It is a principle of natural law, that anyone who presents himself as anything, has the duty to give reasons which justify his claims in public. This in past ages has never been much of an issue with regard to Catholic priests or Bishops. It was sufficient to know that he was a priest or a Bishop.
But with the planned and organized and generation-long effort by Masons in and outside the Church to corrupt the priesthood of Jesus Christ in the Church, it is no longer always and everywhere safe to presume the priest you know is Catholic, that is correct in doctrine, even when he is a Catholic priest.
So you should ask your local priest questions and not merely act as dumb sheep, if he appears to deviate from right doctrine or orthodox practice.
And no, I am not talking about him mistakenly leaving the cruets on the Altar rather than on the credence table. I am talking about issues which regard whether he has accepted the religion of Globalism or whether he is a Catholic.
If he says in a homily, that Greta Thurnburg is a Saint. Then you do not need to discuss anything with him, you need to denounce him as a heretic to your Bishop. I counseled one laymen on this matter recently, and after writing his bishop, the priest was removed as pastor from his parish.
No, I am speaking about ambiguous speech. If a priest says we must be accepting to habitual sinners and goes on and on about this, then you should question him, because he may be a habitual sinner himself with intentions of corruption your sons and/or daughters.
If he says he hates honest politicians like Donald Trump or Matteo Salvini, you should question him about his politics. Because if he is a Marxist he is an apostate on account of this, that he rejects the entire soteriology of the Church. Soteriology is the theology of salvation. Salvation consists in our supernatural conformity, body and soul, to the will of God, through the Sacraments, with the merit of eternal life in Heaven. It does not consist in fulfilling the political platform of the local left wing party.
In fact, if your priest admits he votes for the Left, you should question him, because with a few questions you will be able to reveal that he is either a heretic or an apostate, and then you can denounce him to your Bishop and leave the parish for another one.
If he preaches against the prolife movement, against those who want right doctrine or praxis, if he says that truth does not matter or says things which are confused, you should question him. I remember years ago, I was visiting a Church on Holy Trinity Sunday, and the priest said: At the baptism of Jesus a voice was heard, the voice of the Holy Spirit saying, “This is my beloved son, listen to him”. In charity I assumed the priest was drunk on some physical liquid, and so I denounced him by letter to his bishop. In a week or two he was removed from the parish.
I know of a real case, in the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, where a priest spoke in favor of contraception and abortion during a homily. The whole parish rose up and physically ran him out of the parish. The Bishop graciously responded by removing the priest as pastor. They questioned him before the ran him out, but they did the right and Catholic thing. God bless both them and their Bishop.
So it is important to speak with your priest, when he starts acting strange. Because if you don’t, it will lead to more serious scandals and the lost of faith of your brother and sisters in Christ. And do not hesitate to denounce bad priests, because this is a blessing for all: for by denouncing bad priests, you make the life of every other good priest in the Diocese easier, by removing a stain, a cross and a plague on the local Church.
If you have a question about the strange behavior of a priest, and seek advice, publish your story in a comment, but remove all identifying information as to place and person, so as to protect the reputations of all involved.
CREDITS: The featured image is of Fra Angelico’s, The arrest of Christ, and is in the public domain, being a faithful reproduction of an original work of art which is mroe than 200 years old.
+ + +
Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.
Christian charity requires that we not refuse to speak with our superiors or inferiors. The Crisis in the Church now is so grave that we should all be seeking to speak with our superiors about it and about how to remedy it. One thing we must discuss is the canonically erroneous declaration of Feb. 11, 2013 by the man who is Pope Benedict XVI. Erroneous, manifestly, because no one had the respect for his Office or person to point out that the act needed to be redone, IF it was his intention to posit an act in conformity with Canon 332 §2.
For this reason I have written more than 50 Cardinals, I think — I am not sure I have lost count — to raise the issue. And recently one of them had the Christian charity to respond to me in writing. I cannot divulge the actual text, for the sake of my respect for his person and office, but I can divulge my text in reply, because I think it addresses a problem we all are having when we speak with out superiors about Pope Benedict’s Declaratio.
The Cardinal wrote to me that we must presume that Pope Francis is validly elected and holds the petrine munus, and therefore, he told me that he did not want to speak with me in person about the Renunciation.
Here is my reply to this prince of the Church:
If you ask any Doctor of Law, you will see that the reason you give, namely, “We must assume Pope Francis is a validly elected pope, who actually represents the petrine munus”, is a statement which compounds several errors:
1. First, that a man is the pope is not a presumption of fact, but the conclusion of law. For example, he is not the pope, whom the Cardinals say is the pope, rather, he is the pope who was elected according to the norm of Universi Dominici Gregis. To say the first, that is, that he whom the Cardinals says is the pope, is the pope, confuses the means whereby we know a canonical fact with the cause of the legitimacy of a canonical fact. They are two different things.
2. Second, in all law, whether Roman, Napoleonic or Common, the cessation of power is never presumed. This is an ancient principle, the ignoring of which would cause chaos in society. The corollary is that the cessation of right is never presumed. Now a Papal renunciation is the first moment in a petrine succession. And a succession of legal right is judged as a cessation of power. As Mons. Arrieta, of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, affirmed in my presence on Dec 11, 2019, such an act of renunciation must be clear in itself, it cannot be interpreted to be valid, because no one has the right to interpret it. This is because, interpretation of a law is the cause of its being understood other than what it is. And the Code of Canon Law does not grant that right, in papal renunciations, since they must be manifestly a renunciation of petrine munus.
3. Third, your affirmation that Pope Francis must be assumed to be validly elected, is the supposition of a conclusion as the first premise of your thought. In other words, you have taken what you should, in virtue of a series of illations based on facts and law, hold as a conclusion, and make it the first principle whereby your mind refuses to presuppose that from which it is illated. This is the logical error called petitio principii.
4. In truth, if you read Universi Dominici Gregis n. 37, Pope John Paul II required that a sede vacante be verified as a legal one. But Mons Arrieta assured me that no such verification was done in Feb. 2013. In fact, canon 40 invalidates everything done by a subject receiving an administrative act, before he verifies the integrity of the act itself. Yet the Vatican was publishing different versions of the Declaratio for many days, so an integral act was never had prior to the announcement minutes after the Consistory of Feb. 11, that the act meant a renunciation of the papacy. Indeed, as a Latinist who has published both a Grammar and translated over 9000 pages of Scholastic texts, I have found more thn 40 errors in the Latin text. There are moreover at least 6 canonical errors in the central act, which render it invalid, null or irritus. Furthermore, canon 41 gives each of us the duty to refuse an actus nullus and requires that we have recourse to the authority issuing the act. As Mons. Arrieta affirmed again to me, in the case of a papal resignation, if the act is null it must be redone, and if it is unclear the recourse to the superior must be to solicit another valid act, since he himself cannot make it valid by an interpretation. Thus, the mere fact that Pope Benedict said he renounced the ministerium, when Canon 332 §2 requries the renunciation of munus, means that the act is also irritus in virtue of canon 188, for substantial error, and irritus in virtue of canon 38 for not containing a derogation of the requirement to name the munus.
I can understand that as a Cardinal you would be disinclined to broach the issue of the legitimacy of the previous apparent Conclave, in which you never participated, but as Catholics we risk the penalty of eternal damnation, if we allow the Petrine Succession to falter for reasons so grave. Words have meaning, and if we reject that, then we will not find mercy before the terrible seat of Judgement of the Divine Word, who said of Pope John Paul II when he foresaw his Code of Canon Law in 1983: Whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven.
Finally, I have not demanded a meeting with Your Eminence, but I have pointed out the grave reasons why you should act, and at least do the due diligence required of you in Canon 41 and seek a private audience with Pope Benedict, before he loses his mental faculties. I assure you that he will tell you that it was never his intention to renounce the petrine munus, only to renounce the petrine ministerium and office. I say this based on a complete study of everything he said from Feb. 11, 2013 to today. And Antonio Socci agrees with me, as he said in his interview with Aldo Maria Valli just last week.
Sincerely in Saint Francis,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
CREDITS: The Featured Image is my own photo of a bas-relief in the Basilica of the Most Holy Savior, here at Rome, showing a Pope kneeling in adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Truth Incarnate.
+ + +
Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.
As I have said before, everything in the Bergoglian Church is founded upon lies and falsehoods. And the more you investigate, the more you find that this is true.
In many posts, here at The From Rome Blog, I have focused on the canonical problems of the Declaratio read aloud by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, during the Consistory of Cardinals called for the canonization of the Martyrs of Otranto and other saints.
Today I want to share only a short reflection, directed that those who think, that since everyone accepted that Benedict resigned the papacy, upon the news published that day, that we are canonically or morally bound to hold fast with that interpretation until some authority says otherwise.
The truth is, however, exactly the opposite.
And the truth is the opposite, because, once again, Pope John Paul II saved the Church from that kind of false thinking when he promulgated the Code of Canon Law in 1983, specifically including canon 40, which addresses this very issue.
That canon reads as follows in the Latin, official text:
Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.
Here is my English translation:
Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his office (suo munero), before he receives the documents (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) their integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of them has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.
And here is the problem, plain to see. Pope Benedict XVI read his Declaratio on that day between 11:30 and 11:40 A.M. It was so unexpected, that Vatican TV had to turn the cameras on several moments after the reading had begun. — Tell me again, that this was planned for months in advance, as Archbishop Ganswein keeps insisting in recent years!
Then at 11:58, Father Lombardi gives Giovanna Chirri, the ANSA pool reporter, the go ahead to tweet out that Benedict was resigning, he will leave the Pontificate on Feb. 28th.
But from Feb. 11, 2013 to about Feb. 18, 2013, the Vatican Press Office was publishing varying versions of the Renunciation, correcting now this, now that.
Thus, only until the final version was had, could anyone VALIDLY respond to it in canonical form, since Canon 40 requires that those with an office in the Church NOT act until they have the administrative act in hand in its integral form.
This means that the idea that Benedict had resigned the Papacy arose in that period of time in which Pope John Paul II forbid any canonically binding actions. That means that whoever told Lombardi to tell reporters anything, acted invalidly according to Canon Law. Which means that their act binds no one! And can never bind anyone.
It also means that once the final version was published, ALL who held office in the Church were canonically obliged TO RE-EXAMINE the act. — Did they do that?
I suggest the next time anyone says Bergoglio is certainly the Pope, ask them if they did that on Feb. 19, 2013. I bet you will find that the answer is that they did not.
So the next time anyone attempts to gaslight you into thinking that you are wrong to disagree with the “universal acceptance” of Benedict’s renunciation, you might want to ask them if they have ever read Canon 40 and considered that not only was the news Fake News, but its publication lacks ALL CANONICAL AUTHORITY. This means, that the news never came from the Church of Jesus Christ, as an ontological entity.
As the sheep of Christ, then, we are gravely obliged to stop regarding it as authoritative. Indeed, to continue to do so is to transfer our loyalty, which we should show to the Church, to some other entity. And that is precisely the shell game of the AntiChrist.
+ + +
Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.
On March 13, 2013 a Schism was consummated in the Church by the College of Cardinals, who dared to convene a Conclave during the life of a Pope who had not resigned in accord with Canon 332 §2. Nearly everyone was drawn into this schism due to the rash and false announcement put out by Father Lombardi on Feb. 11, 2013, when he gave Giovanna Chirri the via libera to publish a tweet at 11:58 AM that morning, just minutes after the end of the Consistory for the Martyrs of Otranto, claiming that Benedict had resigned and would give up the Pontificate on February 28.
During the last 7 years, the Holy Spirit has been stirring up Catholics to re-examine the Renunciation and realize in accord with the right granted them in canon 41 that the Renunciation was never valid, because it never named the thing a Pope must renounce to renounce the Papacy: the petrine munus.
For Catholics loyal to Christ, our duty now is to convince the Cardinals and Bishops to stop adhering to this Schism. Bergoglio never was the Successor of Saint Peter and is not the Pope: Benedict XVI is.
However, I am willing to admit that the Cardinals might not have the intellectual capacity or the moral ability to recognize the truth of what they did (schism and usurpation) and of what the Renunciation really meant: nothing at all but the uncanonical expression of an old man who was tired of governing those who did not obey him.
So I am willing to propose a solution for the Church, which does not require the Cardinals to have any virtue other than pragmatic prudence. And in this post, I will discuss that which regards the possibility that Bergoglio leaves office before Benedict.*
The solution would be, that after the resignation of Bergoglio (may God hasten the day!) or after the death of Bergoglio (may he repent before it comes upon him), the Cardinals decide to re-elect Pope Benedict as the pope.
In this way they return to loyalty to the Pope without having to admit their error or sin. In this way they get a superior who probably wont ever correct them in anything, being so old and weak.
While one can argue that the Cardinals cannot validly or legitimately elect anyone during the life time of Pope Benedict, nevertheless, such a post-Bergoglian faux Conclave would serve as a cover for their return to communion with him.
So materially it would be a papal conclave and election, but formally it would me an act of re-submission to the Roman Pontiff. And Benedict does not even have to agree or be informed, because he is already pope and has already accepted his canonical election in 2005!
So I say this publicly now, so that if the occasion presents itself, Catholic bloggers and Clergy might take swift action to persuade the better Cardinals to propose this path of action in the future. I myself will make it a point to discuss it with every Cardinal I get the chance to speak with, and I encourage all to write every Cardinal and suggest it.
Because, we must keep ever in mind, that what matters most of all is the salvation of souls. And this objective requires that first the College of Cardinals and the College of Bishops and the Clergy return to communion with Pope Benedict XVI, the true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.
After that, the Church can get to business condemning the individual heresies of Cardinal Bergoglio.
For many, however, this controversy has caused them to forget how necessary submission to the true Roman Pontiff is for society and their own personal salvation, so I will reprint here in full the English translation** of the Bull of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, which is a must read for all Catholics right now in the Church.
One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority
Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in Her firmly and We confess with simplicity that outside of Her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and She represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In Her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and We read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard‘ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God‘ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as Our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: ‘Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms‘ and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man‘ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by Us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, We declare, We proclaim, We define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
* In my post tomorrow, I will discuss the opposite case, and what the solution there might be.
** Source, with a few corrections, regarding honorific capitalizations, added by myself here on the pronouns referring to the Roman Pontiff and to Holy Mother Church.
The Saints who have been canonized are already in the glory of Paradise, and so, baring an extraordinary grace, do not speak to us anymore. But those Saints who have fully explained their opinions or teaching on any point, can be said to speak to us today. This is especially true of Saints who have taught on questions of law and the principles to be followed in controversies. Of which kind is Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, Doctor of the Church on all questions of moral theology, and not a few questions of law.
No one has the right to interpret a Papal Resignation
As I reported in my notes for my meeting with Bishop Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts — who is the top Vatican official for questions of legal interpretation — he emphatically declared, that no one has the right to interpret a Papal Resignation. It must be clear in itself.
This statement by Bishop Arrieta clears up the entire controversy over the renunciation of Pope Benedict. Because, it ends it. That is, since Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium, not anything else. No one has the right to say that he renounced the Papal Office or petrine Munus or even power of governance. Because to say that something else, requires an interpretation. And no one, not even the man who is the pope, has the right to interpret the act of renunciation.
But the statement of Bishop Arrieta is not of his own making. It is the necessary conclusion of legal principles. First, that a declaration made by the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, and not the pope, cannot be judged by anyone except according to the norm of law. And since a declaration by such man when regarding the renunciation of the Office regards the renouncing of the Office, one cannot appeal to the holder of the office to interpret it. Because if it was valid, then the holder is no longer the holder, and thus cannot receive appeals. If it was not valid, then appealing to the holder of the office is tantamount to declaring the renunciation in valid.
Any appeal to Pope Benedict XVI to clarify what he meant means that the Resignation is invalid
This is a very important point, which has been overlooked in this 7 year controversy. Anyone who appeals to anything which Pope Benedict said before or after Feb. 28, 2013, to explain that the Renunciation means the renunciation of the papacy, or of the petrine munus, or of the power of governance IS IMPLICITLY AFFIRMING THAT POPE BENEDICT IS STILL THE POPE AND THAT THE RENUNCIATION WAS INVALID, because they are trying to have recourse to an official interpretation. And if the act needs to be interpreted, then it is doubtful. And if the renunciation is doubtful, then in virtue of canon 332 §2, it is invalid for lack of due manifestation.
What Saint Alphonsus says about the interpretation of a law:
For those who have overdosed on the falsehood of universal acceptance, and quote Saint Alphonsus, let us see what the Saint would say about the games the authors of such sophisms play with the words “munus” and “ministerium,” to make the Resignation say what it does not say. For this we must have recourse to the teaching of Saint Alphonsus, taken from his great work, Theologia Moralis, Bk. I, tract ii, p. 242, De interpretatio legis. I will first quote the Latin, for those who can read Latin, and then give an English translation:
DE INTERPRETATIO LEGIS
200. Interpretatio alia est Authentica, alia Usualis, alia Doctrinalis. Authentica fieri potest vel ab ipso legislatore, vel ab eius successore, aut a superiore. Usualis est illa, quae ita ab usu est recepta. Doctrinalis autem est declaratio quaedam mentis legislatoris, quase a quocumque doctore fieri potest.
Hic dubitur an delcarationes, quae fiunt a Pontifice, vel a principe alicuius legis, indigeant promulgatione, ut obligent. In hoc distinguere oportet declarationes pure tales ab aliis quae sunt non pure tales, sed potius sunt merae interpretationes. Declarationes pure tales sunt, cum ab illis explicatur aliquis sensus, qui usque ab initio iam erat clare imbibitus in lege: ex. gr. si dubium sit, an sub verbo filii intelligatur solus legitimus aut eitam spurius, et legislator declarat intelligi etiam spurium, tunc verum fit quod sensus in lege erat clare imbibitus. Interpretatio autem, sive declaratio non pure talis est illa, cuius sensus non est clare imbibitus in lege, sed circa ipsum variae sunt opiniones, et tantum deducitur ex argumentis, v. gr. quod sub nomine patris intelligatur eitam avus, aut quod sub nomine moartis intelligatur etiam mors civilis, prout est carcer perpetuus, aut simile, recurrendo ad quamdam impropriam significationem.
His positis, dicimus cum Suarez, Castropal. Vasques, Sals, Salm. Holzaman, La-Croix, Supplet Sporger etc. quod declaratio sensus clare imbibiti in lege non requirit promulagationem, sed etiam obliget eos omnes qui illum noverint, cum talis declaratio non sit nova lex. Interpretatio vero alicuius sensus non clare, sed tantum obscure, sive improprie imbibiti in lege, quae est declaratio non pure talis (ut diximus) haec, quia habetur tanquam nova lex, ut obliget, necessario promulgationem requirit, sicut omnes aliae leges juxta dicta. n. 95 et 96. Hinc infertur cum Suar. de Leg. 1. 6. c. 1. n. 3 et Castrop. tr. 3. eod. tit. d. 5. p. 3. §. 1. n. 5 (qui citat pro se Bon. Salas, et Lorca) quod declaratio, quae fit a legislatore alicuius sensus clare in lege imbibiti (juxta exemplum adductum filii legitimi, et spurii) non requirit promulgatioem, ut obliget. Contra vero declaratio sensus obscure imbibiti (juxta exemplus avi sub nomine patris, vel mortis civilils sub nomine mortis) indiget quidem promulgatione; tunc enim ipsa novam constituit obligationem, quae per se non erat prius clare in lege imbibita. Et idem dicunt Suar. loc. cit. et Castrop. n. 2 de illis declarationibus, quae fiunt non ab eodem legislatore, sed ab eius successore, aut superiore; quia legislatoris mens nequit his esse ita cognita, ut erat ipsi legislatori; unde tunc, ut declaretur sensus (quamvis imbibitus in lege) alicuius obligationis, semper opus est recurrere ad argumenta, et interpretationes, quae novam legam constituunt, reddendo certum quod erat dubium; et ideo promulgatio requiritur, alias declaratio nunquam authentica, sed tantum doctrinalis repubabitur.
My English translation:
On the Interpretation of Law
200. One interpretation is authentic, another customary, another academic. An authentic (interpretation) can be made either by the legislator himself, and/or by his successor, or by a superior. A customary (interpretation) is that, which has been received thus by custom. Moreover, an academic (interpretation) is a certain declaration of the mind of the legislator, which can be made by any professor.
Here, there is doubted whether declarations, which are made by the Pontiff, and/or by a prince for any law, are in need of promulgation, to oblige. In this, it is necessary to distinguish those which are purely such from those which are not purely such, but rather mere interpretations. Declarations are purely such, when by them there is explicated some sense, which was clearly incorporated in the law already from the beginning: e. g., if there be a doubt, whether under the term, “son” there be understood only a legitimate or even an illegitimate son, and the the legislator declares (the word “son” in the law”) is to be understood even as an illegitimate one, then indeed it becomes that (that) sense in the law was clearly incorporated in the law. But an interpretation, or declaration which is not purely such, is that, the sense of which is not clearly incorporated in the law, but about which there are various opinions, and as much as is deduced through arguments, e. g., that under the term, “father”, there be understood also a grandfather, or that under the term, “death”, there be also understood a civil death, insofar as is perpetual incarceration, or the like, by recurring to a certain improper signification.
With these things posited, We say with Suarez, Castropal., Vasquez, Sals. Salimancans, Holzman, La-Croix, Supplet Sporget etc.., that the declaration of a sense clearly incorporated in the law does not require promulgation, but that it also obliges all those who know of it, though such a declaration is not a new law. But an interpretation of some sense not clearly, but obscurely, or improperly incorporated in the law, which is not a declaration purely such (as we have said above), this (kind), because it is held to be a new law, to oblige, requires necessarily a promulgation, just as all other laws spoke of in nn. 95 and 96. Hence, there is inferred with Suarez de Leg. 1. 6. c. 1. n. 3 and Castrop. tr. 3. eod. tit. d. 5. p. 3. §. 1. n. 5 (qui citat pro se Bon. Salas, et Lorca), that a declaration, which is made by the legislator of any sense clearly incorporated in the law (according to the example given above of the legitimate and illegitimate son) does not require a promulgation, to oblige. However, contrariwise, the declaration of a sense obscurely incorporated (according to the example given of a grandfather under the term of “father”, and/or of a civil death under the term of “death”) do indeed need a promulgation; for then it itself constitutes a new obligation, which per se was not beforehand clearly incorporated in the law. And the same is said by Suarez. loc. cit, and Castrop. n. 2, of those declarations, which are not made by the ssame legislator, but by his successor, or superior; because the mind of the legislator is never so known to other as it was to the legislator himself: on which account, then, to declare the sense (though incorporated in the law) of any obligation, it is always necessary to have recourse to arguments, and interpretations, which constitute a new law, by rendering certain what was doubtful; and for that reason a promulgation is required, otherwise the declaration is never an authentic one, but only is reputed to be a doctrinal one.
Thus, Saint Alphonsus.
What the teaching of Saint Alphonsus on Legal interpretation means in regard to the Renunciation
From this text, we can glean three truths.
When the meaning is clearly incorporated into the law, that meaning is the authentic one, and its sense is binding upon all, as for example, when Benedict says he renounces the ministry, all are obliged to understand that as a renunciation of ministry.
When the word which is subject to a possible interpretation is a noun which includes all possible interpretations according to its essential signification, such as “son” includes natural and legal sons, not just legal sons, then the interpretation is a customary one and is obliging upon all, once the legislator declares that his mind was to include all such possibilities. But before such a declaration it is not binding.
When the word which is subject to a possible interpretation is a noun, which DOES NOT include the possible wanted interpretation, such as “ministerium” in the text of Pope Benedict’s resignation is wanted to mean “munus” or “officium” which are entirely other words, then the interpretation is NOT AUTHENTIC and is not binding upon anyone, and only can become binding, when promulgated by the legislator or his successors.
And thus one can conclude, from the testimony of Bishop Arrieta and Saint Alphonsus, that the interpretation of the Cardinals and Bishops that Benedict’s renunciation of ministry is equivalent in law, or signification, or intention, to a resignation of the Papal Office or Petrine Munus, is not only an illegitimate interpretation, but is an interpretation which is not binding upon anyone!
Moreover, one can conclude, that even if hypothetically any successor of Pope Benedict XVI were to say that such a reading of the text (where ministerium = munus) is the one Benedict intended, then the act itself posited by Benedict was invalid as per canon 332 §2, since it was not duly manifest in itself, but required another promulgated interpretation to make it valid.
And this means that the very existence of the plot to solve the Pope Emeritus problem is not only evidence that the resignation was invalid from the start, but is DOOMED TO FAILURE since as an interpretation of the act, its very promulgation will publicly testify to and canonically establish the invalidity of the renunciation!
In other words, there is no way to fix the invalidity of the resignation by any subsequent act. And what the Cardinals and Bishops are doing is GRAVELY IMMORAL AND DISHONEST and, moreover, is a grave USURPATION OF RIGHT.
One can also honestly say, therefore, that the usurpation of the Papacy by Bergoglio is a moral consequence of the usurpation of the right of interpretation by the Cardinals, and that Bergoglio’s bizarre moral character and state of mind is the perfect fruit of and punishment for their sin.
Le but de cette vidéo est de fournir une démonstration claire et irréfutable que le pape Benoît XVI n’a pas renoncé de manière valide à l’office de la papauté en février 2013 et qu’il est donc toujours le pape.
hopefully the Polish version will be published next week too.
From Rome Blog asks all its readers to SHARE THESE VIDEOS on social media, also if you can help translate this Video into Arabic, Hungarian, Hindi and/or Swahili,please leave a message in the comment section of this page!
Vivimos en una era extraña cuando chismosos profesionales (conocidos como periodistas) son titiriteros de las masas porque el 95% de la gente permite que ellos dicten los límites de la realidad, historia, moralidad y religión. Y hasta que algún periodista destacado utilice la palabra “Herejía”, “Cismático”, o “Apóstata” en referencia a alguien que amerita el termino/s, entonces nadie con uso de razón acusaría a un compañero católico de tan horrible ofensa por juicio propio porque como como ellos dicen: “Todo mundo sabe que es cismático rechazar la comunión a un compañero católico de buen estado. ¡Y buen estado significa que aún no ha sido condenado oficialmente por la Iglesia!”
Esto es “gaslighting” (en inglés), por supuesto. Gas-lighting es un término con el cual todos deberían de familiarizarse. Es la táctica de aquellos practicados en la manipulación psicológica utilizada para ganar clientes, sujetos, inferiores, a negar la realidad que conocen y ven, y aceptar que la realidad es lo que el manipulador dice ser.
En cuanto fue elegido Bergoglio (como supuesto papa), comenzó el “gaslighting”. Estas viendo cosas, Él es el papa, no puedes hablar así del papa. Disentir es pecado mortal. Si no lo aceptas como papa estas fuera de la Iglesia.¡No eres católico!
Últimamente, a medida que las herejías y la malevolencia de Bergoglio explotan fuera de todas las proporciones que las de cualquier hereje anterior en la historia de la Iglesia, algunos católicos que anteriormente eran famosos por su ortodoxia doctrinal y moral experimentan ataques apopléticos en sus intentos de sofocar el reconocimiento de la realidad. “Reconocer y resistir” es su mantra. Están empeñados, literalmente, en permanecer en comunión con Bergoglio, luego, no se atrevan a llover sobre sus fantasías mostrándoles hechos de Ley Canónica (cánones números 1364, 1329, etc.) que demuestran que, por derecho divino, los herejes están fuera de la Iglesia, apenas profieren herejía.
Éstos apologetas de la revolución están tan empeñados en negar la realidad de la renuncia fallida del Papa Benedicto (cf ppbxvi.org para información completa). Se descomponen y arremeten. Muestran que su apego al “Papa Francisco” no es ni racional ni razonable, es visceral. Cuán visceral depende, supongo, de si observan los mandamientos sexto o noveno. Este completo colapso psicológico, intelectual y espiritual es el resultado de lo que yo llamo el acertijo de Iscariote. Uso “Iscariote” aquí en el sentido de la palabra aramea para un hombre del mismo pueblo que el falso apóstol, Judas Iscariote. Desde entonces como él, han vendido al verdadero Cristo por las 30 piezas de plata que es reconocimiento público por parte de los Cardenales como “católico fiel”.* Y como lo hicieron por razones puramente egoístas, sentimentales, no racionales y no legales o no dogmáticas, explotan de emoción cuanto más les señalas que han construido su casa sobre una premisa falsa. Entonces, arremeten cada vez más y pierden todos los rastros de aquel excelente personaje que alguna vez exhibieron, convirtiéndose en el proceso, irónicamente, la misma semejanza del diálogo que Bergoglio es, un Troll repugnante y que avienta adjetivos.
Un Estado de Emergencia
Nadie menos que él obispo Gänswein, el secretario personal del Papa Benedicto XVI y cabeza de la Casa Pontificia (que solo tiene un huésped CLAVE CLAVE) dijo que lo que Benedicto hizo en Febrero de 2013 fue a cuenta de un estado de emergencia.
Sus palabras y opiniones se debaten en cuanto a lo que significan, pero sería absurdo negar la realidad que es visible para todo el mundo, a saber, que LA SEDE APOSTÓLICA ESTÁ IMPEDIDA.
Decir que la Sede Apostólica está impedida, significa que el Papa no puede actuar como Papa por alguna razón, ya sea por coacción externa, o porque no hay Papa, o el Papa se niega a actuar por alguna convicción irracional o racional. Éste “ser impedido” provoca un estado de necesidad, porque la cabeza visible de la Iglesia visible, para todos los efectos prácticos, no está en función. El estado de necesidad es una necesidad del tipo que se requiere para el funcionamiento continuo de la Iglesia. Dado que el orden normal de gobierno está obstruido, la observancia de leyes meramente positivas en las que se basa, por necesidad, debe omitirse.
Nuestro Señor nos enseña este principio general a pequeña escala, cuando, en una ocasión, Él y Sus Apóstoles cruzaron un campo de trigo durante un tiempo en el que no habían comido nada, y algunos de ellos comieron los granos de trigo que estaban cerca. Al ser cosechados, algunos fariseos se quejaron de que estaban violando las Leyes del Sábado en contra de trabajar durante el sábado. Nuestro Señor señaló que la necesidad de su hambre les permitió no observar la ley sobre la cosecha. Él respondió con una forma semítica contundente, diciendo: “¡El sábado se hizo para el hombre, no el hombre para el sábado!”
La ley contra la cosecha fue instituida no menos que por Moisés, quien tenía mucha más autoridad en la Antigua Alianza (Moisés básicamente escribió todo, bajo la inspiración y dirección de Dios) que el Papa tiene en la Nueva Alianza (el Papa no puede cambiar el Biblia, ni siquiera el Padre Nuestro, aunque muchos clérigos están confundidos sobre este punto).
Además, está claro, según los principios de la lógica (ex minore),** que si Nuestro Señor dice que es lícito apelar a un estado de necesidad, suspender las leyes del Antiguo Pacto, porque los hombres tienen hambre un sábado por la tarde , entonces, obviamente, es lícito actuar en consecuencia CUANDO LA SALVACIÓN DE TODAS LAS ALMAS EN LA TIERRA HASTA EL FINAL DE LOS TIEMPOS se ponga en peligro grave e inminente. Negar esto sería pura locura.
Este principio de la suspensión del derecho positivo durante un estado de necesidad es sancionado por nada menos que el Papa Pío VI, en su Bula, Cum nos superiori anno, del 13 de noviembre de 1798, donde concede a los Cardenales el derecho a derogar Todos los aspectos no esenciales de las leyes papales sobre los cónclaves, a causa de la supresión de facto de la Iglesia de Roma por la República romana, dirigida por los revolucionarios franceses. ***
Extendiendo esta lección a los asuntos de la Iglesia, se deduce que, como buenos cristianos, estamos obligados por la fe divina a regresar al principio general que Jesús estableció, a saber, LA SALVACIÓN DE LAS ALMAS ES LA LEY MÁS ALTA. Para la Salvación de las Almas, el Padre Eterno sacrificó a Su propio Hijo, y Su propio Hijo aceptó Su muerte ignominiosa en una Cruz. PARA LA SALVACIÓN DE LAS ALMAS.
Si hay alguien, por lo tanto, en la Iglesia, que sostiene que debemos esperar a que el Papa (Benedicto) haga algo, o algún papa futuro que haga algo, ESTÁN FUERA DE SUS MENTES y más correctamente, SON FARISEOS que elevan las leyes positivas establecidas por la Iglesia (que indican lo que no se puede hacer sin el permiso de los superiores) al nivel de reglas que requerirían que la Iglesia se suicidara esperando algún tipo de intervención divina sin colaboración humana. Una intervención divina sin colaboración humana, en el presente caso de la Sede impedida, NUNCA SE HA PROMETIDO explícitamente. (Entiendo que hay algunas grandes promesas de Nuestro Señor y Nuestra Señora, pero ninguna de ellas se refiere explícitamente a una promesa de resolver este problema).
Derecho Apostólico (ius apostolicum)
El concepto de Derecho Divino (ius divinum) es un concepto de la escolástica tardía clásica, muy popular en la época del Concilio de Trento y posteriormente. Se refiere a cosas que han sido decretadas por Dios. El oficio de Pedro existe por derecho divino, por ejemplo.
El derecho apostólico (ius apostolicum) no está tan reconocido. Se refiere a las decisiones de los Apóstoles para el gobierno de la Iglesia. Es de derecho apostólico que la iglesia en una ciudad pueda ser gobernada por varios sacerdotes, por ejemplo.
Tanto el derecho divino como el derecho apostólico son superiores a la ley canónica. Por otro lado, lo que la mayoría de los católicos no saben es que, durante más de 1000 años, a excepción de los cánones decretados en los Concilios, la Iglesia no tuvo derecho canónico. El derecho canónico no es de institución divina o apostólica, aunque el Primer Concilio de Jerusalén c. El año 45 d. C. transmitió decisiones y es el ejemplo de todos los Concilios y Sínodos en la Iglesia.
El derecho apostólico también incluye algunas cosas que no se observan en el curso normal de los asuntos, porque desde la época de los Apóstoles, la Jerarquía Sagrada, para el buen orden de la Iglesia en circunstancias normales se han establecido cánones o leyes establecidas para conducir los asuntos de La Iglesia de otra manera.
Tomemos, por ejemplo, la elección de los obispos. Los apóstoles nombraron obispos antes de morir. Pero cuando pasaron a la gloria eterna, lo dejaron a cada diócesis por derecho apostólico para elegir su propio obispo. Y por “a cada diócesis”, me refiero a los católicos de cada diócesis, laicos, religiosos y clérigos. Así es como la Iglesia sobrevivió a 10 persecuciones romanas. Nadie estaba escribiendo a Roma para pedir una cita, cuando murió su obispo.
Además, es de derecho apostólico que cada obispo sirva como ordinario de su diócesis hasta la muerte. No había retiro (jubilación). Esa es una novedad creada por Pablo VI para eliminar a católicos del Colegio de Obispos y reemplazarlos por revolucionarios sodomitas. El derecho canónico reconoce implícitamente que este concepto de jubilación obligatoria es contrario al Derecho Apostólico, ya que no requiere que los Obispos renuncien, solo dice que deben presentar una carta de renuncia al cumplir los 75 años.
También es de derecho apostólico que los obispos puedan reunirse en sínodos y concilios. Hasta donde yo sé, no hay evidencia de que cada sínodo en la Historia de la Iglesia, que se considere un verdadero acto jerárquico, haya sido aprobado por el Papa. Las leyes positivas actuales requieren que el Papa consienta, pero el derecho apostólico no requiere eso. El derecho apostólico es más racional, porque cuando no hay papa o cuando el papa está preso, ¿cómo pueden obtener los permisos los obispos?
Pero la razón general para la reactivación del derecho apostólico tiene que ver con el principio inherente de subsidiariedad en una sociedad perfecta. Este principio fue reconocido por el papa León XIII. Sostiene que cuando la autoridad superior en una sociedad perfecta falla, entonces la autoridad inferior tiene el derecho de asumir el deber de la autoridad superior y actuar en la medida en que sea necesario actuar para preservar o defender esa sociedad. Dado que el Colegio de Obispos en su conjunto sucede a los Apóstoles, cuando la Sede de Pedro se ve obstaculizada, cada Obispo tiene el derecho moral y apostólico de ejercer en cierto sentido la autoridad de los Apóstoles para volver a poner a la Iglesia en buen estado de funcionamiento. Esta es una responsabilidad asombrosa reservada a casos extremos de necesidad, como está sucediendo hoy, con un gobierno hereje público del Vaticano y un Papa (Benedicto) que piensa que ya no es su deber gobernar la Iglesia o reivindicar sus propios derechos como Vicario de Cristo
En un estado de emergencia, el derecho apostólico y divino revive en puntos que ahora, en el curso regular de los asuntos de la Iglesia, regulados por la ley canónica, presuponen una Sede Apostólica que no está impedida. Estas leyes positivas de la Iglesia, que, si se observan, conducirían a la destrucción de la Iglesia o la pérdida de almas están suspendidas en vigor. Es decir, ya no es un delito canónico o una falta moral NO observarlos con la debida razón.
Si hay obispos o cardenales católicos en la tierra, deben reconocer esto antes de que sea demasiado tarde, o la desafortunada advertencia de Nuestra Señora de Akita sucederá, que los fieles se vean privados de los sacramentos de la Penitencia y la Eucaristía y Órdenes, porque ningún obispo tuvo la sensatez de ver que tenía el derecho apostólico o divino de actuar para preservar la Sagrada Jerarquía durante un papado impedido.
Esto se debe a que, con los Apóstoles ya no en la Tierra, y la Sede de Pedro en silencio, todos y cada uno de los miembros del Colegio de Obispos que permanecen católicos pueden asumir lícitamente los deberes de los Apóstoles para la propagación y preservación de la Fe.
Algunas de las cosas que cualquier obispo, con o sin jurisdicción, puede hacer, por derecho divino o apostólico, durante un papado impedido son las siguientes:
Llamar y convocar un Sínodo o Concilio para condenar las causas de la Sede impedida, o condenar a quienes la están perpetrando. (El Papa Julio II sanciona esto en principio) ****
Llamar y convocar un Sínodo o Concilio para deponer a los demandantes al papado que no tengan títulos canónicos válidos. (Esto se hizo en Sutri en 1046 y fue sancionado por San Pedro Damián, el Papa San Gregorio VII y el Bl. Papa Víctor III)
Reprobar a un papa por renunciar parcialmente y descuidar sus deberes apostólicos del ministerio. (Esto podría decirse que no es tan extremo como los nn. 1 o 2, por lo tanto, también se aprueba ex maiore)
Condenar a los herejes por su nombre, condenar las herejías. (Todos los obispos tienen este deber y derecho por derecho divino y apostólico)
Llamar y convocar un Sínodo o Concilio para condenar las herejías y perversidades que se están propagando por los Enemigos de la Iglesia, ya sea dentro o fuera de la Iglesia.
Ordenar obispos católicos para las diócesis que hayan sido asumidas por un obispo hereje donde el obispo católico haya declarado herejía o apostasía. (San Atanasio de Alejandría hizo esto en muchas ocasiones durante la crisis arriana)
Ordenar sacerdotes y diáconos católicos para los fieles de cada diócesis que se ven privados de los sacramentos debido al clero herético o cismático en su área. (San Atanasio de Alejandría hizo esto en muchas ocasiones durante la crisis arriana)
De hecho, durante los primeros 1500 años de la Iglesia, vemos a obispos regularmente haciendo muchas, si no todas, estas cosas. Tenían el beneficio de no estar plagados de conciencia por la ley positiva de la Iglesia, pero el sistema funcionó. Ahora que la Sede Apostólica, más aún el Vaticano, está completamente impedida y tomada por los herejes, ¡los obispos deben actuar!
Este no es el caso imaginario de los sedevacantistas a los que no les gusta un Papa ni el caso más sólido de los tradicionalistas que no quieren abandonar las tradiciones litúrgicas de su Rito: este es el caso de un ataque frontal directo a la Nueva Alianza: el Depósito de la Fe, las Escrituras y la Tradición, a través de la negación abierta de dogmas y doctrinas y disciplinas clave que provienen de Jesucristo y sus apóstoles.
Oraciones y Peticiones
Por favor oren por los obispos de la Iglesia, porque si no actúan, toda la riqueza, el poder y el prestigio de la Iglesia serán robados por una secta de sodomitas marxistas y cientos de millones de almas perecerán sin la doctrina y los sacramentos debidos.
Por favor, hable también con su obispo, si parece ser algo católico. Esto es crucial Conozco a católicos que tienen contactos y que están haciendo esto ahora. Pero aún queda mucho por hacer.
Los laicos católicos, debido a la inacción de los obispos, se ven obligados a aceptar sacramentos de los herejes y cismáticos y sodomitas perversos. Tienen el derecho divino de ser atendidos pastoralmente por el clero católico que está en comunión con el verdadero Papa. Y este derecho está siendo TRASGRESIDO DE MANERA DEMONÍACA Y UNIVERSALMENTE en todas las diócesis del mundo católico en la crisis actual.
Tenemos el derecho divino y apostólico de actuar con insistencia y con plena aprobación de la enseñanza y el ejemplo de Cristo.
* Utilizo citas aquí, para señalar lo absurdo que es este enfoque, sin ninguna evaluación razonable de los acontecimientos históricos, porque los Cardenales aceptaron una renuncia inválida y luego eligieron inválidamente a un psicópata arco-hereje, por lo que no es exagerado dudar de que los Cardenales están dispuestos o son capaces de reconocer lo que es un fiel católico
** Ex minore es un término técnico de lógica medieval que se refiere a declaraciones (argumentos) que se basan en apelar a algo que es verdadero en un caso menor, y argumenta a partir de eso, que debe ser cierto en un caso mayor. Nuestro Señor hace esto todo el tiempo, por ejemplo, en Sus parábolas del Rey preparándose para la guerra, el arquitecto preparándose para construir una torre, etc., como ejemplos de cómo si la prudencia es necesaria en las cosas terrenales, es aún más necesaria en cuestiones de salvación eterna.
*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Roma, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.
****Este Derecho Apostólico se incorporó en la Si summus rerum Opifex del Papa Julio II, en el Quinto Concilio de Letrán del 16 de febrero de 1513, que disponía que, si se violaba esta ley sobre los cónclaves papales con respecto a una elección simoniaca, los Cardenales que no participaban en la simonía podrían recurrir a un Sínodo o Consejo para destronar al antipapa elegido de forma no canónica. Bagliani y Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. Esta ley papal se publicó anteriormente como La Bula, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, 14 de enero de 1505 (ibid., P. 39). Este principio, reconocido por el Papa Julio II y el Quinto Concilio de Letrán, es el que autoriza el llamado de los Sínodos “imperfectos” en tiempos de necesidad, como el nuestro.
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:
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)****
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)
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)
Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
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.
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)
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.
* 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.
I write this post to publicly thank Mons. Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru, Titular Bishop of Civitate, who was appointed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI as Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.
I met with him this morning at 9:45. The meeting lasted about 75 minutes. I did not record the meeting, but want to share with everyone what I remember of it, because of its great importance to the life of the Catholic Church.
I began by saying that I had come to discuss the interpretation of law (interpretatio iuris) or more specifically the right to interpret canonical acts (ius interpretandi). Bishop Arrieta is an expert on this matter, having served in the capacity of a Professor of Canon Law since 1984 at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce, and from 2003 to 2008 at the Preside of the “St Pius X” Institute of Canon Law at Venice, and as Canonist to the Apostolic Penitentiary. Since February of 2007, he has served in the Pontifical Council as its Secretary. This title does not mean he is a secretary, but rather, the Vice President as it were to the Council.
I want to remark on the gentleness and noble demeanor of the Bishop, who never used any hominems, never lost his patience and showed himself willing to discuss the most impolitic issues, from the point of view of canon law, in the Church.
I began my questions with a preface, and with the Bishop’s permission read to him my entire article, entitled, ¡Viva Guadalajara! which was published, here, at the From Rome Blog, this morning.
During the reading, the Bishop could not hide his amusement at the fictitious story, but as I moved to my comments on how this story applies not only to the first moments of a papacy but also to the last, that is, to a Papal renunciation, the amusement on his face disappeared instantly. — Nevertheless, he continued to be polite.
He confirmed for me the following facts:
To his knowledge, there was no meeting of canonists in February of 2013 which discussed the validity of the Act of Renunciation, nor whether a renunciation of ministerium effected a renunciation of munus.
To his knowledge, Pope Benedict XVI never explained himself to any Cardinal or canonists in private as to whether his act effected a renunciation of the petrine munus or office.
To his knowledge, no act of interpretation of the Renunciation was ever promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI.
Bishop Arrieta did admit that he was asked questions regarding the Renunciation, on Feb. 11, 2013, but no question regarded the use of the term ministerium instead of munus.
He also confirmed for me these points of law:
If anyone heard Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013 explain or officially interpret his Act of Renunciation as an act of renouncing the munus, and left a sworn testimony to the fact, this would have no juridical value whatsoever. That is it would not make or alter the signification other than it is.
An act of papal Renunciation is not subject to the interpretation of anyone in the Church. That is, no one has the right to interpret it.
An act of papal Renunciation, therefore, must be certain in itself. If it is not certain, it is invalid.
There is no Canon in the Code of Canon Law which predicates the term ministerium of an ecclesiastical office.
What Ganswein said at the Gregorian University in 2016 A.D. — he admitted he had not read the text of Ganswein in full or in the original — is impossible, since the Papal Office is theologically incapable of being held by more than one man at a time.
It is canonically impossible that two persons hold he Petrine Munus at the same time.
The Roman Curia shares in the Petrine Ministerium, but not the Petrine Munus.
There can only be one pope.
The Pope is subject to Divine Law and cannot split the office.
Canon 1331 §2, n. 4 does allow an excommunicated person to hold a ministry in the Church, but that there is a reform of the Penal Code in the works and that this is something that will be addressed.
Canon 332 §2 requires a verbal renunciation, not a renunciation which is signified by gestures or after the fact statements.
The supreme theological and legal principle for interpretation of canonical acts is the teaching of Jesus Christ, where He said, “Let your yes be Yes, and your no, No, anything else comes from the Devil” (Mt. 5:37)
Now Bishop Arrieta did not agree with me in everything. He made it clear to me that he holds the following positions:
The Renunciation of Pope Benedict was certain and clear.
The Renunciation clearly signified the renunciation of the office of the papacy.
It is morally impossible in the judgement of Bishop Arrieta, based on his knowledge of the man, Ratzinger, that Pope Benedict intended to deceive anyone by pretending to resign one thing instead of the other.
Canon 332 §2, as regards the requirements of liberty and due manifestation, is not talking about a renunciation of the petrine munus.
The necessity in a papal renunciation is a renunciation of the papal office, not of the petrine munus, which is a canonical term which does not adequately reflect the theological reality.
In the Code of Canon Law there is no clear distinction between munus and ministerium.
Regarding this 4th position of the Bishop, I must say I tried to get a word in edgewise to object to such a patently false statement, as if conditions for validity for an act of renunciation of munus only regard the act of renouncing and not the object which is to be renounced. I think the Bishop just said this out of desperation because it is logically absurd on the face of it, as you cannot read part of a sentence which regards conditions for validity and ignore what was said as the fundamental condition for the occurrence or discernment of the occurrence of the act in question!
Regarding the 5th position, I disagree, because Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ, by promulgating the Code imposed upon the whole Church the canonical obligation of understanding it in accord with Canon 17, not as defective in anything. Therefore, an interpretation of canon 332 §2 which implies a defect, cannot be authentic.
I won’t respond here to n. 6, since I have devastatingly refuted it in the recent Academic Conference at Rome, the excerpt of which I published on this very topic, here.
What left me unsatisfied about our conversation is that I asked a lot of questions, but Mons. Arrieta could not give me answers. Here are some of my question, not verbatim, but according to their sense, that the Bishop did not or could not answer:
If it is clear that Pope Benedict resigned his office, can you explain to me canonically how he did that if he never mentioned the office or the Petrine Munus?
If Canon 41 gives to every priest the discretion and right to evaluate the Papal Act of Renunciation before deciding to stop naming Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, as the Pope, why it is canonically wrong if he exercise this discretion, judge the act nullus and continue to name Benedict?
If no one has the right to interpret the Papal Act, how can you explain why nearly everyone in the Hierarchy holds that it effected a renunciation of the Papal Office, if nowhere in the Act did Pope Benedict say I renounce the office or the munus? Is that not an interpretation?
While I am willing to concede out of respect for Pope Benedict that he did not maliciously intend to deceive, is it not possible he was in substantial error when he resigned one thing and not the other?
Does not our loyalty to Jesus Christ, Who bound Himself to observe Canon Law, require us to consider as possible that the Pope be in error in thinking he can resign part of the papal prerogatives and keep the rest? or was wrong in desiring to bifurcate the papacy?
Does not the historical facts that 1) Pope Benedict XVI before his elevation to the Papacy knew of the desires of many German theologians to split the papal office along the lines of the petrine munus and the petrine ministry, and 2) the strange way of renouncing the ministry, but not the munus, coupled with 3) the testimony of Ganswein his personal secretary, who should know the mind of the Holy Father, produce the most sound forensic testimony that the Pope did intend to bifurcate the Papal Office and should be corrected by the Church, even if we personally hold that he had no such intention by way of supposition and respect for his person?
The Bishop closed by remarking that my approach to the reading of the Act of Renunciation was strange to him, that he has never considered this problem before, that he has never read about this controversy, but that I had given him “much to think about”.
The sum of what Mons. Arrieta told me leads me to conclude the following:
The Act of Renunciation was presumed from the start to be a renunciation of the Papacy, without any consideration of the discrepancy of renouncing the ministerium instead of the munus, as if the Code of 1917 were operative, and not the Code of 1983.
There has never been any canonical reflection on the canonical value of the Act of Renunciation by anyone known to Bishop Arrieta.
There are no canonical arguments for the validity of the renunciation to effect a loss of the Papal Office, because the interpretation is simply a presumption based on an extrinsic method of reading the act (as I point out in my previous article), which is the most unauthentic and error-prone method of interpretation.
The opinion of No Cardinal or Bishop or Priest on this matter constrains anyone in the Church to accept it, because no one has the right to say that the Papal Act means something other than it expressly says.
Thus, the Renunciation of Pope Benedict DID NOT effect the loss of the Papal Office. He remains the Pope, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Pontiff with all rights and privileges, all prerogatives and powers, graces and carisms, BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT RENOUNCE THE PAPACY BY WORDS, YOU HAVE NOT RENOUNCED THE PAPACY!*
Finally, I do want to thank the Bishop for his patience. Several times in the 75 minutes we spent discussing this most important matter, he remarked he had other duties, but stayed anyhow when what I said was substantial and presented a line of argumentation which he felt necessary to respond to.
* For those not familiar with the technical language, in this controversy, “papacy” here refers not to the Vatican, nor to the Papal State(s) or Territory, nor to the government of the Vatican, but to the Office of the Roman Pontiff. And I use this term here in the linguistic sense, not in the sense of the thing, but of the thing as named. For example, a husband refers to his wife by either one of her proper names, first, middle, last, or improper names, such as honey, dear, sweetie, or by a pronoun standing alone or followed by a subordinate phrase, such as, “the one who does the dishes”. If he says, I am going to get rid of the dish-washing, the bathroom-cleaning, the meal-preparation and the warm bed, he has not referred logically nor verbally to his wife, because the actions which his wife does or the effects of which she is the cause are not her, they are effects or actions under her power, and by naming them, one does not name necessarily or determinatively the one who is his wife. — So likewise, when Pope Benedict renounced the ministry but not the Papal Office, he did not renounce the Office, because he did not name it, he only referred to that which might be construed as the ministry which flows from it. The intellectual incapacity or inability to recognize this common law of human language and signification is at the heart of the reason why so many think Benedict resigned the papacy, when in reality he did nothing of the kind. However, why he did what he did, is besides the point (praeter rem), because whatever his motives, the act remains invalid, null.
In the conclave of 2243, the Cardinals of the Roman Church, in their final votation, elected a Spaniard.
So, according to the rules established by Pope John Paul II, on February 22, 1996, in the document Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 87, the Cardinal Deacon, the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and the Master of Cerimonies for Pontifical Liturgies approach the Spanish Cardinal and ask him in these solemn words if he will accept his election: Do you accept your canonical election as the Supreme Pontiff?
Then the Cardinal Deacon signals with his eyes to the Elected Cardinal, asking for an answer.
The Cardinal Elect, smiles, then extends both hands to each side and forms the V sign. With that he says in a clear voice: ¡Viva Guadalajara!
The Spanish Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel, familiar with the jocularity of the Elected Cardinal, giggle. The Cardinal from Barcelona says to himself, “What a joker! But this is not a time for laughs!”
The Secretary of the College gives a stern look at the Cardinal Elect. He is not amused at this kind of levity. So he turns to the Cardinal Deacon, who is perplexed, and whispers: “Let’s ask him again”.
So the aged Cardinal Deacon, turns to the Cardinal Elect, and asks again, this time in Spanish: ¿Acepta su elección canónica como Sumo Pontífice?
Then, the Cardinal Elect, answers: raising both his right and left hand as before, and making the V sign with each, he says: ¡Viva Guadalajara! — This time with an even bigger smile on his face.
At this point, the Cardinals break their silence, and mixed mutterings of insouciance and consternation.
The Cardinal Deacon, now impatient, says to the Cardinal Elect: “This is no time to make jokes. Please answer the question with a Yes or a No”. Then recomposing himself, he repeats the canonical question, this time in Italian: Accetti la tua elezione canonica a Sommo Pontefice?
And again, the Cardinal Elect responds in the same manner.
At this point, the Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel break out in small groups of conversation. Everyone is trying to figure out what the Cardinal Elect means to say. The Spanish Cardinals approach the Elect and attempt to reason with him. But he says nothing futher. All he does is keep smiling and raising his right and left hand now and then with the V sign, for victory.
So in accord with the Papal Law on Conclaves, UDG, n. 5, the Cardinal from Paris asks that the College discuss and decide what is to be done, since the Papal Law says nothing about the manner in which the Cardinal Elect is to accept the office, whether it be by a Yes or No or by some other sign.
Two factions arise among the Cardinals. On the one side, a minority hold that the Cardinal Elect, by the words used has not accepted his election and must be considered either in error or mad. On the other side, the position taken is that of the Cardinal of Mexico City, who reasons this way: There is no more certain a manner of indicating that one has accepted the dignity of a prince than to respond in a manner which requires his listeners to acquiesce to his authority. Now by responding in this manner, does not the Cardinal Elect clearly show his intent to act like a prince? And therefore, his intention to accept the election? Is he not just putting our loyalty to the test? I for one will not fail in my loyalty to the Supreme Pontiff in this his first act of office!
This line of reasoning wins over the majority and they vote to regard the manner of speech chosen by the Cardinal Elect as meaning, “Yes, I accept”.
The Cardinal Deacon, then approaches the Cardinal Elect and asks him by which name he wants to be known. He replies, “Ignazio I”.
And years pass. And there is nothing controversial in the pontificate of Ignatius the First. Not in the least.
Except for this one thing.
Every time journalists manage to get an interview with him, and they ask him about the moment of his election as Pope, they ask him what he said, and he says: ¡Viva Guadalajara!
About 6 years into his reign as pope, one journalist, by the name of Marco Tosatti III, wanting to understand this better, asks a very specific question of Pope Ignatius I, during a plan trip.
Tosatti III: I know, your Holiness, has been asked this same question many times. And we are all impressed by your talent for humor and your jocundity, which is so unique among the Popes. But the day of your election, if I may ask again, can you tell just what you said, when the Cardinal Deacon asked you if you would accept your canonical election?
Ignatius I: I said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!
Tosatti III: Is that all you said?
Ignatius I: Yes.
Tosatti III: Did you not say, Yes?
Ignatius I: No, I never said Yes or No. I simply said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!
Marco Tosatti III publishes his interview and it goes round the world. The Pope never said yes.
A few days later, another Italian Vaticanista, by the name of Sandro Magister V, obtains an interview with the aged Cardinal Deacon, who confirms the story: Yes, he never said, yes. In fact there was a controversy in the Conclave, and now that Pope Ignatius I has abolished the pontifical secret on his election, I can reveal that we held a vote in accord with Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 5, and we determined that canonically speaking, this phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! would be taken to mean, “yes, I accept”.
Magister V also publishes his interview, which causes even more of an uproar and travels round the world.
About two weeks later, an old lady from the suburb of Madrid, Spain, where Pope Ignatius I grew up, flys to Rome and enters the Piazza of St Peter with a sign, saying, “He is not the Pope!” The Gendarmerie, the Vatican Police, attempt to take the sign from her, there is a scuffle and they end up punching her and she punching them back. Eventually they take both her and the sign away.
But the pilgrims in the piazza photograph and video record the entire travesty and these images go world wide on all social media platforms.
The next day in all the majors newspapers and MSM sites the one topic is why they beat up this poor old women. And the journalists who are allowed to interview her in the Vatican jail all receive the same statement, prepared by her attorney: In my suburb of Madrid, where I grew up with Pope Ignatius I, the phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! has always meant, “You got to be kidding. I would no more agree to that than support the team from Guadalajara, by shouting ¡Viva Guadalajara! at a soccer match with our own team!”
At this news, journalists flock to Madrid, Spain and interview all those they can find who knew the Pope as a child or youngster. And they all agree that what this old lady said is the absolute truth.
And these journalists report what they find. And, the next day, Ignatius I gives an interview and says: You see, there is nothing I hate more that arrogance and sycophantry. So when I saw that there were no worthy candidates for the Papacy, I determined to do what I could to delay as much as possible the Conclave, so the most unworthy ones would be taken by the Lord or not be able to vote, having reached the age of 80. So I contrived the deception I used to fool everyone. And it worked. But now that my purpose has achieved its goal, I willing admit that I was never pope, because I never accepted my election as the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, I will now stop pretending to be pope and go back to Madrid and enjoy my final years of life by drinking cerveza and watching the Madrid Soccer team. Good-bye and Adios!
The Limits of Discretion
So ends the fictional canonical case I have created. As you can see, strange things can happen if the discretion which we Catholics traditionally accord to the Cardinals goes beyond all limits. There are just some things they cannot do even if they want to.
One thing they cannot do, even if they want to, regards the interpretation of verbal texts. As a translator of medieval texts, I understand well that there are 3 ways of determining the meaning of any obscure phrase. The first is intrinsic, the second extrinsic and the third is referential.
Intrinsic methods look to the meaning of the words used and their grammatical structure. Extrinsic methods look to the context in which the phrase is used and impose a theory about what the intent was in the author’s mind in using the obscure phrase. Referential methods look for other occurrences of the same obscure phrase in the writings of the same author, his contemporaries or those authors he read or cited.
And as a translator, I have learned the hard way, that the worse method of interpretation is the extrinsic method. The intrinsic method can be used but it requires great discretion and a good knowledge of the author one is reading. The referential method is the most certain but one has to take into account that every author might use standard phrases slightly differently.
As can be seen from the fictional case I have constructed, grave error can arise when the ones who should be interpreting the meaning of things said by the Pope use the extrinsic method, by adopting the context of the phrase and some theory of what the intention was of the one saying it, and from these two data points extrapolate the meaning of the phrase.
This has been no idle study. And though you may find this story humorous, that is not my intention. Because though it regards what could happen regarding the very first moment an man becomes the Pope, the same interpretational problem can arise in the very last moment a man is the Pope, that is in an Act of Renunciation.
Because, when a man renounces the papacy, Canon 332 §2 requires that he say something that signifies, In my capacity as Roman Pontiff, I renounce the munus which I received in the Apostolic Succession from Saint Peter, the day I accepted my election as Supreme Pontiff by the College of Cardinals.
The words do not have to be the ones I just wrote, but they have to signify essentially the same thing.
If you say, however, I declare that I renounce the ministry which was entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals, the day I was elected, then you have a problem. Because no where in the Code of Canon Law, nor in Canonical Tradition, nor in the mind of Pope John Paul II do we find any clear equation or predication of munus by ministerium. To hold that Pope Benedict’s renunciation of ministry means a renunciation of munus is an interpretation, unfounded in the law. Moreover, the Cardinals and Bishops and Clergy who hold this interpretation have no authority in the law to interpret the Papal Act in this manner.
We need to be adults and admit this problem of interpretation.
And the ones who committed this error have to grow up and stop insisting that we follow them in it. After all, religious extremism does not consist in refusing an error of interpretation. Religious extremism consists in insisting, like ISIS, that we accept their errors of interpretation or else.
CREDITS: the image of the Cathedral of Madrid is taken from the Wikipedia article on the Facade of the Cathedral of Madrid and is used under the wiki commons license described there.
Don’t let anyone tell you to shut up, when you point out that some are saying the renunciation of Pope Benedict was or could be invalid.
Don’t let them coerce you by telling you that it is absurd to suppose that a Papal act be invalid.
Don’t let them get away with such a claim!
Because, no less that Pope John Paul II declared that a papal resignation could be invalid!
First, the FACTS of the Laws
And not only declared, but he enshrined the possibility into the Papal Law on Conclaves: Universi dominici gregis, n. 3, where it says in Latin:
3. Praeterea statuimus, ne Cardinalium Collegium de iuribus Sedis Apostolicae Romanaeque Ecclesiae ullo modo disponere valeat, nedum de iis sive directe sive indirecte quidquam detrahat, quamvis agatur de componendis discidiis aut de persequendis factis adversus eadem iura perpetratis, post Pontificis obitum vel validam renuntiationem.(14) Curae autem sit omnibus Cardinalibus haec iura tueri.
Which in good English is:
3. Moreover, We establish, that the College of Cardinals not be able to dispose in any manner of the rights of the Apostolic See and Roman Church, much less to detract anything from them either directly or indirectly, even though it be done concerning the resolution of disputes or the prosecution of deeds perpetrated against the same rights, after the death and/or valid renunciation* of the Pontiff. (14) Moreover, let it belong to the care of all the Cardinals that these rights be watched over.
* The reference to a “valid renunciation” is to Canon 332 §2, which lays down 2 reasons for an invalid renunciation (lack of freedom in renouncing the petrine munus, and lack of due manifestation of the renunciation of the petrine munus).
Some would like to have it that Canon 332 §2 is merely laying down the requisites to be observed in a papal resignation, and that it does not exist to be used by anyone, let alone a layman, to discern or determine when a resignation is valid or not.
The assertion is a perfect form of gas-lighting: You cannot let the masses use the Code of Canon Law, you cannot let them read the Papal Law on Conclaves, but if they do, you must convince them that what they see does not mean what it says or that what they read there is something they cannot use in an argument or apply to any particular case! Thus might be the counsel of any modern day Screwtape to his Trad inc. minions.
This objective is supported by the absurd arguments being used to attack those who are examining the resignation, such as that argument evinced by Mr. Sammons the other day:
As much as one might want to think Benedict XVI didn’t really resign, there’s three main problems:
1) What you want doesn’t matter. 2) It would mean Benedict is one of the most horrible people to ever live. 2) You have to accept some crazy-level conspiracy theories. pic.twitter.com/CPnWvDmCo0
Evidently, if we take Mr. Sammons at his word, he must rail against Pope John Paul II, against the Papal Law on Conclaves and against the Code of Canon Law of 1983, all which admit the possibility of an invalid renunciation! — Evidently railing against Popes is o.k., so long as you recognize that they are popes. — This seems to be the new dogma of Trad Inc. Even though Catholic Tradition holds that in nothing can a pope be judged but faith.
Having seen this form of gas-lighting, we must begin to ask ourselves, “Whom we should listen to or obey? A Layman or Pope John Paul II?”
After all, to turn Mr. Sammon’s rhetoric against him: What does it matter what Mr. Sammons wants?
Second, the Implications of the Law
As it has been amply proven that Pope John Paul II held that a papal renunciation could be invalid, we should use the intellects God gave us to use and think about what that means. We should not let the gas-lighting false apostles, out there, stop us from thinking.
First, if a papal renunciation could be invalid. That means that objectively speaking it could be invalid. That means that it can be recognized by men who are capable of knowing objective reality. That means that men should recognize it if it be, and should NOT harken to any propaganda to ignore the problem. Because, obviously, if Pope John Paul II wanted us to listen to propagandists who do not want us to see that a resignation was invalid when it was invalid, he would never have mentioned that there could be an invalid resignation.
Second, that means that the Church has the duty to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid, since the Code of Canon Law binds everyone in the Church. The Papal Law on Conclaves binds the Cardinals, and so they are also obligated to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid.
Third. Now how is anyone to do that? Pope John Paul II shows us how in canons 40 and 41, where everyone in the Church who has an office is obliged to examine the administrative act of his superior to see if it is effective and authentic. Though canon 41 speaks only of acts which are null or inopportune, clearly an invalid resignation is both.
That means it was the duty of all the Cardinals as of 11:45 AM, February 11, 2013, when the Consistory ended (approximately, as I do not know the precise minute of termination) until today to examine the act. If the act was invalid, they were obliged to omit the Conclave, and if they find now that it is invalid, they are obliged to say the conclave was invalid.
So you see, now, how wrong Cardinal Burke was, when he condemned a whole category of Catholics as “extremists” if they doubted that Bergoglio was the pope. Because if that doubt arises from an invalid resignation, then they are not only NOT extremists, they are the most faithful Catholics in the Church, and they are doing what all Cardinals should have done and still refuse to do!
No, your Eminence, there are No Extremists here, but there are a lot of Presumptuous Princes!
Now almost no one in the Church is a canon lawyer, but a good number of the Cardinals are. And if you have studied canon law or civil law, then you know a general principle of law which is applicable in this case:
A cessation of power is never to be presumed!
As I mentioned previously, this general principle of law is enshrined in Canon 21 (and implied in many other canons, such as canon 40). It is really a summation of common sense. Because if one presumed the cessation of power, then the rule of law would break down, because presumption has a way of inclining to disorder and chaos, in particular, to the kind of disorder and chaos we have seen in the Church for nearly 7 years.
Now a papal renunciation pertains to a cessation of power, as the learned and eminent Canonist I spoke with recently admitted. Therefore, we cannot presume a pope has validly resigned. The presumption, rather, is that he has not resigned. Presumption here refers to the inclination of our judgement prior to seeing the facts and evidence.
Now Canon 332 §2 says that a pope resigns when he resigns his munus.
But Pope Benedict in his act of Feb. 11, 2013, renounces the ministerium he received.
Therefore, at this point, before any further study, each and every Cardinal had the duty to presume that the renunciation was invalid. He had to presume this, because, the presumption of law requires that he hold that there has been no cessation of power, when a pope renounces ministerium instead of the required munus.
Canon 17 then requires the Cardinals to examine the Code of Canon Law (as I did here) to understand the proper sense of terms, or the canonical tradition (as I did here), or the mind of the Legislator (as was done by Father Walter Covens here). But all of these conclude the renunciation of ministry does not effect a renunciation of the papacy.
So who is the extremist now? The Catholic who holds, as he should, to what the law presumes? Or the Cardinal who did not do his duty nor his homework but rails at Catholics who have done what he neglected to do? Presuming against the very presumption of the law.
It almost seems as if the Cardinals were already inclined to rid themselves of Pope Benedict, and so, whether he was in error or not, whether he wanted to bifurcate the papacy or not, whether the renunciation was valid or not, they did not bother one iota to due their due diligence before convening in Conclave. — If there ever was a reason to doubt the validity of the Conclave of 2013, this is the first and prime of them all!
Third, Action Item:
Ask your favorite priest, Bishop or Cardinal, when did he apply canons 40 and 41 to the Papal renunciation?
Because in those 2 canons, all who hold an office in the Church — even the simple priest who is no longer mentioning Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, where the name of the Roman Pontiff is named — all, I say, had the duty to examine the Latin text of the Renunciation and determine whether it fulfilled the requirements of the Latin text of Canon 332 §2. So ask them, “On what day and hour, in what place and with what books and references did you do your duty specified in canons 40 and 41 as regards the declaration of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, called, “Non solum propter”?” — You have every right to ask this question, before listening to anything they say about the renunciation, because obviously, if they never did their duty, they have no moral right to tell you anything about what the Act of Renunciation means, let alone, to regard anyone else as the Pope, other than Benedict.
(For more information about Canons 21, 40 and 41 and what should have been done on Feb. 11, 2013, after Pope Benedict XVI read his Act of renunciation, see here).
CREDITS: The image of the Pope is from https://agrellcarving.com, who carved the Throne on which he is sitting and which produces other fine products of furniture (This is not a paid advertisement, but the image is copyright by Agrell Carving).
Who was the real John Knox? And why does it matter today?
To answer this question, The From Rome Blog republishes, with permission the Essay by Frank Dougan, on Edwin Muir’s Knox: an exposé of the person and life of the “Reformer” of the Catholic Church in Scotland in the 16th century.
Edwin Muir’s, John Knox.
by Frank Dougan
I found a copy of Edwin Muir’s book ( John Knox ) at The Andersonian Library within Strathclyde University where I was studying Scottish History.
I tried to obtain this book from City of Glasgow Libraries to no avail.
First published by Lowe and Brydone Ltd. London in 1929 “The Life and Letters Series No. 12.” ( John Knox: Portrait of a Calvinist. ) I find much of Muir’s work sympathetic to Knox, Robert Burns is quoted on the opening pages as writing; ‘Orthodox ! orthodox, wha believe in John Knox, Let me sound an alarm to your conscience’.
Edwin Muir wrote his preface;
‘For this biography I have gone chiefly to the writings of Knox himself, and to the usual contemporary records. The Reverend Dr. M’ Crie’s and Professor Hume Brown’s Lives have also been of help, but my particular gratitude is due to Andrew Lang’s ( John Knox and the Reformation ) the one biography I have found which attempts to be critical.
My reading of Knox’s life disagrees with that of most of his other biographers since M’Crie. It is on the whole supported, however, by the eighteenth century estimate represented by David Hume and Burns.
If I show bias it is not, at any rate, theological bias.
The object of this book is somewhat different from that of the biographies which I have mentioned: it is to give a critical account of a representative Calvinist and Puritan.
The temper in which I have attempted this may perhaps best be described as realistic; I have attempted to tell in contemporary terms how a typical Calvinist and Puritan lived, felt and thought.
With the historical figure I am not particularly concerned’.
As one may note the date of publication was similar to D. H. Lawrence’ banned book and at the height of Catholic persecution in Scotland at the hands of John White the Church of Scotland’s sectarian and racist moderator.
I will relate to a few examples from Muir he writes about Knox;
‘Between 1540 and 1543 we find him engaged as an ecclesiastical notary, and up to March of 1543 he was certainly in the Catholic Church.
Of the life he led during this time his fellow reformers tell us not a word, but the Catholics maintain that he was notorious for his immorality, and even assert that he was guilty of committing adultery with his step-mother ( his father’s second wife ). Such is the early Knox as history and scandal disclose him.
Archibald Hamilton claimed that Knox was distinguished as a young man by his licentiousness; that he had always three whores at his heels; and that moreover, he committed adultery with his step-mother.
There is finally the question whether or not Knox had any hand in the Rizzio murder. The evidence that he had is once more contained in one letter from Randolph to Cecil. In this letter Randolph gives a list of the accomplices of the murderers, and another marked ‘ all at the death of Davy and privy thereunto’.
At the bottom of this is written ‘ John Knox, John Craig, preachers’. It has been adduced as a confirmation of Knox’s guilt that he fled from Edinburgh on the same day as the murderers’.
Muir describes what was a new development in the life of Knox;
‘ At Berwick, too, one of those friendships with women began, which were to play such a great part in Knox’s life. In his congregation was a certain “ Mrs. Bowes”, the wife of Richard Bowes of Norham Castle, a fort about six miles up the Tweed.
She was the mother of five sons and ten daughters.
Her husband was not in favour of the new doctrines; her family, too, were in the main cold.
Her fifth daughter, Marjory, (13) came with her to hear the sermon, and presently the preacher ( Knox ) and the young girl became engaged.
She ( Mrs. Bowes ) was probably about fifty when Knox became intimate with her, till then Knox had thought that no creature had ever been as tempted as he; the beloved mother ( of fifteen children ) pursued him wherever he went with vivid descriptions of her fleshly weaknesses’.
I know I have related to these subjects on earlier passages by other writers though I feel that I must introduce Muir’s work and perhaps draw some conclusions as to why the Church of Scotland’s appointed fault finder Harry Reid takes pain to advise readers of (Outside Verdict) not to read Edwin Muir’s ( John Knox ) biography.
Harry Reid was a director with the Sunday Herald’s ‘Book Review’.
Strangely one has to search for this book as there doesn’t seem to be many copies around Glasgow libraries perhaps the publishers should re-print and let the world see why the former editor of the Glasgow based broadsheet the Herald advises censorship.
Edwin Muir writes about letters from Knox to Mrs. Bowes and vice-versa:
‘ When he was deprived of the comfort of her ‘ corporal presence’ Mrs Bowes fulfilled the conditions to perfection. She was older than he, she was already his prospective mother-in-law. His pride would have recoiled from an intimacy in which he received reassurance and gave none. He could luxuriate in the voluptuous relief which her weakness provided’.
The Protestant Church, that Knox founded, chained people by the neck and castigated them in the most horrendous manner for sexual discrepancies…. yet Scotland’s greatest hero as Harry Reid calls him….
Muir continues his examination of Knox’s correspondence:
‘ My wicked heart loveth the self, and cannot refrain from vain imaginations’.
Writing to Mrs. Bowes that his heart was ‘ infected with foul lusts’ she was beset by the recondite sins of Sodom and Gomorra, was a strange repository for Knox’s imperative confessions.
Fear was to become an instrument in his hands, an instrument which he rarely laid aside, and which sometimes got beyond his control.
He threatened when he could make good his threats; he threatened still more wildly when he could not. He threatened his friends when they disagreed with him; he threatened his enemies when they could afford to laugh at him. He threatened Mary ( Tudor ) of England when he was flying from her; he threatened Elizabeth when he hoped to get a favour out of her. Where insensibility was shown in his threatenings, he took refuge in hatred.
Three women, Mary of England, Mary of Guise, and Mary Stuart, were unimpressed by his lightenings; he revenged himself by slander and prophecies of plagues where he could not by civil wars’.
The more I research the life of John Knox I continuously have to reassure myself that Protestants and Presbyterians really believe that this man was a Christian?
Muir goes on:
‘ Ever since he had met Wishart nine years before Knox had been in the habit of prophesying. He prophesied on grave and on trifling occasions; he prophesied reasonably and unreasonably; he prophesied above all wherever he could not get his own way; he prophesied against Sir Robert Bowes because Sir Robert would not accept him as a suitor for 13 year old Marjory’s hand.
The prophecies arose to wild heights of fantasy; in ideal conditions he contemplated an orderly and exhaustive slaughter of the Catholics. Then the prophet had become the man; now all the passions, all the envies, the hatreds, the cruelties of the man were triumphantly subsumed in the prophet. These passions, envies hatreds, cruelties, by the same transmutation became the passions, envies, hatred, cruelties of God.
His search for God and for comfort, his perplexity over why he had fled ( from England ) his rage of resentment tipped him sheer into abysses of self-deception touched with Sadism which no other reformer had plumbed.
At their most grandiose his prophecies about the future of England were almost like the ravings of a madman.
Edwin Muir was an academic, novelist, poet, Norton Professor of English at Harvard University, he had also been Director of the British Council at Prague in 1946 and Rome in 1949, he has a long list of distinguished works to his credit with major book publishers which can be viewed on the web.
His book on John Knox should be read by anyone wishing to investigate Reformation history particularly the mis-doings of Knox’s philosophies.
Professor Muir wrote:
‘ The instrument ( Knox ) had cursed Mary Tudor ( the Queen of England ) and had publicly advised her assassination, Calvin and Bullinger, however, had refused to back him’.
He narrates about Knox at Frankfurt then moves to 1556 Knox had been in Scotland to marry Marjory for the purpose of concealing his affair with her mother Sir Robert Bowes was hunting for them.
Muir goes on:
‘ He arrived in Geneva with Mrs. Knox, Mrs. Bowes a servant, and a pupil called Patrick. He was now married to Marjory, and accordingly we hear nothing more of her, except that she bore him two children, ‘ and then she died’. The same silence henceforth covers the irrepressible Mrs. Bowes ?’
It seemed that Knox had found a safe haven in Geneva with his wife and her mother for a while:
‘ Yet, in spite of all this, in spite of his power in the congregation and the solace of Mrs. Bowes and Mrs Knox’s company, he still longed for the comfort which only other men’s wives, it seemed, could give him in full measure.
‘Ye wrote that your desire is earnest to see me’ he said in a letter to Mrs. Locke in London, a few months after he had settled in Geneva with his family.
‘ Dear sister, ( he addressed Marjory the same in his letter to her ) if I could express the thirst and languor which I have for your presence, I shall appear to pass measure. Yea, I weep and rejoice in remembrance of you; but that would evanish by the comfort of your presence, which I assure you is so dear to evanish by the comfort of your presence’.
What was the comfort which he longed for so earnestly ? It was the same which he had found once in Mrs. Bowes’ friendship, a friendship which, it was clear, however, no longer quite satisfied his needs. His urgent necessity during these years, in fact, seems to have been to surround himself with mothers. He secured Mrs. Bowes already; to secure another a trifling relaxation of principle would surely be justifiable’.
Unfortunately for the millions who have been indoctrinated into Presbyterianism who have had to suffer severe consequences over hundreds of years for any relaxation of principles, as this was a luxury only for their great leader and his disciples.
‘Mrs. Locke came to Geneva in the following May, in spite of the opposition of her ‘ head’ who was left behind in London. She appeared with her son Harry, her daughter Anne, and a maid called Katherine. The adventure began disastrously. Anne died a few days after arriving’.
Knox was about to write his book ( The first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of women ).
Professor Muir quotes him:
‘ How abominable before God is the empire and rule of a wicked woman, yea, of a traitoress and bastard’.
In this passage Knox is referring to Mary Tudor the Queen of England obviously he saw her as illegitimate. Actually Mary Tudor’s mother was Catherine of Aragon the first queen of Henry V111, she had previously been married to Henry’s elder brother, Prince Arthur, in 1501 ( the marriage allegedly being unconsummated ) and on his death in 1502 she was betrothed to Henry and married him on his accession to the throne in 1509.
Of the six children she bore only Mary survived, desirous of a male heir Henry divorced Catherine contrary to the law of the land regardless if it was also the law of the Church.
Perhaps Knox is referring to Henry and Catherine’s marriage as illegitimate because she had been married to his brother which was also illegal then and the only legitimate heir to the English throne was Mary Stuart whose grand-mother was Henry’s sister.
Professor Muir describes some of Knox’s views on women from his book:
‘ Knox began to look about him anxiously for all those proofs of woman’s infamy which the exordium promised. Man, he found, drawing on his knowledge, was strong and discreet. Woman, on the other hand , was mad and phrenetic. Was it reasonable that the passionate should rule the calm and the strong? Women, moreover, had been known to die of sudden joy, to commit suicide, to betray their country to strangers, and to be so avid of domination that they murdered their husbands and children. Knox reasoned ( about women ) ‘ where there was no head eminent above the rest, but that the eyes were in the hands, the tongue and mouth beneath the belly, and the ears in the feet’.
These are the writings of John Knox if a modern day psychiatrist were to examine these works and not know who the writer was, he could easily be seduced into thinking perhaps this was Adolph Hitler’s ‘struggle’.
Edwin Muir continues his narrative:
‘ Knox’s attitude to woman, it will be seen, sometimes changed with extraordinary rapidity. On Mary Tudor’s accession to the throne he had begged God to illuminate her heart with pregnant gifts of the Holy Ghost and to repress the pride of those who would rebel; after his flight his prayer was to send a Jehu to cut off her days.
When Mary of Guise was behaving with great toleration to the Protestants in Scotland she had been ‘ a princess honourable, endowed with wisdom and graces singularly,’ but now that he had heard about the pasquil she, like all other queens was a monster.
His mother had perhaps died when he was young; he had ‘ known’ his stepmother.
Two mothers were at present waiting for him in Geneva. Mrs. Bowes and Mrs. Locke ( and his child bride ) were obviously not real mothers. Mary of England and Mary of Guise ( and later Mary Stuart ), he was equally convinced, could not be real queens’.
It seems quite clear that Knox betrayed everyone around him including his own father by having an affair with his stepmother and anyone that he came into contact with including Wishart who he was with on the night of his capture, Knox was carrying his sword, Cardinal Beaton, Rizzio, Lord Darnley, Mary Stuart and the women who surrounded him in a Charles Manson maniacal devotion.
Calvin was also betrayed by him on the publication of the ‘First Blast’ as Knox had it secretly printed in Geneva with no writer or publisher’s names Calvin was outraged as condemnation poured upon reformers in Europe.
Professor Muir goes on to report the ideology of ‘Der Fuhrer’ of Scotland’s Presbyterian’s:
‘ Any Protestant had obviously, therefore, the right to kill any Catholic; it was the collective duty of the Protestants, however, to exterminate the Catholics ‘en masse’. His letters from Dieppe showed an ungovernable temper and an imagination delighting in cruelty. His Appellation from Geneva could only be the work of a mind corrupted by a monstrous doctrine. His letter showed not merely an extreme insensibility to human sufferings; it lingered sickeningly in a delighted contemplation of them. To the powerful he counselled violence and cruelty’.
After some months in Dieppe, Knox returned to Scotland when Elizabeth had taken the English throne after Mary Tudor died, and he found himself in the midst of turmoil.
Muir creates a vivid picture of the nobles who were to work with Knox, the professor wrote:
‘ If one were to accept the description of the sexes in ‘The First Blast’, she (Mary of Guise) might stand as the masculine type and Knox himself as the feminine. In the battle between them calmness, self-control, reason, dignity were all on Mary’s side….. frenzy, vituperation and back-biting all on the side of Knox who was a man of notorious probity’.
Muir goes on about the destruction of the Catholic Churches and monasteries after Knox’s return to Scotland he wrote:
‘ The destruction of the religious buildings and works of art in Scotland has been debated by ( Protestant ) historians, antiquarians and theologians at length and with acrimony. Two examples, showing the fluctuations of opinion among Knox’s admirers, may be cited.
Dr. M’Crie’s apology is perhaps the most extra-ordinary.
He begins by treating the matter with elephantine facetiousness.
‘ Antiquarians,’ he said, ‘ have no reason to complain of the ravages of the reformers, who have left them such valuable remains, ( ruins ) and placed them in that very state which awakens in their minds the most lovely sentiments of the sublime and beautiful by reducing them to-ruins. The liberty which the Protestants demanded from the Regent ( Mary of Guise ), in fact, was twofold; they asked leave to worship as they liked, and to pull down monasteries and churches.
By open profession they considered both these claims equally legitimate.
It was only by the grace of God that British Protestants especially Scottish Presbyterians never ruled Italy, France, Spain, Prague, Austria, Russia, Greece etc. with all their wonderful ancient monuments and churches which would have been obliterated and destroyed by the serial Protestant-culture-wreckers who make the Barbarians and Huns look like pacifists.
Professor Hume Brown wrote about the desecration of Scotland’s heritage:
‘ In these blind outbursts, ‘ he said, ‘there was no expression of real religious feeling; it was simply the instinct of plunder, the natural delight in unlicensed action which in ordinary times is kept in check by the steady pressure of law’.
Muir disagrees with Hume Brown by writing;
‘ ( Hume Brown ) contradicts himself in another passage, for those blind outbursts had, he admitted, Knox’s ‘cordial approval’.
The destruction, then was essentially a policy rather than a blind outburst.
It began as early as 1540; it was continued by Paul Methuen, the first man in Scotland to set up a purified Church, Knox set the work going on a large scale.
Andrew Lang says bitterly: ‘The fragments of things beautiful that the Reformers overlooked were destroyed by the ( deranged ) Covenanters’.
A monument to Robert the Bruce among other things was destroyed in the religious frenzy.
Knox was the only reformer of great reputation who encouraged a general destruction of works of art, and he felt his isolation.
Calvin was severe enough in his reprobation of beauty, but robbery and pillage, even of Catholic property, his orderly mind could not abide’.
Professor Muir pursues the Knoxite desecrations:
‘ In his letter to Mrs. Locke he told, as we have seen, how the ‘ brethern had sacked the religious houses in Perth and threatened the priests with death. In his ‘History’ the priests were not threatened, and the looting was the work of the ‘rascal multitude’, not of the brethern. His mind refused to rest under such a monstrous accusation; the whole business in Perth now seemed more confused than ever, but the probability steadily grew that the mob had destroyed the monasteries. When he took up the pen they had destroyed the monasteries’.
The examination of the works, deeds and mind of Knox has baffled Scottish historians on how they could best present a picture of the ‘demented one’ into a picture of a responsible and Christian man whom so many of them depend upon as the founder of the Scottish Presbyterian movement, that they have staked their reputations on because of their involvement within Protestantism and the bitterness and hatred that it requires to keep its leaders in their mansions and palaces that they inhabit, not to forget their dedication to nepotism.
Edwin Muir explains about the (Book of Discipline) and some of his findings he wrote:
‘ Its most fundamental idea was the corruption of man’s nature, and its policy had necessarily, therefore, to be a policy of espionage and repression.
Its sole instrument for keeping or reclaiming its members was punishment.
It was to show its dual qualities to the full in the next century of Scottish history, with its ‘prophets’, its sadistic Kirk Sessions, its instances of intrepid constancy, its intolerance, its murders smiled on, its deeds of moderation execrated, its array of villains and of martyrs, but, above all, its stiff-necked blindness to the more spacious ideas which were moving mankind.
It is symbolical that the Book opened with a command to persecute, and almost closed with a plea for the extension of the scope of Capital punishment, its faults were a lack of understanding, an incapacity for human charity, and, above all, a consciously virtuous determination to compel and humiliate people for the greater glory of God’.
I ploughed my way through mountains of reference books and documents while attending Strathclyde University with other ‘mature’ students of various religious persuasions, I was shocked to hear that in the year 2003 many reasonable Protestants have been led to believe even in recent years that Roman Catholics had an inferior education, and many thought that was the reason why so many Catholics were refused employment with Protestant employers.
One could easily point the finger at Rangers Football club and the many world class Scottish Catholic footballers who were forced to ply their trade in England and abroad, who could have been performing and passing their talents on to Scottish kids, many of these great’s such as Billy Bremner, Joe Jordan, Lou Macari etc. would have been a bonus to Scotland if sectarianism was wiped out not only on sporting arenas, but in the general society where there are countless highly intelligent and well educated Catholics.
How can any nation on earth be successful when a large percentage of its population are discriminated against we have seen the brain drain from Scotland for centuries and the nation is impoverished in so many walks of life.
Professor Muir continues;
‘ As idolatry and adultery became feebler in Scotland, however, adultery rose in importance.
In the next few years there is scarcely a remonstrance of the ministers which does not contain a despairing injunction to Parliament to punish adultery with death’.
There is something that Muir wrote that intrigues me, he wrote that Knox arrived in Geneva with a student named Patrick on another page he writes this statement by John Knox:
‘ That great abuser of this commonwealth, that poltroon and vile knave Davie ( Rizzio ), was justly punished ( stabbed to death in front of 6 months pregnant Mary. Queen of Scots) for abusing of the commonwealth and for his other villainy, which we list not to express, by the council and hands of James Douglas, Earl of Morton, Patrick, Lord Lindsay, and the Lord Ruthven, with other assistors in their company, who all for their just act, and most worthy of praise’.
Was this the Patrick who was with Knox at Geneva that he congratulates for the heinous murder of Rizzio, who as one can clearly see from Knox’s pen that even after Rizzio was dead, the venomous hatred boiling and spitting from the mind of Knox.
If this was the same Patrick then this verifies Randolph’s letter to Cecil over Knox’s guilt in the murder. Muir concludes his biography of Knox and notes these items after he explained his last days he wrote:
‘ The man ( Knox ) who in England proclaimed that subjects were bound to obey their prince; who in Dieppe incited subjects to murder their prince; who in Geneva exhorted the faithful in Scotland to depose their prince; who in Scotland helped to drive one prince after another from the throne while loudly proclaiming his loyalty; who maintained that two brutal murders were admirable in the sight of God, and that a third, less brutal, must be wiped out by the execution of an unfortunate woman ( Mary Stuart ) who had no direct part in it, and whose guilt could not be proved; who pursued that woman to disgrace and destruction.
This man was clearly not that model of consistency and strength which history and his biographers have set before us.
He was rather a man who, when his object required it, was always ready to contradict himself, and used any means which suited him’.
Edwin Muir’s biography of John Knox is not well known in Scotland but thanks to Harry Reid highlighting his name in ( Outside Verdict ) and my determination of finding the copy that I have scrutinised from the Andersonian Library at Strathclyde University.
Professor Muir goes on;
‘ Another thing which may be reasonably attributed to Knox is the Kirk Session.
To describe the sordid and general tyranny which this fearful institution wielded for over two hundred years would be wearisome and would take too long.
It is only necessary to say that the time-honoured Scottish tradition of fornication triumphantly survived all its terrors’.
I have endeavoured to describe the sordid and general tyranny which the fearful institution wielded over Scotland for over four hundred years, along with the lies and propaganda that they have perfected to art form.
On the last pages of his informative biography Muir questions about the first hundred years of Presbyterianism in Scotland he writes that:
‘The ‘nearest-lying country’ could show Shakespeare, Spencer, Jonson, Marlowe, Donne, Milton, in poetry and the drama; Bacon, Browne, Taylor, Claredon, in prose; the beginnings of modern science; and music, architecture, philosophy, theology, oratory in abundance’.
Caustically Muir asks:
‘ Was it the influence of Calvinism which preserved Scotland from that infection’ ?
The infection of culture, arts, academia and every form of human enjoyment and liberty had been obliterated from Scottish society except for those who maintained the evil philosophies such as the leaders of Presbyterianism who are still trying to enforce these doctrines of oppression.
Edwin Muir continues with his conclusion:
‘ Calvinism, in the first place, was a “faith” which insisted with exclusive force on certain human interests, and banned all the rest.
It lopped off from religion music, painting and sculpture, and pruned architecture to a minimum; it frowned on all prose and poetry which was not sacred.
Calvinism in short, was a narrow specialised “kind of religion”, but it was also a peculiar religion- a religion which outraged the imagination, and no doubt helped, therefore, to produce that captivity of the imagination in Scotland.
Looking down on the island of Great Britain in the century which followed Knox’s death, the Almighty, it seemed, had rejected Shakespeare, Spencer, and Donne, and chosen Andrew Melville, Donald Cargill and Sandy Peden ( John White, Ian Paisley and Jack Glass ).
And if His choice was restricted to the godly, it was equally strange, for He liked the translators of the Scots version of the Psalms, and rejected Herbert, Vaughan and Crashaw’.
Trying to understand Calvinists is a difficult chore especially in the 21st century where it is the Catholics that have all the pressure upon them over divorce, abortion, the birth pill and celibacy yet these issues are enshrined within the Catholic faith, and I don’t notice droves of Catholics flocking to join Protestant Churches which allow all of these questions to be freely accepted, while the Roman Catholics have to deal with the consequences of their conscience.
Protestantism is a follower of fashion and we all realise that there are so many different fashions and tastes as can be witnessed by the hundreds of Protestant sects who claim to be Christian and no doubt the ‘latest’ Jedi-Knights will soon be demanding recognition.
Professor Muir continues:
‘How could the country have avoided its fate of becoming for over a century an object-lesson in savage provincialism?
Hume, Burns, and men like them, it is true, lifted it from its isolation for a time during the next hundred years.What Knox really did was to rob Scotland of all the benefits of the Renaissance.
Scotland never enjoyed these as England did, and no doubt the lack of that immense advantage has had a permanent effect.
It can be felt, I imagine, even at the present day’.
The quotes from Dr. Muir’s biography of John Knox were written during the 1920s when Catholics were being persecuted on the streets of Scotland therefore I feel confident to credit him with first hand on site experience.
The work of Edwin Muir terrifies Presbyterian’s such as Harry Reid even though it was written during the 1920s, this shows the desperation that people such as he and his collaborators are in, because they know that their evil tyranny and subjugation of the Roman Catholic faithful, is about to be trampled into the annuls of extinction.