Introduction and Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Since 2016, Father Faré who had obtained in 2013 a Doctorate in Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome, found himself profoundly shocked by a statement of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and so began years of profound study to understand what was going on in the Church. From the context of his comments he appears to be a priest in the region of Milan. In this discourse, he publicly announces his position on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI with clarity, eloquence and precision.
Not knowing of the Assembly of Apostolic Right, he believes furthermore that Pope Francis has never been validly juridically elected. He states, however, that he is not a sedevacantist in principle — he calls his position, that of recognizing an undeclared sede-vacante resulting from the mere juridical fact that there has been no election of a pope after the death of Pope Benedict XVI. He also cites the other books he has used. He evidently does not read English. And though he cites many juridical sources, he evidently is entirely ignorant of the right of the Roman Church to elect her own Bishop.
Father Faré, despite his doctorate in theology, makes several statements which are grossly erroneous or highly problematic.
First, he states that in virtue of a valid papal election, the person of the pope is incapable of falling into heresy. This is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that in virtue of his papal office, which shares in the Church’s own gift of indefectibility, he cannot teach — that is impose as a doctrine to be accepted by a juridical obligation — what is contrary to the faith. But that the man who is the pope can fall into and be the promoter of error is a fact of history and the assertion of many saints, such as Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, doctor of the Church, affirms explicitly when he writes of the man who is pope and his personal opinions, “Who can be ignorant of the fact that a pope can be obnoxious because of his errors?”, in his tract on papal infallibility. And there is the famous case of Honorius I who signed a letter which contained material heresy in that it affirmed that in Christ there was one animus, not two wills, Divine and Human. — On the other hand, yes, there have been many writers, even Saints and Blesseds, who held that it was probable that Christ would not allow His Vicar to fall into heresy. But they did not specify if this was public or non public heresy. Because canonically, if a man is not condemned for heresy by a legitimate juridical judgement of a legitimate ecclesiastical authority, even his manifest, formal and pertinacious heresy has not be juridically established and thus in law is public heresy, which is what “heresy” in the plain sense of the term means when speaking of heresy, that is of an enemy of God’s teaching. So to what sense Christ would not allow His Vicar to become a heretic is certain a point worthy of debate. But without a Provincial Council to reprehend the man, we can never know with certitude where the grace and favor of the Lord stands.
Second, he holds a novel position that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium, not the munus, to make the subsequent Conclave canonically invalid, so as to prevent a globalist being elected through the canvassing of votes. While it is certainly possible that Pope Benedict XVI knew of the future intentions of the Mafia of St. Gallen, it is hardly rational to suppose he renounced invalidly to prevent a future Conclave electing invalidly a globalist contender, made invalid by a secret but never known vote canvassing, since there would never have been a Conclave if Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaration had not appeared to be a renunciation! — No, rather, as I have shown, the only rational explanation, if Benedict XVI was not in any way confused or in error was that he did not intend anyone alive in his own time being validly elected, as I explained in my parable, Viva Guadalajara! But even such a supposition, which I humourously advanced, would not leave Pope Benedict XVI free from being charged with grave and exaggerated presumption of attempting to control who would be his successor.
Rather, the only way to entirely exculpate Benedict XVI has to be either to establish he was forced — but all the witnesses who had familiarity with him deny — or that he was operating under some sort of philosophical error, namely, that the Papacy is merely a title and ministry, and does not contain a substantial being, or essere, which has to be properly named with the term “munus”: an error into which he fell not intentionally but as a philosophical consequence of his habitual life-long rejection of the terminological and ideological schema of Scholastic Theology and Philosophy.
Third, Father Faré says that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI bound the Church in such a wise that a pope cannot be validly juridically elected except by the Cardinals in a Conclave in virtue of the Papal Law. But as I have often said, the preface to the Papal Law, Universi Dominici gregis, does not say that at all. In fact, it admits that the institution of the Conclave of Cardinals is not essential or necessary for a valid papal election. But Father Fare, without a degree in canon law, obviously cannot be expected to understand the hierarchy of rights, and the relationship between Apostolic Right to Canon Law and Papal Law, nor understand that why in every key passage of the canons and the Papal Law, the text speaks not of legal or canonical validity but of juridical legitimacy.
But, fourth, and the worse of all is that of which Father Fare is most likely not at all culpable, namely, that he has considered the problem, but not the solution. Because no affirmation of the invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation solves the present problem of a manifest, formal and pertinacious heretic claiming the office of the Papacy. Only the Sutri Initiative addresses that. And unless you call for that, you solve nothing, though you might score points for virtue signalling. And it only makes sense, because nothing in the Church can be done regarding an apparent anti-pope or heretic claiming the papacy, except in a Provincial Council of the ecclesiastical province of Rome.
Father ends, however, with a hopeless situation in which he urges us to have hope, namely, that the Church will one day have a legitimate pope, but we will never know how or why, since he has already affirmed that Cardinals appointed by an antipope cannot validly elect a pope. The fact that he has so carefully considered the past, but not the future, is thus, ultimately the most amazing thing to me, since wisdom consists first in prudence, that is foresight, not in understanding.
His analysis is refreshing, nevertheless, for this, for his repeated urging that Catholics not break from ecclesial communion, not condemn other Catholics or clergy whose personal knowledge of these matter is not so clear, and not join any sect which believes it is the true remnant of believers. And yes he explicitly states that he has no intention of joining Don Minutella’s “Priestly Fraternity”.
Here are other versions of his homily, made by other channels.
French:
English, by Father Minutella:
