Category Archives: Canon Law

Canon Law

Don Minutella and Br. Bugnolo discuss the canonical problems at the Vatican

8 Comments

 Summary and further explanations by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I had the pleasure and honor to be interviewed via telephone last night in Italian (see video above) by the renowned Don Alessandro Minutella, Catholic Priest and Pastor of the Parish of Saint Don Bosco, Palermo, who since 2016 has been leading a social media and preaching crusade against the arch-heretic who has usurped the Apostolic Throne and seized control of the Vatican City State.

We talked at length about the canonical aspects and juridical problems had by the party of criminal accomplices in the upper clergy and among social media personalities in demonstrating that his claim to the Roman Papacy is legitimate.

In this broadcast, I said nothing that I have not said previously, except for our discussion about what might happen at the death of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. Though I mentioned the recent autogol of Don Tullio Rotondo, in his online skirmishing war with Andrea Cionci, which I reported on here.

First, I pointed out that we cannot be sure about any of the circumstances of that future event, because, Bergoglio could pass to his eternal recompense before the Holy Father, or even resign. As to Don Minutella’s question on this, I emphatically stated that I do not, as an anthropologist, see anything in his character which would lead me to think that he would ever resign, nay, I think he will be giving orders to the last moments of his death bed — though, if he was DeathVaxxed, he may just drop suddenly.

Second, we do not know if the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has discretely already made arrangements for the election of a legitimate successor, seeing that in the past, during the final days of Pope Honorius II, the faithful Cardinals gathered around the dying Pontiff and expressed to him their concern that, after his death, the faction led by Pietro Pierleoni, of a very bad reputation for simony and the theft of sacred objects (Pierleoni was from a family of Jews converted to the Catholic Faith) would seize control, since he had bought a large number of followers in the city.  So on February 13, 1130 A. D., Pope Honorius II signed a brief which restricted the number of electors for the election of his successor to a commission of Cardinals, the members of which were attending him in his death. Thus, was Pope Innocent II legitimately and validly, but not canonically in the strictest sense, elected.

So it is possible, that Pope Benedict XVI has already promulgated or will promulgate a special law governing the election of his successor. And indeed, he can do so at any moment, and those named as Electors will be the witnesses to it. Juridically it must be signed before his death, before witnesses whose number at least contains 2 Bishops.

Hence, though it appears to everyone in Italy, that there are no Cardinal Electors who want to recognize that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope, it may be possible that he will arrange for the election of his successor.

And for that reason, I mentioned last night, that it remains to be seen what Archbishop Gänswein will do, following the death of the Holy Father, in the situation where no Cardinal Electors have returned to him publicly or privately. For if the Archbishop, at the funeral mass names Bergoglio in the canon of the Mass, then we can presume reasonably that he was not faithful to Pope Benedict XVI and served as a prison guard of the Holy Father, all these long years. But that if he offers that Mass or those Masses in sede vacante, then he is signifying that he stood with the Holy Father as a faithful ally and servant all those years.

Don Minutella asked me, then, if I think the Archbishop is a faithful ally or a prison guard. And I told him that I first assumed the latter, but now incline to the former, though I cannot be certain, because it could be, that to serve the Holy Father faithfully he has had to dissimulate loyalty to both claimants to the Apostolic Throne, or that even Pope Benedict XVI has instructed him to use mental reservation to achieve this.

Failing any special law and in the case of the apostasy of all the Cardinal Electors, then I affirmed that there remains a way to validly elect the Roman Pontiff, as Pope John Paul II implied in his promulgatory act of the new code of Canon Law in 1983, where he said, that the institution of the Conclave is NOT necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff!  When I first read that years ago, I presumed he was speaking about the long course of centuries, but after discovering that Pope Benedict XVI uses amphibologies, and that the renunciation of the Roman Pontiff in canon law was altered in the code of 1983, to allow a fake abdication to fool the Freemasons in the upper clergy who have been working for 2 centuries to seize the papacy, I hypothesized that this statement by Pope John Paul II was a hint, an indication, that his papal law for the election of the Roman Pontiff contained some sort of pressure valve or condition where the law would abolish itself.

In fact, it is a very widespread error, that the Cardinals alone have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff. I thought so myself, for most of my life, until I read canons 335, 349 and 359, which clearly state that after the death and/or valid abdication of the Roman Pontiff, the Cardinals enjoy only those rights which are according to them by special law. That is, they have no canonical or apostolic right to elect the Roman Pontiff!  This present system differs from that established during the Third Lateran Council, canon 1, for example. Thus if the special law had any condition which would prevent the present method from being implemented, the Cardinal Electors would lose all right per se to participate in the election.

For in the course of the centuries the Roman Pontiffs have been elected by papal laws, canons, or apostolic tradition, as I have discussed here. And in thus, since the current law abolished all previous laws and canons, there could be no recourse to these if no Cardinal Electors remained faithful. Hence, the condition in the present law itself, that Cardinal Electors lose their right to elect the Roman Pontiff if they do not appear in conclave by the 22nd day, would result in the law itself losing all force after that date, or rather, to the abolition of the institution of the Conclave for that specific election, since obviously, there can be no Conclave if no one has the right to vote in it.

Thus, in such an eventuality the faithful of the Church of Rome (Dioceses of Rome and its suburbican Dioceses), whether clergy, religious, or lay, can and must convene to elect the successor of Pope Benedict XVI according to the Apostolic Right of that Church to do so, which right was established by St. Peter and recognized by St. Paul the Apostle. Obviously, this refers only to the number of the faithful who were in communion with the Roman Pontiff, at his death, and who belonged to the Church of Rome. This could include Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Monsignori, Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, Religious and laity, who are either incardinated in these dioceses (in the case of clergy), or who hold ecclesiastical residence in these territories (laity and religious of pontifical institutes or diocesan institutes established by such ordinaries).

ANNOUNCEMENT: DECEMBER 11, 2022

RALLY FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI

And hence it is, that it is important that the faithful gather together and show themselves prior to such a necessity. Indeed, the more frequently we gather together to proclaim Pope Benedict XVI is THE POPE, the more strength will we show to convince the weak to return to communion with him.

To this end, Don Minutella and the 7 priests collaborating with him have organized a public meeting at Rome, on December 11th.  And at my suggestion, last night, he has extended his invitation to participate and be present at this gathering to ALL the faithful wherever they may live, to come and join us.

THUS, I extend my personal and cordial invitation TO ALL CLERGY, RELIGIOUS AND LAITY wheresoever they be in the world, who recognize Benedict XVI is still the Pope, the sole Vicar of Jesus Christ, to come to Rome for Dec. 11th, of this year, and join me and the clergy, religious and faithful of Italy in this first event of its kind.

And at my suggestion, Don Minutella will plan such events every three months or so.

So far 1300 Catholics have preregistered for this free event open to all.

I will be there, and it will be my pleasure to meet all who come and make your acquaintance.

(For reasons of security, if you wish to attend, give me your contact information in a comment — which I will not publish — and I will put you on a private mailing list for updates about this and the details  of time and place at Rome)

Canon Law, Church History

Rules, Regulations and Proceedures for the Election of Pope Benedict XVI’s Successor

21 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRENCH TRANSLATION — VERSIONE ITALIANA

The Successor of Saint Peter’s Role in God’s Plan of Salvation

God alone knows the times and places wherein we will each be called to stand before the throne of Christ and receive judgement for our lives. And it will be inexorable and infinitely just in every detail. But until that time, we should live as His humble servants, confessing our sins and working for the good of His Church, which is His Mystical Bride on Earth.

Down through the Centuries, the Church has made pilgrimage from the Pentecost wherein She was born among men and manifested Herself for the first time to unbelievers, toward the Eternal and Final Heavenly Marriage Banquet wherein She shall celebrate Her Nuptials with Christ the King.

And to ensure that She arrives safe at that Day of days, Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ entrusted Her to Saint Peter and His Successors, in time. so that from generation to generation in this long pilgrimage, She might have a faithful hand to guide Her without error unto that magnificent feast.

A Short History of the Election of the Roman Pontiffs

List of all the Pope s buried in St. Peter’s Basilica

Each pope in the Apostolic Succession at Rome accepts that duty when he accepts his election as the Bishop of Rome. But down the course of the ages, that election has been conducted under different procedures.

At first, with the death of Saint Peter, it is most probably that Saint Paul the Apostle presided over the first election of a pope, Saint Linus, where, out of fear of persecution, the Church of Rome met in secret to elect their own Bishop, faithful and clergy and consecrated alike. In those days the Church of Rome presided over the entire valley of the Tiber, extending from the hills of Tuscania to those of Albanus, and from the hinterlands of the Tiber to the shores of the Tyrrhenian sea.

We do not know anything more precise about the first election of a pope. It was not a conclave, because that term arises from the first elections in the 13th century (1216?, 1241 and especially that of 1269 at Viterbo) conducted under lock and key, to prevent the Cardinals from delaying too long in their decision.

Throughout the ages, the elections of the Roman Pontiffs were usually held in the Roman Province, in some location, not always at Rome, but always where those who has the right of election gathered. In the first ages, the right of election pertained to every member of the Church, but in later ages it was restricted to the Bishops of the city and suburbican dioceses (satellite dioceses around Rome).

Pope Nicholas III wrote one of the first laws for Papal Elections in 1059 — In Nomine Domini, April 13, 1059 — and FromRome.Info has published the only available English translation on the internet, here.

There is now available a long historical explanation of papal elections at Wikipedia, which has further information on elections of the pope throughout the ages, though this is found under the anachronistic term, Conclave.

At first, papal elections were conducted under Apostolic Tradition, that is, the precedent set by Saint Paul the Apostle when he presided over the election of St. Linus. Saint Peter, having set up his See at Rome, bequeathed it to the Church of Rome with his death. It is important to note that the Church of Rome is not a Diocese separated from the other dioceses of the Church, but is the Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter, from which all the other dioceses have been separated.

Thus the Church of Rome has ever followed her own particular traditions and rules for the election of Bishops and has never respected those rules which were established elsewhere, even in General councils, for other dioceses.

Until there was a papal law for electing a Roman Pontiff, elections were said to be valid or not. Once a papal law was promulgated, they were said to be legitimate or not.  Once popes laid down canons to govern the process, they were said to be canonical or not. In the Rule of Saint Francis of Assisi, promulgated in 1223 by Pope Honorius III, we find that St. Francis promises “to show reverence and obedience to the lord Pope Honorius III and his canonically elected successors”.

The Limitation contained in the current Papal Law on Papal Elections

Nowadays, Popes are elected according to the Papal Law, Universi Dominici gregis, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, on Feb. 22, 1996. (1) But since the Code of Canon Law of 1983 specifies that elections are to be by special law, this special law, such elections can be said to be both canonical and legitimate, though it is better to say that they are lawful or not.

Reading the Papal Law on elections attentively, however, reveals that this Papal Law has a provisional character, since it forbids the Cardinal Electors to elect a Roman Pontiff by any other means other than following all the prescriptions of this law. Thus, since this law requires that they meet in Conclave before the 21st day after the death of the Roman Pontiff, if they fail to do so, they lose all right to elect the Roman Pontiff (Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 37). And if such an event should happen without a force majeur intervening, then the Law would no longer be in force. (2)

What then would the Church of Rome do? Since this Law in its promulgated explicitly annulled all prior laws, such an election would have to be conducted according to Apostolic Tradition, since this is the only rule which cannot be abolished by a Roman Pontiff. In fact, every Papal Law and canon about papal elections has merely been an application of this right according to one or more arrangements for the specification and reduction of electors to certain conditions.

I have touched upon this before, on Aug. 31, 2020 A. D., but it will be useful to discuss the matter again.

Without a papal law, then all these specifications and reductions of electors pass out of force.

The rejection of Pope Benedict XVI by the Cardinals will trigger a Unique Situation

As I have said before, this view regarding the election of a Roman Pontiff with all the Cardinal Electors failing to do their duty, is not merely a hypothetical or a useless speculation, since now the Church of Rome risks confronting such a situation head on.

This is because, Pope Benedict XVI has not renounced the papacy. And yet, all the Cardinal Electors publicly recognize the anti-pope and usurper, who is a manifest heretic and not even a Christian in his personal beliefs, as he has manifested on numerous public occasions.

Thus the Cardinals may not convene in conclave to elect a successor of Pope Benedict XVI. And that failure would then trigger the recourse to Apostolic Tradition, on the grounds that the Papal Law would then make it illegal for them to elect any pope at a later date.

The only way this could be avoided is if at least one Cardinal Elector publicly declares for Pope Benedict XVI and is reconciled to him before his death. Both the public declaration and reconciliation is required, because, on account of their public communion with a heretical anti-pope, they are involved in the public crime of schism, whereby they lose all right to elect a pope, because they lose all right to the dignity of the Cardinalate.

Electing a Roman Pontiff according to Apostolic Tradition

The Election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor then might be the first election of a pope according to Apostolic Tradition since 769 A. D., when the Synod of the Lateran abolished the right of the laity to participate in the election. This abolition was itself abolished by the general clause in the present papal law, which abolished all previous laws.

Thus, there will be no papal law, most likely, to govern the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor, which is perhaps what he signified in his Declaratio when he spoke of the Cardinals being cut off (vobis decisionem) and of a future election by those who are competent (ab his quibus competit).

Here it is important to note that if Pope Benedict XVI in his Testament, of which he has occasionally spoken, lays down anything in this regard, if it not be published in his life time, it has no juridical force, since a papal law must be promulgated during the life of the Pope, since he has no authority after his death. Likewise, if in secret he has reconciled any Cardinal, such a reconciliation cannot be retained to be authentic unless it is accompanied by a document signed by trustworthy witnesses and sealed with his seal, during his lifetime.

The Role of Canon Law in such an election according to Apostolic right

This does not mean that the general principles of Canon Law are to be ignored.  While all the Faithful will be able to participate, they must at least according to the norm of Canon Law be able to participate: they must be baptized in the Roman Rite and of the age of reason; they must have received the Sacrament of Confirmation, which makes one an adult in the Church; they must be free of ecclesiastical censures imposed by true Popes; and they must be resident according to ecclesiastical law in the Diocese of Rome or one of the Suburbican Dioceses, all of which are parts of the Church of Rome according to ecclesiastical custom.

This number of the Faithful, all of whom are electors, includes all the Catholics who declare that Pope Benedict XVI was the true pope. This number includes the Cardinals of the Roman Church, whether electors or not, the Archbishops, Bishops, Monsignors, Pastors, Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and all religious who are members of Congregations of Diocesan Rite in any of the dioceses, I have mentioned, who are residents at Rome or therein. This includes the laity of all station and rank in life, from the house wife to the head of Roman Noble Families.

Clergy incardinated in the Diocese of Rome, regardless of their location of residence, and Cardinals whether electors or not, repenting of their schism in a public act before or at the start of such an election, can also participate, regardless of their residence, since by their dignity of Cardinal they are princes of the Church of Rome.

No members of the Masonic Lodges of any rite or observance can participate, since these are excommunicated by Canon Law, as Cardinal Ratzinger reminded everyone more than 40 years ago.

Archbishops and Bishops from other dioceses can attend merely as witnesses, but they cannot speak without permission, nor can they be given a right to vote.

To be a resident, you have to have made your dwelling at Rome or in one of these dioceses at least 1 year before the election and have done so by abandoning your physical residence in all other places, without the intention to return.

Conditions of Time and Place and Convocation of the Electors

There is no precise requirement as to when the election take place, though I am of the opinion, to remove all canonical doubt, that it be held no sooner than the 22nd day after the death of the Roman Pontiff, to exclude any claim by Cardinal Electors that they retained the sole right to elect him.

It can be held in any place in the territory of the Church of Rome, as I have already mentioned.

I believe there is a solid argument to say that the convocation of the Faithful of the Church of Rome must be made by the clergy of Rome, if any are in communion with Pope Benedict XVI — and to my knowledge there are. In fact, I know of two, at least, and there are probably many more than that.

The Election can be held by popular acclaim or by public or secret vote, but the method of election must be agreed upon by the electors. Whether a vote is considered valid by a majority or by two-thirds must also be decided upon.

Whether the election is to be moderated is also a decision that needs to be made.

If any simony be involved it would invalidate the election of one elected in virtue of the influence of it, according to the general norms of Canon Law. This is the one point, where the canons of the Church imposes a more strict rule than the current Papal Law, which explicitly allows for a valid simonaical election, due to the fact that a Conclave being held in secret, makes the determination of whether simony was involved impossible by the rest of the Church.

I do believe, however, that the time and place of the election should be publicized before hand, to remove all doubt that it is the Church of Rome and not some private group, which acts.

Who can be elected the Successor of Pope Benedict XVI?

As to the one elected, Canon Law remains in force, that such a one must be a Catholic, regardless of which rite in which he was baptized, male, of the age of reason, free of ecclesiastical censure under Pope Benedict XVI or his predecessors. But he does not have to be a Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, Deacon or even a seminarian or religious. But he does have to be a celibate male, that is, not currently in a Sacramental Marriage, nor a civil marriage, and free from the moral obligation to care for children. He should be of good moral reputation and capable of leadership. He does not have to be the citizen of any particular nation, nor a resident of the Vatican City or a member of the Roman Curia. He must be a biological male from birth, and cannot be mutilated or have had a sex reassignment. (Alas, this needs to be clarified due to the evil world we live in).

But he does have to be a person who is publicly known to have not participated in the schism and betrayals against Pope Benedict XVI, or else grave doubt as to the legitimacy of his election will arise, for surely many would say, that the enemies of Pope Benedict XVI took control of the assembly — and since schismatics and heretics cannot be elected Pope, doubt would arise as to the validity of the election process.

However, in my judgement, I think he should at least know Latin and have studied theology, for how else can he govern the Church?

The one to be elected does not have to be present at the convocation, he can be in any place in the world. However, if not present, his consent to accept his election needs to be certified by at least 3 witnesses who speak with him by phone or video conference. The convocation would have to deputize the individuals to do this.

And if such an election has to take place, then the one elected should be prepared to be crucified, because, without a doubt, all Hell will raise its voice against him, and he shall be persecuted from one end of the earth to another.

The Powers and Rights of the Elected come into effect as soon as he accepts his election

The election will be valid if it is held according to the above general canonical norms and facts. As soon as the one elected accepts his election, he becomes the Successor of Saint Peter, even if he has not yet been consecrated a Bishop or is not even a priest. (3) From that moment on, he has the full power of Christ’s Vicar to rule and legislate and can reconcile any Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop, priest, deacon or seminarian, who is in schism or under censure. He can also begin to put the Church back in order by formally excommunicating the rebels and by reconciling the repentant. It is the better opinion, in my judgement, however, that the Pope only has the right to exercise the power of teaching after his episcopal ordination, but this is a question open to dispute. I hold this opinion, because the munus to teach the faithful is contained only in the Sacrament of Episcopal Consecration, which even if it is distinct from the petrine munus, has a necessary relation to it, since the one elected is elected to be the Bishop of Rome, not merely or solely the Vicar of Christ or the Successor of St. Peter.

According to canon 355 §1, the episcopal consecration of the Pope, if he not be a bishop, pertains by right to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, and if he is impeded, to the most senior Cardinal. — This presumes that there is at least one Cardinal not in schism from Pope Benedict XVI. Arguably, if there is not, then his first act should be to appoint at least a few Cardinal Bishops, who are to elect their own Dean, who will preside at his consecration. These newly created Cardinals can be given any one of the 13 historical titles, which are not assigned to anyone in the College at present.

____________________

EDITOR’S FOOTNOTES

(1) Note, that in his Motu Proprio, publishing this Papal Law, Pope John Paul II states, “Precisely for this reason, while recognizing that theologians and canonists of all times agree that this institution is not of its nature necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff, “ — Hence, he recognizes that there is another way to elect the Roman Pontiff. This is part of his secret provision — in my opinion — of the Papal renunciation which required that of the munus (canon 332 §2) — which if it went unnoticed by all the Cardinal Electors, in an attempted coup d’état against the reigning Pope, would enable an election by Apostolic Right, concerning which is this article of mine.

(2) Because it can be reasonably argued, in the case of extreme necessity induced by outside threats (e.g. occupation of Rome by a hostile military force or government) or impossible situations (e.g. Rome being destroyed by nuclear attack), that the Cardinals have the authority granted to them in the Papal Law to arrange for a Conclave at later date. This cannot be done, if they are in schism with an antipope, however, since in such a case they cannot exercise their rights to elect the Successor of the true Roman Pontiff.

(3) Cf. the First Canon of the Third Lateran Council, canon 1. This is the teaching of St. Gregory VII (Dictatus, XXIII), which was put into effect in the election of Pope Adrian V, even though Canon 332 §1 states that “full and supreme power”  (terms which it does not define) is had after episcopal consecration. Cf. Commentary here, from Juan Ignazio Arrieta, ed., Codice di Diritto Canonico, on canon 332 §1.

Canon Law, News

Canonists feverish at Turin to explain Impeded See and Renunciation of Popes: Oct. 3-5, 2022

9 Comments

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I do not know when this conference was organized, but the working group on an Impeded See, which asks for contributions will work until Nov 21. Can I say that thy are reacting to my many, and recent too, calls for a Provincial council? I will read with great attention their presentation and present my summary and comments here.

This conference is of course part of the response led by the Canonist Dr. Boni of the University of Bologna to explain away the Pope Emeritus problem, which I pointed out 20 months ago was doomed to failure. Below we will see why.

First, their working document on the Impeded See, in the original Italian.

Commentary: Introduction

It is clear from the opening pages, that these scholars are terrified by canon 335, wherein it says, that when the Apostolic See is impeded, let nothing be innovated (nihil innovetur). This is a horror to a progressivist mind. They explicitly state that the Church would be in a serious situation if a pope became physically or mentally incapacitated for a long time and could not signify his renunciation. “Pachamama forbid, that the Church Stand stil!”, they seem to be saying. — Any catholic would find this ridiculous.  A normal sane mind, would be concerned with something which is really important: the salvation of souls, and how the Church should conduct Herself without the Vicar of Christ to sustain and support her and confirm Her in the faith by his voice and care! — I get the impression that this working group was funded by the Rothschilds…. but I editorialize…

Secondly, they divert the consideration for obvious political ends. Because the consideration of what to do when the Apostolic See is totally impeded should not only consider physical or psychological infirmity in the Roman Pontiff, but also force majeur, substantial error or other legal or physical impediments, such as imprisonment, threats, hostage, kidnapping, replacement by doppelgangers etc.., that is, when the Apostolic See is impeded by an outside force or by the inability of the Faithful to know who is the true pope. — As there have been many popes held hostage by Emperors (Napoleon being the most recent one) and many times in which there were rival popes, why these cases were not considered under this heading is bizarrely political. It is political because they do not want to admit the Elephant in the Room, of Pope Benedict XVI not renouncing the munus, only the ministerium, while they proclaim the elephant is in the room by discussing the threats of animals entering, limiting such consideration only to mice.

It is laughable.

As their proposed solution, they advocate for a special law whereby the Cardinals could declare the Apostolic See impeded. This is a lousy solution as we all know. Because, what if the Cardinals conspired to oust a pope? Could they not contrive a publicity stunt and manipulate the world into thinking the Pope was not longer of sane mind or sound body, and therefore they declared the See Impeded, and de facto vacante?

Of course they could.

And indeed, that is what they did in February of 2013! when they faked the news of Benedict’s abdication and played word games with the words “resignation” and “renunciation”, “dismissione” etc..

But their solution falls into a grievous error. Because, since the office of pope is not established by men or even by the Church, no authority in the Church could declare a man no longer to be the pope, unless he himself freely renounces the divine gift which makes him pope.  So what these canonists are proposing is heretical and revolutionary in the worst sense of that word.

It would also put the Cardinals in a position of great weakness, because if they could remove a pope by majority vote, then any foreign power could bribe the Cardinals to get right of a pesky pope, and then no pope would ever speak out when necessary if he feared a palace coup would entail.

Surprise, Surprise

That this working group really has alternative motives, is quite clear, when they arrive to n. 7 of their proposed project, because there, they urge the publication of an Apostolic Constitution which would rewrite canon 332!

Why rewrite it? — Why to get rid of the legal evidence that Benedict XVI is still the pope, of course. Just as they rewrote canon 1331 to take out the proof that munus does not equal ministerium, after I cited that canon to Msgr. Arrieta and silenced him with it’s incontrovertible distinction: that even one outside the communion of the Church can hold a ministerium.

Chapter I

The zeal with which these canonists want to make the pope replaceable at will is unmasked with all its viciousness in the first chapter, wherein they call for norms to remove a pope from office if AFTER 10 DAYS a few individuals claim that he can no longer communicate his will.

Do you now how many medical conditions might cause similar situations, which are perfectly curable after a longer time? Have they never heard of a 30 day silent Ignatian Retreat. They must have, as their pope is a Jesuit. I know there has been no time in which he kept his mouth shut for 30 days, but I assure you that there have been Jesuits in history who accomplished it, even those who were not saints.  Does that mean a pope should be removed? It is absurd to even suggest it!

As I read article 4 of this chapter, I nearly puked, as it suggests that the Cardinals within 15 days assemble at Rome out of holy obedience to determine if the impediment is permanent or temporary.  —  Josh, do they not know that there is no obligation of obedience when your superior is impeded!!!!! And cannot command you or even speak with you!!!!

The rest of this chapter reads like a madhouse run somewhere in the present Bergoglian Vatican, with such a strained effort to seem official and dignified in everything, even while discussing something which is contrary to the Divine and Catholic Faith. It is so Anglican, it can make you puke.

Chapter II

By chapter too it is also clear that this entire proposal is an arrogant one. It is arrogant, because it is attempting to transfer the immemorial right of the Bishops and Clergy of the Roman Province to settle disputed questions about the Apostolic See, to the College of Cardinals.  What reason is there for that?

Is this committee terrified that a Provincial Council of the Roman Province exercise its authority?

Indeed, in the introduction, the committee makes a terrible interpretation. In canon 335, where it says that in cases of an impeded see one is to have recourse to special laws for such an eventuality, they ignore that the Latin uses the past perfect participle: that is, it refers not to future laws, but to laws already established.  It is referring to the Apostolic Ordinance which I just mentioned, or at least to canon 440, which regards Provincial Councils.

And that is arrogant and deceptive.  These canons make it clear that when the metropolitan of ANY province is impeded, the Bishops of the province can elect one of their number to convoke the others in council and that such a council has the authority to establish binding regulations for the entire province.

The understanding is clear. This is the special law referred to in Canon 335, not by direct citation, but by inference, for discretion sake, lest an enemy figure it out too easily.

Chapter IV

In this chapter the masks fall entirely off. For in this one, the scholars propose to add a third paragraph to canon 332, so that a Roman Pontiff permanently impeded must be regarded to be in sede vacante. It is obvious that they want this reform SO AS TO DECLARE THE RENUNCIATION OF POPE BENEDICT XVI valid POST FACTUM. Which is a juridical impossibility and a logical contradiction.

Oh what a complex web they weave, who first set out to deceive!

Here is the Italian text of their proposed Canon 332 §3:

Se la sede romana fosse totalmente impedita per incapacità permanente del Romano Pontefice, in modo che non possa neppure rinunciare al suo ufficio, deve applicarsi il procedimento previsto dalla legislazione speciale e si produrranno per il diritto stesso effetti eguali a quelli della sede vacante». 

My translation into English:

If the Roman See become totally impeded through the permanent incapacity of the Roman Pontiff, in such a way that he could not even renounce his office, there should be applied the aforementioned procedure of the special legislation and (these together) will produce by right itself the effects equivalent to those of a sede vacante.”

That is not only very bad juridical language, it is also lousy thought. But I am not going to improve on a crime.

I will stop my commentary for now, having unearthed enough refuse to make me sick for a Saturday morning….

2013 Conclave, Canon Law, Debates, Editorials

Unpacking Bishop Schneider’s Rosary of Lies, Errors and deceptions

12 Comments

Commentary and Rebuttal by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Authorized Portuguese Translation — Authorized French Translation

It is personally painful for me to have to, yet again, put pen to paper, as it were, and refute the silly arguments of a prelate whom I once admired as one of the best of the best in the Church. While he took the correct positions against Amoris Laetitia and the ridiculous arguments of the SSPX in their Magazine, on the topic of the DeathVaxx, he has more frequently than not fallen somehow into supporting the most ridiculous theological and moral theses on controversial topics (see here for FromRome.info’s coverage of the Bishop’s notorious interventions).

But because I love Jesus Christ more than any Bishop in the Church, whenever one gravely deviates from the truth on such an important topic as who is the pope and what are the Catholic principles by which we are to recognize who is the pope, I know I am under grave obligation to speak out, seeing that I know these principles and am known for defending them.

First, we know who is the authentic successor of Saint Peter not by private judgement, public opinion, polls, surveys, theological reflections, newspaper articles, television reports. No, we know who is the authentic successor of St. Peter by the conformity of public acts with the published canons and laws of the Church which determine the process for his election or renunciation.  And this conformity must be precise and exact and not one which is simply claimed to exist. It has to be prima facie, as one says in forensic circles, that is, it must appear to be conform on first sight.  — And it cannot be otherwise, because since the Church is visible, the concord of the Church must be and can only be based on unambiguous public acts and laws, and their conformity.

Second, you can argue till your face is blue in Hell for all eternity by any other means, but your argument is worthless. Argumentation does not prove who is the true pope. Only facts and laws do. (Here by facts, I mean documented or documentable words or actions).

And third, by conformity with the law, I refer to the fulfillment of a legal requirement.

Bishop Schneider proposes the error of Traditionalism, as his false principle of discernment

So it is crystal clear that Bishop Scheider’s entire thesis is false from the get go, as they say in parts of the United States: namely, when he says, that to say Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope is contrary to Tradition.  Because tradition, whether sacred and divine or merely ecclesiastical, is not a first immediate principle to have recourse to, in determining who is the authentic successor of Saint Peter is. Facts and law are. This argument is the flip of the common Modernist argument, which says you should reject some Catholic practice or doctrine, because it is contrary to the progress of the Church in modern times.  And by this comparison with its contrary error, we see that Bishop Schneider is appealing to the error of traditionalism, which was condemned at Vatican I: which error says that all truth comes from tradition.

If facts and law say Benedict XVI is still the pope — and you do not like that conclusion — you cannot have recourse to Tradition or tradition to propose a different answer to the question.  That’s not how juridical acts work. But that is how spoiled children who never grew up attempt to run governments and even the Church.

Bishop Schneider appeals to the moral error of Tutiorism, to apply his false principle

Next, Bishop Schneider advances his traditionalist error on the back of an exaggerated moral principle known as tutiorism, which holds that in every moral decision one must always make the choice of that which is more safe.  This principle is faulty because it leads to neurosis and a pharasaical self-righteousness, where the individual determines what is right and wrong and not God.

This error is not easy to discern by those who are given to wantonness because it never occurs to them to consider it. But it is the exact error of their own vice, since it insists that it is morally evil not to be obsessed with seeing possible evil in everything. The super-scrupulous easily fall into complete paralysis of judgement by adopting the error of tutiorism, for example.

But lest there be no misunderstandings, I will give some examples.

  • The tutiorist will hold that in brushing your teeth you should never do so out of vanity and that you should omit all brushing of the teeth until you can do so without vanity, even if this would cause your teeth to rot.
  • Again, the turiorist, will hold that it is too dangerous ever to go in public, because by being in public places you might be tempted to impurity, and thus they omit to fulfill even the duties of their state, when these require some recourse to public places to obtain the necessities of life or to fulfill religious duties.

Tutiorism, alas, is a very deceptive form of pride, because the one thing the turiorist is never worried about, is the misuse of his own discretion to determine what is right or wrong, safe or dangerous. He always relies on his own judgement, not those of God, the Church, or wise and prudent men, such as Saints and pastors.

And this is precisely the moral error into which Bishop Schneider falls by crafting his entire argument, that in the name of safety, we should reject the thesis that Benedict XVI is still the pope.

Bishop Schneider employs a gross error in forensics

Again, at the beginning of his ridiculous discourse, Bishop Schneider crafts an argument against admitting prima facie evidence (namely that when Pope Benedict renounced, he announced the renunciation of ministerium, but did not renounce the munus).  Against this obvious problem all are having to ignore this fact, the Monsignor proposes a principle whereby you can ignore all facts (how convenient!):

The principle of legality applied ad litteram (to the letter) or that of juridical positivism was not considered in the great practice of the Church an absolute principle, since the legislation of the papal election is only a human (positive) law, and not a Divine (revealed) law.

The human law that regulates the assumption of the papal office or the dismissal from the papal office must be subordinated to the greater good of the whole Church, which in this case is the real existence of the visible head of the Church and the certainty of this existence for all the body of the Church, clergy and faithful.

Now, it is clear that anyone who holds that Pope Benedict XVI remains the only and true pope, does not have to appeal to such an argument, which seeks to overturn the letter of the law or the plain meaning of documents, and says that they should be read to serve the greater good of the Church.

This approach to Church law is like the the boy who believes that all laws are like library regulations, or that the laws against murder are light traffic laws.  Which is simply not so. Yes, there are norms, regulations and laws, but not each have the same obligating force, because not each exists for the same purpose.  Norms are advisory, regulations are bureaucratic and laws are legally binding, such as to make infraction criminal, even if only as a misdemeanor.

There are norms in libraries, such as to keep quite. There are regulations about how to fill out your driver’s license application. And then there is the law against murder.  And if you imagine, as an adult, that each is equally binding or not binding, you have only a child’s comprehension of the matter.  For in libraries sometimes you can and must speak. The rule of silence is practical only. At motor vehicle registries, the regulations on how to fill out your application are binding, but if you violate them you will not go to jail, you simply wont get your license.  But as for murder, you cannot say that someone who committed such a crime should not be prosecuted, simply because it serves the greater good, for it never serves the greater good to tolerate murder.

And obviously the papal laws on Papal Elections or the canon regarding Papal Renunciations is of the latter kind: it is a law, not a norm nor a regulation.

And so, I must say: No, Bishop Schneider: in the Catholic Church laws mean what they mean regardless of what you want them to mean or what outcome you want to have.  For as the saints all say, “I would prefer that the world perish, rather than that God be offended by one of my sins”.  This is true religion. Nothing can be justified merely on the basis that it achieves an outcome which we want. That is pagan.  A Catholic judges things on the basis of God’s judgements revealed in Scripture and contained in Sacred Tradition. Things are right and wrong in themselves and by themselves, apart even from circumstances and intentions or goals.  If goals alone determined such things, we could do as we want, and not as the Divine Will has commanded.

And, as regards having a valid pope, whom the whole Church can recognize as such, it is never for the good of the Church that any canon or law regarding his election or renunciation be violated!

Bishop Schneider’s insistence on a visible head of the Church

Yes, the Church should have a visible head, but the way that the Bishop wants this principle to be applied goes to every excess and extreme.  I do not find it necessary to point out, to the readers of FromRome.Info that in an argument about which of two living and speaking claimants to the papacy is the true one, a discussion about visibility makes no sense. — I almost get the impression that he says this to slight Pope Benedict XVI — Quite the contrary, yes, the Church ought to have a visible head, but Her existence and unity is not shaken per se by not having one, for this happens after the death of every pope, before his successor is elected.  Nor is the unity of the Church shaken by the fact that a true Pope remains a claimant to the Papacy against the false claims of an anti-pope.  To think like that would be to turn truth on its head.

And when one reflects on how outrageously Bergoglio has used his claim to the papacy to destroy the Church, to advance the argument that since he is more visibly the head he should be the pope, is simply a malign mafia style prudence equivalent to saying, that since the criminal who robbed you of the farm, de facto, is the better manager of its destruction, the owner loses all rights.  I mean who argues like this, but a Marxist and a demon?

Bishop’s Schneider’s total incomprehension of Ecclesia supplet during Papal Schisms

Next, the Bishop appeals to an false argument ad absurdum.  For he attempts to argue that since an anti-pope’s appointments are canonically invalid, the unity of the Church or the visibility of the Church would be somehow damaged by such an event.  He writes as if there have never been antipopes naming bishops or Cardinals. He imagines that the consecration of Bishops and the confection of Sacraments stopped during the Great Schism.  He also seems to think that the Church held, after the fact, that all such invalid appointments and illicit sacraments were such forever.

What he completely ignores, is that after these ancient papal schisms were ended, Popes ex post facto granted the appointment of Cardinals, the nomination of bishops and the confections of Sacraments canonical liceity by an act which is called sanatio in radice.  This is not a condonation of the immorality of those acts, but is a monarchical act of the Vicar of Christ for the sake of those who in good conscience were fooled by liars. Those who knew the antipope was an antipope are not by this act of sanatio excused from sin or from the obligation to repent. Not even from the obligation to resign their offices, unless the Pope grants them a personal or general indulgence.  The Popes generally grant such a sanatio after every papal schism, because it is sufficient that all bishops and clergy and faithful recognize the one true pope as pope, and it is not necessary to punish every sinner canonically, nay it would cause too much strife, when the peace of the Church does not require it. God will render the punishments in such cases, and the popes have always chosen the way of mercy and been very light in their punishments, after papal schisms, by restricting them to the antipope himself and his closest supporters or henchmen.

Bishop Schneider gets the matter backwards, when he argues instead that we can presume a sanatio in radice after an invalid resignation, because the Church’s peace requires it. We cannot presume any such thing. Such an act is reserved to the Vicar of Christ alone. And it has to be a written juridical act, otherwise is has no existence.

Bishop Schneider continues in ignorance about the events of 1046 A. D.

Even after being publicly corrected by numerous individuals, Bishop Schneider continues to ignore the facts of 1046 A. D., when at the Council of Sutri 3 “popes” or more exactly, papal claimants, were deposed.  He seems to think that Gregory VI obtained the papacy invalidly because of simony.  He is entitled to his opinion. But as there were almost never laws which invalidated papal elections on the basis of simony — not then, nor now: the only time being the Bull of Paul IV where in this determined an invalid election; which clause was overturned by his next successor because it would introduce too much doubt as to validity of any election — I think it would be difficult to support such an opinion.  Yes, Henry III, King of the Germans asked Gregory VI to resign because he did not want to be crowned Emperor by anyone with the stench of simony on his hands, and Gregory did so, because episcopal elections and nominations obtained by simony were canonically invalid and always held to be such, his behavior was in no way morally defensible. But the Pope is no mere bishop, and the Roman Church has always insisted that general laws for bishops do not apply to the Roman Pontiff.   This is why the Church recognizes Gregory VI as a true pope, even though he himself recognized that he obtained the papacy by simony and therefore had no moral claim to the title.

But you cannot apply this case to the present controversy over which is the pope: Benedict XVI or Francis, because there is a PAPAL law and there is a Papal canon, which do regard the validity of the election and resignation of the pope, both of which have not been observed!

Bishop Schneider’s red herring of 1378

Next Bishop Schneider wastes the time of his audience by discussing the papal election of 1378, which no one doubted the validity to, until the Cardinals who were French discovered that the new Pope was pro-Italian.  They then invented an excuse for their disobedience, and pharasaically claimed some circumstance of the election made it invalid, and immediately elected another as antipope. He argues as if what they did had some legitimacy.  And he implies that those who hold that Benedict XVI is the pope are in a similar situation of claiming a past failure of legal form and inventing an excuse to refuse allegiance to the new pope.

This is totally absurd.  The Cardinals profess a solemn vow in conclave to elect someone to receive the petrine munus. If the pope remains alive and has not renounced the munus, their vow does not legitimize their illegal action of electing another under those circumstances.  In fact, Bishop Schneider has flipped the moral case on its head. It is the Cardinals in the Conclave of 2013 who imitated the French Cardinals of 1378, as both proceeded to an illicit, illegal and illegitimate election of another pope, while the true pope which they all previously elected and supported was still alive and had not resigned.

Bishop Schneider then takes back 1378 and reinterprets 1294

Moments after appealing to 1378, Schneider pretends we have forgotten what he claimed was the correct position, namely, to support a reigning pope, and proposes the case of the papal renunciation made by Saint Celestine V on Dec. 13th, in the year of Our Lord, 1294.

On that day, Celestine V by written and signed decree, renounced the papacy.  No one doubted that the act existed and was signed by the Pope.  In all his behavior thereafter, he acted as a hermit: he took off the papal robes, renounced the dignity and left Rome. He even accepted being held under house arrest by his successor to prevent the faithful from approaching him.  The act was canonically explicit. I have reported on it here.

Therefore, there was no need of a sanatio in radice, and Boniface VIII never granted one. Nor has any pope since.

This case Bishops Schneider should have never mentioned, because if you argue that a canonically valid and explicit renunciation of the papacy should not be questioned, then you must sustain likewise that a canonically invalid and explicitly deficient renunciation of the papacy SHOULD BE QUESTIONED.  That is the simple logical conversion.

In conclusion

Bishop Schneider attempts to box off thought about his absurd position by saying that there will be no other way for Benedict XVI to have a successor, since Bergoglio has appointed the majority of Cardinals, who, if they are invalid, mean that there will never be a valid successor again.  This is equivalent to saying that since a thief now has full possession of your diamond ring, there is no point going to the police to report the crime and get them to obtain it back.

His moral principle fails from the virtues of zeal and justice for the House of God. It also fails on right, because, hypothetically, if no validly nominated Cardinal elector broke from the antipope within 20 days after Benedict XVI’s death, the papal law for Conclaves, which is the only normative practice which is canonically valid for the election of the pope, would ipso facto cease to bind, since in the case in which there are no Cardinals in communion with the Church, there is no obligation to elect a pope via a conclave of cardinal electors. And hence, in such hypothetical, the right to elect the Pope would return to its source, that is the Apostolic Tradition in the See of Rome, wherein the entire people of God in the Diocese, which encompasses Rome and the suburbican dioceses (which in law are not separate from Rome), would have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff to succeed Benedict XVI. And such an election would be legitimate and licit even if it could not be properly termed canonical or uncanonical. I have discussed this several times already. The right to election returns to its source, since the Papal law for elections is only an application of Apostolic Tradition, which cannot be annulled by custom nor overturned by any papal act, since it pertains to Sacred Tradition itself, that is, to the Deposit of the Faith. This is because the Roman Church is not the Church of Rome, but  the very Church Christ founded, with universal jurisdiction, which was not separated into dioceses in other parts of the world.

I think by now you can see that the Bishop has simply presented a Mafia style argument to serve a Mafia style usurpation of the papacy. The depths of depravity of judgement and opinion to which he has descended to sustain his opinion are most shameful.

In a better age, a bishop arguing like this would end up in a papal dungeon on bread and water. In the meantime, I think the only charitable thing to do is to ignore him as one of the worst of the worse.

Canon Law, Debates, Moral Theology

Mark Docherty responds to Cionci et alia on the Ratzinger Code & Plan B

15 Comments

With a cordial reply by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

(click the image above to read the original article by Mr. Docherty)

Mark Docherty is a close associate of Ann Barnhardt. So as he opens his article you will find no mention of the Franciscan Friar whom she hates with a diabolic passion.  Nevertheless, I include myself in that list, and perhaps have the best personal history to respond to Mark, since I wrote an entire Scholastic Question demonstration the substantial error, but also was first to propose the Plan B thesis, which asserts that Pope Benedict XVI did with full knowledge and consent, renounce the ministerium rather than the munus to save the Church from Ecclesiastical Freemasonry.

Necessary Preamble

First, I would ask Mark to have the integrity of a gentleman to stop ignoring my existence, simply because I do good works while remaining faithful to the vows I took in a canonically recognized novitiate while a member of a canonically recognized religious institute, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. This is especially true, when in the present Essay, you Mark declare: “I greatly respect everyone in this fight who come to it with integrity.” –To do otherwise, casts a dark shadow over all your writings, Mark, because it makes you appear to be someone who is opposed to keeping vows to God, observing the Evangelical Counsels of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or that you have some sort of personal relationship with Ann Barnhardt that would induce you to act inconsistent with such principals. To denigrate anyone or pretend they do not exist — which is the ultimate denigration — for doing good and remaining faithful to Jesus Christ is shameful. — When I think of all the nuns who were driven from their convents because they remained faithful, and who are abandoned by so many shameless pharasaical laity who wont help a consecrated virgin unless she has a stamp on a paper from her Bishop, I who actually do have a stamp on a paper from a Catholic Bishop approving and allowing me to live as I have done since my separation from my former institute, on August 6, 1996, I cannot help sharing the indignation which arises from a perverse laicism and legalism.

Seeing that among all the proponents of Pope Benedict XVI remaining the Vicar of Christ, I alone left my family, country, nation, and language, and traveled to Rome, and did in fact write to more than 2 dozen Cardinals by personal hand-delivered letters, and to every priest of the Diocese of Rome, Italy, I think I am not being unreasonable in saying that I am a leading proponent of this cause. Moreover, I am considered such by all except Ann Barnhardt and Mr. Docherty, who have no authority to determine the rules by which one is or is not a supporter of Pope Benedict XVI, that is, unless they are claiming some authority over the Papal Household, or membership in the Catholic Church, to determine who is or is not. Indeed, such behavior is clearly a form of diabolic narcissism, which vaults its will to define reality and demands others accept that gaslighted reality as the truth.

If anyone is allowed to comment on Mark’s blog, please attempt to open up a candid dialogue about these matters, and I have been banned from commenting on his blog for several years.

And now to Mark’s contra-thesis:

Mark begins by summarizing the position quite well in a form proposed by Andrea Cionci, who deserves the credit for the Ratzinger Code and Impeded See thesis. He presents 4 questions by which he believes those who hold that Pope Benedict XVI intentionally abdicated from nothing and renounced nothing, are in error. I will restate each question by quotation in bold face font, and reply to the objections or quaesita which are raised in them.

Quaestio prima:

Mark writes: Question One: If Pope Benedict executed his non-resignation (grave matter) with full knowledge and full intent, how is it that he is not in a state of mortal sin for doing so? The three conditions have been met (grave matter, full knowledge, full assent of the will). A valid pontiff, crowned by Christ himself, executes one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church, and he is a brilliant strategist for doing so? How can that be? While God can and does allow good to come out of evil, God never condones the doing of evil in the hope of a good outcome. God doesn’t do “the ends justify the means,” ever. And while Pope Benedict could have theoretically gone to Confession the evening of 28 Feb 2013, he could not have received valid absolution, because valid absolution requires a firm purpose of amendment, and in cases where the effect of certain sins can be rectified, then rectification is a necessary component of the penance. In which case he persists in mortal sin, NINE YEARS later. Which brings us to…

Respondeo ad primum:

Pope Benedict XVI cannot be guilty of a mortal sin for renouncing the ministerium not the munus, because there is no positive or divine obligation, in grave necessity, for not doing so.  In morals, a thing is only immoral if God has precepted that it not be done, either according to its genus, species, circumstances or intentions.  Therefore, there is no burden upon anyone to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did not sin, rather, the burden of proof is upon those who claim he did. This is standard Catholic morals, which even children understand. Charity presumeth no evil. Mark you should know that!

Pope Benedict XVI deceived no one. And there is no evidence that he did. That his enemies presented his act as having a significance which it does not have is entirely their moral fault. Cionci has amply demonstrated that for 9 years Pope Benedict XVI is declaring this very thing.

The renunciation of ministerium rather than munus is not an immoral act. Those who presume it is must demonstrate that they are not presuming.

This first Question by Mr. Docherty is simply reducible to an absurd ad hominem:  Pope Benedict XVI is a grave sinner, prove that he is not!

Questio secunda:

Mark writes: Question Two: If Pope Benedict executed his intentional grave deception in order to save the Church from the wolves, what then of the Faithful? Not a word from Benedict about the apostasy of his “successor” who all the world thinks is pope? This is the most grave mortal sin of SCANDAL. Benedict has willfully (according to their theory) lead a billion souls to believe a heretical, blaspheming, demon-worshiping apostate is the true pope of the One True Church. How many people have been led astray, accepted heresy and easy sin, and gone to their eternal reward in such condition? I will tell you how many: 70 MILLION. That’s how many Catholics have died in the last nine years, two months. Pope Benedict is (according to their theory) intentionally sitting by, petting his cat, knowing he is still the only true pope, knowing that Bergoglio is an antipope, perfectly happy to have 70 million souls going to their Particular Judgment thinking Bergoglio was pope and his magisterium authentic. If so, this is an awful test of God’s bounteous mercy, and it makes Benedict a monster.

Respondeo ad secundum:

Pope Benedict XVI by consistently signifying that he is the one true pope to those who pay attention to him, has deceived no one and has led no one to believe that Bergoglio is the Pope.  Moreover, the Faithful, who have a living faith, are guided by the anointing of the Holy Spirit which they received in the Sacrament of Confirmation to discern truth from falsehood and true pastors from false pastors. To say therefore, that the Faithful are abandoned is to reduce the order of grace simply to the visible papacy, as if the Church has no supernatural principle of life or discernment.

All Catholics know the Faith cannot change and that no one not even the Pope can teach contrary to the Deposit of the Faith. So it is impossible for Catholics, who are materially deceived, to fall into formal apostasy from that faith, if out of their own negligence they adhere to the false narrative that Benedict abdicated.  Moreover, since that narrative is not the responsibility of Benedict, but is crafted by his captors, he cannot be held responsible for it.  Likewise, the Faithful have a duty to follow canon law and give intellectual attention to the principle canonical acts of the Magisterium, not the least of which is an alleged papal resignation. Failing to do this, if they are deceived, they are solely responsible for God.

Questio tertia:

Mark writes: Question Three: What was it, exactly, that Benedict did actually resign (or intend to resign) when he read out the Declaratio? It is clear from the text that he intended to resign something, leaving aside the question of whether or not it was effective. In the key phrase of the document, he is clearly resigning, or intending to resign SOMETHING. Look at the English, look at the original Latin, or watch the video. “I renounce the ministry” … while we can argue whether or not the words took effect, we cannot claim he did not say those words. Canon Law demands that we respect the meaning of words, the context, and the mind of the legislator:

Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Respondeo at tertium:

Pope Benedict XVI actually renounced nothing effectively, but he did declare that he was going to renounce the ministerium, which however, he never did do by a canonical act.  This has been explained at great length by nearly all those writing and speaking about this matter, and to ask it now is really a weak point in the argument.

But perhaps Mark, you misunderstand how a text is to be read. When one says in a letter, to another person, “In my will, I will leave you all my property”, and yet the Will when disclosed, has only these words, “I love you as a true son and heir”, but specifies nothing as bequeathed, then the alleged heir receives nothing, zippo as Ann Barnhardt might say, and the deceased has deceived no one. He has deceived no one, because we cannot know whether his failing ability prevented the bequest being written into the Will or if some other cause intervened by which the meaning of his words were not to be taken at face value. For example, if the recipient of the letter had said to the soon to be dead donor: “If you don’t make me your sole heir I will murder you sometime in the next year!”

As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict XVI was informed on Feb. 12, 2012, that he would be assassinated if he did not resign within a year. This is not a facetious claim. It was published in a leading Italian daily newspaper.

To claim a man under threat of death is morally culpable for deceiving anyone, is beyond the pale of right reason and any Catholic notion of the obligation to speak the truth without mental reservations.

Questio quarta:

Mark writes: Question Four: Since Gnosticism is heresy, how are the faithful to approach the “Ratzinger Code” in an orthodox manner? The evidence for the Substantial Error theory is all out in full view for anyone to see, not just for those with eyes to see, if you know what I mean. We all agree on the visual evidence; a five year old could see it. We all know how Benedict’s further writings, and his words in the Seewald interviews, point to something other than what is commonly accepted, but that much is evident from the actual meaning of his words, not code words. Saying that the common lay faithful need access to a secret code to discern who is true pope seems… rather problematic. Implying that knowledge of this secret code is necessary to find and follow the true Church and achieve one’s salvation is… you see what I mean. So how to approach this in an orthodox manner?

Respondeo ad quartum:

Gnosticism is a heresy, but the Church has never condemned as Gnostic the decision by anyone under duress to speak in code so as to communicate to friends and allies and not enrage further his enemies or captors.

That the matter is called the Ratzinger Code by Cionci is his journalistic flair. It is not a code, it is merely a refined and erudite manner of speaking of a man who is very meek and has reasonable grounds to fear for his person otherwise.

The more substantial question, which needs to be asked, instead, Mark, is: Whether Catholics are obliged to listen attentively to the voice of the Vicar of Christ upon Earth in a matter which touches upon their eternal salvation?

And the answer to that question is clear: yes they are. Because it is one of the laws of the Church that we obey the laws of the Church. And to obey them, we must know them, and act in accord with them. So, now after 9 years, when anyone hears that the renunciation may be invalid, they need only read canon 332 § 2, to find that it is not.  That is not difficult.

However, if they care for the sake of keeping some material or temporal favors to ignore that investigation or deny the facts which they find, they have judged themselves and brought judgement upon themselves.

CONCLUSION:

I have amply demonstrated that Mark Docherty’s 4 Questions are easily dispatched with Catholic answers and are reducible to doubts arising from someone who presumes Pope Benedict XVI is at moral fault, without any attention whatsoever to the known facts of the case which are excusing causes of the charges leveled against his person.

Canon Law, Debates, Editorials

How to Canonically solve the problem of 2 Popes

7 Comments

REPRINT OF SEPT. 30, 2021 A. D.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Catholics have been lulled into accepting the revolution, which drove Benedict XVI from power and installed the globalist pseudo-savant from Argentina in the Vatican, by many specious arguments.

Chief of which is that promoted by Cardinal Raymond Burke, that, namely, there is no canonical procedure to address an invalid or contested papal resignation.

However, thanks to the genius of Pope Benedict XVI, a canonical way to restore him to the Apostolic Governance of the Church of Rome is available.  And it is provided for in the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by his predecessor, John Paul II, which he himself, when still a Cardinal of the Roman Church, advised upon.

This solution enshrines the example of the Synod of Sutri (See here, here, here and here), which in 1046 met at Sutri, in the Metropolitan Province of Rome to discern which of the three papal claimants was legitimate or not. It found that none were, and deposed all three.

As Andrea Cionci has established with the input of the leading canonical scholars who are collaborating with him, Pope Benedict XVI did what he did on Feb. 11, 2013 to give notice to the whole Church that the Apostolic See was impeded by a conspiracy of Cardinals who were preventing him from governing the Church of Rome and the universal Church, as Christ’s Vicar on Earth.

This conspiracy to obstruct his apostolic mission was impeding the Apostolic See. And in the case of an impeded see there are specific canons which govern what can be done and what is to be done.

Now in the case of an impeded see which is subsequently usurped by an invalid un-canonical election, there does exist in the Code of Canon Law a solution and a remedy, contrary to what Cardinal Burke has publicly declared.

Let’s examine it closely.

First, the dispute as to whether or not Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation of ministry effects his loss of munus cannot be resolved by private judgment or opinion. The solution must be based on canonical norms and principles, read authentically according to the mind of the Church as expressed in Canon 17.

That canonical argument has been made already.

But the argument is distinct from the canonical judgement which would canonically oblige all Bishops everywhere to accept Benedict and not Bergoglio the Pope.

Here we are face to face with two realities. The truth, and the judgement of the truth in a forensic forum.  A judge does not make a man a murderer, but a murderer when apprehended and judged as such, is publicly known in a forensic manner to be a murderer.

A forensic judgement does not make a thing true or false, but it does proclaim in an authoritative manner what that truth or falsity is.

This is why, in addition to there being only one sound canonical determination of the truth that Benedict XVI is the pope, there also needs to be a forensic judgment of that.

Such a judgement is under the competence of the Provincial Council of the Roman Ecclesiastical Province.  This province is the territory which comprises the Diocese or Rome and the suburbican Bishoprics which over time were separated from it and which still are included under Apostolic right, inasmuch as they are ruled by Cardinal Bishops who are reckoned members of the Roman Curia.

I speak of the Dioceses of Ostia, Velletri-Segni, Porto-Santa Rufina, Frascati, Palestrina, Albano, and Sabina-Poggio Mirteto.

The metropolitan see is the Apostolic See, in this case, since it is the chief see in the Roman Province.

A provincial council is described in canons 440-446.  And how Cardinal Burke does not know of this is beyond me.

Canon 440 § 1 specifies that a provincial council can be called anytime there arises a need which the Bishops of the Province deem suitable.  This is an extremely liberal grant of discretion.  Certainly doubt as to whom is the true Pope is sufficient need.

Now in Canon 440 §2, it is said that in a sede vacante in the Metropolitan See, a provincial synod is not to be called, yet in canon 442 §2, it says, that when that See is impeded, the Bishops of the province can elect one of themselves and preside over such a Council.  This implies that a provincial council can be called when the Metropolitan See is impeded. Which is the exact case in law.

Accordingly in accord with canon 442 §2, the elected suffragan can determine the time and place of such a Council and the questions to be discussed, the length of the discussion and whether to move it from one place to another as may seem opportune or necessary. He can also dissolve it or extend its sessions.

Now in accord with Canon 443, §1, all the Bishops, Bishop co-adjutors and auxiliaries must be convoked, if a Provincial Council is called. Also all other Bishops who hold a munus in the province. Bishops emeriti can also be called, as well as all other Bishops incardinated in the Province. This includes all the Bishops and Archbishops incardinated at the Vatican, such as Archbishop Viganò, and all the Cardinals of the Roman Church.

In addition all the major superiors of religious communities in the Province must be invited, as well as all Rectors of Pontifical institutes in the Province, and all Rectors of Major Seminaries. Vicar generals and Episcopal Vicars must also be called.

All these have the right to vote.

In addition, all the clergy and laity of the province can be called, but they do not get but a consultative voice, but no more than half the number of those who must be invited who can vote. In addition two members of each priestly diocesan council of each diocese in the province and of each Cathedral Chapter are to be invited with consultative voice.

Finally, others can also be invited by the presiding Bishop with the consent of the other bishops of the province who are ordinaries.

The power of the Provincial Council of the Roman Province is affirmed in canon 445, which says it can act “to defend common ecclesiastical discipline”, and surely, who is the true Pope is the keystone to all ecclesiastical discipline in the Province.

In the case of two rival popes, I would gather that not only the Bishops and clergy and superiors which an anti-pope appointed but also those which the true pope appointed, even though they were thrust from their sees could attend.  And clearly those appointed by the true Pope do not need permission from those appointed by the Anti-pope.

Thus, with such Council called, a synod like that of Sutri in 1046 can resolve canonically who is the true Metropolitan of the Roman Province and order deposed the one who has not a shred of canonical right to call himself the Pope.

 

Canon Law, Church History

Saint Vincent Ferrer, patron for those seeking the true Pope

2 Comments

REPRINT FROM JAN. 21, 2020

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The present Crisis in the Church, of having two popes, is not new in the Church. There have been more than a dozen such instances in Church history.

While nearly all of them included rivals which were supported by diverse factions of notable size (perhaps that of Benedict IX was not the case in 1046), yet they gave occasion for God to show us the way out of such crises by the example given to us by His Saints during those crises of ages past.

One such saint is Saint Vincent Ferrer. I have to admit, that of all the Saints of the Order of Preachers, he is my favorite, because he is such a stunning example of holiness and was so determined in the teaching of what it means to be holy.

Most Catholics, however, have no idea who he was. So let me tell you something about his life, and then show you how his example should be imitated by all Catholics right now.

saint-vincent-ferrer-01.2

So remarkable, many have thought he was a legend

Saint Vincent was born 670 years ago, on January 23, in the height of the Black Death.

The Catholic world was shaken to its core: millions were dying each month. It is estimated that more 100 million died in the entire world, and perhaps as much as 30 million in Europe alone, from the onset of the Plague in 1347 to 1351. It was a virulent strain of the Bubonic plague, which had spread from infected rats in the Gobi Desert to Caravans carrying rare goods to the Genoese trading port on the Black Sea, Kaffa, and thence by Genoese ships to Sicily and Western Europe.

The demographic, sociologic, psychological and economic effects were profound. So many bodies were piling up that people fled their villages, local priests fled their parishes in fear of dying. People took refuge in the wilderness and avoided contact with anyone with a cough. The strain was so virulent that those exposed in the morning were dead before midnight. It was spread by flees on rats but then became pneumonic, that is spread through the air by coughing. It is called the Black Death, because the lymph glands of the body would swell and then turn black, with death ensuing rapidly.

Catholics universally thought it was the end of the world, a fulfillment of the Apocalypse, which spoke of the fallen star Wormwood turning the waters of a third of the world poison. As there was no medical art which could precisely understand the causes, panic spread everywhere. The pope of the time survived only by sequestering himself in his palace at Avignon and having a huge fire set in his private chamber’s fireplace which was kept burning without stop for many months.

Into this horror, was born a Saint through which God would call most of Western Europe back from despair and apostasy, Saint Vincent Ferrer. At an early age he dedicated himself to Jesus Christ, and became a son of Saint Dominic.

Saint Vincent, being an devote practitioner of the ascetical life, quickly passed every spiritual test and was endowed by the Lord with extraordinary gifts of prophesy, foreknowledge, conversion, and miracle working.

On one occasion, being in a port which was suffering famine and starvation, he preached to the people to remain calm and that the Lord would send them ships filled with grain the next day. Sure enough, the next day a fleet loaded with food arrived.

But his fame began with a deadly fever which he contracted at Avignon, while the service of the anti Pope. You see, St. Vincent was a follower of Cardinal Pedro de Luna, who was one of the Cardinals who pledged obedience to the pope at Avignon, even though the Cardinal knew that he was an antipope and lied to Saint Vincent. But I will get to that, later.

It was at Avignon, while the forces of the Charles VI besieged the City to capture the antipope — the King of France was intelligent enough to investigate the controversy between the rival claimants to the papacy, and switch his allegiance back to the Pope at Rome — that Saint Vincent nearly died. But in the midst of his mortal fever, Our Lord appeared to him, along with Saints Dominic and Francis of Assisi, and commissioned him to be the 4th Angel of the Apocalypse: to preach penance everywhere, telling men that if they did not repent God would come and destroy the world. This was in September of 1398 A.D.. A year later, convinced of his divine mission, the Antipope appointed the Saint Missionary a lateri Christi, that is, sent from Christ Himself. The Saint spent the next 20 years in a most extraordinary apostolate which single-handedly saved Christianity in Europe.

He preached from Northern France to Italy and back to Spain. Upon seeing Bernardine of Sienna in Italy, he prophesied that Bernardine would convert Italy back to the faith. The crowds came to hear Saint Vincent were so great he could not preach in Churches, but had to use Piazzas and open fields. And his mission was signed by extraordinary miracles the likes of which have never again been seen in Christendom.

When he preached, his voice has a miraculous power to be heard at great distances. Those who could not enter the towns where he preached, would climb bell towers in near by villages and hear his voice distinctly at the distance of two to three miles!

One day he led the crowds listening to him to storm a Synagogue and immediately began preaching in Hebrew to the Jews. He was so convincing in their own tongue and from their own version of scripture, that he converted the entire congregation to the Catholic Faith and they immediately consecrated the place a Catholic Church!

On another occasion, he led the crowds from the Piazza in which he was preaching, to the Castle above the town, saying that great sin must be stopped. He broke through the gates of the Castle and found the noblemen in the most evil debauchery. He cursed them for their sin and everyone of them turned to stone!  A thing witnessed by all the officials of the town to the amazement and terror of everyone. Upon hearing the pleas of the relatives, he commanded that the afflicted return to life, heard their confessions and after giving them his blessing they all dropped dead, but this time, went to eternal life.

His preaching of penance was so persuasive that huge crowds of penitents followed him everywhere, beating themselves with chains and hooks and nails to blood. The sight of these flagellants arriving was the signal that St. Vincent was on his way and this news would empty the fields and villages of the area, for all wanted to hear him preach. In whatever language they could understand, his voice was miraculously heard, even though he always spoke in his own dialect or in Latin.

He is known to have raised from the dead at least 7 persons. On one occasion, in a most extraordinary way. To a fellow Dominican who did not believe his claims to be sent by Christ to preach, he said: Do you doubt that I am one the Angels of the Apocalypse? Bring a dead man here, one who has been dead 4 days and whose body is rotting, and I will prove that I am telling the truth. Whereupon, he commanded the decaying corpse to arise and give testimony. And the man came back to life and his body was instantly restored to perfect health!

I could go on and on about the wonders and virtues of Saint Vincent. But I recommend you find a biography about him and read it. It will change your life and make you want to abandon all and become a devout religious. A thing the Church really needs in great quantity now.

The major relics of Saint Vincent Ferrer, in the Church at Vannes, France, where he died.

The Great Schism

Despite all the graces and gifts which Saint Vincent had, and despite the great wisdom and learning he possessed from years of studying — for example he memorized the entire Latin version of the Bible and spoke 5 languages: Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French and Langue d’óc  — CHRIST WITHHELD from the Saint graces to see who was and who was not the true pope. Our Lord did this, in my opinion, to give us as lesson for our own time.

The Saint was a close friend to Cardinal Pedro de Luna, who was a supporter of the Antipope.  The Schism began in 1378, when the previous pope, having been persuaded by Saint Catherine of Sienna to return to Rome, died. And the new Pope Urban VI was elected at Rome. The French Cardinals did not accept the election and immediately elected Clement VII. Cardinal Pedro knew his election was uncanonical, but concealed the facts from Saint Vincent for 38 years! In 1394, Cardinal Pedro was elected to succeed the antipope, and took the name Benedict XIII.

Saint Vincent was so deceived by Cardinal Pedro that he preached to convince the people of the Kingdom of Aragon to give allegiance to the Antipope of Avignon and to break from Rome! So troublesome was this schism to the soul of Saint Vincent that he said to others that it frequently made him ill.

The Great Western Schism had begun on a dispute where the wrong side was making claims on the basis of their allegations of being forced to vote. This kind of claim was really impossible to prove, it rested solely on the testimony of the alleged victims. No one disputed that the antipope was elected second. No one disputed the laws which govern the election.

But though he was a convinced supporter of the antipope of Avignon, Saint Vincent, nevertheless, loved the Church more than his personal friend, the Cardinal, and thus he urged Councils to end the Schism. And here is where his virtue is a lesson for us.

Because in Council of Perpignan, in the Kingdom of Aragon, in January 6, 1416, when the evidence was presented to Saint Vincent by the King of Aragon that Benedict XIII’s claim was not well founded, Benedict’s supporters could give no response and defend his claim against the charges. Saint Vincent had come to the Council a supporter of Benedict. He even preached in his defense. But when no evidence could be brought to defend the claim of the man whom he thought was the pope, St. Vincent immediately switched allegiance, for he recognized, being a master of Logic — a text book on which he had written — that when one side refuses to answer or has no argument, it means that they have no valid claim at all for their position.

In shame and penance for his having supported for so many years the wrong man, he went to France and spent the rest of his life in exile from his native land.

The “Renunciation” of Pope Benedict

The Great Western Schism began when the Cardinals elected Pope Urban VI and immediately upon his enthronement, seeing that he would curb their power, left the city, declared that they had been forced to vote for him, and elected instead Robert of Savoy as Clement VII.

We are in an analogous situation today. The Cardinals, not wanting to endure Pope Benedict XVI any longer, claimed on Feb. 11, 2013 that he had renounced the papacy. But in truth he had only announced his retirement from active ministry. They published false news to the world and through their personal contacts have suborned the entire Episcopate and Catholic Media to believe this lie. That is why they remain silent. They are the criminals of this Great Modern Schism.

Pope Benedict XVI for his part has been ignored and effectively locked up at the Vatican. But the truth of what he did on Feb. 11, 2013 has become known and now all Christendom can do what Saint Vincent did: ask the side which thinks Bergoglio is the pope for their explanation. Ann Barnhardt and hundreds of other Catholics have been doing this: she for four years, nearly, and others longer or less. But still there is no canonical explanation from the other side.

I think you can see how easy the choice is, who the real pope is. Do what Vincent did!

The Great Schism in its causes also sheds light on the principles of how to discern who today is the true pope and who is not.  As a legal case the solution of the disputed election of 1378 was a simple one: possession is 9 tenths of the law, that is, the first man elected is always presumed be the legitimate claimant, the second one elected has to prove that the laws were violated in the first election, not just claim that they were. This is especially true with those Cardinals who voted for the first claimant. Their votes are explicit consent to the validity and legality of that act. — Today, the same principal applies: Benedict must be presumed to remain the true pope, until there is a proof in canonical form that his renunciation — not anything he said before or after, or anything he did before or after — is conformable with the terms of Canon 332 §2. No proof has ever been given! So those who sustain Bergoglio is the pope, have no case!

Saint Vincent for all his supernatural gifts, erred for many years, because he put his trust in his favorite Cardinal, who was lying to him. And he never bothered to examine the case calmly according to the principles of the law. — He was not a canon lawyer, and so that failing is understandable in a man who was so humble as to never think evil of others. But it nevertheless was such a grave error in law, that God Himself did not give him the grace to see it by supernatural means. The truth came to him by the testimony of fellow men.

In November, I asked Cardinal Burke through Canon Lenhart for an audience to discuss the Renunciation. In December, I returned and asked again and was promised one in January. January has come and is now ended. Still no audience or response to my Scholastic Question, containing 39 arguments which conclude that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope.

In November, I shared that same Question with 700 members of the Clergy of the Diocese of Rome. But I got no canonical argument in response to refute it. In December I distributed 500 copies of the same to the students of theology and canon law in the City, at Pontifical Universities. I got no response in reply.

I say this to give you a personal testimony. I think you should now understand what it means. St. Vincent shows us the way.

POSTSCRIPT: Saint Vincent died at Vannes, France on April 5, 1419. He was canonized by Pope Calixtus III in 1455. He is buried in the Cathedral of Vannes, but you can find relics of his right arm at his Church in New York City, or in the parish Church at Castle Umberto, in the province of Messina, Sicily, where I stop by every time I am in town, to venerate them.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image and Image of Saint Vincent is by Giovanni Bellini and is conserved at Venice. It is in the public domain as a work of art older than 200 years.

Canon Law, Debates

CIONCI: All your questions answered, why Benedict XVI is still the Pope

25 Comments

by Andrea Cionci

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL ITALIAN TEXT (Here)

According to the Church, Our Lady of Fatima asked the pope only one thing: the consecration of Russia, one hundred years ago. On March 25, Bergoglio, on the other hand, celebrated an ” inclusive ” consecration which, within a few days, was announced would also involve Ukraine, humanity, the Church, “ourselves”, with a formula full of oddities: the “Mystery of iniquity” of Saint Paul transferred from apostasy to war; the suspicious insistence on ” brotherhood “; unusual Marian attributes such as the vaguely Pachamamic “land of heaven” (used by the neo-Arian Enzo Bianchi), and the reference to the esoteric cult of the ” Knot-looser “. HERE the details.

Moreover, at the same time, Konrad Krajewsky, his almsgiver, celebrated the Consecration at Fatima . As we found out by questioning the electricity company, this same man never paid , as he had promised, the 300,000 euro bill of the occupied Roman building to which he had illegally reconnected the power, three years ago, up to now maintaining a situation of dangerous illegality HERE .

It is not surprising that Benedict XVI, “joining the call” (and not the intention) of Bergoglio, chose not to participate directly in any of this, rather praying on his own (and we do not know in what terms).

Only the events of the last week would be enough to understand who the pope is and who is not, intuitively confirming the irrefutable results of the investigation we have been conducting since 2020 and which is spreading all over the world. You will find it rearranged at the bottom of this article HERE .

It is a shocking story , we are aware of it, of not immediate understanding, at first, also because the true Holy Father Benedict XVI cannot speak explicitly , for two reasons: 1) he is in impeded, a canonical situation where the pope is confined / Prisoner. 2) He speaks with a subtly logical language like Jesus, to ensure that only “those who have ears understand” and to “separate believers from non-believers”, as he himself admitted to Herder Korrespondenz.

However, the veiled language of Pope Ratzinger describes a objective canonical reality : no conspiracy. Moreover, we would have no interest in affirming things of such gravity for the masochistic taste of self-discrediting. Instead, there are two extremely important reasons why it is worth discussing:

1st reason, for the laity : if the so-called strong globalist powers and international freemasonry have succeeded in driving out the true pope from the “impregnable citadel” of the Catholic Church, imagine the situation in the world of secular politics , with all the risks for citizens and for our country.

2nd reason, for believers . Do you think the Lord can be happy that his Vicar has been overthrown? Believe that God can adapt to the plots and sin of men without sending them some “proof” to find their way? And here, several harsh “trials” have been pouring out for years, it seems.

So, below, you will find a series of quick answers, on the well-known and effective ” yes yes / no no” model , to easily clarify the Magna Quaestio , with all the links to the necessary insights.

CATECHISM ON THE DUAL PAPACY

Does the code of canon law require that the pope, in order to abdicate, must renounce the Petrine MUNUS (papal title of divine origin)? YES, in article 332.2 of the Code of Canon Law. And the renunciation must be simultaneous, as is the election.

Did Benedict XVI renounce the munus on 11 February 2013? NO . He has renounced the ministerium , the practical exercise of power, deferred and not ratified after the deadline. So, just de facto nor legally.

But aren’t munus and ministerium interchangeable? NO. By renouncing the munus , the ministerium also lapses , because there is abdication, but if the ministerium is renounced, the munus does not lapse . HERE .

If there was no abdication, does another canonical situation arise? YES , the impeded see (canon 412) where the pope does not exercise his practical power because he is impeded, a prisoner, confined and not free to express himself.

But is the pope impeded still the pope? YES . So Benedict is today the only existing pope and vicar of Christ, as he himself admits HERE .

But the 2013 conclave elected Francis? NO . It did not elect anyone: the conclave was null because it can only be convened with the previous pope who died or abdicated and neither of the two pre-existing indispensable conditions existed. HERE

It was card. Ratzinger to introduce the munus / ministerium dichotomy in canon law? YES . In 1983, he was the right hand of John Paul II. The system fully follows the anti-usurpation system of the Austro-German dynastic law, which Ratzinger could not fail to know. HERE

But does the fact that all the cardinals have accepted Francis’ election make this valid? NO. The doctrine of Universalis ecclesiae adhaesio could heal some imperfections in a legitimate conclave, but NEVER heal an illegitimate conclave, summoned by a not-yet-dead and non-abdicated pope. The cardinals did not realize that Benedict entered the seat impeded, because this cannot be explicitly declared: it is just there.

So there can’t be two valid popes? NO . So much so that Benedict himself has been repeating for 9 years that the pope IS only one without ever explaining which one. HERE

But does the “extended ministry” we speak of exist for canon law? NO. It does not exist juridically, it exists only in fact, but it is a “theological place”, a sort of ministry between a legitimate pope and an illegitimate pope, where a sacrifice is made, as it was for Christ with Judas.

And does a papal emeritus exist from the canonical point of view? NO , so much so that Bergoglio, last year, charged the canonists to find a jurisprudence for this non-existent institution. HERE

So does “pope emeritus” have another meaning? YES’. From the Latin verb emereus , “he who deserves, who has the right” to be pope. It is the name used to distinguish the true pope in the extended ministry between the legitimate pope and the illegitimate pope. HERE

So is the pope emeritus the Supreme Pontiff? YES’. The Vatican Secretariat of State also writes it verbatim HERE . But even the canonists who contested this “novelty” of Pope Benedict understood it as a juridical institution had already grasped it, “by exclusion”.

Is this why Benedict wears white and keeps the pontifical name? YES’. And he continues, as a few days ago HERE , to impart his apostolic blessing (exclusive of the reigning pope) and to live in the Vatican. He has removed two trappings – the sash and the cape – from the pope’s habit to signify his impediment, his “impairment”. HERE

So did Pope Benedict formally imprison himself to defend the Church and the faith? YES’. As admitted by card. Danneels in 2015, the Mafia of St. Gallen, a lobby of modernist cardinals enemies to him, wanted to make him abdicate and, as described by Paolo Flores d’Arcais in 2010, he was against all the globalist powers of the world. So he had to be out of the way. HERE and HERE

But Benedict said from Castel Gandolfo, on Feb. 28, 2013: “I will no longer be Supreme Pontiff”. NO . He said that he would no longer be the “pontiff supreme”, that is, he would no longer be “the pontiff in the highest position” since there would be another more in sight than him (and illegitimate). Moreover, one can remain popes even without being supreme pontiffs, since the title appeared only in the fifth century. HERE

Yet Benedict admitted that he freely renounced his ministry? YES: but his “ministry- ministerium “, not his “ministero- munus ” since munus and ministerium are translated into Italian with the same word “ministry”. They wanted to make him abdicate, but he, really, freely chose … to enter the seat prevented.

But Benedict swore obedience to Francis? NO . In 2016 he wrote in Last Conversations answering a question about how he could swear obedience: “The pope is the pope, no matter who he is.” So he never swore obedience to Bergoglio. He said on February 28, 2013 that among the true cardinals who listened to him there would be the future pope, and he was right … But he is still waiting for him. HERE

As for real cardinals? So those named by Bergoglio are not valid? YES. The 70 cardinals appointed by the antipope are not valid and if we go to a future spurious conclave, together with those of legitimate appointment, pre-2013, they will elect another antipope, perhaps the John XXIV he speaks of (it is not known in what capacity ) Bergoglio and who, not surprisingly, also takes the name of the antipope John XXIII, Baldassarre Cossa. HERE

Did Benedict say this on other occasions? YES’. In the same Declaratio , Benedict specifies that the next pope must be elected “by those to whom he belongs.”

But in the Declaratio he wrote that he was leaving the “seat vacant”? NO . The Latin verb vacet literally translates as “free, empty, vacant seat” and, juridically, the renunciation of the ministerium does not produce a vacant seat. In fact, the pope took the helicopter and left the seat cleared, at the disposal of the usurpers. HERE

Will the situation be resolved with Bergoglio’s departure? NO . It is essential that either Benedict be restored to the throne (if alive), perhaps with a pseudo-re-election, or that the next conclave be pure, that is, composed only of pre-2013 cardinals or validated by Pope Benedict. HERE

Yet Benedict, in “Latest Conversations” (2016), seems to appreciate Francesco? NO . He made only neutral observations on some human characteristics of Bergoglio, such as his decisive character, his capacity to please the mass and his attention to consensus. No uniquely positive appreciation of man, zero comments on the alleged pope’s doctrine, holiness or ability to govern.

So when Benedict embraces Bergoglio is it all a scene? NO . Pope Benedict is sincere: like Jesus, he “loves his enemy”, that is, the illegitimate pope, which is very different from being his friend or recognizing him as a legitimate pope. Christ let himself be kissed by Judas: was it perhaps a scene? HERE

Has the Vatican ever denied your investigation? NO . Less than ever since March 2021, when the lawyer Estefania Acosta published her legal volume which denied the validity of the Declaratio as a waiver. HERE

And has Pope Benedict ever denied that your interpretation is true? NO. Not even when he honored us with a letter from him. If he were a former pope he certainly should have. Indeed, he gave us the only answer that he could give from the impeded see: “even with every good intent, it is not really possible to receive you”, accompanying the letter with his coat of arms as reigning pope. HERE

So does Benedict use some kind of veiled language? YES’. We have called it, for convenience, the “Ratzinger Code” and it has been analyzed and certified by various scholars, linguists, jurists, psychologists, writers, historians, Latinists. HERE

But Is this not a language only for specialists, canonists, theologians…? NO . Many messages from him are within everyone’s reach, some are understandable even by an eight-year-old child, like when he repeats that the pope is one without ever saying which one. Others are so direct (the “0 km messages”, as we have called them) that there is no need to interpret them. HERE

Are others messages more complex? YES. Like the “red mozzetta puzzle”, HERE or the key reference to medieval Pope Benedict VIII HERE . Some study is needed, but the meaning is clear and unequivocal.

But can’t Benedict speak more clearly? NO. He is in an impeded seat, a situation in which he is not free to express himself, so he uses the same language of Jesus to make understand only to those who “have ears to hear”. HERE

Do you therefore want Catholics to make a sort of selection among Catholics? YES’. In this way he intends to “separate believers from non-believers”, as he declared to Herder Korrespondenz this summer.

But Benedict sometimes calls Bergoglio “Pope Francis”? YES’. But he never says he’s the pope. Moreover, there is also Pope Theodore II who is not Catholic but Coptic Orthodox. He calls him that because Bergoglio IS the pope, exercises power, which has nothing to do with his legitimacy, his BEING pope. He is the illegitimate pope of the extended ministry.

So is Bergoglio an antipope? YES , of course. Because the previous pope is alive and not abdicated, therefore he abusively exercises the papal practical power not having the investiture of divine origin, the munus .

Has Bergoglio ever addressed the subject? NO. Indeed, he obsessively recommends not “gossiping”, presumably towards him. HERE

But is Bergoglio, as an antipope, assisted by the Holy Spirit? NO. From the point of view of faith, only the true pope is so, both ex cathedra and in ordinary teaching (art. 892 of the Catechism). HERE

But officially Bergoglio has already attempted to alter doctrine? YES, with the encyclical Amoris laetitia and the catechism in art 2267. HERE Then he “euthanized” the ancient mass in Latin, the only one to fully guarantee catholicity. HERE

Is Bergoglio Catholic? NO. He has a spirituality all his own, which draws on neoluteranism, neoarianism, neopaganism, psychoanalysis, esotericism, modernism, atheist ecology, syncretism, gnosis, apocatastasis. A spiritual conception much appreciated by the anti-Christian Freemasonry, so much so that Bergoglio has received about 70 letters of appreciation from lodges all over the world. HERE

Does this new religion, is it likeable? YES because it extinguishes the sense of sin, sends everyone to Heaven, nourishes emotionality and proposes itself as an easy philosophy of life. It has the same appeal as a weight loss diet based on pizza and sweets, or a risk-free financial investment with ample returns. However, it is not the teaching of Christ handed down by the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.

But at this point, since we like it, can’t we keep Bergoglio’s religion? NO, that’s not correct. Those who want to believe in Bergogliism are free to build a church on their own. But changing the 2,000-year-old Catholic faith by pretending to be Catholics is called a “scam”. It is illegal and nothing good can come of it.

Have authentic Catholics, linked to orthodoxy, all understood that Bergoglio is not the pope? NO . Not everybody. Only a minority party that explicitly recognizes Benedict XVI as pope. The others are the so-called una cum, who speak very badly of Francis, but recognize him as a legitimate pope and will probably give us another antipope, after him, approving a spurious conclave.

Is it a contradiction to speak ill of Francis and recognize him as pope? YES’. Because the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit (even in ordinary teaching) and therefore Catholics cannot speak ill of him, or claim that he is a heretic, or an enemy of the faith, without offending the Trinitarian Third Person.

So the only theological explanation is in the fact that Bergoglio is not pope? YES’. In fact, Bergoglio is “justified” in doing what he does, that is, demolish Catholicism, as he is not the pope.HERE

Are there any ecclesiastics who have made statements to this effect? YES’. Three emeritus bishops (Lenga, Gracida, Negri) and several priests, monks, friars, nuns. Some were excommunicated without a canonical process. HERE

So everything Bergoglio has done in nine years is null and void? YES’. Everything will be canceled, except for a few acts of ordinary administration.

Will there be a schism after he dies? YES’. It is very probable, but it would be a good thing given that a large part of the clergy is no longer Catholic, has apostatized various dogmas and has acquired worldly and globalist demands that are completely contrary to the Catholic faith.

So is Pope Benedict purifying the Church? YES’. With his sacrifice, which legally annihilates the usurper, he has already schismed the heretics and modernists.

It therefore remains to be understood in which part the Petrine see will remain ? YES’. Much will depend on true Catholics and their willingness to fight for the true faith. For now, the “broad road” (downhill) offered by Bergoglio is convenient for many. HERE

So could a true Catholic Church rise out of nowhere? YES’. The true Church could lose everything, the Vatican, money, treasures, buildings etc. “Coming out of the synagogue” as in the early days of Christianity. But faith will be saved and, over time, the structure will also be resurrected.

Can the Cardinals do anything about this mess? YES’. For example, they can ask for a provincial synod to shed light on the impeded see of the bishop of Rome. But it would be enough for them to simply tell the truth, en bloc.

Would they be excommunicated by Bergoglio for doing this?  YES, in all likelihood, but the excommunication would be invalid as it was imposed by an antipope. Then a lot depends on the “critical mass”: it would be a bit hard for Bergoglio to excommunicate about fifty cardinals. HERE

Can the faithful do anything? YES’. Indeed, the responsibility lies largely in the hands of the laity since the clergy are punishable. They can spread the truth and demand clarity from their pastors. They can desert all the initiatives of the anti-papal Church, as the French Catholics did in 1790, making scorched earth around the clergy who had sworn allegiance to the Revolution.

Isn’t it strange that none of the mainstream media dares to touch upon the subject? YES’. And it is extremely concerning.

Canon Law, Debates

Radio Radio interview Cionci: Benedict XVI never did renounce the Papacy

6 Comments

Editor’s Note: This is Cionci’s interview in Italian at Radio Radio. While it presents no new information about the invalidity of the renunciation, or rather, regarding how a renunciation of ministry is not an abdication, it does represent an important step forward in Italian media, that Radio Radio, one of the leading independent outlets has at last decided to air the controversy. This would be similar to a large and influential radio station in the United States interviewing someone like Ann Barnhardt on the same topic.

Canon Law, Debates, Ecclesiology, Videos

Br. Bugnolo’s Cordial Reply to Dr. Gordon on Precedence in the Renunciation of Benedict XVI

12 Comments

Editor’s Note:This video responds to the comment of Dr. Gordon regarding the concept of precedence in Church Law, which he refers to in this video interview of Mr. Patrick Coffin.

This same video is also available here on the server of FromRome.Info, where all can download it for free.

Please note, that in my video reply above, I mis-spoke when I referred to canon 148, the correct reference is to canon 145.

Here is my 7 part video series on the Renunciation, many of which principles Mr. Coffin has adopted:

For my comments on Mr. Coffin’s position on moral certitude, see the same video, here.

Here is a link to the documentary, A Message in a Bottle (click here).

Canon Law, Debates

A Debate: Was the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI invalid due to substantial error?

7 Comments

Editor’s Note: This is posted for information. This does not mean any or all of its content is approved. Dr. Mazza is a Ph.D. in History, and Steve O’Reilly is a former CIA agent, who chose to put a Gladiator’s helmet in his office during the debate, as if to indicate that he is a former or current member of the Gladio Operation for narrative, political, and social control of Western Europe and the Catholic Church. I think that is all you need to know, to connect the dots here.

Canon Law, Editorials

¡Viva Guadalajara! & Why one should never presume in matters canonical

6 Comments

An Open Letter to the College of Cardinals

REPRINTED FROM DEC. 11, 2019 A. D.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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?

Silence.

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 the fingers of each hand. 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?

Silence.

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 further. 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 plane 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, flies 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 sycophancy. 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.

¡Viva Guadalajara!

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.

 

Canon Law, Debates

Tosatti airs Cionci’s “Impeded See”

17 Comments

And Cionci responds:

Cionci: Are We Ready for Anti-Pope John XXIV?

A Response to the Pied Piper

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and foes of Stilum Curiae, Andrea Cionci, who yesterday was graciously asked a question by The Pied Piper on the pages of Stilum Curiae, has sent us this response. Enjoy your reading.

Are we ready for antipope John XXIV? A Response to the Lonely Pied Piper

I want to give a heartfelt thanks to Marco Tosatti and the Lonely Pied Piper for having addressed the now “unmentionable” Magna Quaestio. I must say, dear Pied Piper, that your last question threw me into a panic. Two years of (free) work, about 160 articles in which I have explored the entire question, in the most hidden details, summarizing it in all sorts of ways, even resorting to metaphors and fables, repeating myself until it becomes unbearable, and yet it seems I have not yet succeeded in communicating the general sense [and purpose] of Papa Ratzinger’s “Plan B.”

It’s my fault: I will try once again.

Cornered by the mutiny of the modernist clergy who wanted him to abdicate, Benedict XVI issued a Declaratio with which he announced a de facto self-imposed exile in an impeded see. The thing that we have become accustomed to perceiving for the last eight years as a resignation of the papacy was not that at all, and I have demonstrated it. I know, it’s crazy – but if you do not radically change the paradigm, you will not understand the matter.

This Declaratio, “as white as a dove and as cunning as a serpent,” enabled Ratzinger 1) to not abdicate and to remain the “only pope” of which he has been speaking for eight years without explaining which one it is, and 2) to make the modernists mistake his Declaratio for a resignation, and 3) to in this way give rise to a null conclave (since it took place while a non-abdicated pope was still living), which would necessarily elect an antipope: Francis.

In this way, Ratzinger ensured that a part of the now unrecoverable clergy would put themselves into schiem, thanks to their own greed for power, thereby purifying the Church. Thus, Benedict XVI did not destroy the papacy at all, but rather as Giorgio Agamben had already understood, with a brilliant move – probably prepared for decades – he enormously strengthened the papacy by permitting a purifying schism to finally take place, freeing the Church from the rotten fruits of the Council, saving the Catholic faith and all the souls of the world from this time into the coming centuries.

Why doesn’t Ratzinger say clearly that he is the Pope? On the one hand, he cannot because he really is being controlled, as Vittorio Messori has testified HERE: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/29726687/vittorio-messori-rivela-papa-benedetto-tenuto-all-oscuro-disinformato-non-riceve-i-giornali-non-rivelero-le-cose-che-mi-ha-d.html , on the other hand he limits himself so as not to lose the status of an impeded see where the bishop cannot communicate freely. For this reason, for now Benedict confirms the canonical situation to us with subtle logical messages that are completely unequivocal in a system he uses called the “Ratzinger Code” which has been certified by various experts HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/29422686/benedetto-xvi-codice-ratzinger-reale-decodificate-lettere-cardinal-brandmuller.html . A moment of truth will arrive; do not doubt it. In any case, his Declaratio, which is NOT a resignation but rather a non-juridical announcement of self-imposed exile in an impeded see, is already consigned to history and canon law, and can now be recognized and denounced for what it is. A provincial synod would be enough to verify that the bishop of Rome is in an impeded see.

Thus, “Pope Francis” never existed, and nothing done by him for the last eight years has any validity. Poof – the nightmare vanishes in an “eschatological combustion.”

Now, the fact is that if we go to the next conclave with 80 non-cardinals appointed by the antipope, another antipope will be elected. Thus, if we continue to pay attention, on the one hand, to the mainstream that has sold out in block to Bergoglianism, and, on the other hand, to the traditionalist-sedevacantists who do not want to understand nor even discuss the investigation of Plan B and legitimize Bergoglio with canonical follies and, in addition, throw mud on the hated Ratzinger, then before resolving the matter we will have to endure another round of jousting with an antipope Tagle, or Zuppi, or Maradiaga, who will have the name John XXIV. Do you understand, dear Pied Piper, how great the drama is?

But – one will object – if everything has been made explicit, where is the problem? The problem lies in the fact that the question raised by Cionci (a modest journalist who has only limited himself to organizing the facts, documents and discoveries made by others) is laid to one side, as if it were a mere piece of diversionary entertainment for fans of religious-fantasy novels. Is it merely “a conspiracy theory fantasy,” you understand? “Agatha Christie stuff,” as one prelate told me. The only scenario that offers a perfectly coherent explanation from a canonical, theological, evidential, documentary, testimonial, historic, and prophetic point of view is thus dismissed in two words at this slaughterhouse and/or told like Cinderella to go to the kitchen and wash the dishes.

The upper levels of the clergy, even if they have understood this, have been totally immobilized due to the possible retaliation of the antipope. They only ones who are able to do anything are journalists, but 98% of these are completely sold out to Bergoglianism, and the remaining 2% is held hostage by the anti-Ratzingerian traditionalists, and both categories together prevent there being any debate on this matter, which is the keystone of everything.

Now, I realize that this is a huge, gigantic, shocking and incredible matter, but since I don’t want to look like a fool by peddling crazy conspiracies, I have illustrated what I affirm with extremely rigorous precision in 46 chapters of investigation, which you will find here below: https://www.byoblu.com/2021/12/11/papa-e-antipapa-linchiesta-il-nuovo-anti-presepe-della-pachamama-di-bergoglio-parte-45/

You don’t have to read everything, but I absolutely advise you to spend half an hour reading chapters 1,2,5, and 6 through 14. The canonical question, and the confirmation of the Ratzinger Code: one hand washes the other [the two aspects of the matter confirm each other].

For my part, you may ask my friend Tosatti for my private mail if you have any doubts, and I will be happy to respond to your questions.

At this point, beyond continuing to write every day in my newspapers, I can’t do anything more. Either my Vatican colleagues come to my rescue (meaning that we talk about, discuss, and dissect the question) so that we will arrive at the moment of the death of one of the two “men dressed in white” with a mature public opinion, or else we will have to go and take selfies with antipope John XXIV, as we await the Great Prelate. I can’t do anything more.

Thank you for your letter.

Andrea Cionci