Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Dr. Mazza’s theory that Pope Benedict XVI held an error regarding the nature of the papacy has been amply shown to be a false interpretation, as the very first homily of Pope Benedict XVI shows. I have done that here.

Dr. Mazza’s explanation of the notions of collegiality is not convincing: for he argues that Lumen Gentium altered Catholic theological understanding of the episcopal consecration. He seems to think that no one in the Church held that a Bishop received the 3 munera of teaching, governing and sanctifying before Vatican II. I believe that one could only sustain that by a complete ignorance of the entire history of Catholic writing and in particular of the fathers of the Church.

As for Taylor Marshall, he is wrong in thinking that before Vatican II no one said that a man being consecrated Bishop was said to be ordained. “Ordain” comes from the Latin “ordinare” to put in order. St. Bonaventure and I believe all Scholastics said that a Bishop was ordained. I myself remember no place where St. Bonaventure does otherwise.

The problem in this presentation is that neither Marshall nor Mazza are Scholastics and thus do not understand how in receiving the munera in the Sacrament, one receives the root of power, and this does not contradict the conferral of the missio canonica (canonical mission), which is only a territorial or juridical application of the power.

Thus, Dr. Mazza is rehashing the charge against Pope Benedict XVI which is merely a talking point against Pope Benedict XVI to charge him with error in his Declaratio: namely that Benedict held that being elected pope was a sacrament. WRONG.

I do not agree with all of Ratzinger’s theology, but to make such a sloppy charge, is really insulting to the man. It is especially out of place in the mouths of men who cannot seem to distinguish well between the Petrine Munus as something separate from the Episcopal Munera. — If one has studied any papal theology, he would know well that from the moment a man accepts his juridically valid election, he receives the Petrine Munus and becomes the Vicar of Christ on Earth, but not until he is consecrated Bishop does he become Bishop of Rome. Yes, the term Pope, which means just “Father”, can be used for both. And that is why we had two popes for nearly 10 years.

And this is why that Dr. Mazza had to discount Andrea Cionci’s findings, because you have to ignore all of what Pope Benedict XVI said after the resignation, where he makes it clear that he did NOT abdicate, and thus did not give up the petrine munus, and thus remained the one true Pope, in the sense of Vicar of Christ.

One should discount no evidence. It is also forensically erroneous to search for distant writings and ignore more present testimonies.

Thus, Dr. Mazza misunderstands what Benedict XVI says, about the Papacy (Petrine Munus) enters into your own being. Mazza holds that this is an error. But Benedict XVI understands that the one holding the Petrine Munus holds it in his own personal being, and that is why he loses it in death, when his person is destroyed in death. — I would concede that it is debatable to hold that the Petrine Munus is a habitual grace or a habitual relation. From God’s point of view, I think it would be better say, that it is a habitual designation of a man as His Vicar on Earth, on account of which there is the concession of a habitual grace and a providence of actual graces in the soul and in those who serve him. But these are opinions, not errors.

So there is no error in the mind of Benedict XVI. What Benedict XVI is saying, is that one can give up the Ministry and still remain the Pope. Which is exactly the truth of the matter.

Finally, I will give a hat tip to Marshall for at least a mention. But he gets his theology entirely wrong. He does not know the difference between a Conclave of Cardinals convened by Universi Dominici Gregis, and an assembly held by apostolic right. Well, he is a convert from Anglicanism, so I do not expect him to understand what we Catholics at Rome have always believed. He mocks the election of Pope Francis, saying that I, Br. Bugnolo, hold that I gave Pope Francis the keys. This is such an absurd misunderstanding that I won’t reckon it as an insult. I have explained it well enough in, The Triumph of the Lamb of God. But if you do not have the Catholic Faith, or simply are entirely ignorant of papal theology and the source of the right to elect the Pope, I cannot help you.

But I do concede that since both of these man have Doctorates, they will find it a hard time before the day of the grave, to ever admit I was ever correct in anything, where they were wrong.

But, Dr. Mazza misses the elephant in the room, because he continues to think Pope Benedict XVI’s is an application of canon 332, when it is an application of canon 333. Thus there is no error in what Pope Benedict XVI did. But there is an error in what the Cardinals and Curia wanted it to mean. He never intended an abdication and thus you cannot invoke canon 188 for a twofold reason, namely, because canon 188 does not apply to canon 333 which is not a renunciation of office. The error is in everyone else who thinks that was an abdication. And if anyone could fault the Holy Father, it is like what one Cardinal said recently, that he was too meek and did not rebuke those around him who were in error. He had castled his king in a game of chess which lesser minds still cannot understand.

But what Dr. Mazza says about the words munus, ministerium, and officium, makes me burst ought laughing, since I know well as a Latinist who has published two critical Latin translations of a medieval texts, that if you think they mean the same thing you are totally ignorant in Latin and lack the most basic understanding of the principles of etymology and semiotics.

Andrea Cionci has a much better grasp of what Benedict XVI meant and said, since he has shown that in the mind of Benedict XVI the Petrine Munus can be distinguished from the being of the Bishop of Rome, the being of Pope, and the ministry of each.

UPDATE

Here is a perfect example of someone who knows nothing about Canon law or theology, reacting to the above Marshall interview of Dr. Mazza (see below). Now ask yourself, why anyone would publish such praise of such a problematic interview, and then listen to AJ’s interview of me about the Catholic Grifter collective.