This is another anniversary of Benedict XVI's abdication. However, speculations about his pontificate and his decision to resign do not fade. Paweł Chmielewski in his latest book “The Pontificate of Crisis” decides to follow in their footsteps and answer the hottest questions.
Benedict XVI's function after 24 March 2013 was besides discussed by Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana/Nur-Sultan in Kazakhstan. Hierarch in an interview with American publicist Dr. Taylor Marshall pointed to the unwarranted argument of those who claim that Benedict XVI remained Pope, and Francis so is not and will never be:
In my opinion, specified tests are opposed to sound judgement and to existing testimony. There are respective evidences and statements of the erstwhile Pope Benedict, in which he pointed out that he was not the Pope. erstwhile he last met the cardinals, after announcing his resignation, he told the cardinals that they would elect a fresh pope to whom he would be subordinate and to whom he promised obedience. How could he surrender to individual who is not Pope? It's a contradiction. Benedict would be schizophrenic if he thought like that. During his last general audience, he besides made it clear: "I gave up my full awareness, voluntarily and knowing all the consequences of this act." Those words are long gone. There are 2 another evidences. In a letter he wrote in 2014 to the It would be absurd to uncertainty that. [...] In 2019, in an interview with a writer from the Italian paper “Corriere della Sera”, Pope Benedict said, as the writer said, [...] that there is only 1 pope and that it is Francis.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider then pointed out the very nature of the Catholic Church, which is not a quasi-gnostic community based on secret knowledge, but a community governed by reason and clarity.
We have another rule. We are the visible Church. We are not the Church of Dreamers, the Church of agnostic. We are the actual Church, visible, so the superior [i.e. the pope – P. Ch.] enjoys the presumption of legality [of his power]. The church does not justice the interior intentions. We can't see them. We only measure words and external actions. We have adequate “outside” words from the pope in which he stated that he had abdicated that he had given up full awareness and voluntarily – emphasized the hierarch. As he pointed out, this is simply a very different issue from how Benedict XVi behaved after his resignation – he dressed like a pope, gave apostolic blessing and so on. This, however, was, said the bishop, "his conduct," and so a separate matter.
Finally, Bishop Schneider highlighted 2 fundamental issues. Benedict mentioned in the canon the Holy Mass the name Francis (cum Francisco papa nostro), which would be absurd if he were inactive Pope; as he noted in his conversation with Dr. Taylor Marshall – this would mean that Benedict remains in schism with himself. The bishop besides pointed out that Benedict, after resigning, no longer exercised acts of papal power: “The Benedict does not rule, does not exercise any acts of jurisdiction. He does not appoint bishops, he does not appoint cardinals.” Yet this is what constitutes Papacy, as an expression of the highest jurisdictional power held by the pope. Hence there is no uncertainty and there can be no uncertainty that Benedict actually resigned, in an crucial and final way. Whatever he thought about it remains his interior cause, subject to God’s judgment. The Church appreciates only its external words, culminating in the read text Declaratio.
See more in Paul Chmielewski’s book “The Pontificate of Crisis”, Esprit Publishing House
The pontificate of the crisis. What will happen to the Church after “Fiducia supplicans”?
This is what Benedict XVI was talking about. PCh24.pl Report
