"Peter, this is the Lord himself! Abandon the position!" When a Future Pope Pretended to be God to Get a Current Pope to Resign

Tweet

Benedict attending the remains of Pope Celestine V

Before Benedict XVI, in the almost 2,000 year history of the papacy, as many as ten popes may have abdicated or resigned. I say "may have" because most of the "resignations" are historically uncertain. What is known is that, assuming the truth of each resignation account, all but one occurred due to circumstances of violence or political necessity or pressure.

The only "peaceful" resignation was that which has the least attestation - John XVIII (1004-1009), who according to one (and only one) source voluntarily chose to end his life as a monk.

Pontian (230-235) and Marcellinus (296-304) were arrested, tortured and executed by Roman authorities, possibly abdicating before the end. If Liberius (352-355 or 352-366) resigned (which the Church itself and most historians now dispute) it was due to being exiled by the Arian emperor Constantius II. The unfortunate Benedict V (964, 1 month) was deposed by Emperor Otto. Sylvester III (1045, 1 month), Gregory VI (1045-1046) and Benedict IX (three non-consecutive reigns from 1032-1048 involving at least two abdications) all resigned due to the complex and violent political and family rivalries of the time. Gregory XII (1406-1415) resigned to end the Western Schism.

Arrest, torture, banishment, Italians fighting, schism.

Benedict XVI claimed that he resigned partly because he didn't feel up to attending World Youth Day. This is one reason why some people are a bit put off by the whole thing.

But I digress.

Perhaps the most interesting confirmed papal resignation story is that of Celestine V (1294, 161 days), the reluctant hermit pope.

"Peter of Murrone" was a celebrated monk who had founded a new Benedictine order that would later take his papal name.

In 1294 he was 79 years old and living in a hut on top of a mountain in Abruzzo.

In the meantime, the cardinals in Rome had been deadlocked for two years on electing a new pope after the death of Nicholas IV in 1292. It is recorded that Peter himself had warned them that Christ would take vengeance if they didn't quickly come to a decision.

This may have been a mistake.

The cardinals chose Peter.

In one of his popular histories of the Church, Malachi Martin colorfully describes the cardinals and others scrambling up to reach Peter and inform him of their decision. May I be forgiven for observing that it reads like something out of Monty Python:

One fine day in the year 1294, Peter had some visitors. Climbing laboriously up his mountain came three bishops, a Roman senator, a cardinal with his retinue, a group of noblemen and knights, and several thousand people. They suddenly invaded the mountainside clamoring for his approval, begging him in the name of Jesus to utter the magic words: "I accept the grade of Pope."

...A young monk rushed in whispering that the "Saracens were invading the monastery." Up the mountainside outside Peter's tiny hut about 7,000 people were led by mounted knights, the three bishops, and the cardinal, all at the end of their tether, each one intent on being the first to reach the pope-elect. Peter's hut was obvious to them. The oldest of the bishops advanced, peered in through the little opening and found himself looking at the haggard face and timid gaze of a very old man. "Peter, our beloved brother, it has seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit to choose your Excellency as successor of Peter the Apostle, Rector of the Universal Church, and Father of all mankind. Do you accept?" A shout went up from the 7,000: "Long live Pope Peter, our Father. Long live the Bishop of Rome! Long live Peter!"

It took Peter only a few minutes. His monks, now free of their initial fright, ran from their hiding places, shouting: "The Call! The Call! The Prophetic Kingdom is here! The Call! The Call!"

The waiting cardinal and bishops saw Peter's eyes gazing meditatively on the crowds, then up over their heads to the surrounding mountains and the skies. Certainly there was peace in his hermitage, the face of the sweet-smelling earth and shining skies, the nights alone with the stars and the whispering winds, his colloquies with streams and flowers. Could it be that the Lord wanted him to leave? The cardinal and bishops who were nearly beside themselves with worry that he would not talk, much less leave his hut, finally heard the long-desired words: "I accept the grade of Pope."

...The monks all ran about in a veritable ecstasy, chanting: "Paradiso! Paradiso! Come all ye Turks and Jews! Believe in Jesus Christ. Rise, Christian soldiers! Kill all infidels!"

The crowds knelt down, extending their hands and shouting: "Blessing! Blessing! Holy Father! Blessing!"

At length, Peter appeared around the corner of his hut. He raised his hand and blessed them in an immense silence.

Then they placed him on a donkey and the procession set out.

Peter was duly crowned. It soon became clear however that while he was a good and holy man (he would later be proclaimed a saint), Celestine, as he had named himself, was completely unprepared to be a pope, unable to deal with the worldly machinations of his court, to say nothing of actually reforming (as he had originally very much desired) the papal bureaucracy.

King Charles of Naples installed him in his own castle and, there, built him a special hermit's cell. Charles attempted to control him but also had a favorite, Cardinal Benedetto Gaetani, waiting in the wings to replace him. Here is Martin again:

But there was no peace for Peter. They extracted him from his cell periodically, set him on a throne, surrounded him with clerics, quick witted, wily, smiling, obsequious, whispering, always whispering. The people who came to see him never got to him. The clerics were always talking monies or politics or plots. Between him and the people there was woven a labyrinthine web—a wall—of intrigue, of lies, of servitude, of deceit. And always Gaetani in the background. Gaetani whispering, eyeing him sideways, never smiling, bowing his head at everything Peter said.

Perhaps he should resign? Martin narrates another Monty Pythonesque scene:

He now saw himself trapped. All he could achieve would be silent heroism of a particular kind: to be plotted against, to be laughed at, to be held a fool, to be deceived, to be treated like an idiot by the great and the mighty. Even to be done to death. Could that be what Jesus wanted?

Late one night in that November of 1294 when he was still pope, Peter was wakened by a sepulchral voice talking in the darkness of his papal hermit's cell. "Peter! Peter! My servant! Peter!"

Automatically, Peter said: "Yes, my Lord." Then he began to realize the pit of insane foolishness into which they intended to shove him. "Peter!" the voice went on, "this is the Lord himself!"

The undertones of that voice began to strike an eerie note of familiarity in Peter's consciousness. "Arise, Peter! Abandon this position! Retire to Murrone! Pray! Peter! Pray! Pray! Pray!"

There was much more of the same. Peter could not mistake those accents after a few moments. Gaetani had never been able to pronounce the "t;" it always came out sounding like a "d." He even called himself "Gaedani."

Peter was not fooled, but Gaetani's trick worked to the extent that by the following morning, Peter had made up his mind. He would abdicate.

Did this actually happen?

Malachi Martin, a learned but colorful figure himself, presumably sourced this from John Gower's Confessio Amantis, though as far as I know Gower, a friend of Chaucer, did not allege that it was Gaetani himself who pretended to be God but rather that it was a confederate.

Regardless, the record is clear that Celestine did resign. And Gaetani succeeded him, becoming Pope Boniface VIII. Ex-pope Celestine would soon be captured and imprisoned by Boniface and would die in custody. Some say he was smothered with a pillow on the pope's orders, though this is disputed.

The papacy enjoys supernatural protection. Or so Catholics believe. But the actual history is, shall we say, rough. To say nothing of the men who occupied the throne.

What will future historians say of our own period?

Will it be banal:

The annoyances of World Youth Day in Rio, to be replaced by writing, prayer and the occasional tall beer.

Or is there something more going on?

Who is the Bishop in white?

Twitter Poll Result: Majority of Traditionalist Catholics Not Certain Francis is Pope

Tweet

Okay, the post title sounds a bit like it's from the Onion.

I suppose I could have titled it "Twitter Poll result: Water is Wet."

But still.

The majority of traditionalist Catholics either do not believe Francis is the pope, are uncertain if he is, or are unwilling to commit to saying so.

Or so say two silly Twitter polls I just did.

Yes, they're silly Twitter polls and only silly Twitter polls. They feature, respectively, 597 and 732 "votes" from my followers and those who received retweets from my followers, etc.

But I have no good reason reason to believe they inaccurately track the views of traditionalist Catholics as a whole.

What is a "traditionalist Catholic"? I suppose we might define it as the label for those who take seriously the traditional teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic religion is based on tradition - beginning with the "tradition" of the Old and New Testaments - one might be forgiven for saying it denotes those who take their Catholicism seriously.

I don't find the poll results shocking or surprising. I'm sure you don't either. Among other things it fits with the anecdotal evidence I've gathered from speaking with Catholic acquaintances, friends and fellow parishioners, both in person and online, over the past many months.

But looked at another way, the general fact is indeed a shock. Who would have predicted it, say, six years ago? While Vatican II and the pontificate of Paul VI did cause many thousands of Catholics to become (and remain) sedevacantists, sedevacantism has always been a decidedly "fringe" movement that, as far as I can tell, has essentially been frozen in numbers for many years.

That most serious Catholics have at the least doubts about the actual identity of the current pope, with a quarter to perhaps almost a half believing that the current apparent occupant of the chair is, to put it unsubtly, an imposter or anti-pope is of course unprecedented in modern times.

Some words about the voting sample: 

I assume most of my Twitter followers, or receivers of the retweets of my followers, fall into the "traditionalist" or "serious" categories. To the extent that some may not, it would only increase the "doubts about Francis" numbers among those who do - as one wouldn't expect many lukewarm or non-Catholics to vote "Benedict" or have doubts about the identity of the current pope, etc.

Do my Twitter followers (or those who receive the retweets of my Twitter followers, etc.) make up a diverse and relatively representative sample of traditionalist Catholics? Actually, I think they do. If you think it's all people who agree with me about everything, you haven't been reading my feed recently. 

But enough of the preliminaries. Here are the two poll questions and results:

December 24-25 (not the most optimum time for a Twitter poll, I admit, but still):

Who is currently the pope? (597 votes, total) 

Francis, 52%, 310 votes a. 

Benedict, 27%, 161 votes a. 

Someone else, 1%, 6 votes a. 

No one, 20%, 120 votes a.

This seemed to show a slight majority for Francis over the sum of the other alternatives, or a two-thirds majority if the "No one" category is removed.

As many pointed out, that poll did not include an option for, among other things, those who were unsure. Another twitter friend pointed out that the wording might have biased things a bit towards Francis in that before "pope" it did not include "true" or "actual", etc.

So I decided to do another poll, which only ended a few minutes ago:

December 26-27:

Who do you think is currently the true pope? (732 votes, total) 

Francis, 38%, 278 votes a. 

Benedict, 24%, 176 votes a. 

Not sure/not my call, 19%, 139 votes a. 

Other/the seat is vacant, 19%, 139 votes a.

I interpret the 14% fall off in Francis votes (and the only 3% fall off in Benedict votes) to indicate that a quarter or more of the original Francis total was "soft". Some voted "Francis" in the first poll because the options told them they had to commit to someone, but many were in fact unsure.

What would the poll results look like if we liberally (and almost certainly falsely) assume that all of the "no" and "other" votes were from classical sedevacantists - people who would have voted "the seat is vacant" in all polls for the last sixty years worth of popes? I ask this not to disenfranchise sedevacantists but to attempt to isolate the "Benedict/Francis" effect. The results would change somewhat. Francis gets a clear majority if one has to commit (Poll 1), but still fails to achieve one if one doesn't (Poll 2).

Poll 1:

Who is currently the pope? (471 votes, total) 

Francis, 66%, 310 votes a. 

Benedict, 34%, 161 votes a.

Poll 2:

Who do you think is currently the true pope? (593 votes, total) 

Francis, 47%, 278 votes a. 

Benedict, 30%, 176 votes a. 

Not sure/not my call, 23%, 139 votes a.

One could, if one wanted, make other methodological assumptions to whittle away the remaining slight "doubts about Francis" majority in the second poll. But what would be the point? It's clear that the Francis reign coupled with the bizarre circumstances of Benedict's exit and pope emeritus behavior - living within the Vatican, the white cassock and all the rest - have led to unprecedented doubts and uncertainty about the actual identity of the pope among serious Catholics, and it's reasonable to assume that such doubts and uncertainties will only grow.

Some have argued that the best attitude is to essentially punt on the question. It doesn't matter who is pope. We can't know. It's not up to us to say. And so on.

That, in and of itself, is of course damning. And who would have predicted it six years ago?

We don't merely have a bad pope. Not even merely a really bad pope. Something else is going on.

Or so most traditionalist Catholics now believe. At least according to our Twitter feed.

NOT A PARODY: Vatican Leaves out Notable Final Section of Benedict's Letter - "Thanks for thinking of me, but I won't have time to read those books."

Tweet

Two days ago, the Vatican published part of a letter, purportedly written and signed by Pope Benedict, referencing a new eleven-book series on Pope Francis' "theology." Among other things, the Vatican excerpted what we now know are the second and third paragraphs:

I applaud this initiative that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice in which Pope Francis is just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today. 

The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.

This vague but still significant seeming-endorsement by Pope Emeritus Benedict for Francis and his program prompted the expected negative reactions, depressing confirmations and wild theories from the usual suspects (including me). 

However, the full text of the letter has now apparently been leaked (to the journalist Sandro Magister), and it turns out that the final part of the letter puts a slightly different spin on things. While the full letter was read out (in Italian, I assume) at the presentation on Monday, the final two paragraphs were not referenced in the press-release. Comically, while the release did include a photograph of the letter sitting on a table (in which a few words can barely be made out), the part containing the final paragraphs was covered up by a stack of books.

Here are the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the letter (from Edward Pentin at National Catholic Register via the blog of Sandro Magister):

However, I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them because throughout my life it has always been clear that I would write and express myself only on books I had read really well. Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already made. 

I am sure you will understand and cordially greet you.

Benedict is, as usual, too kind. I'm willing to bet anyone 1,000 old Italian lira that, outside of the proof-reader, no mortal man, whatever his physical capabilities or limitations, has read or will ever read the entire text of these volumes.

I suspect even some of the works of the amazingly prolific Joseph Vissarionovich had more actual readers.

What is it about totalitarian regimes and this stuff?

In any case, perhaps the Catholic pundits all had it wrong a few days ago. Was it largely just a question of being polite? 

Thank you for thinking of me, but I'm afraid I don't have time to review the eleven items that arrived by special courier this morning. They look very professionally produced, and I'm sure they will find an appropriate audience. Unfortunately, I am engaged in a number of other projects at the moment, and I'm still three months behind with Un Posto al Sole. I hope you understand. Good luck in your endeavors!

BREAKING: Pope Emeritus Benedict Declares "Continuity" with Pope Francis' Pontificate

Tweet

The letter

Take another punch in the gut, faithful Catholics.

From VaticanNews:

Pope Benedict XVI: there is continuity with Pope Francis' Pontificate 

Pope Benedict wanted to give a contribution, very significant as always, to the interior spiritual unity of the two pontificates. Thus Msgr Dario Edoardo Viganò characterizes the letter sent to him by the Pope Emeritus. 

By Sr Bernadette Mary Reis, fsp 

Regarding the magisterium of Pope Francis, Benedict writes that “there is interior unity” between his pontificate and that of Pope Francis, his successor. Pope Benedict’s letter was presented by its recipient, Msgr Dario Edoardo Viganò, during a press conference presenting “The Theology of Pope Francis,” a series of 11 books written by 11 different authors, and published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana. The news conference was held in Sala Marconi in the headquarters of Vatican Media. 

Pope Benedict applauds publication of the series

“I applaud this initiative,” writes Pope Benedict. “It contradicts the foolish prejudice of those who see Pope Francis as someone who lacks a particular theological and philosophical formation, while I would have been solely a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete lives of today’s Christian. 

Vatican releases series on the theology of Pope Francis 

Pope Francis has profound theological formation 

The Pope Emeritus writes that he is grateful to have received the set of 11 books edited by Roberto Repole, President of the Italian Theological Association. Pope Benedict XVI adds that these volumes “reasonably demonstrate that Pope Francis is a man with profound philosophical and theological formation and are helpful to see the interior continuity between the two pontificates, even with all the differences in style and temperament.”Language editions in the works. 

During the event, Br Giulio Cesareo, OFM, the recently-appointed head of Libreria Editrice Vaticana, explained that contracts have already been signed for the English, Spanish, French, Portoghese, Polish and Romanian editions of the series, and that further negotiations are in process with publishers throughout the world.

WHAT NEW DEVILTRY? Pope Emeritus Benedict Praises Raul Castro, Claims He Resigned in Part Because He Couldn't Make it to World Youth Day, Expresses Gratitude to Providence for the Election of Francis

Tweet

World Youth Day got to him

The Italian daily, La Repubblica just published an interview with Pope Emeritus Benedict by Elio Guerriero, editor of the Italian edition of Ratzinger's works and author of a forthcoming biography. Andrea Torneilli provided a short summary in English for Vatican Insider.

These are only excerpts, of course:

On Pope Francis:

Obedience to my successor has always been unquestionable. Then there is a sense of deep communion and friendship. The moment he was elected I felt, as many others did, a spontaneous sense of gratitude towards Providence. After two Pontiffs from Central Europe, the Lord set his eyes as it were on the universal Church and invited us towards a broader, more Catholic communion. I personally felt deeply touched right from the start by Pope Francis’ extraordinary human warmth towards me. He tried to reach me by phone right after his election. He wasn’t able to get hold of me so he tried again straight after the meeting with the universal Church from St. peter’s balcony and he spoke to me in a very cordial manner. Since then, he has given me the gift of a marvellous paternal and fraternal relationship. I often receive small gifts, letters written in person. Before undertaking any major trips, the Pope always comes to visit me. The human kindness he has shown me is for me a special grace in this final phase of my life, which I can only be grateful for. What he says about being close to other people are not just words. He puts them into practice with me. May he in turn feel the Lord’s kindness every day. For this, I pray for him to the Lord.

On Cuba and Raul Castro:

I need scarcely remind you of how impressed I was in Cuba to see the way in which Raul Castro wishes to lead his country onto a new path, without breaking with the immediate past. Here too, I was deeply impressed by the way in which my brothers in the Episcopate are striving to navigate through this difficult process, with the faith as their starting point.

On World Youth Day and his decision to resign:

I was very certain of two things. After the experience of the trip to Mexico and Cuba, I no longer felt able to embark on another very demanding visit (to WYD in Rio in the Summer of 2013). Furthermore, according to the format of these gatherings, which had been established by John Paul II, the Pope’s physical presence there was paramount. A television link or any other such technological solution was out of the question. This was another reason why I saw it as my duty to resign.

Read the full summary here.

One would, I suppose, expect the Pope Emeritus to say nice things about Francis, though for faithful Catholics dreading each new day of the current pontificate, Benedict's overly effusive praise of Francis' election and his alleged quality of "being close to other people" are bound to grate.

Regarding being "impressed" by Raul Castro and the collaborationist episcopate in Cuba: Castro is a brutal communist tyrant who personally shot "counter-revolutionary" prisoners. The Cuban bishops are even now helping him suppress dissent, including dissent among Catholics. Would the younger anti-communist Benedict have ever made such outrageous statements?

Finally, that the universal head of the Catholic church felt it was his duty to resign (the first Pope in almost 600 years to do so) because he couldn't manage to attend an outdoor festival of Catholic teenagers in Brazil is of course insane.

I'm reminded of The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis. Everything you thought you could count on is going to pieces. Everyone you believed you could trust is betraying you.

A donkey is wearing a lion's coat.

Now that the Olympics are over, which largely occupied my mind for the last two weeks, I feel a profound sense of depression. There is no new good news about the Church. None. A donkey is wearing a lion's coat and the enemies of God are mocking and jeering.

What new deviltry will the next day bring?

Pope Emeritus Benedict to Pope Francis: "Your goodness has struck me; it truly carries me. Your goodness is the place where I live."

Tweet

"My protector"

Earlier this morning, Pope Emeritus Benedict went out of his way to praise his apparent successor Francis, on the occasion of the 65th anniversary of Benedict's ordination:  

“Eucharistomen” says a human thanks, thank you to everyone. Thank you especially, Holy Father! Your goodness, from the first moment of the election, at every moment of my life here, has struck me; it truly carries me, interiorly. More than in the Vatican Gardens with their beauty, your goodness is the place where I live: I feel protected. Thank you also for your word of thanks, for everything. And let us hope that you will be able to go forward with all of us on this way of Divine Mercy, showing the path of Jesus, toward Jesus, toward God.

Who is Benedict? Take your pick:

• The Pope Emeritus
• An ex-Pope
• The true Pope
• A co-Pope
• Half a pope, though at the same time fully Pope
• Quity Quiterson

As Frank Walker of Canon 212 and The Stumbling Block recently asked (though in this case he was referring to the status of Francis), at this point, does it really matter?  

One of the most interesting parts of that rambling Francis plane interview a few days ago, was Francis publicly bragging about people coming to Benedict to complain about him. In response (according to Francis), Benedict had "sent them packing." This raises obvious questions: Who were these people? What precisely were they complaining about? What are they up to now, after Benedict allegedly rejected their entreaties? How does Francis know what happened? And so on.

Francis once implied that his pontificate might only last "two or three years" and that like his predecessor, he might voluntarily step down. More than three years in, it seems increasingly unlikely that this will happen. Though Francis is not in the best of health, Benedict appears far weaker. It seems probable he will die first.

Regardless, if anyone ever thought that Good Pope Benedict would be triumphantly carried back to the Chair of St. Peter by some Catholic traditionalist mob after the election of Francis was thrown out on a technicality or whatever, the chances of that or anything remotely like it happening would now appear to be zero.

Unless it's all an act on Benedict's part (he's waiting for the right time to declare himself), or he's a sedated prisoner, or the true Pope is really John Paul I who didn't really die suddenly in 1978 and has actually been living all this time in a Vatican attic...

Enough.

Christ will strengthen us and has offered to save us. But in terms of earthly help, right now, we appear to be on our own. And as a good priest says to me on a regular basis, "it's going to get worse before it gets better."

Then again, look on the bright side. At least Ramadan is almost over.

[Written immediately before the Istanbul Airport terror attack that now looks to have killed 50 innocents. No doubt Francis is about to blame international finance and admonish Christians to apologize for child labor. Benedict is in his study practicing calligraphy.]  

New Fatima Report Raises More Questions than it Answers

Tweet

Why?

The recent article by Maike Hickson at OnePeterFive is another fascinating piece from one one of the premier Catholic websites. The above post title is not a criticism of Dr. Hickson or the site, obviously. Rather, they deserve nothing but thanks for continuing to break important stories. But that doesn't make things any less . . . frustrating.

Here is the heart of the piece:    

Today, on the Feast of Pentecost, I called Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a German priest and former professor of theology in Brasil, who is now quite elderly and physically weak. He has been a personal friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI for many years. Father Dollinger unexpectedly confirmed over the phone the following facts: 

Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future. 

Father Dollinger gave me permission to publish these facts on this High Feast of the Holy Ghost and he gave me his blessing.

Read the rest, including important commentary and further context here.

Fatima conspiracy people (and I guess I'm one of them) believe that the Church has been infiltrated by . . . let's call them the bad guys. Now of course all knowledgeable and faithful Catholics would agree with this to some extent. The Church has always contained bad guys. The only question is how pervasive it is and how far up it goes. Fatima people believe it goes all the way to the "top"--although what even that means is debated.

Though the implications of this are horrific, it doesn't in and of itself raise any logical questions. Bad guys will be . . . bad guys. Obviously they will have an interest in undermining the Church, in suppressing the truth about Our Lady's words and in (forgive me) screwing with people's faith.

But what of the good guys? Pope Benedict is one of them, or at least we would hope so. And the above would seem to confirm that. If you believe that the above is true or at least partly true, then Benedict would seem to have at least some interest in making the truth known. After all, he allegedly told Fr. Dollinger about it.

The question I would want to ask Dollinger is why he didn't ask Ratzinger/Benedict at the time why such important information wasn't revealed publicly? Why only reveal it in private? It seems like such an obvious question. And I can imagine possible answers that would be reasonable. But I have not seen any answers.

Why did Ratzinger/Benedict not publicly reveal what he knew? Given the awfulness in the current Church--which must have seemed even worse to him given what he knew about the unrevealed secret--why did he then step down? Or putting that aside, why doesn't he reveal the rest of the secret now? Why doesn't the Pope Emeritus announce a press conference and just do it? I am of course not being critical of Benedict per se; only noting the obvious incongruity. It's as if there's a fourth secret (or a fifth) that asks the good guys in the know to act their parts in a sort of play, biding their time. Why? Until when? And of course everyone seems to be following some sort of tacit agreement to not go public (though it seems okay to give the occasional hint to old friends or card-carrying Fatima conspiracy authors or whomever). 

I do not think I will ever become a sede or go back to being a non-practicing quasi-agnostic, but this almost seems calculated to make me throw up my hands and do so. Is it some sort of test of faith? And what of the countless souls lost in the interim?

Yes, I know mortal men are not supposed to know everything. God never promised that we would or should. But He did promise that we would be given enough information. Didn't He?