Is Pope Leo XIV Legitimate?
The fact that I am still dealing with this matter three months after Cardinal Robert Prevost was elected is unbelievable to me.Just as I was publishing a brief synopsis of Pope Leo's activities, someone forwarded me an interview with Dr. Edmund Mazza, who asserts that the popeship has been vacant since Benedict XVI.
Yes, I understand.Not only is Francis not the true pope, but neither is his immediate successor.
Sede vacante, literally "empty seat," describes the current situation in which Peter's chair is empty.
Prior to Benedict XVI's resignation, for whom I was working, I hadn't truly considered this matter.
Keep in mind that Benedict's choice to abdicate in 2013 was nearly unique, so he had several crucial decisions to make.He was a highly bright and religious man, so he did not take them lightly.For months, he spoke privately with a small group of eminent theologians and canon lawyers to ensure he was acting correctly and not interfering with the election of his legitimately elected successor, whoever that may have been.
He would be called "Pope Emeritus." Two days prior to his official retirement on February 28th, 2013, it was revealed that Benedict will keep his papal name (i.e., "Benedict" instead of reverting back to "Joseph Ratzinger").
I remember coming across prominent church historian Walter Brandmüller, whom Benedict had named Cardinal in 2010, in the sacristy of Saint Peter's Basilica the very next day.He was allegedly displeased with both Benedict's decision to leave and his adoption of the title "pope emeritus."The latter, the Cardinal claimed, had no precedent in Church history and would generate severe problems in the future, perhaps leading to a schism.
We had a brief conversation, and I'll admit that I empathized with his worries and still do.Things came to a climax four years later, following an interview Cardinal Brandmüller had given to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, in which he reaffirmed his misgivings regarding both Benedict's departure and the "Pope Emeritus" title.This spurred Benedict to write a personal letter to the Cardinal in which, among other things, he expressed dismay that the Cardinal should make his worries public and provoke confusion.In typical fashion, Benedict stated that he preferred the Cardinal to meet with him directly and recommend a better title, if he had one.In Brandmüller's response to Benedict, he reassured the Pope Emeritus that he would be more cautious with his public words in the future.
There are other noteworthy aspects of Brandmüller's perspective on the issue and his relationship to Benedict, but suffice it to say that not once did the Cardinal ever dispute the legality of Benedict's resignation."Sedevacantists" who appeal to him to buttress their theory that the throne of Peter is currently vacant have virtually nothing to stand on.
So, what does Mazza stand for?
There are so many dubious reasons that here I must limit myself to one.
Mazza joins several other sedevacantists in relying on a discussion Ratzinger's long-time personal assistant Georg Gänswein—now Archbishop and Apostolic Nuncio (i.e., papal representative) to Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia—gave at the Pontifical Gregorian University in 2016.
The media naturally picked up on a vague assertion Gänswein made about a "de facto expansion" or "widening" of the Petrine ministry that Benedict had effected, including "an active member" (i.e., Francis) and a "contemplative member" (i.e., Benedict), which in turn made space for a "new phase in the history of the papacy."Gänswein then dissects and analyzes the details of Benedict's resignation and the way the Pope Emeritus has been serving the Church since then.
Rather than bore you with the details (which are nonetheless interesting), I will simply draw your attention to the first half of the very same sentence that almost no sedevacantist seems to touch: "From the election of (Benedict's) successor on March 13th, 2013, there are not two popes (italics mine)."
As if we needed additional clarity, allow me to offer a paragraph from Gänswein's memoirs, which I had the honor of translating for St. Augustine's Press (Who Believes Is Not Alone).
Gänswein explains that, in the talk—which he gave in the context of a book-launching event for Fr. Roberto Regoli's fine history of Benedict's pontificate, which I also had the honor of translating (Beyond the Crises in the Church)—he dared to use the phrase "a wider Petrine mission," because he thought
"… it was a useful metaphor to express the novelty of the ecclesial situation in which we were living, and I have to add that I didn't observe any significant reactions when I used it at the conference.Over time, however, others pounced on the opportunity to develop my remarks in different directions."
He goes on to clarify that
"… I always shared my public speeches with the Pope Emeritus only after I had given them because I didn't want him to feel obligated to assume a professorial role, but also to affirm unambiguously that I was expressing my own thoughts and was not in any way acting surreptitiously as his spokesperson, as many hypothesized."
Bottom line: Gänswein just sought to establish a minor distinction that may assist in explaining how Ratzinger, as previous pope, could continue contributing to the Petrine service in retirement through a life of prayer and thought.
If we need further evidence that Benedict himself roughly viewed this as his role, we need only recall what he said at his last General Audience on February 27th: "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."
One final note about Prof. Mazza's befuddling logic.In the same recent interview with Stephen Kokx that I noted above, Mazza offers a confusing story about a young Professor Joseph Ratzinger embracing his colleague Karl Rahner's idea of a "shared papacy," i.e., that the papacy may be handled by a "collective authority-bearing agent."This, apparently, is heresy.
Again, I won't bore you—let alone horribly confuse you—with the minutiae, but I must point out a glaring non sequitur.
Pope Francis, Mazza constantly maintains, was a heretic.He takes Francis's heresy to establish that, even if he were pope (but he's not—remember?—because Benedict's resignation wasn't authentic), the Church would owe him no allegiance.
So, since Ratzinger not only shared this heretical vision of a "shared papacy" with Rahner but also used it to justify his departure in 2013, how could the Church have given him any more loyalty than it owed Francis?Wouldn't that make the last pope John Paul II?
Please, don't spend much time trying to understand Prof. Mazza's rambling logic.It won't get you anywhere.
Yes, there was a time when there were three contenders to the papacy (a story for another day), but have no fear.We have one lawfully elected pope, and his name is Leo XIV.
