It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
ARISTOTLE
One of the downsides of my writing and publishing schedule is that it makes me unable to respond to things as they happen or in a quick manner. Most of these posts get written and stored for publication at a later time. I decided that the posts that pleased me most had an evergreen quality about them as opposed to the filler posts that had the shelf life of a ripe banana. There is one upside to this slow roll of blogging. It gives me time to think and reflect without jumping to conclusions or making a fool of myself as new information rolls in.
This post is a response to these two items:
Unpublished Letter from Benedict XVI: "My Resignation Is Fully Valid"
Leaked Benedict XVI Letter Ends the Resignation Debate
The gist of this news is that a letter from Ratzinger to Bux puts a dagger into the heart of the argument that Benedict XVI invalidly resigned which made Jorge Bergoglio an antipope. I do not know if the Benevacantist argument is dead, but it would appear to be mortally wounded. I have waited for Ann Barnhardt, the biggest defender of Benevacantism, to issue some sort of response on her blog or on her podcast, but no response exists as I write this. Naturally, this deafening silence delights the popesplainer Michael Lofton who is gloating as hard as he can.
My own position has been the 99% position of agreeing with Ann Barnhardt but reserving final judgment to the Church itself. I have taken a lot of flak for this "wish washy" position, but I have a good reason for being this way. I don't know everything. I don't have all of the information. I also listen to both sides of a debate. I have been wrong before on many issues. I am also a Roman Catholic who has sworn allegiance and obedience to the Church and to the Vicar of Christ. I am with Michael Matt that these final and definitive judgments are above my pay grade. All I have are suspicions and private opinions.
If this leaked letter is genuine and not a forgery, this tilts my opinion on the matter far to the other side of believing that the resignation was valid. Even here, I am not 100% in this position for the same reason I was not 100% on board with the Benevacantist argument. How did we get here? Let's recap:
1. Ratzinger kept wearing a white cassock and doing pope things.
2. Ratzinger is on record as entertaining the idea that the papacy could be split.
3. Bergoglio was a material heretic.
Ultimately, the fault for this confusion lies with Ratzinger. My opinion of the man is greatly diminished, and I agree with Raymond Arroyo that the resignation was a disaster. Ratzinger shouldn't have resigned at all. If a pope does resign, he shouldn't do it the way it was done.
What I can say is that this whole fiasco has done great damage to the papacy and to the faithful. If a true pope, Bergoglio has shown just how bad a pope can be. Ironically, it is only slightly worse than his predecessors. I reject the sedevacantist arguments, but I can agree that every pope since Pius XII has been a bad pope. This includes John Paul the "Great."
Many point to Vatican II as being the dumpster fire, but I think we can go back to Vatican I to see where the initial spark began. Neither council promulgated heresy, but the errors come from how they have been interpreted. With papal infallibility, I think the error comes from a wide and loose interpretation of that infallibility. A tight interpretation would be that the Pope is only infallible when he issues a proclamation ex cathedra. These proclamations have been rare and remain so.
The Pope can only put ditto marks on the Magisterium. Bergoglio has shown that a pope can err in this regard if he was truly Pope. But we can also point to others to get that idea even if Bergoglio gets declared to be an antipope at some future date. The problem we have here is papolatry. We are guilty of giving too much authority and reverence to the man sitting in the chair. The fact is that Peter and all his successors have made messes from time to time. Declaring Bergoglio an antipope is a nice way to keep the papolatry alive. Why not let it die?
I am used to bad bosses and bad political leaders. I am used to bad priests and bad bishops. Why not accept that there are bad popes? Why not check their words against what the Church has always taught? Why not declare what we all know? When the Pope errs, he errs. I write this now as Leo is on record denying the miracles of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. The man gives all indications of being just another bad pope.
I don't know what else will come out concerning the Benevacantist argument. I am just glad that I have the update option. As new information comes in and people respond, I will tag it in future updates to this post.
Finally, I remain a Roman Catholic and subject to the supreme pontiff. Every so often, we get a good pope, but I am unlikely to live to see one in my lifetime. It doesn't matter to my faith. I will endure the disgrace of it all until it is over. Schism and apostasy are not options for me.
UPDATE #1: Miss Barnhardt published this blog post pertaining to Pope Leo XIV who she declares to be an antipope:
Someone should remind Antipope Prevost that St. Paul explicitly states that the mere TOLERANCE of sodomy is a capital crime. As in, death penalty on the table.
I agree with Miss B. on virtually everything in the post except the declaration of Prevost to be an antipope. Now, she made her case for Bergoglio being an antipope on the basis of an invalid resignation. Yet, Ratzinger and Bergoglio were both deceased upon the election of Prevost to the papacy. This leaves Barnhardt and Co. to confect a new argument arguing for a second antipapacy. At some point, I have to ask a question. What makes Ann Barnhardt not a sedevacantist? Even the sedevacantists are asking that question.
I suspect that Ann is heading down the road to schism much like the sedevacantists have done. I believe that popes can be really bad and still be the Pope. Ultimately, we are being picky over who we will accept as a valid pope as opposed to just calling them bad popes. I suspect Prevost of being an active sodomite, but he wouldn't be the first of those to occupy the chair if we believe the rumors concerning Paul VI.
UPDATE #2: Here's another one from Barnhardt:
Keep talkin’, Bobby. Antipope “FtR” Prevost leaves zero room for doubt. “We have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question.”
I am going to make the call. Ann Barnhardt is a sedevacantist. She can mark her papal timeline differently, but she is fundamentally on the same page as the SSPV. I don't dispute the material heresy of Prevost, but this does not make him an antipope. This is because this sort of thing goes back in time before even Vatican II. Prevost's blunder is to give interviews to the press. This was Bergoglio's blunder. Popes should be seen and not heard except for homilies and encyclicals.
When a pope becomes a formal heretic, this is another matter. The problem is that no one is above the Pope except the Lord Jesus Christ. This is why we say that no one can judge the Pope. Basically, a Pope can be in error, but there is no one to make that call except the Pope himself. This is the essence of monarchy. The Roman Catholic Church is a monarchy.
UPDATE #3: Barnhardt has produced another podcast fully explaining why she considers Prevost to be an antipope:
Barnhardt Podcast Episode #235: Prevost is an Antipope. Let’s talk.
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2025/09/23/barnhardt-podcast-episode-235-prevost-is-an-antipope-lets-talk/
Basically, she signs off on the Mazza thesis that a heretic cannot be a Pope. She goes one step further and fundamentally says that anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion on an antipope is risking eternal damnation. I just have to shake my head on this.
The one guy who gets it right IMHO is Bishop Athanasius Schneider with his "recognize and resist" position which comes from St. Paul's confrontation with Peter. Schneider disagrees with the Benevacantist argument, and I consider him to be a wiser and holier person than Miss Barnhardt. But Schneider doesn't go so far as someone like Michael Matt telling everyone in Traddie Land to "zip it."
The one thing I can say about Prevost is that he has uttered heretical things. We can safely reject those things. This is essentially the recognize and resist position of Bishop Schneider and Saint Paul.
UPDATE #4: Barnhardt answers the question on why she is not a sedevacantist like those other sedevacantists who believe the See to have been vacant since 1958:
Q&A: So why is “FtR” Prevost an Antipope, but John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII and BXVI were valid popes? In other words, why has the Petrine See been vacant only since 31 December ARSH 2022 and not since ARSH 1958?
The gist of the argument is that "none of the post-conciliar, pre-Bergoglian popes ever denied an infallibly defined dogma of the faith." I find this argument to be a weak one at best. I am not a sede, but I would have to ask what infallibly defined dogmas of the faith that Leo has denied. Until he issues an encyclical, his errors are on par with his predecessors.
******************************
Why the “Bifurcated-Papacy” Still Matters.
Was Benedict's Resignation Invalid? Stephen Kokx with Dr. Edmund Mazza
Nicola Bux’s Eleven-Year Deception
Barnhardt Podcast #232: Comic Bux
Barnhardt Podcast #233: The Surreptitious Social Life of Ann
We now know, unequivocally, that Cardinal Burke and Msgr Bux were informed years ago about the reality and root cause of the Bergoglian Antipapcy
God's Prophecies For Cardinal Burke...
“In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent”
