges Ticonius's faults but also his insight and greatness. St. Augustine also recognized the same.

And Ticonius's insight about the nature of the end times Church is the same insight that Ven. Fulton Sheen expresses in the following:

 

I read the article to the best of my ability to understand. If you had read my post, I said that I didn’t understand why Joseph Ratzinger had continued to speak of Tyconius. I can understand that there is evil in the Church and I don’t need Tyconius to explain it to me. I also looked at some footnotes and comments. I sure would like to know who wrote that article, though. I think it’s important because the
thesis behind it is advocating that the Church leave. And that is what you are trying to advocate. That’s why I disagree. I’m staying.

 

Our Savior is perfectly capable of dealing with the money-changers in the temple.
With respect.
And it is late in my time zone.

 

If a priest in my parish preaches heresy I will in good faith confront him after Mass.

If he persists and still teaches heretical ideas I will flee and find another parish where the priest is orthodox (I would inform his bishop as well of his heretical stance).

But if they all turn heretical that leaves us in a dilemma as in the Arian crisis.

Then I would go the SsPX as a last bastion only if I could not find an orthodox pastor.

Hypothetical scenario though (hopefully).

'In Portugal the dogma of the faith etc'.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

The whole issue revolves around the fact that Pope Benedict resigned. There is no conclusive evidence or official ruling that he is still the Pope. Books, many books, have been written about it but Francis is now Pope. And I believe that is the crux of the matter. PE Benedict saw the evil in the Church and resigned because of the wolves and that opened the doors to this thread. That was a dreadful decision, imho. But the Church accepted his resignation. We can argue until doomsday or until the Church acts. But right now, he has officially resigned. QR code.
And Jesus is still on the altars and in the Tabernacle.
I am sorry about your child. I would like to say that things are not perfect in any part of the Church or world. The SSPX is not canonical.
All of their Masses are illicit. They, too, have had issues with abuse.
Wait on the Lord. He will not leave us orphans or leave us to our own devices.

 

We were looking at old videos and ran across our those of the baptisms. At the time of the baptisms, I was unaware of the importance of "the form" of baptism. Later I became aware of the proper canonical form and its importance. The illicit form used by the original priest was phraseology referring to the divinity that had been condemned at the Council of Rome in the 382 AD because of its ambiguity.

 

Hi HeavenlyHosts. Since you seem to want to discuss Pope Benedict's resignation with me, I will explain my position to you.

Do you realize that your statement that "there is no conclusive evidence or official ruling that he is still the Pope" cuts both ways? In other words, at the very least, it is an open question that "many books have been written about." As you said, there is "no conclusive evidence" (for you). Many of the books on the issue have been published in the last few months. So the debate, according to the publishing houses, and the purchasers of those books, is alive and well. Can you deny this?

No doubt, Benedict stated that he resigned from something in his Declaratio. His words indicate that he resigned from "the ministry [ministerium] of Bishop of Rome." He definitively did not resign the munus of the Roman Pontiff (or Vicar of Christ or the Apostolic See) according to the proper "canonical form" as required in Canon 332.2. And the fact that anyone has or has not "accepted his resignation" is irrelevant according to Canon 332.2. Now, you and others might opine that using the proper canonical form doesn't matter in such a small thing as a papal resignation. I, and others who have written "many books," disagree with your opinion. I accept that you hold your opinion and are free to state it as often as you like. Maybe you could offer me and others the same courtesy?

Here is what Archbishop Ganswein, Benedict's closest aide, said about the intention of Benedict XVI (https://insidethevatican.com/magazi...rg-gansweins-recent-remarks-benedict-francis/):

The momentous resignation of the theologian pope represented a step forward primarily by the fact that, on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, he introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of “pope emeritus,” stating that his strength was no longer sufficient “to properly exercise the Petrine ministry.” The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst); as though, by this, he wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then Joseph Ratzinger took as archbishop of Munich and Freising and which he then naturally maintained as bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis,” which means “fellow workers in the truth.”
​

Those interested should also read Benedict XVI's "Last General Audience" to understand his position https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130227.html) where he states:

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. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office [official ministry] for the governance [management] of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.
​

So Benedict XVI, in his own words, states that he considers himself still exercising the "passive" or contemplative demands of the office as the Vicar of Christ. He has only given up the day-to-day management of things, so that he can focus more on the "essential spiritual nature" of the office [munus]. This is why he continues to wear the white cassock, continues to live in the Vatican, continues to sign documents with his papal name and continues to give his papal blessing.

No doubt that Jorge Mario Bergoglio (as he styles himself in the Annuario Pontificio) holds power in the Vatican and in "world opinion." He is the de facto "Pope" in the eyes of "the world." He has also referred to himself as the "bishop in dressed in white" at Fatima. He definitely does not call himself "the Vicar of Christ," which his entry in the Annuario Pontificio now designates as an "historical title."

Relevant to this canonical debate are the numerous private revelations, discussed at length and often on this forum, that mention "two popes" or "bishops against bishops" and so on. I cannot say why some people seem to not want to connect the dots and understand that the situation referred to in those private revelations is likely playing our before our eyes. Maybe you can enlighten me?