I contend that Pope Benedict XVI never validly resigned the Papacy in 2013. While much ink has correctly been spilled on explaining the distinction between munus and ministerio to show this, the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) teaches certain things that reveal another avenue to reaching the same conclusion that I think needs more exposure.1
Introduction and Background
Let’s recall the English translation of the specific legal act of attempted resignation in the February 11, 2013 Declaratio as published on the Vatican’s website:
“For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is (emphasis added).”
While this was the purported official act of resignation, Benedict provides some context. Relevant for this essay was his statement in the Declaratio:
“I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me (emphasis added).”
Re-read what Benedict is saying. Notice how Benedict says that the Petrine Ministry is essentially spiritual in nature but then speaks of needing strength of body and mind to “govern.” Clearly, Benedict distinguishes between the governing (juridical) and spiritual nature of the Petrine Ministry. He views them as different functions of one overarching Petrine Ministry.
If Benedict only resigned the active governing component of what he calls the Petrine Ministry, but retained some other aspect, then the resignation would be invalid and he remained the Pope even if he continued to recognize Francis as the only Pope.
This is because the First Vatican Council (Vatican I) taught us infallibly in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus that “by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd.” There cannot, therefore, be multiple members of the Papacy that perform different functions.
Unfortunately, as is the case with many other aspects of the faith, Vatican II sought to change what the Church believes. The Papacy and episcopacy did not escape the Council’s wrath.
In this essay, I want to dive deeper into the Modernist underpinnings of what was really going on with Benedict’s failed partial attempt to resign the Papacy in 2013. The root of this idea can be found in the documents of Vatican II and how the Church, as a result, subsequently understood the title “Emeritus,” which Benedict assigned to himself.
In doing so, it will become clearer what Pope Benedict was attempting to achieve with the Declaratio, even if his goal was impossible.
Episcopal Governing Power in Lumen Gentium
In a previous essay, I explained the error of collegiality and how it directly contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church. According to Lumen Gentium in paragraph 21:
“And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college (emphasis added).” [i]
The error here is that the three-fold power of the sanctifying, teaching, and governing is not conferred on the bishop by virtue of his episcopal consecration. In fact, at the time of consecration, a bishop only receives the power to sanctify (confer sacraments) as he receives the fullness of sacramental orders.
Consequently, according to the well-established teaching of the Catholic Church, and contrary to the teaching of Lumen Gentium, the power of teaching and governing (or jurisdiction) is conferred on bishops only and directly from the Pope, not automatically upon being consecrated a bishop.
We know Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, was a man of the Council. He became a peritus at the council (theology expert), and was an adviser to a liberal Cardinal Frings, the head of the German conference of bishops. Significantly, Pope Benedict demonstrated his knowledge and agreement with the teaching in Lumen Gentium that a bishop’s teaching and governing authority is received at his consecration. In a 2007 letter to the bishops in China, Benedict stated:
“As in the rest of the world, in China too the Church is governed by Bishops who, through episcopal ordination conferred upon them by other validly ordained Bishops, have received, together with the sanctifying office, the offices of teaching and governing the people entrusted to them in their respective particular Churches, with a power that is conferred by God through the grace of the sacrament of Holy Orders (emphasis added).”[ii]
If the power of teaching and governing is a power conferred by God through the sacrament of Holy Orders, then no Pope could ever remove that grace. A Pope may limit or prohibit its exercise, but the power and dignity itself is permanent—a forever. At least that is what Lumen Gentium taught, and more importantly, it is what Benedict believed.
Pope Benedict’s “Always and Forever”
In his last general audience on February 27, 2013, Pope Benedict recalled April of 2005 when he was elected to the Papacy:
“Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated (emphasis added).”
Here, we see that Benedict clearly views the election to the Papacy as a permanent charism in some sense. At this point, one could argue that Benedict is simply referring to a permanent lack of privacy given his position. But, Benedict goes on to state:
“The “always” is also a “forever” – 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 for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter (emphasis added).”
If Benedict was only speaking about privacy, he would not have clarified that he remains in the service of prayer, a specific function of the Petrine Ministry he outlined in the Declaratio (see above.). While this language still comes across as superfluous and confusing, his choice of words makes more sense when read in the context of a particular 2008 Vatican document that explains the title “Emeritus.”
History of the “Emeritus” Title
Before we dive into the 2008 document, it is important to note that the title “Emeritus” is a novelty created after Vatican II. On October 31, 1970, Pope Paul VI created the title when he declared “diocesan bishops of the Latin rite who resign are no longer transferred to a titular church, but instead continue to be identified by the name of the see they have resigned.”[iii]
Prior to 1970, the retired bishop of a diocese was assigned to one of the titular sees for dioceses that no longer exist. Auxiliary bishops today are assigned such titular sees. Bishop Ordinaries who resigned in the past were assigned one of these sees. However, now the Ordinary of a see who submits his resignation to the Pope, and if it is accepted, is designated “bishop emeritus” of the see he vacated.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law was updated to account for this new title “Emeritus.” Canon 185 provides:
“The title of emeritus can be conferred upon a person who loses an office by reason of age or of resignation which has been accepted.”
Two items of note about this canon. In Latin, the term used for “office” is not munus, but officium. Second, this provision cannot possibly apply to the Pope because a Pope cannot lose the Papacy by reason of age or by resignation, which has been accepted. A Pope’s resignation is never accepted.[iv]
In fact, canon law does not even contemplate a Pope would assume the title “Pope Emeritus.” Archbishop Georg Gänswein, who will be discussed below, admits as much when he said in May 2016:
“on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, [Pope Benedict] introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of “pope emeritus[.]”
Furthermore, as we shall see, assuming the title Emeritus does mean one is really retired at all. According to the Church’s current understanding, adopting the title Emeritus suggests the bishop only resigned his jurisdiction—that is, his governing power— of the diocese. It leaves the door open for performing other episcopal functions in the same diocese that he used to govern.
Il Vescovo Emerito (2008)
Il Vescovo Emerito (The Bishop Emeritus) was an Italian book length document produced by the Congregation for Bishops in 2008. The book appears to remain only available in Italian. It followed on the heels of the 2004 document “Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops ‘Apostolorum Successores,’”[v] which included a chapter on the rights of a bishop emeritus.[vi]
Unlike the 2004 document, Il Vescovo Emerito goes beyond listing the legal rights of a bishop emeritus. It explains in more depth the nature of the bishop emeritus role, including his relationship to the last diocese he no longer governs.
It is quite astonishing to see that the language used in this document clearly influenced the thoughts of Pope Benedict, especially when he was formulating the language he used in the Declaratio as well as his explanation at the February 27, 2013 audience.
In full disclosure, I have not had this document professionally translated from Italian to English. The following quotes in English are based on using Google Translate. As such, there may be errors, but I left the translation exactly as Google gave it to me. Regardless, it is obvious that Pope Benedict had the concepts contained in this document in mind when he elected to adopt the title “Emeritus.”
First, it is important to set forth how the Congregation for Bishops views the authority of the document itself.
“This publication simply aims to collect in an organic form, as far as possible, the main provisions in force, together with some reflections born of experience, which intend to help live intensely the collegial affection and ministry that Bishops Emeritus can and must still exercise for the benefit of the universal and particular Church and, in the case of religious Bishops Emeritus, also for the benefit of their institutions.”[vii]
With this in mind, even though it is not part of the Church’s official magisterial teaching, it provides a useful lens for interpreting Benedict’s attempted resignation as the Bishop of Rome and the adoption of Emeritus. Here are some select quotes. All emphases are mine:
“The Bishop Emeritus no longer has any power of jurisdiction over the particular Church, which was entrusted to him, but he retains the power of orders, that is, the grace and sacramental character of the Episcopate remain in him, on which possible specific tasks and missions still reliable [sic] to him are adequately based.”[viii]
“In other words, the Bishop always remains Bishop and is not like an official who leaves work at a certain age. With regard to the particular Church of which he was Bishop, the Emeritus continues his service in prayer and in other tasks provided for by law.”[ix]
“From a theological point of view, the Bishop, even if emeritus, retains forever the responsibility and the sacred power received in episcopal ordination regarding the tria munera of teaching, sanctifying and spiritually guiding and in continuing to “care” as a good Shepherd of all the Churches (cf. ECor 125).”[x]
“The attribution of this title [Bishop Emeritus] to Bishops is not only something formal. In addition to expressing the Bishop’s ties with what was his diocese, it attributes other rights and duties inherent to the new status of emeritus. In fact, the legal institution of episcopal emeritus only in some aspects and to a limited extent coincides with retirement and retirement, regulated by civil legislation and also by canon law for other ecclesiastical offices. … With the emeritus, however, there is only the cessation of jurisdiction over the office held, which becomes vacant. The Bishop emeritus, while losing this last competence, retains other bonds, in particular the affective ones that bind him to the particular Church, remaining inserted in the College of Bishops.”[xi]
Pope Benedict as “Emeritus”
On May 20, 2016, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Pope Benedict’s personal secretary, explained that
“Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock.”
“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.’”
Archbishop Gänswein explains the use of “emeritus”:
“in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first ‘pope emeritus.’ Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit…”[xiii]
In an interview with Peter Seewald[xiv], Benedict was asked “What is an emeritus bishop or Pope?” Benedict responded, in part:
“The word ‘emeritus’ meant that he was no longer the active holder of the bishopric, but remained in a special relationship to it as its former bishop… This real, but hitherto legally unrecognized, relationship to a former see is the new meaning of ‘emeritus’ acquired after Vatican II”.
Seewald then asks, “But does that apply to the Pope?” Benedict responds, in part
“it is hard to understand why this legal concept should not also be applied to the Bishop of Rome. In this formula both things are implied: no actual legal authority any longer but a spiritual relationship which remains even if it is invisible. This legal-spiritual formula avoids any idea of there being two popes at the same time: a bishopric can only have one incumbent. But that formula also expresses a spiritual link, which cannot ever be taken away.”
While some people use this statement as proof that Benedict never believed there were two popes at the same time, all it actually proves is that that Benedict never believed two individuals were governing the See of Rome at the same time. This still leaves the door open for him to exercise other non-juridical aspects of the Petrine Ministry. Benedict is applying the term “Pope” to the juridical aspect of the “Petrine Ministry,” but still accepts other functions that he believes exists as a result of Vatican II.
If this was not the case, then all Benedict had to do when he resigned was simply state: “I hereby resign the office of the Papacy with all its rights, duties, and privileges.” But he did not do that. Probably, because he did not think he could.
This novelty arising from Vatican II’s view of the role of bishop, including the Bishop of Rome according to Benedict, must be why Archbishop Gänswein admitted what Benedict attempted to do in the Declaratio was new.
Summary and Conclusion
Many faithful Catholics struggle with this idea that Pope Benedict XVI never resigned the Papacy in 2013. In part, I believe this is because most Catholics, even those who are not traditional, view the Papacy through the lens of Vatican I, as they should! But we live in a post-Vatican II world, where the Modernists left virtually nothing about the Church’s teachings or her ecclesiology untouched.
Pope Benedict was a German Vatican II theology expert. A particularly important novelty that occurred in Lumen Gentium was the idea that a bishop receives his authority to teach and govern directly from God at his consecration, not the Pope. Consequently, there is an inherent sacramental quality to the functions of the episcopacy that the Church never previously recognized.
In the past, once a bishop retired, he was assigned to a non-existent see and lived out his days presumably without any formal connection to the diocese he once governed. But all this changed after the Council.
Pope Paul VI and the 1983 Code of Canon Law instituted the title “Emeritus,” which recognized the sacramental quality to the retired bishop’s ministry and his connection to the see he once actively governed. In other words, the title “Emeritus” only exists precisely to emphasize the ongoing role a retired bishop plays in the diocese he previously governed as the Ordinary. Canon Law did not provide such a title for the Pope, and so it becomes quite a unique problem if a bishop happens to be the Bishop of Rome!
Before Vatican II, this would not have been an issue. The Church always taught the Papacy was a purely juridical (not sacramental) office, and once resigned, presumably the former Pope would have been assigned as a bishop to a titular see like everyone else. But under the novelties created by Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, the regular course of action would seem to suggest a retired Bishop of Rome also adopt the “Emeritus” title.
As Il Vescovo Emerito explains, the bishop emeritus retains “ties with what was his diocese,” and maintains “other rights and duties inherent to the new status of emeritus.” It is undisputed that “[t]he Bishop Emeritus no longer has any power of jurisdiction over the particular Church [the diocese], which was entrusted to him.” However, now, he “retains the power of orders…on which possible specific tasks and missions still reliable [sic] to him are adequately based.”
Significantly, and this is key, “there is only the cessation of jurisdiction over the office held, which becomes vacant. The bishop emeritus, while losing this last competence, retains other bonds, in particular the affective ones that bind him to the particular Church.”
What was Benedict attempting to accomplish on February 11, 2013 in the Declaratio when he declared “I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome?” He was resigning from the ministry, or function, of governing the diocese of Rome, and necessarily, the universal Church. According to the understanding of the Church since the institution of the “Emeritus” title in 1970 by Pope Paul VI, this means ONLY the jurisdiction over the office, or governing authority, is given up that is eventually assigned to someone else. In that sense, the office becomes vacant. Other quasi-sacramental aspects of his role as Bishop of Rome remain, albeit in a new way.
As Benedict explained in his final audience on February 27, 2013, and as Archbishop Gänswein later confirmed, Benedict only resigned the active or governing aspect of the Petrine Ministry (the new modernist term for the Papacy), while continuing to serve in a passive, spiritual, or contemplative role. In other words, he only resigned a particular function (ministerio) of the Papacy. [xv]
Clearly, in Benedict’s opinion, the Bishopric of Rome could not be divorced from the Papacy. It makes all the sense in the world when one views Benedict’s partial resignation in this context, that he would call himself “Pope Emeritus.” In doing so, he tells us a lot about how he viewed the purpose and end-goal of his Declaratio.
Had Benedict believed he could resign all aspects of the Papal office as was the case before Vatican II, it would have been quite easy to do. It seems, however, that Benedict believed by virtue of his consecration as a bishop and assignment to the Bishopric of Rome (i.e the Papacy), he forever maintained some level of connection to the office, which the title Emeritus reasonably accounted for, even though no such provision existed in Canon Law.
At the end of the day, of course, what Benedict attempted to do was impossible. There is only one Pope, and he is the supreme teacher and governor of the universal Church as Vatican I taught.
There never was a Pope Emeritus in history, or bishop emeritus before 1970 for that matter, because the Church’s teaching on the nature of the episcopacy changed at Vatican II, contrary to the Church’s Tradition. Any attempt to expand the juridical office of the Papacy into a broader Petrine Ministry and then divide it among multiple members (even if only one is called Pope) to serve various functions is impossible and constitutes a substantial error under Code of Canon Law 188. Such an attempted act of resignation is automatically invalid.
And of course, all of this is extremely important because if Benedict never resigned the Papacy in 2013, then the subsequent conclave that elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not really a valid conclave at all.
[i] Lumen Gentium, 21.
[ii] Benedict XVI, “Letter to the Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China” (May 27, 2007).
[iii] S. Congregazione per i Vescovi. “Il Sistema Dell’organizzazione Ecclesiastica.” Communicationes 19 (1978): 18. https://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2004-03/31-13/ComRenun.pdf.
[iv] See Canon 332 § 2.
[v] “Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops ‘Apostolorum Successores,’” n.d. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20040222_apostolorum-successores_en.html#Chapter_IX.
[vi] Such rights include the right to remain living in the diocese he formerly governed, offer sacraments, funeral rights, etc. These are legal rights enshrined in the Code of Canon Law.
[vii] Congregazione per I Vescovi, Il Vescovo Emerito, 2008. Pg. 8.
[viii] Ibid. pg. 4.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ibid., pg. 27-29
[xii] Ibid., pg. 29.
[xiii] Aleteia — Catholic Spirituality, Lifestyle, World News, and Culture. “Complete English Text: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s ‘Expanded Petrine Office’ Speech,” May 30, 2016. https://aleteia.org/2016/05/30/complete-english-text-archbishop-georg-gansweins-expanded-petrine-office-speech.
[xiv] Anton, Emil. “Benedict XVI: A Life. Volume 2, Professor and Prefect to Pope and Pope Emeritus 1966–The Present by Peter Seewald (Review).” Nova Et Vetera 22, no. 1 (January 1, 2024): pg. 669.
[xv] For more background on the modernist “Petrine Ministry” versus the Vatican I version of the Papacy, check out https://catholicesquire.org/millers-dissertation-benedicts-incomplete-resignation/
- The author is indebted to the work of Dr. Edmund Mazza on this topic. Those seeking more information on this topic should purchase his book The Third Secret of Fatima & The Synodal Church: VOL. I Pope Benedict’s Resignation. ↩︎