Divine and Apostolic Right takes precedence in a State of Emergency

Saint Athanasius, the first Bishop non-martyr venerated as a Saint, during the Arian Crisis, when neigh but 5 Bishops remained Catholic, employed Apostolic Right to defend the  Church against Apostasy.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We live in a very bizarre age, when professional gossipers (aka journalists) are the puppet masters of the masses, because 95% of everyone allows them to dictate the boundaries of reality, history, morality and religion. And until some noted journalist uses the word, “Heresy”, “Schismatic” or “Apostate” in reference to someone who merits the term(s), then no rational person would ever accuse a fellow Catholic of such a horrible offense on his own judgement, because as they say, “everyone knows that it is schismatic to refuse communion with a fellow Catholic in good standing. And good standing means, he has not yet been officially condemned by the Church!”

This is gaslighting, of course.  Gas-lighting is a term which everyone should familiarize themselves with. It is the tactic of those practiced in psychological manipulation used to get clients, subjects, inferiors to deny the reality they see and know and accept that the reality is what the manipulator claims it to be.

As soon as Bergoglio was “elected” the gaslighting began.  You are seeing things, He is the pope, you cannot talk that way about the pope. Dissent is a mortal sin. If you do not accept him you are outside the Church. You are not Catholic!

Lately, as the heresies and malevolence of Bergoglio explode out of all proportions to any previous heretic in the history of the Church, some Catholics who were formerly famous for their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy are going into apoplectic fits in their attempts to stifle recognition of the reality. ‘Recognize and Resist’, is their mantra. They are hell bent, literally, on remaining in communion with Bergoglio and don’t you dare rain on their fantasies by showing them facts of Canon Law (canon 1364, 1329 etc.) which show that by Divine right, heretics are outside of the Church as soon as they profess heresy.

These apologists of the revolution are just as hell bent on denying the reality of the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict (cf. ppbxvi.org for complete information).  They become discombobulated and lash out. They show that their attachment to “Pope Francis” is neither rational or reasonable, it is visceral. How visceral depends, I suppose, on whether they observe the 6th or 9th Commandments.

This complete psychological and intellectual and spiritual breakdown is a result of what I call the Iscariot Conundrum. I use “Iscariot” here in the sense of the Aramaic word for a man from the same town as the false Apostle, Judas Iscariot. Since like him, they have sold the true Christ for the 30 pieces of silver of public recognition by the Cardinals as a “faithful Catholic”* and since they did it for purely selfish, sentimental, non-rational and non-legal or non-dogmatic reasons, they explode with emotion the more you point out to them that they have built their house upon a false premise. So they lash out more and more and lose all traces of the fine Character they once exhibited, becoming in the process, ironically, the very likeness of dialogue which Bergoglio is, a nasty, name-calling Troll.

A State of Emergency

No less that Archbishop Gänswein, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and the Head of the Pontifical Household (which has only one guest, HINT HINT) said that what Benedict did in February 2013 was on account of a state of emergency.

His words and opinions are debated as to what they mean, but it would be ludicrous to deny the reality which is visible to all the world, namely, that THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS IMPEDED.

To say the Apostolic See is impeded, means that the Pope cannot act as Pope for some reason, either external coercion, or there is no pope, or the pope refuses to act out of some irrational or rational conviction. This ‘being impeded’ causes a state of necessity, because the visible head of the visible Church is for all practical purposes non-functioning. The state of necessity is necessity of the kind which is required for continued functioning of the Church.  Since the normal order of governance is obstructed, the observance of merely positive laws upon which it are based, by necessity, must be omitted.

Our Lord teaches us this general principle on the small scale, when, on one occasion He and His Apostles crossed a wheat-field during a time in which they had had nothing to eat (Mark 2:23), and some of them ate the grains of wheat which were near to being harvested, some Pharasees complained they were violating the Sabbath Laws against doing work on the Sabbath. Our Lord pointed out that the necessity of their hunger allowed them to not observe the law on harvesting. He replied with a forceful Semitic way of speaking, saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!” (Mark 2:27)

The law against harvesting was instituted no less than by Moses (Exodus 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:12,14), who had a lot more authority in the Old Covenant (Moses basically wrote the entire thing, under God’s inspiration and direction) than the Pope has in the New Covenant (the pope cannot change the Bible, not even the Our Father — though a lot of clergy are confused on this point).

Also, it is clear, by the principles of logic (ex minore),** that if Our Lord says it is licit to appeal to a state of necessity, to suspend laws of the Old Covenant given by Moses, because men are hungry on a Saturday afternoon, then obviously it is licit to suspend laws of the Pope, in the New Covenant, WHEN THE SALVATION OF ALL SOULS ON EARTH UNTIL THE END OF TIME is put in grave and imminent danger. To deny this would be sheer insanity. This is poignantly true, when one faction in the Church wants to suspend the New Covenant and found a new religion, and the other faction must chose between observing certain man made laws and allowing the Covenant to be transgressed, or not observing them so as to prevent the transgression of the Covenant.

This principle of the abeyance of positive law in a state of necessity is sanctioned by no less than Pope Pius VI, in his Bull, Cum nos superiori anno, of Nov. 13, 1798, where he grants to the Cardinals the right to derogate from all non essential aspects of the papal laws on Conclaves, on account of the de facto suppression of the Church of Rome by the Roman Republic, led by French Revolutionaries.***

Extending this lesson to the affairs of the Church, it follows then, as good Christians, we ARE OBLIGED by divine faith to return to the general principle which Jesus laid down, namely, THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. For the Salvation of Souls the Eternal Father sacrificed His own Son, and His own Son accepted His ignominious death on a Cross. FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.

If there is anyone, therefore, in the Church, that holds that we must wait for the Pope (Benedict) to do something, or some future pope to do something, THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS and more correctly, THEY ARE PHARASEES who are raising up the positive laws established by the Church (which indicate what cannot be done without permission of superiors) to the level of rules which would require the Church to commit suicide waiting for some sort of divine intervention without human collaboration. A divine intervention without human collaboration, in the present case of the impeded See, HAS NEVER BEEN explicitly PROMISED. (I understand that there are some great promises from Our Lord and our Lady, but none of them refer explicitly to a promise to solve this problem.)

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum)

The concept of Divine Right (ius divinum) is a concept of classical late scholasticism, very popular in the time of the Council of Trent and thereafter. It refers to things which have been decreed by God. The office of Peter exists by divine right, for example.

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum) is not as well recognized. It refers to the decisions of the Apostles for the governance of the Church. It is of Apostolic right that the church in one city can be governed by several priests, for example.

Both Divine Right and Apostolic Right are superior to Canon Law. As an aside, what most Catholics do not know, is that for more than 1000 years, except for canons decreed in Councils, the Church had no canon law. Canon Law is not of Divine or Apostolic institution, though the First Council of Jerusalem c. 45 A.D. did hand down decisions and is the exemplar for all Councils and Synods in the Church.

Apostolic right also includes some things which are not observed in the normal course of affairs, because since the time of the Apostles the Sacred Hierarchy, for the good ordering of the Church in normal circumstances has laid down canons or established laws to conduct the affairs of the Church differently.

Take for example the election of Bishops. The Apostles appointed Bishops before they died. But when they had passed to eternal Glory, they left it to each diocese by Apostolic Right to chose their own bishop. And by “to each diocese”, I mean to the Catholics of each diocese, laity, religious and clergy. This is how the Church survived 10 Roman persecutions. No one was writing Rome to ask for an appointment, when their Bishop died.

Also, it is of Apostolic Right that every Bishop serves as ordinary of his diocese until death. There was no retirement. That is a novelty created by Paul VI to eliminate Catholics from the College of Bishops and replace them with sodomite revolutionaries. Canon Law implicitly recognizes that this concept of mandatory retirement is contrary to Apostolic Right, in that it does not require Bishops to resign, it says only that they should submit a letter of resignation upon reaching the age of 75.

It is also of Apostolic Right that the Bishops can convene in Synods and Councils. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that every Synod in Church History, which is regarded as a true hierarchical act, was approved of by the Pope. The current positive laws require that the Pope consent, but Apostolic Right does not require that.  Apostolic Right is more rational, because when there is no pope or when the pope is a prisoner, how can the Bishops get permission?

But the general reason for the revival of Apostolic Right has to do with the inherent principle of subsidiarity in a perfect society. This principle was recognized by Pope Leo XIII. It holds that when the higher authority in a perfect society fails, then the lower authority has the right to take up the duty of the higher authority and act inasmuch it is necessary to act to preserve or defend that society. Since the College of Bishops as a whole succeeds the Apostles, when the See of Peter is impeded, each and every Bishop has the moral and Apostolic Right to exercise in a certain sense the authority of the Apostles to put the Church back in proper working order. This is an awesome responsibility reserved to extreme cases of necessity, such as is happening today, with both a public heretic ruling the Vatican and a Pope (Benedict) who thinks it is no longer his duty to govern the Church or vindicate his own rights as Christ’s Vicar.

In a State of Emergency, Apostolic and Divine Right revive on points which are now, in the regular course of Church affairs, regulated by canon law, presupposing an Apostolic See which is not impeded. These positive laws of the Church, which if observed, would lead to the destruction of the Church or the loss of souls are suspended in force. That is, it is no longer a canonical crime or moral fault NOT to observe them with due reason.

If there are any Catholic Bishops or Cardinals on earth, then they need to recognize this before it is too late, or the woeful warning of Our Lady of Akita will come to pass, that the faithful become deprived of the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and Orders, because no Bishop had the sense to see that he had the Apostolic or Divine right to act to preserve the Sacred Hierarchy during an impeded Papacy.

This is because, with the Apostles no longer on Earth, and the See of Peter silent, each and every member of College of Bishops who remains Catholic can licitly assume the duties of the Apostles for the propagation and preservation of the Faith.

Some of the things any Bishop, with or without jurisdiction, can do, by Divine or Apostolic right, during an impeded Papacy are as follows:

  1. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the causes of the impeded See, and or condemn those who are perpetrating it. (Pope Julius II sanctions this in principle)****
  2. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council, to depose claimants to the papacy who do not hold valid canonical titles. (This was done at Sutri in 1046 and sanctioned by St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Gregory VII and Bl. Pope Victor III)
  3. Reprove a pope for resigning partially and neglecting his Apostolic Duties of Ministry. (This arguably is not as extreme as nn. 1 or 2, an thus ex maiore is also approved)
  4. Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
  5. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the heresies and perversities being spread by the Enemies of the Church, whether inside or outside the Church.
  6. Ordain Catholic Bishops for Dioceses which have been taken over by a heretical bishop or where the Catholic Bishop has declared for heresy or apostasy. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
  7. Ordain Catholic priests and deacons for the faithful of each Diocese who are deprived of the Sacraments due to heretical or schismatic clergy in their area. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)

In fact, during the first 1500 years of the Church, we see Bishops regularly doing many if not all of these things. They had the benefit of not being plagued in conscience by positive Church law, but the system worked. Now that the Apostolic See, nay the Vatican,  is completely impeded and taken over by heretics, the Bishops must act!

This is not the imaginary case of Sedevacantists who don’t like a pope nor the sounder case of Traditionalists don’t want to abandon liturgical traditions of their Rite: this is the case of a direct frontal attack on the the New Covenant: the Deposit of the Faith, Scripture and Tradition, through open denials of key dogmas and doctrines and disciplines which come from Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Prayer and Petitions

Please pray for the Bishops of the Church, for if they do not act, the entire wealth, power, prestige of the Church will be robbed by a sect of marxist sodomites and 100s of millions of souls will perish without right doctrine and sacraments.

Please also talk to your Bishop, if he appears to be somewhat Catholic. This is crucial. I know Catholics who have contacts and who are doing this right now. But more needs to be done.

The Catholic laity, on account of the inaction of the Bishops, are being forced to accept Sacraments from heretics and schismatics and perverse sodomites. They have the Divine right to be cared for pastorally by Catholic clergy who are in communion with the true Pope.  And this right is being DEMONICALLY AND UNIVERSALLY TRANSGRESSED in all dioceses throughout the Catholic world in the present Crisis.

We have the Divine and Apostolic right to act with insistence and with full approval of Christ’s teaching and example.

__________

GERMAN TRANSLATION: https://beatimundocorde.wordpress.com/2020/01/03/divine-and-apostolic-right-german/

SPANISH TRANSLATION: https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/12/25/el-derecho-divino-y-apostolico-toma-precedencia-en-estado-de-emergencia/

__________

* I use quotes here, to point out how nonsensical this approach is, devoid of any reasonable assessment of historical events, because the Cardinals accepted an invalid resignation and then invalidly elected an Arch-Heretic Psychopath, so it is no exaggeration to doubt that the Cardinals are willing or able to recognize what a Faithful Catholic is!

** Ex minore is a technical term of medieval logic which refers to illations (arguments) which are based on appealing to something which is true in a lesser case, and argues from that, that it must be true in a greater case. Our Lord is doing this all the time, as for example in His parables of the King preparing for war, the architect preparing to build a tower etc., as examples of how if prudence is necessary in earthly things, it is all the more necessary in questions of eternal salvation.

*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Rome, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.

**** This Apostolic Right was incorporated into Pope Julius II’s, Si summus rerum Opifex of Feb. 16, 1513, Fifth Lateran Council, which provided that if this law on Papal Conclaves were violated as regards a simoniacal election, the Cardinals not involved in the simony could have recourse to a Synod or Council to dethrone the uncanonically elected antipope.  Bagliani & Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. This papal law was published previously as the Bull, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, January 14, 1505 (ibid., p. 39). This principle, acknowledged by Pope Julius II and the Fifth Lateran Council, is that which authorizes the calling of “imperfect” Synods in the time of necessity, such as ours.

14 thoughts on “Divine and Apostolic Right takes precedence in a State of Emergency”

  1. Thank you for this, brother. Even though John Paul II’s papacy may not have been “impeded” as you describe here, still how would you apply the principles of subsidiarity in a crisis situation to Abp. Lefebvre’s consecrations in 1988?

    Like

  2. The Catholic thing to do is to act as necessary to preserve the Faith in the Church. Ordaining bishops without jurisdiction, to avoid “schism” but not to help the Church is something no one has ever done in the history of the Church, who was Catholic. Founding a priestly club which cares more for itself than the salvation of the Dioceses is simply NOT catholic. Operating without jurisdition is NOT catholic. Ordaining Bishops for Dioceses so that they can resist heresy IS Catholic. I sense he and Bishop Castro de Meyer simply did not think the crisis was a real crisis. If they did, why did they not travel the world and ordain Bishops for the Dioceses so that everyone would have the hierarchical and sacramental means to resist the Aggiornamento? That is the problem is see with it.

    Like

  3. Excellent Brother and I wholeheartedly agree. You are fomenting a holy revolution within the Church. I see little difference between what you suggest and what the sedevacantists have done since Vatican II. They just had an earlier inspiration.

    Hopefully, a few of our current Bishops will be inspired to formally come out publicly and deny Bergoglio his authority. Now, many are doing this by their silence about Bergoglian innovations.

    Few Novus Ordo Catholics know what is happening in and to the Church today. And they would be scandalized if they did. When I talk to my kids about this–and regular Catholics also–they think I’m off base or off my rocker to think we have a bad Pope or Bishops.

    Simply stated the Overton Window has no opened wide enough yet to pull off what you suggest. Hopefully, this will change in the coming year.

    Like

  4. Michael, the Sedes do not believe offices can be held by sinners. Catholics do. The Sedes never attempted to help other Catholics like Saint Athansasius did. And the reason is, that nearly all Sedes began with some priest wanting to be a bishop and getting consecrated illicitly. He then had to come up with a reason and denied the Pope was the pope. If you think Sedes are like Catholics, then you need to study their history more.

    Like

  5. The most commanding article of all. But where are there a quorum of prelates to act? Would three even qualify? We are not a democracy. The laity are at the mercy of the hierarchs.

    On every Rosary I pray for this and will ne er cease to.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. On sedes I know only from my own experience which has not been especially good. My experience has exclusively been with the Novus Ordo Watch blog from which I have been banned even though I still support it financially as a good source Novus Ordo Church critique. If one challenges them on their thinking they will swarm you like killer bees. And if you persist you will be banned as I was. Like my subscription to the New York Times it is necessary to know what the opposition is up to and how they think.

    Like

  7. This article brings up tremendous points seldom spoken about that demonstrate how diabolically disoriented our clergy truly are. The situation is so unprecedented even if there have been great crises in the history of the church such as the Arian heresy. It is a mystery the chastisements of Akita have not occurred,

    Liked by 1 person

  8. The divine intervention may take the form of the action of bishops, or it may not. I’m no expert at all on prophesy, but only need to know this cannot go on much longer. The laity are not in Rome in sufficient numbers, indeed, not anywhere in sufficient numbers, to goad prelates to act. The remnant is small. There are many people who claim to be Catholic at this point, but they are no more Catholic than Bernie Sanders.
    Michael, I sympathize. I am blessed with a large family, once Catholic, now 95% unchurched. Nobody discusses this topic and I have stopped talking about it. There is only one family member who understands what is going on, the rest cannot see how this impacts them at all. I have family members I worry a great deal about spiritually speaking, but can’t envision how I could possibly talk to them about faith and tell them in the same breath the Catholic Church has fallen, the mainstream part I mean.

    Like

  9. Blessed Epiphany, brother! God reward you for your good work.

    Not sure if you are still reading comments on an old post, but here’s my question, following up on your reply to me regarding Abp. Lefebvre and “state of emergency”:

    You asked rhetorically, “why did they not travel the world and ordain Bishops for the Dioceses so that everyone would have the hierarchical and sacramental means to resist the Aggiornamento?”, and of course that objectively would have been the better thing to do. While I’m far from an expert on the situation, my understanding is that Lefebvre at least at first tried to follow the “normal” path, having his seminary regularly established in a diocese and intending the priests therefrom to return to and serve their own dioceses; but then as resistance increased from Rome and all the hierarchy, he gradually got drawn into the “club” situation. My point is, I think he did try to help dioceses, but the bishops ultimately rejected his efforts.

    What do you think of that analysis?

    Like

  10. I think your assessment is true. I never denied that he had the good intention of trying to avoid a worse situation. When we begin a just battle, however, we must not fight on the terms of our enemy or else we have already granted them victory.

    Like

Leave a Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.