While reading the Prophecy of the Popes, I noticed that the entry for the 111 Pope in the series reads: Glory of the olive (Gloria oliviae). Wikipedia's article on this subject states: > Proponents of the prophecies generally try to draw a connection between Benedict and the Olivetan order to explain this motto: Benedict's choice of papal name is after Saint Benedict of Nursia, founder of the Benedictine Order, of which the Olivetans are one branch. Other explanations make reference to him as being a pope dedicated to peace and reconciliations of which the olive branch is the symbol. The olive is considered the symbol of peace. >The use of a dove and olive branch as a symbol of peace originated with the early Christians, who portrayed the act of baptism accompanied by a dove holding an olive branch in its beak and also used the image on their sepulchres. The dove appears in many funerary inscriptions in the Roman catacombs, sometimes accompanied by the words in pace (Latin for "in peace"). - Peace symbols (Wikipedia) When Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope, he took the papal name of Francis in honor of **St Francis of Assisi**. Furthermore St Francis of Assisi is also one of the patron saints of peace. My question is quite simple: **Are there any known Catholic authors who have tried to interpret the papal reigns of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis as being a single reign in order to make both of them fit into St Malachy's *Gloria oliviae* of his Prophecy of the Popes?** To be crystal clear, Pope Francis holds the keys of St. Peter and not Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. > “That is what I have said, indeed, that – if one wishes to specify it – it is very clear, the **Plena Potestas, the Plenitudo Potestatis** [full power, incarnate authority] is in the hands of Pope Francis. He is the man who has right now the succession of Peter. And then there are no difficulties left, as I also have said it. These two are also not in a competitive relationship. That is where one has to make use of common sense, as well as the Faith and a little bit of theology. Then one does not have at all difficulties to understand properly [sic] what I have said.” - [Interview: Archbishop Gänswein on Benedict, The Two Popes, and Prophecy](https://onepeterfive.com/interview-archbishop-ganswein-on-benedict-the-two-popes-and-prophecy/)

About an hour into Matt Fradd's [6 hour podcast with Jimmy Akin](https://open.spotify.com/episode/1Pccvj2dLzmowvqIamzm1a?si=b2bbefabd87f4666) , Jimmy says that Pope Benedict XVI wanted to move the sign of peace from its current placement in the Mass to another place. Where did he want to move it to and for what reason - did he want it to be optional or made required?

The following excerpt was copied and pasted from the following webpage on the *Corpus Christi Watershed* website: [More on the subject of “Mutual Enrichment”](https://ccwatershed.org/2020/06/23/more-on-the-subject-of-mutual-enrichment/) : > **A letter of Pope Benedict XVI to bishops, given at Saint Peter’s (7 July 2007), said:** > > > “The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The ECCLESIA DEI COMMISSION, in contact with various bodies devoted to the *usus antiquior*, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, **the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage**. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being **celebrated with great reverence** in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.” I am curious what was meant by the first sentence: "The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: ... some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal." What was meant by "some of the new Prefaces" - I rarely attend the new mass, but when I do, I have not noticed any "preface" lacking from the old.

I am here trying to find sources about Pope Benedictus XVI and his history with Nazism. I don't really have a question, but I thought this would be a great place to find resources on this subject from people who are catholics.

Several years ago, I remember reading the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger in which the Cardinal stated (in essence) that he desired that those who use the Tridentine form of the Mass would use the Liturgical Calendar of 1969 as a sign of unity in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Of course some special provisions would have to be set in place because of the differences between the two forms of the Mass. Does anyone know where I can find the source of this quote? I believe it was in a book(?) from the late 1990s or early 2000s and thus was prior to Cardinal Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict XVI.

I was looking up exorcism stuff on the Vatican website and stumbled across this from (then) Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) > From these prescriptions it follows that it is not even licit that the faithful use the formula of exorcism against Satan and the fallen angels, extracted from the one published by order of the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII, and even less that they use the integral text of this exorcism. Bishops should take care to warn the faithful, if necessary, of this. > > [Letter to Ordinaries regarding norms on Exorcism]( http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19850924_exorcism_en.html) So does that mean that the St. Michael Prayer: > Glorious St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil, and do thou o Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the Earth seeking the ruin of souls. Amen I learned by heart this prayer some 15 years ago and say every time the creepy crawlies pound on my windows at 3 AM is verboten?

In the *Declaratio*, Pope Emeritus Benedictus XVI renounced the exercise of the *munus*, but not the *munus* itself. So what is the *munus* and what are the implications of the renunciation of the exercise alone for the current Pope Francis?

A recent talk by Father Bob Pierson 1 quoted Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict XVI) as saying that the individual conscience *must* overrule ecclesiastical authority. I was intrigued by Pierson's claim and looked up the original source, which is an early commentary2 on [*Gaudium et spes*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudium_et_Spes) , specifically its [Article 16](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html) . I've put the section quoted by Pierson in italics. > For [Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman) , conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle. *Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.* This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will. I am finding the final sentence quite difficult to parse. It seems like he is saying that *genuine* ecclesiastical obedience *does* accept a controlling role for conscience. But then it sounds like one can simultaneously disobey and "genuinely obey", which is odd. Elsewhere in the text, Ratzinger speaks about natural law and the Golden Rule as standards to diagnose and reshape the "erroneous conscience", and it surprised me that he doesn't also mention the Church there. Overall, I think I am missing something basic which would help me to understand what he means in the passage above. So: **What relationship between conscience and Church authority does the Pope actually envisage?** I'm looking for answers that draw on his other writings, up to the present day - in particular, sources that illuminate what he personally thinks, as opposed to those which are primarily about what the Church as a whole accepts. 1. [Video and transcript here](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/12/1099517/-Awesome-Priest-slams-Catholic-Church-on-MN-amendment-says-Catholics-CAN-vote-no) ; I'm linking to Daily Kos because they're the only site I can find which provides a text transcript, not because I endorse Pierson, Kos, etc. The original talk was on homosexual civil marriage, but this question is **emphatically not**; I'm not asking whether he's right or wrong, just using his quotation to ask a different question.
2. Monograph by Joseph Ratzinger collected in *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II*, volume 5, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (Herder and Herder, 1969). Translated by W. J. O'Hara from *Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Dokumente und Kommentare* (1968). The quoted text starts on page 134.

This question contains three parts: 1. How many theologians were censured under Pope John Paul II? (1978-2005) 2. How many theologians were censured under Pope Benedict XVI? (2005-2013) 3. How many theologians were censured under Pope Francis? (2013-Present) Answerers may interpret "censured" as they see fit (e.g. given warnings, forced to retract positions, had teaching faculties revoked, etc.). The more information, the better.

Has Pope Benedict XVI or Pope St. John Paul II written anything extensively (or even informally supported any author) on the subject of the Antichrist and the end times? The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the faithful about the Church's final combat: > 675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. > > 676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism. > > 677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

Archbishop Gänswein: **"Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry"**. In a speech reflecting on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has confirmed the existence of a group who fought against Benedict’s election in 2005, but stressed that "Vatileaks" or other issues had "little or nothing" to do with his resignation in 2013. Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.” Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty. “Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.” [Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry](http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/archbishop-gaenswein-recalls-dramatic-struggle-of-2005-conclave) It would seeems that Catholic Church really have Two Popes both functioning and having a universal power emanating from the Chair of Peter since 2013. Does the Vatican II Church affirmed the view of Arch.Ganswein on the expanded Petrine Ministry?

I read that Cardinal Ratzinger stated the story in Genesis 1 and 2 should not be interpreted as a literal account of the beginning of things. In spite of recent events like this, they have always been in favour of a literal explanation of creation based on Genesis. This is what I read. Why does Ratzinger hold this view on such an important matter?

I'm reading Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives" and he indicates how Gabriel appeared to Zachariah in the evening. Also Gabriel appears to Daniel (Dn 9, 21) at the same hour: > As I was yet speaking in prayer, behold the man, Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, flying swiftly, touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice. Now, I can't confirm that Gabriel appeared to Zachariah in the evening sacrifice, because there apparently were two "incense sacrifices in a day", one in the morning and another in the evening. But it would make sense if it was in the evening. Things get more interesting. We only know of Gabriel because of the book of Daniel and because of these two apparitions in Luke. Two of them apparently happened in the evening. What about Mary? Benedict XVI doesn't say as far as I've read but he points out to Psalm 141, 2: >Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight; the lifting up of my hands, as evening sacrifice. The question therefore is: Do we know of any biblical text that says if Mary was praying before Gabriel's apparition? What about any interpreters, commentaries or traditions that made a case for it? Thank you all and God bless you.

Currently the Catholic Church has a Pope Emeritus (Benedict XVI). This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time that such position has existed. There have been and still are plenty of bishop emeritus elsewhere, but this is the first time it happens in the diocese of Rome. Is he infallible? This is more of an hypothetical question, as it seems unlikely Benedict XVI will ever attempt to speak about moral or faith issues _ex cathedra_. So far, he has rather kept a very low public profile. If he ever tries to, it will probably be with the consent (and perhaps sponsorship, if not directly under the name) of the Pope. My guess is that he is not. In [my view](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/68572/22426) , the Chair of St. Peter is occupied by Pope Francis and not by Benedict XVI, so he has lost the infallible protection the Holy Spirit gives to the occupier of that Chair. But maybe I'm wrong. Any ideas?

While I was reading [Caritas in Veritate](http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html) , an encyclical letter by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, I found this fragment: > Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, **he finds his truth**, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32). What does it mean to find one's truth? To what truth was Pope Benedict XVI alluding in that fragment?

"In his 2011 book, Pope Benedict XVI, besides repudiating placing blame on the Jewish people, questioned the historicity of the passage found only in the Gospel of Matthew which has the crowd saying, "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children" (Wikipedia ). How does this questioning fit in with the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy? * To make a clarification: I do not believe in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus then, or at any point of time. I do not believe in collective guilt at all for that matter.

I have heard, according to Roman Catholic professors and dogma, that if we die with a mortal sin on our soul we will go to hell. However, didn't Pope Benedict XVI say that Protestants can achieve heaven? Most Protestants will never receive Reconciliation, so doesn't this imply that those who have mortal sin can still achieve heaven?

In his 2012 Christmas address , Pope Benedict XVI said: > According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as > male and female pertains to the **essence** of the human creature. The use of the word "essence" puzzles me here. I wonder whether gender is a property of essence or existence. Does gender still exist in Heaven? Isn't gender a property of the body rather than an attribute of each being? If so, gender is tied to existence. What is official Catholic teaching on this?

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14925/does-the-pope-get-paid-for-being-the-pope The above question is answered very well and shows that the Pope genuinely has no personal assets. He is well cared for by the Vatican. But what about the recently resigned Pope Benedict. He is no longer Pope and likely has very little or even no personal assets. What will happen to him? This is interesting to know because I think only two or three Popes have actually ever resigned. Most die in office. So there is no Papal retirement fund and I would think not really any official or traditional way of handling this.

In response to my earlier question , **apocalypse_info_click_here** answered: > While that article in particular is a hoax... Each point in particular > has been made and is old news. > > - Benedict XVI said that Genesis is based on a myth > - Benedict XVI said that Heaven and Hell are not actual places > - Benedict XVI abolished Limbo of the Children. > - Francis says that atheists can be saved. > > Benedict XVI called Genesis a rehashing of pagan myths The pagan > creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based end > without exception in the establishment of a cult, but the cult in this > case is situated in the cycle of the do ut des.” “Cardinal” Joseph > Ratzinger, A New Song for the Lord, 1995, p. 86: > > Benedict XVI abolished the Limbo of the Children and rejects infant > baptism "This state people called limbo. In the course of our > century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was > one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing > infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable" > “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 401: I'm a Catholic, and I'd like to know what the Catholic Church says about these controversial statements.