Category Archives: Canon Law

Munus vs. Ministerium: the case of the Roman Curia

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Three Questions and only Two Answers

The Roman Curia is the entire bureaucratic institution of Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignori, Priests, Experts and other officials, who run those individual organs of Papal government over the whole Church. Most of their offices are on the Via Conciliazione, but some are in the Vatican or scattered throughout the city of Rome.

All of those who are in the Roman Curia agree with me on one point. If you ask them if it is the duty of the Roman Curia to assist the Pope in his Petrine Ministry, they all respond with a resounding, Yes!

If you ask them, if the Pope alone holds the office or munus of the Roman Pontiff, or of Saint Peter, they all respond with a resounding, Yes!

But if you then ask them, How can Pope Benedict no longer be what he is, if all he renounced is what the Roman Curia does?

To that, third, and final question, you get no response.

 

A Host of Canons declares the Renunciation invalid

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Ann Barnhardt is right when she says you do not need to be a canon law expert to read the Code of Canon Law: the very nature of what a Code of Law is intended to be, is to be a public instrument which all can access and understand. Understanding it, therefore, is not a gnostic art for the elite few initiates.

Over at Catholic Monitor, Fred Martinez calls me a Canon law expert. I do not hold a degree in Canon Law, so I dispute the attribution. But he does this, because I simply read the law and say what it says, how it says it. I do not have any vested interest in saying it means something else, because I am not a priest and I am not the member of a religious order in communion with Bergoglio. I am a hermit, and that means I have no superior but my Bishop, who is Pope Benedict XVI. I also did not sell my soul for $1,000,000 to stab anyone’s memory in the back who held that Pope Benedict XVI is the pope.

This is why in this controversy, it is those who have no vested interest who are the truth tellers. Mark Docherty is one of them. I have never met him personally, but I know he is a truth teller because he simple lays out exactly what the Code of Canon Law says.

He blogs at Non Veni Pacem.

In his latest postThe Retention of Office even when all powers have been delegated, according to Canon 131.1, he shows that there are a number of Canons which all concur that the Renunciation is invalid. You often hear Ann Barnhardt talk about canon 188. She breached the defenses of the Big Lie about the Renunciation using that Canon (no pun intended, but it is a nice pun!).* And you will often hear me talk about canon 17. Canon 332 §2 is the key canon, of course.

But Mark Docherty shows how canons 36 §1, 38, and 131 §1 also come into play.

I highly recommend reading Marks post. As one who has actually studied Canon Law at at a Pontifical University here at Rome, I can say that it merits a 10 out of 10, and you would not find its like in any Doctoral Thesis in the entire Eternal City, after Feb. 11, 2013, because they would boot you out of the program — because IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

+ + +

POSTSCRIPT: I hope all my readers get on board with the February 28, 2020 Initiative. It’s not about me, its about saving the Church. I do not propose it so as to go forward. I see it as a way of handing the baton on to my betters, so that they do their part. So please try to get everyone to join in the effort.

____________

FOOTNOTE:  If anyone of my readers is a talented graphic artist, I would suggest you do a graphic showing a walled city with Bergoglio on top, Benedict imprisoned, and Ann outside with a Big Canon, labeled 188, the wall of the city named the Big Lie: a Valid Renunciation. And defenders of the Big Lie, on the top of the wall with Bergoglio on his left and right, some with money bags in their hands. It would immortalize the current crisis for posterity, and be remembered until the end of time.

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00

 

Why St. Robert Bellarmine would hold the Renunciation was invalid

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Saints are a sure guide in every difficulty. We have only to find the Saints who encountered the same difficulty and examine their example or doctrine to find sound counsel for how we should respond.

For this reason, I have written previously or had published here a series of articles on the Saints who would be patrons in discerning what to do in the present Crisis in the Church:

  1. Saint Vincent Ferrer: who was lied to by a Cardinal for 38 years, into supporting an Antipope.
  2. Bless Pope Urban II: who fought and defeated an Antipope by his courage and generosity.
  3. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux: who fought against an Antipope on the principles of law.
  4. Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich: who described in vision the crisis of Two Popes.
  5. Saint Ivo of Kermartin: who make sacrifices so that the poor would not be exploited by the powerful
  6. Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori: who wrote a tract on Legal Interpretation which gives sound principles for the reading of Pope Benedict’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013

To these six, I wish to add a seventh, Saint Robert Bellarmine.

First, we probably have heard the principle, A doubtful pope is no pope. Which Saint Robert advances to resolve the question of whether the man elected in a Conclave which does not follow all the rules is therefore  a valid pope or not. He holds that he is not valid and should resign.

“Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. ‘Therefore,’ continues the Cardinal, ‘if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogma nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.’” 8

(The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, By Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, Page 229, Note 8: Bellarmine, “De Concilio, ii, 19)

(Source: here)

Now, in logic, any affirmation can be transformed into other true statements by a conversion. Let’s apply those principles to the maxim:

A doubtful pope is not the pope.

This is said in the context of a papal election, so let us add that condition to each side of the predication:

A doubtfully elected pope is not an elected pope.

Now let us transform the affirmation by changing the condition, from an election to a resignation:

A doubtfully resigned pope is not a resigned pope.

Now let us simplify the statement, with the logical equivalent of “not a resigned”

A doubtfully resigned pope is still the pope.

NOTE WELL, in the same passage from St. Robert, you see the affirmation of the Apostolic Right of the College of Bishops to intervene when there is an impeded see. I wrote about this in my article, Divine and Apostolic Right takes precedence in a State of Emergency.

But, more a propos to the present consideration: the Saint admits that God concurs with Canon Law in all such questions, there where the Saintly Cardinal in this passage from De Romano Pontifice lib. ii cap. xxx, says:

«Nam iurisdictio datur quidem Pontifici a Deo, sed hominum opera concurrente, ut patet; quia ab hominibus habet iste homo, qui ante non erat Papa, ut incipiat esse Papa; igitur non aufertur a Deo nisi per hominem, at hæreticus occultus non potest ab homine iudicari; nec ipse sponte eam potestatem vult relinquere.»

Which I render thus, in English:

For jurisdiction is indeed given to the Pontiff by God, but as One concurring with the works of men, as is clear: because from men this man, who before was not the Pope, has it, that he begins to be the Pope: therefore, it is not taken away (from him) by God, except through men, but an occult heretic cannot be judged by man; nor does the same want to relinquish that power willingly.

The key words here are: as One concurring with the works of men. This ablative phrase is not an absolute, it modifies God, and follows the classical Latin tradition of speaking of God under a certain restriction or condition. Here it speaks of God inasmuch as He agrees with men.

Saint Robert then explains: that a man who is elected has his office as pope  on account of the election made by men. The context here is a valid or legitimate papal election. And the presupposition is that the law is observed.

Now God concurs with the works of men in three ways, as it clear: by approving them, by disapproving them and by tolerating them. By approving them, when they are in accord with His Divine will for men — I use here will, in the sense of a thing willed, not the faculty of the Divine Nature.  By disapproving them, when they are not in accord with His divine will and hence in consequence He sends a punishment or sign of His disapproval. And by tolerating them, that is, when whether they be more or less perfect, they either do not transgress His will for men or they are the matter out of which He will bring a greater good.

For any one work of man God might be said to be approving, disapproving and tolerating each in a different respect. Approving of what is good, disapproving of what is morally disordered, and tolerating inasmuch He allows them to happen.

And since the ways of God are not always things which lay open to the discernment of men, it is not with great certitude that we can know God’s mind on any particular matter, unless we have certain knowledge of the Divine Mind. A thing which is only possible by Divine Revelation.

But of all the works of men, therefore, that God concurs with, we can say of one, that what God’s will for men is, because we have certain knowledge of the Divine Mind through the testimony of the Son of God as recorded in the Gospel of Saint Matthew and handed down in the Church as worthy of utmost faith:

And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matthew 16:17-19

And it follows, since, because John Paul II was the valid and legitimate successor of Saint Peter, that Peter lived in him, when he promulgated the Code of Canon Law of 1983. And thus, these words of Our Blessed Lord and Lawgiver Supreme: whatsoever though shalt bind upon earth, are engaged in upholding that Code of Canon Law.

Therefore, God concurring above all, expressly with the works of Peter, we are obliged by divine faith to hold that God concurred approvingly with the work of Pope John Paul II, who laid down in Canon 332, that a pope resigns when a pope renounces his munus. Not at any other time or occasion.

But Pope Benedict XVI did not renounce his munus. He renounced the ministry he had been confided through the hands of the Cardinals.

Therefore, God could not have concurred approvingly with that act, because if He did, He would have made Jesus Christ out to be a liar, or the Gospel of Saint Matthew out to be a fraud, or the Church which proposes both to be believed without any doubt, a trickster. But in such a case, there would be no reason to even care who is the pope and who is not! The Catholic Faith would be a fraud and not worthy of any attention!

But that is an impossibility. Therefore, so is the first premise, namely, that God concurred approvingly with that act.

Therefore, God did not concur approvingly with the Declaratio as an act of papal resignation.

Therefore, Saint Robert Bellarmine would hold that he is still the pope.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00

ABC in 2013: Benedict planned never to leave the Vatican

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A lot of information about what happened in 2013 merits to be look at again, with an impartial eye. Here is just one report, filed by ABC News on Feb. 12, 2013, the day after Pope Benedict read his Declaratio:

There is something stunning in this report, namely, that Pope Benedict had the Monastery Mater Ecclesiae restructured for months prior to his Act on Feb. 11, 2013, with the intent never to leave the Vatican. His brother is also interviewed as saying that the Pope was prepared months in advance and well thought out his act.

As a side matter, it says that Pope Benedict XVI had a pace maker installed in his heart, in the Fall of 2012.

The problem with the testimony of this report and that of his brother, is, How on earth can you prepare to resign for months in advance and still end up reading a Latin text with more than 40 errors in the Latin and at least 10 canonical errors in the formula of resignation?

We must return to the highly authoritative testimony of his brother: It was well thought out and no one forced him to do it.

The only conclusion possible is, then, that Pope Benedict XVI never intended to renounce according to the norm of Canon 332 §2 and leave the Vatican as Cardinal or Bishop Joseph Ratzinger. He fully and deliberately intended to remain the Pope.

For more on this, see the articles on How Benedict has defeated “Francis”, Benedict’s End Game is to defend the Church from Freemasonry, and The Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot from the Video embedded in this article, both of which are used in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00

 

Adoration of the Eternal Word requires the recognition of Benedict XVI as the Pope

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Alas we live in an age of disbelief, of denial, of every sort of ideology invented to pretend that disbelief and denial are not godless excuses against the Lord and Creator. How right Our Lord was when He pronounced the parable of the Owner of the Vineyard who after many attempts to obtain due reverence and respect from his tenant vine-dressers, send his only son thinking that would convince them.

Our Lord and Creator has entrusted to us a beautiful and fruitful vineyard in His Creation, in this planet, Earth, in the human nature with which each of us is wonderfully made and gifted into existence. In gratitude we are obliged to render back to Him His due.

The First and Greatest Commandment is the adoration of God with the entirety of the being which He gave us: in truth, in love, in faith, in hope, in service which above all begins with worship.

The Adoration of the Eternal Word

There are three Divine Persons in the Most Holy Trinity, and the middle one, Who became Man for our salvation is called rightly by Saint John the Apostle: the Word of God. Of Himself, He said: I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.

If we believe, then, in Jesus Christ — not just with our lips or our public actions — but in our minds and hearts, we must therefore adore the Eternal Word. Not just as Incarnate, but as coming forth from the Mouth of God from all eternity and containing in Himself all Truth, all Wisdom, all Light, all Knowledge: saving Truth, redeeming Wisdom, clarifying Light and illuminating Knowledge.

It follows then, since by Faith we know that all that is good in this world is a reflection, distant though it may be, of the goodness of God, that every word by which truth can be signified is a reflection or distant similitude to the Word of God.

This, more than anything else, is the great reason behind the Catholic Religion’s fidelity to words, to writings, to documents: to their preservation, to their faithful translation, to their assiduous study and to their printing and publication.

All this is the consequence of the adoration of the Eternal Word which lies at the center of the Catholic Faith: in the hearts of every Catholic, in every liturgy of the Church, and in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar: Jesus Christ present really, truly and substantially: a Presence proclaimed and defended throughout the ages with words.

Words are the touchstones of fidelity

If there is one constant in all of Catholic history it is this: every Saint, Doctor or Father of the Church and every Catholic hero has been faithful to words: to their meaning, to their intent, to their purpose. They all have been men and women of their word. They all have been men and women who believed the words of those who came before them, whether as Apostles or Evangelists, Fathers of the Church, Popes speaking as popes.

This is why, if we want to know the truth, we have the simple and quick solution: believe the words the Church gives us, hold fast to them, perceive their meaning and put that into practice, make it the rule of your life and the itinerary of your journey. Trust in them and never look back.

Every temptation is against the Word

Contrariwise, every temptation which can be brought, has been brought or will ever be brought against the Will of God for any creature will be manifest in an attack on words, on their meaning and signification, on their intent or purpose. When you see this in action you can be certain that the spirit behind the speaker, the voice in his throat and hand in his mind is from the netherworld: the world where there is no meaning, no light, no wisdom, no knowledge of the good and above all no truth, or similitudes of It.

This can be clearly seen in the controversy over the Declaration made by Pope Benedict XVI. It all turns upon words, with one party saying they do not mean what they say, and the other party saying they mean exactly what they say. One party wants them to mean more than what they say, because they already have — here I use a metaphor — their hand in the cookie-jar, and they do not want to stop shoving the cookies in their mouth. Their mindset is of the juvenile who never grew up, of the egomaniac who sees no meaning but in what returns to himself, of the sociopath who denies any moral law which has authority to govern his passions, and of the psychopath who denies there is anything to defend what is right or wrong.

The other party is truly faithful to the Eternal Word. It does not presume that words mean other than what they say. It does not presume that the Code of Canon Law is not operative and does not mean what it says. It does not presume John Paul II was ignorant in promulgating it, nor does it presume that Pope Benedict XVI intended something other than what he did.

This other party has nothing to gain by their position, because not only are they universally reviled for it, but they never intended to get anything personal out of it. That is why they do not see the controversy as a personal fight. They have nothing personal to defend in it.

I have written this short reflection to help those who are confused by the liars and tricksters and those with personal skin in the game, as they say: the ones who want you to pay them to tell you to shut up, stop thinking, buckle under, go along with apostasy, because they who deny and attack words, know what is best for you!

For us who are Catholics, we know that we shall be judged on every idle word we say, because God the Word considers words important. That is why He founded His Church upon words and through words transmits salvation to all who receive them, faithfully and humbly.

WHY IS BENEDICT XVI STILL THE POPE?

Canon 332 §2 reads:

If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, for validity there is required that the renunciation be made freely and manifested duly, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.

But Pope Benedict’s Declaratio reads, in part:

… I declare, that I renounce the ministerium entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals..

____________

CREDITS:  The Featured Image is of the Tabernacle in the Basilica of Saints Boniface and Alexis at Rome, on the Aventine. Photo by Br. Bugnolo.

 

The Door to Sutri II is unlocking

In an article entitled, Waiting for Gregorian reforms 2.0, published by Polonia Christiana on Sept. 7, 2018 (and reprinted by ChurchMilitant.com, Prof. Grzegorz Kucharczyk lays out the historical and legal context of the current crisis of criminality in the Church which may lead to another Synod of Sutri.

The Synod of Sutri in 1046 A. D., was one of the most extraordinary canonical events in the history of the Church. It deposed 3 popes and paved the way for the election of Pope Clement II. Our knowledge of the event is confirmed by men of indisputable honestly: Bl. Pope Victor III in his annales, Saint Peter Damian who praised the proceedings and attended the coronation of Pope Clement, and Pope St. Gregory VII, who as an acolyte of Gregory VI was present at the Synod and saw his patron deposed from the papacy.

Later historians, after the Council of Constance, who wanted to defend against the implication that the Pope could be judged by a Council, have fiercely attacked the Synod of Sutri as an aberration, an uncanonical proceeding, an illegitimate act to be discarded to the history of the Seculum Obscurum of the Church, a long period in which the Papacy was ruled by despots appointed by Roman Nobility, without regard to the norms of law.

But the Synod of Sutri was a legitimate canonical proceeding accepted by all parties, save that of Pope Benedict IX, after whose death there were no supporters of his own to continue his opposition. Holy Mother Church by canonizing 2 witnesses and beatifying the third, gives the most certain refutation of this wrong headed papal maximalists, who erred out of excessive zeal in judging the precise nature of the canonical proceedings.

Three popes were deposed. But in truth no pope was deposed. Both statements are true, because both statements do not use the word, “pope”, in the same sense.  In the first, one speaks according to the appearances of their claims. In the second, one speaks according to the truth of canon law.

Popes Sylvester III and Gregory VI were never valid popes. The former usurped the office of the Papacy after an angry mob had driven Pope Benedict IX from the city. The latter, Gregory VI, had purchased the office of the papacy from Benedict IX who wanted to resign and marry, and needed the money.  Pope Benedict IX by the fall of 1046, had publicly resigned the papacy but wanted it back since his girlfriend had rejected his proposals to marriage.

So according to the norms of law, 3 pretenders to the papacy were deposed, not three popes.

The confusion about Sutri lies in the obscurity of history, since it is not known under what kind of precise wording Benedict IX resigned and sold the papacy to John Gratian, who took the name Gregory VI. And for that reason, some have said that Benedict was still the pope, assuming that the resignation and sale were one contract, and others have said that Benedict was no longer pope, assuming the two acts were separate. The sale of an ecclesiastical office and its reception by the buyer were always considered invalid legal acts from the time Saint Peter condemned Simon Magus for wanting to do such a thing (cf. Acts 8:9-24). Whence the name for such a crime: simony.

In my previous article on this, I spoke according to the first assumption, and riled the Sedevacantists. — I publicly admit that my assumption about he contract, there, might have been wrong.

But what Prof. Grzegorz Kucharczyk says in his article is true. The Synod of Sutri was the consequence of temporal power which required the resolution of a disputed papacy at Rome for its own purposes. Just so, the ongoing massive legal actions by several nations against the criminally corrupt clergy will inevitably lead back to Rome. And then the power that be will find it necessary to clean up the Vatican.

I will add my own observation, here. Namely, that the recent decision of the pro-Bergoglian government here in Italy — which enjoys now less than 15% support in the national polls — to put the most popular politician, Matteo Salvini, on trial for delaying the disembarkation of illegal immigrants in the port of Catania for 3 days, though with the consent of key members of the current government — Salvini will be charged with kidnapping! — will have its consequences. It will produce the certainty that the day the people of Italy again have a government which supports their views on immigration, that that new government will be implacably anti-Bergoglian and disposed to use their rights, under the Lateran Pact, to resolve the problem of a Vatican out of control and operating against the canons of the Church.

In this way, the doors to the Second Synod of Sutri are being unlocked: Christ the King will have His justice executed even in this world!

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00

 

It’s like divorce, but it isn’t

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I love a good debate, but it’s disappointing to see one side with no arguments. It’s even sadder to see grown men attempt to craft an argument from an assertion which does not fit the case. It’s like someone claiming the world is flat, because ships disappear partially and totally as they head off the horizon!

Anyone with the slightest conception of three dimension geometry knows that that argument proves the world is not flat!

Just so the latest refuge of the “Bergoglio is definitely the pope” crowd. And such it merits a refutation, although I hate knock outs, there is nothing dramatic in them.

It’s like divorce, but it isn’t

Their argument goes like this:

Just as a married man must presume his marriage is valid,
until an annulment tribunal decrees otherwise,
so Catholics must presume the Renunciation is valid,
until the Church decrees otherwise.

Except that is not an argument. That is an analogy or comparison.

An argument, for anyone who knows logic, has a major premise and a minor premise and a conclusion. When you put your thoughts into arguments, then you can see immediately whether they are valid or not, because the human mind has a natural capacity — when not being forced by bad will — to see the truth.

So let’s do the homework of the opposition, and put their analogy into logical form:

Major premise: Every juridical act must be presumed to be valid unless judged otherwise by a legitimate court of law.

Minor premise: Marriage vows are a juridical act.

Conclusion: Marriage vows are to be presumed valid unless judged otherwise by a legitimate court of law.

So let us imagine that Johnnie is doing his homework and shows this to Mommy, who happens to have a Ph.D. in Logic and a J.C.D. in Canon law. (My hypothetical is obviously contrary to fact).

MOMMY: Johnnie that is wonderful. But you are not finished yet. Your conclusion has to be about Papal renunciations, not marriage vows.  Perhaps use another syllogism which combined with the first, will arrive at the right conclusion!

And Johnny goes to work.

Major premise: Every juridical act must be presumed to be valid unless judged otherwise by a legitimate court of law.

Minor premise: A Papal renunciation is a juridical act.

Conclusion: Every papal renunciation must be presumed to be valid unless judged otherwise by a legitimate court of law.

And Johnny shows his work to Mommy.

MOMMY: Johnny, now you have the correct conclusion, but the weakness in your minor premise.

JOHNNY: How is that Mommie?

MOMMY:  Because in accord with Canon 332 §2, a papal renunciation is only a juridical act if it is a certain kind of act. Otherwise it is an actus nullus, invalidus or irritus.

JOHNNY: Which kind?

MOMMY: The kind which is a renunciation of munus.

JOHNNY: But that is what the whole controversy is about.

MOMMY: Are you trying to resolve the controversy or just trying to make it look like you won! Remember what I told you about growing up. You have to stop with the juvenile — I am right, shut up! — behavior which got you that bloody nose last year in elementary school.

JOHNNY: This home work is too hard!

MOMMY: I want to encourage you, Johnny, but the major has a problem too.

JOHNNY: What is that!

MOMMY: Your argument does not say why a juridical act is presumed valid, or why an act of matrimony and renunciation are the same species of act.

JOHNNY: Mommy, can’t you just tell me?

MOMMY: Well, Johnny, I cannot do your homework for you! — But I will help by asking questions, ok?

JOHNNY. O.K.

MOMMY: When you presume something is valid, you presume first of all what?

JOHNNY: That something is pre-existing.

MOMMY: What is pre-existing between a married man and his wife?

JOHNNY: The marriage vows.

MOMMY: What is pre-existing in a Papal Renunciation?

JOHNNY: The papal vows, that is, the agreement by the man who is the pope, to be the pope.

MOMMY: That’s right! So if you are to presume marriage vows are valid, until proven otherwise, then you are to presume WHAT is valid until proven otherwise?

JOHNNY: The pope’s decision to be and remain the pope, of course!

MOMMY: That is right!

JOHNNY: But, Mommy, that is not the conclusion I want to present in class, because I hate Annie and Alexie and Marky, who are all supporting that side of the argument!

MOMMY: Johnny, what did I tell you about being juvenile?

A Real Case that is not a Real Case

Screenshot_20200215-152043_Chrome

The problem with the argument used in the Tweet shown to the Left, is the same.

The more fundamental legal principle which is the Major Premise of all arguments in this matter is that the cessation of power or of right is not presumed. Therefore, it has to be proven and juridically established. Otherwise, you are saying that a man who is certain in his own opinion that the marriage he entered into before Church witnesses can presume his marriage invalid, when he is thus certain, without first obtaining an annulment, if he is even eligible.

Likewise, in regard to the Renunciation, you would be saying as Grant seems to be saying, that a man who is certain in his own opinion that the Renunciation ended the holding of the papal office, can presume the man is no longer the valid pope, when he is thus certain, without first obtaining a judgement of the Church. But that contradicts the principle ‘the cessation of power and right is not presumed’.

We do not presume a marriage made is invalid. And we do not presume a pope made is un-poped. We must have certain and juridical proof.

Canon 332 §2 is the only authority and tribunal of that certitude. Grant wants it that it be the Cardinals or Bishops, or the agreement of everyone alive or of his friends, like Steve Skojec. But that is expressly denied in the final clause of Canon 332 §2.

But there is a deeper problem with Grant’s approach. And it is this: matrimony is a Sacrament not simply a contract ad libitum, voluntarily separable as much as enterable. As a Sacrament it can never be broken. Those who enter into it have the power to enter, but no one has the power to end the contract, except Sister Death. But the Papacy is not a contract, but it is severable. A man accepts his election according to the norm of law, and can be separated from what he accepted according to the norm of law.

But it has to be according to the norm of law. Otherwise, a pope might accidentally un-pope himself after drinking too much wine, during a fever, while being threatened with death, or after being convinced his health is so bad, by those around him, he cannot go on for another seven years. — And it must be according to the norm of law, not according to the opinion of men. Otherwise, you would have anti-popes elected when popes still lived, simply because Cardinals wanted it so. And nearly all anti-popes in the last 1000 years were caused by wanton Cardinals.

Something sounds familiar about that…if you have eyes to see.

_________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo of a bas-relief at the Lateran Basilica, taken by Br. Bugnolo

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00

 

 

The Canonical Duty of Every Priest to name Benedict in the Canon of the Mass

 

Most priests do not know that they have a canonical right to stop naming Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass. They think wrongly that to do so would either be outside of their authority or would involve an act of schism. That it is not schism nor a sin, is proven thus:

Here is the canonical argument

First, a validly elected Pope must be named in the Canon of the Mass as a sign of communion. This is by tradition and liturgical law.

Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.

This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied.

No validly elected pope’s name must be omitted from the Canon of the Mass during his lifetime, or before he validly resigns.

Third: Pope Benedict XVI did not resign on Feb. 11, 2013, he merely retired from the active ministry, as he himself said on Feb. 28, 2013 in his final Allocution (see other evidence here). For extensive canonical information about this see ppbxvi.org.

Fourth: That Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign was the falsehood which emanated from the Desk of Cardinal Sodano. (See explanation here)

Now just as Cardinal Sodano should have acted, is how all priest should act. Namely,

In accord with Canon 40, Priests who are to say mass hold a munus which is merely executory, in regard to whom to name at Mass in the Canon as Pope. This is because they do not decide on their own authority who is the pope and who is not the pope. They follow the command of a superior. That superior is above all the Pope.

If a pope therefore does not renounce his office in accord with canon 332 §2, because he renounces his ministerium instead, that renunciation has no canonical effect, because there is no canon in the Church’s laws which regard the renunciation of ministries.

Therefore, in accord with canon 40 and 41 A PRIEST IS FORBIDDEN to alter the name of the Pope in the Canon of the Mass. He cannot act on the basis of the declaration of Non Solum Propter in the same illegal manner Cardinal Sodano did. To do so would be to collaborate in his grave crime, deceive the faithful and enter into de facto schism with Pope Benedict. (see that article for a greater explanation of the crime and moral offence)

Therefore, a priest must continue to name Benedict in the Canon of the Mass.

Therefore, a priest must cease and desist naming Francis as soon as he recognizes the validity of this canonical argument.

+ + +

(This argument is not that of the Editor of FromRome.Info, who has merely expanded it for a fuller explanation — There are already a great number of priests who do not name Francis, but name Benedict instead, some openly, some secretly, some by saying for the Holy Father, without a specific name. God bless and strengthen and multiply these priests!)

_________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a photo taken by Br. Bugnolo of the Papal Altar at the Basilica of Saint Lawrence, here at Rome.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00

 

 

Cherry-Picking Canon Law is a mortal sin

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One day, while I lingered at the Convent of Saint Francis of Assisi, at Bagnoregio, in the spring of 2016, one of the Franciscan Fathers invited me to come with him to a Cherry orchard owned by a benefactor of the Convent. The owner said we could pick all the cherries we wanted. And the Conventual Father just loved cherries. I had never picked cherries and wanted to do some work to repay the Friars for their hospitality to me, so I eagerly went along.

In a Cherry Orchard

Cherries, in the province of Viterbo, Italy, grow in masses on the branches of trees which are nearly 20 feet high. So many cherries sprout from each branch that without supports the branches usually break.  But unlike many fruits, picking cherries is difficult, because they are so small and each one ripens at its own pace. So each cherry has to be picked on the basis of a decision to pick it or not. And this has to be accurate, because an unripe cherry can cause great gastric distress after you eat it.

We picked so many cherries, the old Friar was nearly taken to heaven. He was so happy, it reminded him of his youth. Alas, after letting them age a day in the refrigerator, they were found to be not very sweet and too watery. I found them fine and ended up eating too many of them. But Italians are very particular about food quality, and the old priest ate no more than a handful, which was a great disappointment to him.

The Expression, to Cherry-pick…

And thus the colloquial expression, in English, to cherry-pick.  To cherry-pick means to chose what you want and leave the rest. The expression is used to show the mendacity or malignancy in choosing what you want from something which is intended to be taken as a whole.

For example, Protestants cherry-pick scripture to propose to their congregations a Christianity without Bishops, priests and Sacraments. This is because they decide to believe and observe and thus recognize only certain passages from Scripture, not all of them.

Cherry-picking Scripture is a mortal sin, because it presupposes that you are a rebel against the obligation of faith to believe in all of Sacred Scripture as inerrant and equally inspired by God.

Canon Law

Imagine a Church where you only had to observe certain Canon Laws and not others. I can imagine that if I went to any medium or high security prison in the world, and proposed a society where you could chose which laws to keep and which you did not have to keep, that my proposal would win the wild cheers of all the inmates, for obvious reasons.

To cherry-pick a code of law is obviously wrong. But perhaps not so obviously more immoral and evil than breaking the law. Because the one who chooses to break a law does not necessary decide or judge that the law should not be observed, only that what he wants at that moment is more important. But someone who cherry-picks a Code of Law is setting himself up as an authority over the authority of the law itself and rejects in principle that the entire Code and the authority which issued it is his superior, which he must obey.

To cherry-pick Canon Law therefore is a very serious mortal sin of rebellion against the Pope and against Jesus Christ, from Whom the papal munus comes. It is thus diabolic, without any exaggeration.

True or False Pope?

I am continually amazed how many commentators stop by and say, What is wrong with obeying a false pope? Is not obedience what matters? People do not obey Francis because of Francis, but out of obedience to the papacy, no?

If we think we can cherry-pick Canon Law, then it does not matter, because then the Catholic Religion is up for the grab of everyone, everyone can make it into what he wants, and we have a New Gnosticism, where everyone has his own inner guiding secret principles for salvation: while the external visible Church is merely the living space for the wantonness of each. Pope, Antipope, Jesus or the Antichrist, it would all be equally good.

This is why it is absolutely essential to the salvation of each of us and of all of us to get Canon 332 §2 right. Whether you are the Pope or a Cardinal, or a Bishop or a priest, or just a layman, it makes a difference. We cannot pick and chose canons, we have to obey all the Canons of the Church.

What does it matter that Canon Law says we must obey the pope, if we refuse to obey the pope by rejecting Canon 332 § 2, and listen to the Cardinals instead who want to have an authority which Canon Law does not give them, to demand universal acceptance of their unfounded uncanonical opinion?  Is that obedience to the Pope? Does Unam Sanctam no longer matter to Trad Inc.? and if we do not have to submit to Canon Law, why do we have to submit to Pope Francis? — Will someone in Trad inc explain that to me?

And where on earth or in Hell comes the idea that the Holy Spirit does not care about our decisions in this matter, or that He won’t back up the Cardinals and Bishops to do the right thing, if we ask them to in Synod or Council?

This is the spirit which motivated me to write my recent letter to Giovanni Cardinal Battista Re, whom Bergoglio announced as his new Dean of the College of Cardinals. I showed 8 sound canonical reasons why the Declaration of Pope Benedict, which he made 7 years ago, tomorrow, at 11:30 AM Rome time, did not separate him from the Papal Munus, and that therefore Canon Law — which judges everyone and everything — says he is still the pope.

It’s been 7 years, and still those who say Benedict is not the pope anymore do NOT have a canonical argument. They can cite no canon as it reads, and at most grab for a canon and try to make it say the opposite of what it says, as those whom Diane Montanga interviewed last year tried to do.  I am still waiting for Life Site to print a retraction for their lies and misrepresentations. I am still waiting for Trad Inc to denounce Life Site for an article of propaganda and misinformation. I am still waiting for 750 Cardinals and Bishops and priests and 500 students of theology and canon law to get back to me with JUST ONE sound canonical argument that demonstrates Benedict is no longer the pope.

Still waiting…

________

CREDITS:  The Featured Image is a collage of images created by Google Image search, under the rubric of “Canon Law”, used here according to a fair use standard for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00

My Letter to Cardinal Re

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In January, it was announced by the Vatican, that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re was named Dean of the College of Cardinals. Since it it the duty of the Dean to convoke the College, I wrote him a Letter in Latin to express my concerns, in accord with Canon 212, regarding the canonical status of Pope Benedict XVI, in the assumption that he may not be aware of them.

Here is the text of my letter, which he received more than 2 weeks ago:

Sua Eminentia,

Vobis scribo ex iure mihi concesso ab papa Ioanne Paolo II in canone 212, ad Vobis manifestandas inconvenientias graves in declaratione quae emissa est ab papa Benedicto XVI in Festo B. V. M. Lapurdensis anno Domini 2013.

In primis, ministerii eius renuntiatio non est conformans normae canonis 332 §2 qui renuntiationem muneris petrini requirit et hinc est actus nullus qui secundum canonem 41 neminem constringat.

Secundo, nemini licet ut interpres sit actus renuntiationis papalis, et hinc omnis interpretatio actus istius invalida ac illicita esto qui munus legat ubi ministerium scribatur.

Tertio, in dicendo ministerium et non munus vir qui est papa Benedictus XVI actum validum non ponere potest sine concessione derogationis secundum canonem 38 et hinc quia aliquid tale non fecit ut Romanus Pontifex actum irritum posuit ut vir qui est Pontifex.

Quarto, in ministerii renuntiatione et non muneris actus apparens papalis renuntiationis irritus est secundum canonem 188 per errorem substantialem quoniam essentia actus necessaria penes canonem 332 §2 est renuntiatio muneris non ministerii.

Quinto, non est libertas ad muneri renuntiandum quo renuntiatio ministerii fiat et hinc actus talis deficit ex debito canonis 332 §2 ad libere faciendum actum renuntiationis muneris et hinc invalidus est.

Sexto, non est ritualis manifestatio ubi non est manifestatio actus debiti, et quia impossibile est quod actus ministerii renuntiationis manifestet renuntiationem muneris, hinc est invalidus secundum canonem 332 §2.

Septimo, quoniam aliquot diebus post declarationis enuntiationem actus integer non habebatur, impossibile est quod actus Cardinalis Decani precedentis validus fuit ad renuntiationem papalis annuntiandam secundum normam canonis 40 et postea ad conclavem convocandam.

Octavo, omnes actiones papae Benedicti XVI per septem annos demonstrant quod Is apprehendat munus ut vocationem et gratiam nunquam abiiciendam et non ut ministerium seu officium ecclesiasticum rentuntiatum, et evidens est quod verum sit, quapropter ille nomen et indumentum et dignitatem papalem adhunc portat ut possessionem personalem, qui demonstratio est clare quod intentionem renuntiationis muneris non haberet et non habeat.

Ex totis rationibus ego supplex Vos precor Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei ut convocatio Cardinalium in praesentiae papae Benedicti XV faciatis in tempore opportuno ad verum quaerendum in materia ista ita ut omne dubium de successione petrina tollatis pro Ecclesia Christi salute. Partibus omnibus in ista controversia eliminatio dubii istius ius et debitum est et nulli vulnera.

Gratias Vobis do pro tempore lectionis litterarum mearum,

In Sancto Francisco servus humilis papatus,

Fra’ Alexis Bugnolo

Here is my English translation of the Letter, for the benefit of the readers of FromRome.Info

Your Eminence,

I am writing you on account of the right granted me by Pope John Paul II in canon 212, to make known to you the grave problems in the Declaratio which was pronounced by Pope Benedict XVI on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, in the year of Our Lord 2013.

First of all, His renunciation of ministry is not in conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2 which requires the renuntiation of the Petrine Munus, and hence it is an actus nullus which according to canon 41 constrains no one.

Second, it is not licit for anyone to be the interpretor of a papal renunciation, and hence every interpretation of that act of His, which reads “munus” where “ministerium” is written, is invalid and illicit.

Third, in saying “ministerium” and not “munus” the man who is Pope Benedict XVI cannot posit a valid act without the concession of a derogation, according to canon 38, and hence because he never did any such thing, as the Roman Pontiff, he posited, as the man who is the Pontiff, an actus irritus.

Fourth, in renouncing ministry and not munus, the apparent act of papal renunciation is irritus according to canon 188 by means of a substantial error, since the essence of the act necessary under the terms of Canon 332 §2 is a renunciation of munus, not of ministerium.

Fifth, there is no liberty to renounce munus where a renunication of ministerium is made and hence such an act fails from what is due in Canon 332 §2 regarding a free act of renuncaition of munus, and hence is invalid.

Sixth, there is no due manifestation where there is no manifestation of the due act, and because it is impossible that an act of renunciation of ministerium manifest an act of renunciation of munus, hence it is invalid according to Canon 332 §2.

Seventh, since for some days after the pronouncement of the declaration the integral act was not had, it is impossible that the act of the previous Cardinal Dean was valid to announce a papal renunciation, according to the norm of Canon 40 and afterwards to convoke a conclave.

Eighth, all the actions of Pope Benedict XVI throught the last 7 years demonstrate that he understands munus as a vocation and grace never to be rejected and not as a renounced ministerium or ecclesiastical office, and it is evident that this is true, because He bears still that Name and clothing and dignity of a pope as a personal possession, which is clearly a demonstration that he did not have nor has the intention of renouncing the munus.

For all these reasons, I humbly beg you for the sake of the Holy Church of God to call a convocation of the Cardinals in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI, at an opportune time, to seek the truth in this matter so as to bear away all doubt concerning the petrine succession for the sake of the salvation of Christ’s Church. The elimination of this doubt is the right and due to all the parties in this controversy and harms none of them.

Thank you for the time you have taken reading my letter,

In Saint Francis, a humble servant of the Papacy,

– – –

I have published this letter to encourage all of you to write to your own Cardinals and Bishops in your part of the world an urge them to the same thing. You have my permission to copy and paste the test of my Latin or English version of my letter.

As you can see, the reasons for holding that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope are the most profound and grave and are drawn entirely from Canon Law and historical facts. They are not based on unfounded opinion, misquoted texts or insults, as those of Trad Inc..

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00

The Canon 15 §2 Strawman trotted out by LifeSite’s anonymous Canon Lawyer

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Just as every criminal, for the sake of public safety, should receive a response from the police, so every error merits a refutation by those who love the truth. This is even more true in proportion to the danger posed by the criminal, or by the error.

Backstory

Nearly a year ago, on February 14, 2019, in an attempt to quell the growing realization among many Catholics that Benedict is still the Pope, LifeSite News, a pro-life website founded by a Canandian Political action committee and a converted Atheist, published an article containing a whole string of falsifications of legal principles and straw men arguments, entitled, “Did Benedict really resign? Gänswein, Burke and Brandmüller weigh in.”  The article was authored by Diana Montagna, and it was one of the first to actually mention the controversy over Benedict’s resignation.

I refuted the major points of her article, in my response, published on the same day, entitled, Gänswein, Brandmüller & Burke: Please read Canon 17!

As I look back today at that article, it does not surprise me that it was published at LifeSite News. My experience in apologetics — the one on one discussions with non Catholics to convince them the Catholic Faith is the true Faith or to answer their questions in that regard — for over 24 years has given me plenty of opportunities to speak with atheists of all kinds, and the one difficulty they all have is the inability to believe that words have meaning, and that meaning can carry us to the infinite or eternal. This is one of the great doubts in modern time which is propagated by the secular media and culture, and it is one of the most fundamental attacks Lucifer uses against souls. And as most of us cradle Catholics, who never doubted or left the faith have also experienced, just because a Convert has converted, does not yet mean he has left behind all his faults, errors or phobias.

I say this, because I cannot imagine why any good Catholic would publish an article such as Montagna’s which is so full of lies, and trash the reputation of his 15 year apostolate so profoundly in a single act. Pro-abortionists love to deny the meaning of words, because that is the only way you can kill children in the womb or as they come out of it. Denying Canon Law and legal principles kills souls, and that is a worse crime and sin in the sight of God and faithful Christians.

The Canon 15 §2 Strawman

First, let me thank Fred Martinez over at Catholic Monitor Blog, for drawing my attention again, a year later, to Montagna’s article. Mr. Martinez is doing a superb job at finding and pointing out the logical or textual self-contradictions of the “Bergoglio is certainly the Pope” crowd, and many of his articles show where he catches them saying the exact opposite after 2016 what they said before 2016. — My profound gratitude also to the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, for reposting his and many of my articles, at his own blog, abyssum.org, to help the wider audience of the faithful know of the pertinent issues in the present Church crisis.

In Montagna’s article, see here, there is trotted out the argument from Canon 15 §2. She quotes the anonymous theologian, thus:

The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”

But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid.

“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”

“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”

Let’s take a look at the actual Canon and see if the anonymous theologian — who appears not to have a degree in Canon Law, because if he did, he should be termed a canonist — actually quoted the Canon correctly and/or represented its authentic meaning:

Canon 15 §2, in the Intratext edition:

Can. 15 – § 1. Ignorantia vel error circa leges irritantes vel inhabilitantes earundem effectum non impediunt, nisi aliud expresse statuatur.

§ 2. Ignorantia vel error circa legem aut poenam aut circa factum proprium aut circa factum alienum notorium non praesumitur; circa factum alienum non notorium praesumitur, donec contrarium probetur.

Which in good English, means:

Canon 15. – § 1. Ignorance and/or error about irritating and/or inabilitating laws* does not impede their effect, unless something else has been expressly established.

§ 2. Ignorance and/or error about a law or punishment or about one’s own deed or about the notorious deed of another is not presumed; it is presumed about the non-notorious fact of another, until the contrary is proven.

But the theologian said Canon 15 §2 says “error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.” — It is not clear, what the theologian is intending to speak about, because he is quoted to have introduced his statement with, “Again”, which implies reference to a second matter or the use of another kind of argument, or a double reason for the same argument. In charity, I assume he is referring to his straw man argument about the interior state of mind of Pope Benedict.

But it is certain what the canon says regards a person’s ignorance or error regarding a law. That can be seen from the entire context of the Canon, which speaks about a person’s apprehension of facts and of law. But it is proven by the Latin word, circa, which does not mean in, but regarding the matter of.

Thus, if we read the theologian as referring to Benedict’s knowledge of Canon 332 §2, which is the context of Montagna’s article, read in the best possible light, then we can see that the theologian is doing a bate-and-switch, because if we are not to presume that Benedict was ignorant or in error regarding Canon 332 §2, when we must presume that when he renounced ministerium, he did NOT intend to renounce the munus. Because if you think he intended to renounce the munus, then you have presumed he erred in saying ministerium.

As you can see, the anonymous theologian made a gross misrepresentation of the law. If he were a Canonist, I would have to presume in accord with Canon 15 §2 that he was a liar and intentionally misrepresented the canon. But since he is only an anonymous theologian, who  may have never studied Canon Law or may not know how to read Latin, in charity we should presume that he is simply ignorant or incompetent to give his opinion on it. — But, as I demonstrated in my rebuttal 51 weeks ago, everyone quoted in the article shows serious deficiencies in the knowledge of Canon Law or legal principles, except Cardinal Burke who seems to simply mistake the kind of legal matter he is dealing with, just as the great Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori did on the occasion of his conversion to his vocation.

The interpretative principle used by the anonymous theologian seems more adapted to the psycho-analysis of sociopaths, in that a clinical psychologist presumes the context of his patient’s statements in the best possible light but without reference to any objective custom or law of verbal expression, because, after all, he is a patient with problems.

The theologian, therefore, is adopting a presumption and a very uncharitable one toward the reigning Pontiff and towards a man who has read thousands of books. Not to mention, a presumption contrary to fact, because in the previous sentences of the Declaratio, Pope Benedict XVI uses the Latin word “munus” twice!

The correct reading of Canon 15, is that in accord with Canon 15 §1, even if Benedict were ignorant, Canons 38 and 188 and 332 would still nullify his act. So if he did not realize that by renouncing the ministry rather than the munus, he would transgress the essential obligations of Canon 332 §2 in his renunciation as regards the specific act required, the liberty required and the manifestation required, his act would nevertheless BE INVALID!

So Canon 15 destroys entirely the argument of everyone cited in Montagna’s article, because on the one hand if Pope Benedict was ignorant that would not save the act from being nullified by the Law, and if on the other hand we are to presume he was not ignorant, we must understand his act as a renunciation of ministerium, not of munus, and therefore it is also invalid by the same Canons 38, 188 and 332.

Words have meaning: this terrifies atheists and sociopaths, because it demands of each of us that we conform our verbal expression to an objective standard and admit that meaning transcends the categories of human speech, points us towards objective and eternal rules of behavior and implies that there is a God who is Sovereign of this Universe and Who will judge us eternally for what we do and say. — That words have meaning, is also the nemesis of every criminal, because it is through words that he is caught, prosecuted and sentenced.

Thus, we cannot be faithful or upright Catholics if we listen to men or women who attempt to undermine the truth that words have meaning, and if we do not admit that it is not within our power to change their meaning, neither in themselves nor in them when others use them. Those who do such things are practicing the same method of persuasion used by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, and we all know who that was and what it led to.

__________

FOOTNOTES

* An irritating law is a law which declares a juridical act to have no value in law on account of not having followed the due requirement of the law for the said act. An inabilitating law is a law which deprives the act of the ability to have an effect.  Canon 38 is an inabilitating law, Canon 188 is an irritating law, and Canon 332 § 2 is an invalidating law. Canon 332 §2, is the matter for the application of Canons 38 and 188 in regard to error in a papal renunciation, because as regards the error of a reigning pontiff, the Code takes the position that the administrative act be presumed valid per se but not have the effect others thinks it has or which the pontiff thinks it may have, and thus in canons 38 and 188 and 332, it declares that it has the effect which the sacred canons say it has, and not any other effect. — This is why it is essential, and not simply an optional method of intepretation, that Canon Law be read and used carefully to understand the canonical effect, if any, in an administrative act of the Roman Pontiff.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a screen shot of the page of LifeSite News featuring the article reference herein. It is used here, along with the citation of the same, in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00

Will Pope Francis’ successor be a Catholic?

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I have entitled this article with a Question which is on the minds of many who were born and baptised into the Catholic Church and who still are trying to figure out what is going on in the Catholic Church. It is a common question and deserves to be discussed.

Many will propose an answer based on speculations about this or that person, how man persons are Cardinals who are in favor of them, or what might happen if Bergoglio dies before or after Pope Benedict.

Putting speculation aside, let us look at what Canon Law says.

Canon 359 says, first of all, that the Cardinals have no authority to change Canon Law and the only authority they have is specified in the special laws which regards a sede vacante. They have no independent authority whatsoever outside of a sede vacante.

The special laws referred to in Canon 359 are contained in the Papal Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II — with a slight modification by Pope Benedict XVI — entitled, Universi Dominici gregis.

The problem with any successor of Bergoglio is the same as the problem with Bergoglio. This problem, canonically, arises from Canons 359 and 17.   Because Canon 359 says there cannot a Conclave until there is a sede vacante, that is, until there is no longer anyone who is the Roman Pontiff, the Throne of Peter must be empty.  Canon 17 says to understand what that means we need to read the Code of Canon Law. Therein, we see that in Canons 331, 332, 334, and 749, the Roman Pontiff is spoken of as holding a munus. Nowhere does it speak of a Papal Office, or of the Office of the Pope. It only speaks of the Papal or Petrine Munus.  The man who holds it is, therefore, the Roman Pontiff.

So on account of canon 17, Canon 359 means that no Conclave can be called legitimately by the Cardinals until the man who held the Petrine Munus says, in accord with Canon 359: I renounce my munus, or words equivalent such as, I renounce the petrine munus.

Perhaps there is some language in which munus has a cognate or equivalent term, but in modern English it does not exist, so I use it of necessity, in my articles. It does not exist in Italian either.

The Code of Canon Law, in canon 17, therefore imposes a clear and certain standard for a legitimate Conclave — to be called during a sede vacante — and a clear and certain standard as when to recognize that a pope is no longer pope — he must be dead or have renounced the petrine munus.

Obviously, you would be insane to play games with words and renounce something else, and leave it to history to find out whether you renounced or did not renounce.  But that is the situation we are in. That is why Canon 332 in paragraph 2, says that the renunciation is only valid if it manifests a renunciation of petrine munus. Even Cathy Caridi, JCL, in her blog post of January 2013 recognized this, as I mentioned the other day.

An unsolveable problem Post Factum

The canonical problem any successor of Bergolio has will therefore be the same. Because, when Bergoglio resigns or dies in power, his death will not cause a sede vacante, because he was never the Pope. And he was never the Pope because he was elected while another Pope still reigned. And Another pope still reigned, because Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium and kept the office, the dignity, the munus, and the power of the papacy for himself. Therefore, no petrine sucession took place, and hence Bergoglio was never the Roman Pontiff according to the norms of Canon Law. It follows, then, with his departure the Cardinals cannot act.

The College of Cardinals is also compromised. I mean to say, that even if both Benedict and Bergoglio were dead, it could not validly elect a Roman Pontiff. This is because of the Papal Law on Conclaves, by Pope John Paul II, which declares invalid the election of anyone made in a Conclave into which ANYONE WHOMSOEVER who is not a Cardinal Elector was admitted.  But the men whom Bergoglio dared to make Cardinals are not Cardinals, because he has no authority to make them. And Pope Benedict having renounced the petrine ministry, has explicitly posited a juridical act which denies his consent to anything which happened after Feb. 28, 2013. So these man are not Cardinals and if they enter the Conclave the election will be invalid.

So after the fact — post factum, in Latin — there is no cure for the Bergoglian Church. The only true successor will be the one elected after the valid resignation or death of Pope  Benedict XVI.

This article is one in a series studying the Canonical problems associated with the illegitimate claim of Bergoglio to the pontificate, among which are the others:

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

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.

$10.00