Most priests do not know that they have a canonical right to stop naming Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass. They think wrongly that to do so would either be outside of their authority or would involve an act of schism. That it is not schism nor a sin, is proven thus:
Here is the canonical argument
First, a validly elected Pope must be named in the Canon of the Mass as a sign of communion. This is by tradition and liturgical law.
Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.
This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied.
No validly elected pope’s name must be omitted from the Canon of the Mass during his lifetime, or before he validly resigns.
Third: Pope Benedict XVI did not resign on Feb. 11, 2013, he merely retired from the active ministry, as he himself said on Feb. 28, 2013 in his final Allocution (see other evidence here). For extensive canonical information about this see ppbxvi.org.
Fourth: That Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign was the falsehood which emanated from the Desk of Cardinal Sodano. (See explanation here)
Now just as Cardinal Sodano should have acted, is how all priest should act. Namely,
In accord with Canon 40, Priests who are to say mass hold a munus which is merely executory, in regard to whom to name at Mass in the Canon as Pope. This is because they do not decide on their own authority who is the pope and who is not the pope. They follow the command of a superior. That superior is above all the Pope.
If a pope therefore does not renounce his office in accord with canon 332 §2, because he renounces his ministerium instead, that renunciation has no canonical effect, because there is no canon in the Church’s laws which regard the renunciation of ministries.
Therefore, in accord with canon 40 and 41 A PRIEST IS FORBIDDEN to alter the name of the Pope in the Canon of the Mass. He cannot act on the basis of the declaration of Non Solum Propter in the same illegal manner Cardinal Sodano did. To do so would be to collaborate in his grave crime, deceive the faithful and enter into de facto schism with Pope Benedict. (see that article for a greater explanation of the crime and moral offence)
Therefore, a priest must continue to name Benedict in the Canon of the Mass.
Therefore, a priest must cease and desist naming Francis as soon as he recognizes the validity of this canonical argument.
(This argument is not that of the Editor of this Blog, who has merely expanded it for a fuller explanation — There are already a great number of priests who do not name Francis, but name Benedict instead, some openly, some secretly, some by saying for the Holy Father, without a specific name. God bless and strengthen and multiply these priests!)
_______________
NOTE BENE: There is a lot of misinformation out there, from Vatican News, which falsifies things attributed to Pope Benedict. Here is one glaring case from last June, WHEN Vatican News claimed that Pope Benedict said, “There is only one Pope, and he is Francis”, which never actually happened. Click the links in the Twitter Card, below, for more on this.
Thank you, Br. Bugnolo. I will make copies and give them to my pastor and bishop.
Thank you. I think that the Pope is not specifically named in the Latin Rite. But I hate it when the NO priest names Francis (the destroyer).
Yes the pope is named in the Canon of the Mass in the Latin Rite, at the section, una cum
See the Intercessions in the 4 Eucharistic Prayers http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm to see where the Pope is named at Mass. This corresponds also to the Latin of the traditional Mass.
I would take it a step further and say that priests who know of this information, now have an obligation, not a right, but an obligation to cease and desist naming Bergoglio in the canon of the mass. To not do so would be a rejection of reason itself, not to mention, they profane the very sacrifice they offer on the altar.
Read the article to the end.
Hi, this isn’t related to this topic, but I think it is important. This can be the answer why Benedict also canonically has MINISTERIUM (“Archbishop Gänswein at the Pontifical University of St Gregory the Great, in which the Archbishop affirms that Benedict retains the petrine munus and ministry”). Popes : Gregory VII, Lucius III, Gregory XIII esteblished that ONE bug in latin invalidate papal document (from the site https://thewildvoice.org/worried-catholics-comments-pope-francis/) :
,,Now, in canon law, any legislative writing containing a lack of Latin is null. Since Pope St. Gregory VII (cf. Registrum 1.33) quashed a privilege accorded to a monastery by his predecessor Alexander II, “because of the corruption of the Latin”.
Another example. In the decretal epistle Ad audientiam, Pope Lucius III, located in the body of canon law (cf. decretals of Gregory IX Epistles of Rescriptis, c. XI) states that “the false latinidad invalidate a papal rescript.” In this decree, the Pope forbade give credit to any papal document “if it contains a clear lack of construction.” The gloss (the official text published by order of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582) explains why a papal decree “must not contain any foul”, and why any errors Latin is such a presumption of invalidity “that any evidence to the contrary can be admitted. ” While some modern canonists say that the 1917 and 1983 codes automatically repealed all previous standards, the care the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Texts Pontifical keeps putting on the matter, casts doubt on this view.
Claiming that a decree is null not necessarily mean that it is a false document. But if it reveals an error that can be overt or surreptitious, i.e. Pope Benedict XVI could have written carelessly, or covering a real hidden resignation having been made under pressure message. The first is rather unlikely, since presumably such an important text was revised by Pope not once but several times.
In conclusion, it seems that the error committed by Benedict XVI Latin has been a sloth, but a deliberate purpose, which we would be speaking not only of the absolute nullity of the papal decree, which is a fact, but also the pressure why was motivated, as well as the back door that Pope Benedict wanted to leave open.”
This must be checked but this is a big clue.
The current code of Canon Law, of 1983, has no such canon which invalidates acts on the basis of an error in the Latin. However, if the error is such as to signify something other than what must be signified, it must be treated as null as per canon 40 and 41. The act of Renunciation was full of errors making the Latin unintelligible according to the Rules of Latin grammar. However, when I translated it, I translated it according to the sense of what someone might have intended, if the author were a speaker of a modern language, and in this I corrected the grammatical errors, though the error of renouncing ministerium remains.
Em S @ October 14 6:48am …not to mention, they profane the very sacrifice they offer on the altar.
Brother, since someone else did broach the subject, what are the implications of naming an anti-pope in the canon of the mass?
WHAT KIND OF SIN IS IT TO NAME BERGOGLIO IN THE CANON OF THE MASS?
ANSWER: If done in ignorance, and there is no scandal, because all others present are ignorant, there is no subjective sin of schism or objective sin of scandal. But to do it knowing the one name is an Antipope or lacks a canonical claim, then it would be morally the sin of schism, objectively the sin of scandal, and also the sin of sacrilege, because it makes the Mass serve a lie. If there are those who know Bergoglio is not the Pope and others who do not know this, and a priest wants to avoid scandal, he can always say Una cum papa nostro and omit the name of the Pope.
And what are the implications for the faithful who (knowingly and unknowingly) partake in such a mass?
What are the consequences of the Laity who attend masses offered in communion with Bergoglio? — At present since most priests are ignorant or confused or do not know what is going on, there is no moral fault. Most priest would not listen to laity on this matter, some might but not take action. Most indeed are in now way prepared psychologically, theologically, morally or canonically to handle such a truth that Bergoglio is not the pope. For that reason, we cannot expect them to change over night. But we should bring it to the attention of those who seem to have the faith. If a priest however addresses the faithful on this subject and sides with Bergoglio, saying things against the claim of Benedict to be pope, you should walk out of the Church. Afterwards you may speak with him to reprove him. But make him know that you cannot attend his masses because you cannot reconcile his position with Canon Law, which Christ Himself upholds in Heaven. This may get him to reconsider. Good priests do not want to lose parishioners. If there is no other Church in your area, say the Rosary as a family or with fellow Catholics. Use a local chapel or grotto or shrine or build one yourself if you can. Be a witness to the truth no matter the inconvenience. Because a communion received at such a Mass, of a priest who opposes the truth of Benedict’s claims, is at the very least giving bad example, but at the worse an act of schism from Christ.
Thank you, brother…
https://www.thecampofsaints.com/2019/10/was-pope-benedict-xvi-blackmailed-out.html?m=1
Here’s an interesting link that just came up on google that may make for interesting reading among the visitors to your blog.
First – thank you for your answer. Secound – What about this? ,,While some modern canonists say that the 1917 and 1983 codes automatically repealed all previous standards, the care the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Texts Pontifical keeps putting on the matter, casts doubt on this view”?
The 1983 Code repealed the 1917, but only in those matters in which the present code integrally incorporates the previous matters. Thus if it does not discuss how to elect a Roman Pontiff when all the Cardinal Electors go into de facto schism, then the Apostolic Law reviews, for example. Also any canons or laws regarding heretical popes, such as Cum ex apostolatus officio. These things remain in force.
If I understand you correctly, then:
-the Registrum 1.33 of Gregory VII,
-the decretal epistle Ad audientiam of Pope Lucius III,
-the gloss (the official text published by order of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582),
doesn’t also remain in force?
I cannot answer your question, because I do not know if the matter they deal with they have been integrally incorporated into the code. However, the new code does say that the abrogation of law is not presumed, canon 21. Therefore, in doubt all prior laws not explicitly mentioned are presumed to be enforce. However this is only a reflex principle, because doubt here does not mean your ignorance of what is contained in the code, it means true lack of the code to not deal with the matter.
Thank you for your answer. I’m not expert in canon law. I wasn’t interested in it until I started to have heavy doubts about validity of renouncing of Pope Benedict. This three things I listed befour – I don’t have opportunity to check if they contain these particular words of popes. They may or may not. If they contain than they should be integrally incorporated into the code (theoretically). They should, doesn’t mean they are.
Dear Brother Bugnolo,
I want to share something encouraging with you and those who read your blog. One of my favorite daily contemplation resources is Father Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalene, O.C.D.’s Divine Intimacy. In Entry 315 wherein Our Lord heals the paralytic after first forgiving his sins, Fr. Gabriele observes rightly that “when the heart is proud and obstinate, not even factual evidence is capable of moving it.” This is what BiPpers (whether BiP-with-error or BiP-without-error) are up against.
My observations of your public apologies to both Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, as well Professor Radaelli show me, at least, that your zeal for souls is founded in humility and meekness.
Thank you for your courageous perseverance. I can not imagine what the trenches are like From Rome.
And the essence of pride manifests itself first in saying that words do not mean what they always have meant, they mean what I say they mean. You will see that method in every defense of the validity of the act of Renunciation.