I will confess that while I respect all priests, I love a priest who explains what Latin words mean. That is what attracted me to start reading Father Zuhlsdorf’s blog more than a decade ago, in the lost halls of memory….
But what makes a priest worthy of admiration by his own merit — not just his exalted status as an Ambassador of God Most High and Dispenser of the Mysteries of God — is that he knows when and how to employ the sword of truth to correct errant men.
And that is why you need to stop by Father Z’s blog and read his recent post entitled, Remember #UniteTheClans, where Fr. Z rants. For a good sermon deserves widespread public attention.
The topic Father Z takes in hand is the recent Acies Ordinata secret public protest in Munich, Bavaria, against Cardinal Marx’s fiendish plans to make the Catholic Church in Germany even less Christian than the NAZI party, if that is possible, but how Acies Ordinata has got the method all wrong.
Did I fail to mention that it is alleged that Archbishop Viganò was in attendance?
Take it from a man who as a priest, knows how the machinery of the Church works and when it is damaging or even useless to pour eau du toilette into the carburetor.
For a detailed report in Italian from someone who appears to have been to Munich, see Vik van Brantegem’s report at Korazym.org, from which the screen shot used as the Featured Image of this post comes.
In that article she recited the positions on both sides of the debate, regarding the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, whether it be valid or not. Her article inclined on the side which holds it is valid, or is to be presumed as valid. She interviewed Cardinals Burke and Brandmueller and Dr. de Mattei, along with Archbishop Gänswein.
But it seems her views have changed, or at least, she considers that it is professionally no longer a risk to manifest them:
For just 3 days ago, Diane Montagna tweeted this Meme from her personal twitter account.
And its import seems to signal that she has jumped ship and joined the PPBXVI Movement, which is the name From Rome gives to those Catholics who remain in communion with Pope Benedict, because the recognize that he is still the Pope according to the laws of the Church. (The Official site of the movement is ppbxvi.org)
Note, that Miss Montagna does not call Benedict, “Pope Emeritus”. Note how many like it but yet do not retweet it. The Non-Think is breaking and soon the growth rate of Catholics who accept Benedict as the only and true Pope will be growing at near infinite rates of acceleration! (Sarmaticus take note!)
She follows up that tweet with another, showing that she is thinking it through:
I cannot remain silent, despite as much as I am loath to publicly correct someone with a Doctorate in History. I know I did it before, but it seems to have been of no help.
I speak of Dr. Roberto De Mattei, writing over at Correspondenza Romana (See original), here at Rome, in a piece which Rorate Caeli graciously published in English translation. (See Here), entitled, The Real Mess is the co-habitation of Two Popes.
And I quote,
This situation is the consequence of a grave theological error by Cardinal Ratzinger. By keeping the title Pope emeritus, as happens with bishops, he appears to believe that the rise to the Papacy imprints an indelible mark similar to that of the priesthood. In reality, the sacramental grades of the priesthood are three only: the diaconate, the priesthood and the episcopacy. The Papacy belongs to another hierarchy in the Church, the jurisdictional one, or the governmental one, wherein it is the apex. When a Pope is elected, he receives the office of supreme jurisdiction, not a sacrament with an indelible mark.
The priesthood can’t even be lost by death, because it subsists “in aternum” . The papacy, on the other hand, can be lost, not only by death, but also in the case of voluntary renunciation or of manifest, notorious heresy. If he renounces being pontiff, the Pope ceases to be such: he has no right to wear white nor impart the Apostolic Blessing. He, from a canonical point of view, is no longer even a cardinal, but goes back to being a simple bishop.* Unless his renunciation is invalid: but this, in the case of Benedict XVI, should be proven. Effectively, the title of Pope today is being given to both Francis and Benedict, but one is certainly abusive, as only one [man] can be Pope in the Church.
Emphasis in Red added, Asterisk added
In a piece, entitled, It’s all happening. Rorate Caeli is coming onside. Benedict is Pope, Ann Barnhardt is elated that De Mattei and hence Rorate Caeli by informed consent, has admitted that it is a theological error. And she is correct, that is at least one little baby step in the right direction. But that is all it is.
Because it is reduced to nothing, by the second thing worthy of note in De Mattei’s piece, that I highlighted in red.
Namely, as regards the correct legal presumption in acts of Renunciation, as in all legal acts which follow ius testimentarie as in Last Wills and Testiments and successions etc..
Lurking in the Comments, as Romanus sum, I wrote there:
Lou,
You got the legal presumption wrong.
A renunciation is presumed invalid unless it clearly renounces that which it is supposed to renounce.
Just like a last testament is invalid, unless it clearly says it is leaving something to someone.
For those who know Bellarmine, a doubtful pope is not a pope, it is the application of the same legal concept of interpretation to the opposite circumstances.
All this has to do with the concept of Cessation of power. In law, the cessation of power is not presumed. Thus, the cessation of right is not presumed. Contrariwise, in the election of a man to the papacy, we have the right and the Church is bound by law, not to regard it valid unless it meets all the necessary requirements of validity and or legitimacy.
Thus, a doubtfully resigned pope is still pope.
So, since I have corrected an Italian American in the USA, I guess there is no harm correcting an Italian at Rome, who spent years in Brazil.
So Dr. De Mattei, if I can be so bold — and I will be — though it is contrary to what a Franciscan should so in normal circumstances — but now is not normal. Since the Rule of Saint Francis obliges us to hold fast to Roman Pontiffs canonically elected, I would point out to you by a personal note, that THE INVALIDITY OF THE RENUNCIATION MADE BY POPE BENEDICT
DOES
NOT
NEED
TO
BE
PROVEN!
It does not need to be proven, because according to ius testimentarie, that is the genus of right which regards testaments, THE INVALIDLY IS PRESUMED unless it is proven otherwise by a clear and certain statement!
For the Record, Mr. Verrecchio holds that the Renunciation is invalid, as a conclusion. Dr. de Mattei holds that it is valid as a presumption. Each is a different error, and Verrecchio is a better thinker, in my judgement. But until everyone gets the legal principle right, the problem wont be solved.
As I replied again to Louie, in the same post,
Dear Mr. Verrechio,
I did read your comment, you said that you conclude that the resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.
I said, the legal presumption is that a resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.
The point seems to be a fine one, but it is not. A presumption of law is a principle, not a conclusion. It does not exist under certain circumstances and in certain minds or as derived from certain beliefs or not. It exists a priori to all of these on account of the very nature of the legal act.
You do not have to prove it (the invalidity). You do have to accept it (the legal principle), to be a sane rational person…
I could have more easily commented on Dr. de Mattei’s piece by simply saying:
THE INVALIDITY OF THE RESIGNATION HAS BEEN PROVEN!
13 MONTHS AGO!
If you would only read sources which are found outside of the clique of approved outlets you read! >>
And you do not need to take me at my word. Ask any attorney-at-law who practices Estate Law or simply peruse my notes from my meetings with 2 top Canon Lawyers at Rome:
* Just a short note on what happens to a pope who validly resigns. If he was a Cardinal beforehand, he returns to being a Cardinal. This is shown by the statement drawn up by Pope Pius XII in the case of an invasion of the Vatican by Axis forces during World War II. In the case of Pope Celestine V, he returned to being a hermit, because that is what he was before he was the Pope, though he remained a bishop, having been consecrated such after his election (Not all popes were consecrated Bishops). Unless of course, before one resigns, he makes other dispositions, as certainly is within his power to do so. Thus, Pope Benedict, if he really wanted ever to resign validly, could have first established the canonical status he would adopt after resignation, declare his resignation would take place on a certain date, resign on that date, and then assume that status which as Pope he had granted himself as the man who would be soon NOT the pope.
THIS ARTICLE has been published simultaneously in Italian at ChiesaRomna.Info
CREDITS: The featured image is by the author of this article.
LET US PRAY FOR OUR HOLY FATHER, POPE BENEDICT XVI!
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The Church has been there before. A despot ruling over the people of God who has imprisoned the Vicar of Christ.
I speak of Herod Agrippa I and Saint Peter the Apostle.
In those days the whole Church joined in prayer for the Pope and the Lord sent an Angel of Deliverance, Saint Michael the Archangel, who broke Peter out of prison.
Pope Benedict XVI is also imprisoned, in that he is manipulated and controlled by others who fear the power of the office which they know He still has, whether he realizes it or not. It is not for nothing, that Saint Michael the Archangel was appointed to be the Patron of the City of Rome. He has ever been active to defend the Pope, and even now summons God’s servants to the Eternal City to defend him. Let us join in prayer with this great Archangel for Pope Benedict’s liberty, safety and protection, against all the forces of darkness which are being conjured together at the Vatican.
And let us not only pray, but let us do something about it! For if we only pray, when we are able to do more than just pray, the Lord will condemn us for sloth.
As president of Ordo Militaris Inc., I personally ask each of you to join the Order by making a small monthly capital pledge or an investment. I want the Order to be able to offer Pope Benedict XVI our assistance in any need he has, but I cannot do that without your help!
And let us take confidence in the inspired word of God, which shows what happens to those who imprison Christ’s Vicar on Earth!
Saint Luke: Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 12
1] And at the same time, Herod the king stretched forth his hands, to afflict some of the church. [2] And he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword. [3] And seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also. Now it was in the days of the Azymes. [4] And when he had apprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of soldiers to be kept, intending, after the pasch, to bring him forth to the people. [5] Peter therefore was kept in prison. But prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him.
[3] “Azymes”: The festival of the unleavened bread, or the pasch, which answers to our Easter.
[6] And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison. [7] And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him: and a light shined in the room: and he striking Peter on the side, raised him up, saying: Arise quickly. And the chains fell off from his hands. [8] And the angel said to him: Gird thyself, and put on thy sandals. And he did so. And he said to him: Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. [9] And going out, he followed him, and he knew not that it was true which was done by the angel: but thought he saw a vision. [10] And passing through the first and the second ward, they came to the iron gate that leadeth to the city, which of itself opened to them. And going out, they passed on through one street: and immediately the angel departed from him.
[11] And Peter coming to himself, said: Now I know in very deed, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews. [12] And considering, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, who was surnamed Mark, where many were gathered together and praying. [13] And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, whose name was Rhode. [14] And as soon as she knew Peter’s voice, she opened not the gate for joy, but running in she told that Peter stood before the gate. [15] But they said to her: Thou art mad. But she affirmed that it was so. Then said they: It is his angel.
[16] But Peter continued knocking. And when they had opened, they saw him, and were astonished. [17] But he beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison, and he said: Tell these things to James, and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place. [18] Now when day was come, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. [19] And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not; having examined the keepers, he commanded they should be put to death; and going down from Judea to Caesarea, he abode there. [20] And he was angry with the Tyrians and the Sidonians. But they with one accord came to him, and having gained Blastus, who was the king’s chamberlain, they desired peace, because their countries were nourished by him.
[21] And upon a day appointed, Herod being arrayed in kingly apparel, sat in the judgment seat, and made an oration to them. [22] And the people made acclamation, saying: It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. [23] And forthwith an angel of the Lord struck him, because he had not given the honour to God: and being eaten up by worms, he gave up the ghost. [24] But the word of the Lord increased and multiplied. [25] And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, having fulfilled their ministry, taking with them John, who was surnamed Mark.
So many lines of supposition, speculation, investigation, analysis and examination pursued theories and explanations of Pope Benedict’s actions in February 2013 and beyond, on the basis of what Georg Gänswein told us. We presumed he was telling the truth, that he was reliable, faithful, honest and expressed only what the Holy Father wanted him to say.
Now that the masque has been ripped off by multiple reports (Socci, Tosatti 12, Viganò, myself) the entire history of the Renunciation needs to be examined minus Gänswein, that is, without presuming he is telling the truth.
Here are some questions I propose for investigators as they reread the reports from 2005 to 2020, which talk about Pope Benedict, the opposition he faced, why he Renounced, what it all meant:
Was Gänswein co-opted into the St. Gallen Mafia as early as the Conclave of 2005? I move this question on the basis of the testimony of Marco Tosatti’s source in the Curia, that something profoundly changed Gänswein with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope.
Is it Gänswein who put into the head of Benedict the idea that he should, could, or must renounce?
Did Gänswein over several years psychologically condition Benedict to renounce?
Did Gänswein encourage or foster ideas of renunciation at the request of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
Did Gänswein allow Pope Benedict’s letters to be stolen from his desk during the Vatileaks as a part of a plot by the St. Gallen Mafia to psychologically isolate, reduce and destroy Pope Benedict, inducing him to resign?
Did Gänswein play a double role in the fall of 2012, so as to obtain from Benedict the elevation to Archbishop and Head of the Pontifical Household, precisely so he could serve the St Gallen Mafia as a prison warden after the Renunciation?
Did Gänswein write the text of the Renunciation?
Did Gänswein sign off on the concept of a renunciation of ministry, based on his recourse to the German translation of the code in canon 145 §1?
Is Gänswein bitterly defending the validity of the Renunciation because of his role in procuring it, forming it, directing it?
Is the presumption that the Renunciation means a renunciation of office something which Gänswein put into the head of Pope Benedict, in a weakened state, by means of gaslighting, as he tried to do with me via phone?
Is the presumption of the Cardinals that the Renunciation is valid or means a renunciation of the papacy, based on Gänswein’s claim that this is what Benedict means and meant and wants?
Is the refusal to clarify the questions after the Renunciation have everything to do with Gänswein and nothing to do with Benedict?
Is Benedict BEING KEPT A VIRTUAL PRISONER AND ABUSED on a daily basis to prevent him from communicating to the world that he never intended to renounce the munus petrinum?
Does Benedict know he is the pope and say he is the pope in private?
Are the public statements attributed to Pope Benedict XVI after Feb. 2013 the creations of Gänswein and not at all the faithful expressions of the mind of Pope Benedict?
Since we can now be morally certain that Benedict does NOT tell Gänswein everything, how can we be sure that Gänswein even understands or knows what Pope Benedict’s Intention was when he read out his Declaratio on Feb. 11, 2013?
These questions are devastating, but the Church and all historians who examine the Renunciation must NOW ask them and must find the answers.
I am not accustomed to write posts about the Internet, but when I run upon something really disgusting, I feel compelled.
It’s YouTube.
No, and I am not talking about so many of its videos.
I am talking about its search engine. Well, at least how its search engine works when I use it.
I did a search for Videos about Benedict XVI. And in the results it gave me videos of “Pope Francis” in the mix.
If you know anything about search engines, that is not supposed to happen. There is no Pope Benedict in anything of those which appeared entitled “Pope Francis”.
So to avoid the annoyance, I added another search term to the same search, “-Francesco”, which according to the custom of search engines is supposed to guarantee that the search will exclude occurrences of “Francesco”.
But that is not what happened.
In my second search, I also lost videos of Pope Benedict.
That means that YouTube, ostensibly at the request of Bergoglio, has tied the name of “Benedict XVI” to the name “Pope Francis”, so if you try to avoid seeing the Argentine Usurper, you miss out on the Catholic Pope.
That is Despicable!
We are in full 1984 George Orwell mode.
And someone’s ego is over sensitive!
I suggest you fight back. I post the above image
to do my part. We must speak the truth to godless power.
On March 13, 2013 a Schism was consummated in the Church by the College of Cardinals, who dared to convene a Conclave during the life of a Pope who had not resigned in accord with Canon 332 §2. Nearly everyone was drawn into this schism due to the rash and false announcement put out by Father Lombardi on Feb. 11, 2013, when he gave Giovanna Chirri the via libera to publish a tweet at 11:58 AM that morning, just minutes after the end of the Consistory for the Martyrs of Otranto, claiming that Benedict had resigned and would give up the Pontificate on February 28.
During the last 7 years, the Holy Spirit has been stirring up Catholics to re-examine the Renunciation and realize in accord with the right granted them in canon 41 that the Renunciation was never valid, because it never named the thing a Pope must renounce to renounce the Papacy: the petrine munus.
For Catholics loyal to Christ, our duty now is to convince the Cardinals and Bishops to stop adhering to this Schism. Bergoglio never was the Successor of Saint Peter and is not the Pope: Benedict XVI is.
However, I am willing to admit that the Cardinals might not have the intellectual capacity or the moral ability to recognize the truth of what they did (schism and usurpation) and of what the Renunciation really meant: nothing at all but the uncanonical expression of an old man who was tired of governing those who did not obey him.
So I am willing to propose a solution for the Church, which does not require the Cardinals to have any virtue other than pragmatic prudence. And in this post, I will discuss that which regards the possibility that Bergoglio leaves office before Benedict.*
The Solution
The solution would be, that after the resignation of Bergoglio (may God hasten the day!) or after the death of Bergoglio (may he repent before it comes upon him), the Cardinals decide to re-elect Pope Benedict as the pope.
In this way they return to loyalty to the Pope without having to admit their error or sin. In this way they get a superior who probably wont ever correct them in anything, being so old and weak.
While one can argue that the Cardinals cannot validly or legitimately elect anyone during the life time of Pope Benedict, nevertheless, such a post-Bergoglian faux Conclave would serve as a cover for their return to communion with him.
So materially it would be a papal conclave and election, but formally it would me an act of re-submission to the Roman Pontiff. And Benedict does not even have to agree or be informed, because he is already pope and has already accepted his canonical election in 2005!
So I say this publicly now, so that if the occasion presents itself, Catholic bloggers and Clergy might take swift action to persuade the better Cardinals to propose this path of action in the future. I myself will make it a point to discuss it with every Cardinal I get the chance to speak with, and I encourage all to write every Cardinal and suggest it.
Because, we must keep ever in mind, that what matters most of all is the salvation of souls. And this objective requires that first the College of Cardinals and the College of Bishops and the Clergy return to communion with Pope Benedict XVI, the true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.
After that, the Church can get to business condemning the individual heresies of Cardinal Bergoglio.
Appendix
For many, however, this controversy has caused them to forget how necessary submission to the true Roman Pontiff is for society and their own personal salvation, so I will reprint here in full the English translation** of the Bull of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, which is a must read for all Catholics right now in the Church.
Unam Sanctam
One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority
Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in Her firmly and We confess with simplicity that outside of Her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and She represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In Her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and We read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard‘ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God‘ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as Our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: ‘Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms‘ and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man‘ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by Us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, We declare, We proclaim, We define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
_______
* In my post tomorrow, I will discuss the opposite case, and what the solution there might be.
** Source, with a few corrections, regarding honorific capitalizations, added by myself here on the pronouns referring to the Roman Pontiff and to Holy Mother Church.
I have previously written an extensive description of how the horrible sin of pride is the hallmark of wicked men in the Church since the time of Vatican II, in my article on The Downfall of Luciferian Pride.
Today, I want to focus on one of the outstanding characteristics of the unfaithful who are members of the Church of the Antichrist, though they may not realize it or admit it. I want to do this because it is very easy to fall into the camp of Lucifer without realizing it, because, as I said in the previous article, the vice and sins of pride, being the most evil, are the hardest to discern and recognize, because they are full of the deprivation of the being that should be in an act of virtue. And that makes them spiritually invisible, except to the very humble who desire to glory solely in the Divine Majesty of God.
Ann Barnhardt’s Righteous Indignation
I am continually impressed by the righteous indignation of many devout Catholics on social media. Righteous indignation is the sense of disgust and anger which rises in the heart of someone who loves God and puts God first, and this kind of indignation is expressed solely because the rights of God are being transgressed.
As you may know, in recent years, months and weeks certain clergy, religious and laymen, who insist Bergoglio is the pope, because they refuse to doubt for a moment that Cardinals and Bishops are infallible, have begun to fault Our Lord Jesus Christ, in His promises to Peter, the teaching of Vatican I on Papal Authority and Infallibility, and the credulity of the Saints in regard to the Roman Pontiff’s authority and magisterium.
A recent example is the declaration of the Hermits of Westray, Scotland. Who know well what the arguments for Benedict still being the pope are, but refuse to harken to them, because they prefer to deny the indefectibility of the Catholic Church or the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff which they cannot reconcile with their more cherished “belief” that Bergoglio is the Pope.
One of the more shocking and sustained attacks came recently from Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, in his blog post entitled, How Francis may be vindicating the “inopportunists” of the First Vatican Council, published by Lifesite News, run by the Campaign for Life Coalition, a political organization out of Toronto, Canada, whose editor is a Mr. John-Henry Westen, co-founder of Lifesite and of the Voice of the Family Coalition, one of the leading “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” politicians-journalists.
I will quote the key passage, which I want to focus on, as a preamble to a discussion of the Marks of the Beast. Ann Barnhardt, addressing the problem many Catholics are having, from Cardinal Burke down to the last man in the pew, to understand how a man like Bergoglio could be the pope, says decisively:
Maybe if people would attack this controversy from the base assumption that GOD ALMIGHTY is THE PERFECT ONE as manifested in His Spotless and Indefectible Bride the Church, in His Angels, and in His Saints, and that THEY THEMSELVES are deeply fallible and so very capable of error, INSTEAD OF THE EXACT OPPOSITE, there might be a bit more clarity of thought round about.
(Bold Face in the original)
What Ann Barnhardt is addressing is PRIDE. And a particularly diabolic kind of pride, which holds that the unholy fallible trinity of “I, me, and myself,” knows better than the Holy Infallible Trinity of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
No use talking about modern errors, if you embrace them without so much as a wink of the eye
What is so ironic about her observation is that it is valid against a good number of popular writers and speakers and YouTube personalities, who either ascribe to or have been leading members of the so-called “Traditional Movement” in the Catholic Church since the time of the Second Vatican Council. A group which has made it a point and raison d’entre to fault the errors of modernity.
These errors consist in Modernism, Neo-Modernism, Relativism, Individualism, Secularism, Humanism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Hedonism… Have I left any out? Probably.
However, when it comes to the controversy of how a man like Bergoglio can be thought to be the Vicar of Christ and act more heretical than any lay leader of one of the main line Protestant “churches”, then their opposition to certain modern errors is cast to the wind and instead some of these errors are readily embraced.
First of which is Modernism, which holds that that which validates religious belief is interior religious sentiments, not objective revelation. For the Modernist, Papal Infallibility is not a gift from God, but the habit of mind of believers to take whatever a Pope says or does and regard it as a religious doctrine. For that reason, there is nothing wrong in criticizing Catholics throughout history who had this sentiment.
Second of which is Neo-Modernism, which holds that there is no unchanging eternal truth revealed by God, but that religious truth consists in conformity of the mind to modern life. Neo-Modernists think that the Church is dead unless She is in the process of continual aggiornamento, that clergy are not properly formed unless they are undertaking continuous formation, etc. etc. For them no event can be condemned by religious doctrine because events themselves are the goal posts of truth and the sacred. They worship history, but not as something that once was, but which is always changing. Hence, papal infallibility must also now be reconsidered and redefined in light of Bergoglio’s way of acting.
The Third of which is Relativism, which holds that there are no absolute moral truths implicit in human nature or in an eternal unchanging law. Truth is found in the right relation of things and actions in the here and now. And right, here, means what is suitable to me. Relativism in turn gives birth or opens the door to Hedonism and Individualism, the definitions of which are well known. Hence, what papal infallibility should mean today is not limited to what it meant before. And what I think it should mean is more important than what any Saint, Doctor of the Church, or previous Pope said it meant, because what is most important is that I have a pleasant experience of Catholicism.
Bergoglio is certainly the Pope, because …
Many Catholics unwittingly have adopted the errors which I just mentioned in a very imprudent attempt to rationally explain why they hold the position that Bergoglio is certainly the pope.
None actually confront the historical facts, which are as follows:
Pope Benedict, as the man who is the pope, renounced the ministerium in his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013.
Canon 332 §2 says a Roman Pontiff renounces when he renounces the munus.
Canon 17 says that Canon 332 § must be read in accord with the Code of Canon Law’s usage of terms, canonical tradition, and the mind of its legislator, Pope John Paul II.
Benedict behavior after Feb. 28, 2013, shows that he retains the papal dignity in all respects.
The idea that Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium means a renunciation of the papacy comes from a tweet by Giovanna Chirri, an ANSA reporter, minutes following the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013.
No meeting of canonists was called to examine the act of the Renunciation to determine if it was valid or not.
The Vatican has never officially claimed that the renunciation was valid.
The Cardinals have never claimed that they did anything to verify that the See was Vacant before meeting in the Conclave of 2013 to elect Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a public manifest and pertinacious heretic, idolater and fomenter of schisms, who by divine right cannot be a member of the Catholic Church, let alone hold any office in Her.
The Church has NEVER taught that the Cardinals or Bishops or even all the clergy are infallible in matters of canonical interpretations or knowledge of historical facts.
Instead, these “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” Catholics take another route. They hold that the solidarity of opinion of the vast majority, who say Bergoglio is the pope, is more authoritative than:
God who is infallible by nature.
Christ Jesus who created the office of Saint Peter and promised it infallibility.
Christ Jesus’ Prayer for the person of the Pope that his faith may NEVER fail.
The First Vatican Council in its decree, Pastor Aeternus.
The Code of Canon Law of 1983 promulgated by the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Pope John Paul II.
The words of Pope Benedict himself during and after the Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013.
Solidarity in Dissent, is a Mark of the Diabolic
The essence of pride, the vice, is dissent. This is because pride as the worst of all vices is directed more principally against the truth and against knowing the truth, than all other vices. Pride is a spiritual vice and since the intellect is the most spiritual of all the powers of the soul, pride takes root first of all in it.
We can see this in Scripture, where, from the name of Saint Michael, who according to Saint John the Apostle, in his Book of the Apocalypse, was the first Holy Angel to act out of holy indignation and take up arms to fight against Lucifer and his angels, that the sin of Lucifer was pride. For Saint Michael’s name means, Who is like unto God? A name, which, according to the Fathers of the Church, he merited for repelling the evil suggestions of Lucifer who suborned and seduced a third of the Angels of God with a sin of pride. Lucifer then was probably saying something like, Worship me, because I am like unto God!
But this is also the sin of all prideful men. When you by any act of mind or will or body or soul do something which presupposes any affirmation that you have the merit, right, worthiness, power, protection, etc.. that only God has by Nature, then you are committing a sin of pride. This is so, because you are acting as if you were like unto God in such a way as to fail to distinguish that you are much more unlike God than like Him, and that you fail in being like Him in 3 principle characteristics: You are not omniscent, You are not omnipotent, You are not infallible.
Omniscent means all knowing. Omnipotent means able to do all things by your own power or ability. Infallible means able not to err. I could add impeccable, which means unable to sin, but since a proud man is already entirely oblivious to his ability to sin, I will omit that here.
It follows, then, that since Lucifer seduced the Angels of God by pride, and that those who fell with him and were cast out of Heaven by the Divine Power and Saint Michael and his Angels, that one of the marks of the diabolic community is their solidarity in pride. And that means solidarity in the misuse of their intellects in dissenting from the truth.
Dissent, which merely means disagreement, can be good or evil. But when it disagrees with objective reality or revealed truth or even a truth which we know is true on account of other truths, natural or revealed, then it is evil, a mortal sin. This is the dissent of which I speak in this article.
Our Lord points this out for our observation, when He calls Lucifer a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Because a liar attacks a truth because he disagrees with it. And a murders kills a living thing, because he disagrees that it should be allowed to live.
Solidarity in Dissent is, therefore, the Mark of the Beast
Solidarity in dissent, therefore, must be the chief mark of the Beast, that is, the chief distinguishing characteristic of all the members of the Church of the Anti-Christ, the Mystical Body of Satan.
Saint John the Apostle indicates this symbolically in his Apocalypse, when he says that in the days of the Antichrist no one will be able to buy or sell anything without having the mark of the beast inscribed upon their right hand. According to the Fathers of the Church this is a symbolic expression, chiefly, for the conspiracy of the wicked in acting on principle out of falsehood. The biblical number, often translated as 666 is actually in the Greek text written very similar to sss, three Snake like symbols which were used in Asia Minor, in the time of Saint John, as the symbol for the number 6, which in the bible indicates the fullness of imperfection. And since pride is the fullness of all vice, and vice is the moral habitual failing which leads to imperfection and wickedness, 666 is a pre-eminent symbol for pride and dissent.
Whether the number 666 means more than this, is another consideration. I am here giving a mystagogic reading of the text, that is, a reading which applies to the moral or spiritual life and how we should or should not be living our lives today.
But the “Bergoglio is certainly the Pope” people are doing just this. They are acting out of a spirit of solidarity in dissent from the 10 truths which I listed above. They ignore all arguments, refuse all reflections and reasons, even conversations, which would lead them to confront the fact of what they are doing. They have willfully blinded themselves to the truth and they show absolutely no worry whatsoever of what might or will befall them for denying and dissenting from truth. They do this because they do not want to separate themselves from the massa (damnata)* who define themselves as dissenters from these truths. They do not want to disagree with the Cardinals and Bishops who reject these truths or close their eyes to them. They are literally willing to risk their eternal salvation on the basis of this solidarity in dissent.
And it is true dissent, because they do not even attempt to give reasons for what they are doing. They only lash out with insults or vicious punishments, calumnies etc..
These catholics are profoundly confused. The unanimous or near unanimous opinion of men might be truth in the political order, but it is not the criterion of truth in matters of canon law. That many of these Catholics are very political people might indeed explain why they cannot understand that in the Church democracy or politics means nothing. Truth means everything.
Indeed, it is the teaching of Christ, Scripture, the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church, the Doctors of the Church, the Saints and the Magisterium throughout the ages, that to deny even one truth is a mortal sin meriting eternal damnation. But a godless politician will never accept or understand this.
This is why solidarity in dissent is the preeminent spiritual mark of the beast. If you have this mark, then you are a member of the Church of the Anti-Christ, no matter what religion you practice, what mass you attend, what Cardinal you follow, or what you otherwise might think of yourself, as holy or impious.
Solidarity in dissent can last a long time. It is what destroyed and is destroying the Protestant Churches, who agreed in the Reformation to deny certain Catholic truths, and in that tradition, from which they refuse to break, they ran into the necessity of denying other truths. — This follows the spiritual law of moral degradation, namely, that if you deny one moral truth with unbending firmness and fidelity, then you will be forced to sacrifice your adhesion to other moral truths, until you become utterly depraved and ultimately are driven insane. This is why among men, insanity is a hallmark of the diabolic. — And this is why Protestant Churches, or any group which practices solidarity in dissent, such as those who deny the 10 truths above, cannot be saved: they are doomed by that solidarity to fall into continually worse and more diverse errors and vices.
So I warn all: solidarity in dissent is a mark of the Beast and so long as you are marked with that mark, you belong to that Beast.
________
* “Massa damanata” is a Latin phrase used by Saint Augustine of Hippo to name the collectivity of all the damned souls. Massa in Latin means mass, damnata, means damned.
A troll is a mythical creature of Nordic folklore. J. R. R. Tolkien made them famous by including them in his books, The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.
But on Social Media, the term “troll” has another meaning: a commentator whose intent is to disrupt, attack, insult, create division, distract, divert, etc… Some people just have problems interacting with others, because they have a mind which has fallen into the intellectual vices of perpetual suspicion, anger, envy, jealousy, etc. etc.
But since the time Barrack Obama ran for the U.S. Presidency, trolls have become a phenomenon of paid political warfare and of state sponsored psyop. (A psyop is a person involved in psychological warfare and informational warfare.) They attack or infiltrate in such a way as to control the narrative and dupe the unsuspecting. They may appear to be enemies, but some pretend to be friends.
Pro Obama trolls were called Obots. I think you can call a pro Bergoglian troll a Bergbot. The suffix -bot is used because these individuals are so methodical in their attacks and so frequent in their comments across many platforms of social media, that they are either paid professionals working a full time job at doing this or are using computers running on high level Artificial Intelligence systems.
In this post, then, I want to talk about Bergbots and how to recognize them.
A typical Bergbot
Here is an example of one of the most clever Bergbots around. He is fluent in Polish, but lives somewhere in the USA. I think in Minnesota. I infer from what I know of him that he is a paid employee of either the US Democrat party or of the US State Department.
He pretends to be a trad on Gloria.TV, where one long time user reported to me that he successfully infiltrated the Polish forum and attacked every point of doctrine and historical fact which showed the Aggiornamento was run by Modernists and sodomites. He used numerous names and thus was hard to recognize. He changed them often. He did this for 5 years.
After posting some articles on Gloria.TV, the From Rome blog started to receiving comments from an individual who acts in the same way.
Recently I see him on other blogs which are linked to by the From Rome blog. And so I feel that it is my responsibility to warn everyone.
An example of how a Bergbot trolls a pro Benedict blog
Here is an example of his type of trolling.
I do not think that Benedict would ever leave the Vatican because when he resigned he recommended that the Cardinals elect his successor so that he could be free of the worry of running the Church.
Let’s enumerate all the lies he has woven into that one comment.
Pope Benedict
recommended
that the Cardinals
his successor
running the Church
The comment appears to refer to the Declaration, Non solum propter, of Feb. 11, 2013, However, in that declaration,
The man who is the Pope, inasmuch as he is the man Joseph Ratzinger, and not inasmuch as he is the Pope
declared
that those who are competent to do so
elect a new Supreme Pontiff.
because he was renouncing the ministry on account of his age
Unpacking the lies of the Bergbot
There are some important things this Bergbot has done in a single comment to contradict or alter those 5 truths.
First, he has tried to make it appear that the call for a conclave had papal backing. But the man Joseph Ratzinger has no authority to call anything. Neither does a pope have authority to call a conclave to elect another pope, since that only happens when a pope drops dead, or renounces the petrine munus.
Second, Ratzinger declared, he did not recommend. “Recommend” as a word seems innocent, but “recommend” unlike “declare” implies consent.
Third, though Ratzinger made his declaration in front of the Cardinals, he said nothing about Cardinals electing anyone. To say those who are competent to elect, could refer to the Roman Church in the absence of Cardinals or to the Cardinal Electors. But Ratzinger intentionally did not specify which. Which should be an obvious sign to everyone that he had something else in mind than what we might think.
Fourth, Ratzinger never said anything about electing his successor. He said a new supreme pontiff. “Supreme pontiff” is a term used before in reference to the Pope, but the correct canonical term for the office of the pope is Roman Pontiff. Because there can be supreme pontiffs of any organization or Church, not just the Church of Rome.
Fifth, “running the Church” implies governance. But the power of governance is attached to the office which Ratzinger never renounced, not to the ministry which he did renounce. “Running the Church” is not a concept found in the declaration of Feb. 11, 2013. But by adding it the Bergbot has implied a renunciation of office, not ministry.
Bergbot’s goals
It is important, then, to see how the Bergbot is attempting to alter the perception of reality by such a short comment.
He is trying to instill a false memory, by which you believe that the Pope validly resigned the Office of Pope and willed the election of Bergoglio by the Cardinals.
The reality is that Ratzinger renounced the petrine ministry, and added the phrase to convoke a conclave without specification of time, leaving the matter, as it were, in the air, and indeterminate.
The Cardinals if they were awake and faithful and knowledgeable about what Ratzinger said in his declaration, would have done nothing. Because it is not an act which is conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2, it is simply the statement of an old man who is tired and has not yet said in canonical proper form what he wants to do about it.
I hope this helps you to see how important it is to monitor the comments of your blog and how important it is not to let comments which appear to be doing the same things, to be published on your blogs, even if they appear to be friendly. Trolls play on bloggers and social media sites which want to receive the affirmation which comes from a commentator taking enough time to leave a comment. This is how they weaponize social media platforms to control the narrative.
In the above example, if you reply to the Bergbot, you can see that he has an easy way out: he can claim that he was poorly informed and was speaking inexactly. And then he can lash out at you for being a nit-picker and for being inhospitable to commentators, etc. etc. I am sure you can imagine more self-righteous ways he can hide what he was trying to do. Then he will change is name, IP address and email and come back to your blog and try a different trick.
The only solution with a Bergbot is to block them permanently. But first take note of their email address and I.P. and when next you run into a suspicious commentator, see if there is any similarities.
Finally, if the problem were only with Bergbots as individuals, that would be enough. But when Catholic journalists, News Outlets and Websites start taking money from George Soros or State sponsored Psyop Organizations, then they too start playing with the memory of reality in the same way. And if you won’t accept their arguments they will also lash out at you, 24/7. Perhaps you used to read such websites.
Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle …
Saint Jerome, patron of hermits, in his hermitage at Bethlehem
An Open Letter to the Scottish Hermits
“excommunicated” on Christmas Day
I have eaten lunch with one of the signers of your letter, if you remember, in the Piazza Navona, back in 2016. So I consider myself obligated in Christ to say something to you, as a fellow hermit.
Your recent letter denouncing Bergoglio was correct in everything but the most important point. You have presumed that Pope Benedict’s renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013 was in accord with canon 332 §2, when I informed you in my last email, before I lost your email when my old computer fried up, that you should read the information about ppbxvi.org.
I cannot find it easy to understand your position, which basically holds that what a single tweet by the ANSA reporter, Giovanna Chirri, said on that fateful day, is more certain than what Christ promised Saint Peter and what the Church taught infallibly at Vatican I on the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, or even than the certitude of God’s will in adhering to the LETTER of Canon Law, which no one has the right to interpret in any other sense than the letter.
You have instead preferred to break from the See of Rome on account of a man who was never the Roman Pontiff, is a usurper and is rightfully called an Antipope.
Ann Barnhardt does a line by line critique of your letter, and this mind boggling stubbornness of yours, to hold political correctness or human opinion above divine faith. I personally would never have written so strongly as she has, but having read what she has said, I must say I agree 100% because it is entirely rational, entirely based on the Divine Faith, and entirely in harmony with both Vatican I and the Code of Canon Law.
Because outside of the communion and submission to the Apostolic See there is no salvation.
I understand that you may hold fast to the rumor put out by Chirri and all the evil lies of the Revolutionaries who want that tweet to be true, but if you consider men friends who insist Bergoglio is the pope or that a heretic can be the pope, then you need to separate yourselves from their counsel, because it is evil counsel.
In fact, when you take as your truth, not the Gospel nor the laws of the Church, but the statements and assertions of journalists and political correctness, then what you are is not a Catholic, but a modernist, who believes truth changes with the times, and who refuses to apply unchanging principles to judge all things, even alleged papal renunciations.
Sincerely in Saint Francis, a fellow hermit:
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Rome, Italy
Feast of Saint John the Apostle
P.S. If any reader can send this letter to the HERMITS please do so. They know I have good will for them, from my past attempts to help them in other affairs.
POSTSCRIPT: Subsequently, the Hermits published statements on radio which so discord with the Catholic Faith, that I have to say that I honestly think they are professing heresy, because they seem to exalt the rights of conscience so much as they deny without shame the indefectibility of the Church and the papacy from which that grace comes, simply because they willfully and without cause refuse to accept the terms of Canon 332 §2 according to the norm of canon 17. They actually want Bergoglio to be a legitimate pope so they can justify separation. I get the impression that they want to be Greek Orthodox Schismatics, which is very fashionable in the United Kingdom, but at the same time pretend they are Catholics. Let us pray for their souls, because in their present state I cannot see how they can save their souls. The greatest danger of the eremitical life has always been pride, thinking that you are the source of grace apart from the institutional Church. This is a prime example, sadly.
Como San José, los obispos están llamados a defender la Iglesia con sus propias vidas.
Por el hno. Alexis Bugnolo
Vivimos en una era extraña cuando chismosos profesionales (conocidos como periodistas) son titiriteros de las masas porque el 95% de la gente permite que ellos dicten los límites de la realidad, historia, moralidad y religión. Y hasta que algún periodista destacado utilice la palabra “Herejía”, “Cismático”, o “Apóstata” en referencia a alguien que amerita el termino/s, entonces nadie con uso de razón acusaría a un compañero católico de tan horrible ofensa por juicio propio porque como como ellos dicen: “Todo mundo sabe que es cismático rechazar la comunión a un compañero católico de buen estado. ¡Y buen estado significa que aún no ha sido condenado oficialmente por la Iglesia!”
Esto es “gaslighting” (en inglés), por supuesto. Gas-lighting es un término con el cual todos deberían de familiarizarse. Es la táctica de aquellos practicados en la manipulación psicológica utilizada para ganar clientes, sujetos, inferiores, a negar la realidad que conocen y ven, y aceptar que la realidad es lo que el manipulador dice ser.
En cuanto fue elegido Bergoglio (como supuesto papa), comenzó el “gaslighting”. Estas viendo cosas, Él es el papa, no puedes hablar así del papa. Disentir es pecado mortal. Si no lo aceptas como papa estas fuera de la Iglesia.¡No eres católico!
Últimamente, a medida que las herejías y la malevolencia de Bergoglio explotan fuera de todas las proporciones que las de cualquier hereje anterior en la historia de la Iglesia, algunos católicos que anteriormente eran famosos por su ortodoxia doctrinal y moral experimentan ataques apopléticos en sus intentos de sofocar el reconocimiento de la realidad. “Reconocer y resistir” es su mantra. Están empeñados, literalmente, en permanecer en comunión con Bergoglio, luego, no se atrevan a llover sobre sus fantasías mostrándoles hechos de Ley Canónica (cánones números 1364, 1329, etc.) que demuestran que, por derecho divino, los herejes están fuera de la Iglesia, apenas profieren herejía.
Éstos apologetas de la revolución están tan empeñados en negar la realidad de la renuncia fallida del Papa Benedicto (cf ppbxvi.org para información completa). Se descomponen y arremeten. Muestran que su apego al “Papa Francisco” no es ni racional ni razonable, es visceral. Cuán visceral depende, supongo, de si observan los mandamientos sexto o noveno. Este completo colapso psicológico, intelectual y espiritual es el resultado de lo que yo llamo el acertijo de Iscariote. Uso “Iscariote” aquí en el sentido de la palabra aramea para un hombre del mismo pueblo que el falso apóstol, Judas Iscariote. Desde entonces como él, han vendido al verdadero Cristo por las 30 piezas de plata que es reconocimiento público por parte de los Cardenales como “católico fiel”.* Y como lo hicieron por razones puramente egoístas, sentimentales, no racionales y no legales o no dogmáticas, explotan de emoción cuanto más les señalas que han construido su casa sobre una premisa falsa. Entonces, arremeten cada vez más y pierden todos los rastros de aquel excelente personaje que alguna vez exhibieron, convirtiéndose en el proceso, irónicamente, la misma semejanza del diálogo que Bergoglio es, un Troll repugnante y que avienta adjetivos.
Un Estado de Emergencia
Nadie menos que él obispo Gänswein, el secretario personal del Papa Benedicto XVI y cabeza de la Casa Pontificia (que solo tiene un huésped CLAVE CLAVE) dijo que lo que Benedicto hizo en Febrero de 2013 fue a cuenta de un estado de emergencia.
Sus palabras y opiniones se debaten en cuanto a lo que significan, pero sería absurdo negar la realidad que es visible para todo el mundo, a saber, que LA SEDE APOSTÓLICA ESTÁ IMPEDIDA.
Decir que la Sede Apostólica está impedida, significa que el Papa no puede actuar como Papa por alguna razón, ya sea por coacción externa, o porque no hay Papa, o el Papa se niega a actuar por alguna convicción irracional o racional. Éste “ser impedido” provoca un estado de necesidad, porque la cabeza visible de la Iglesia visible, para todos los efectos prácticos, no está en función. El estado de necesidad es una necesidad del tipo que se requiere para el funcionamiento continuo de la Iglesia. Dado que el orden normal de gobierno está obstruido, la observancia de leyes meramente positivas en las que se basa, por necesidad, debe omitirse.
Nuestro Señor nos enseña este principio general a pequeña escala, cuando, en una ocasión, Él y Sus Apóstoles cruzaron un campo de trigo durante un tiempo en el que no habían comido nada, y algunos de ellos comieron los granos de trigo que estaban cerca. Al ser cosechados, algunos fariseos se quejaron de que estaban violando las Leyes del Sábado en contra de trabajar durante el sábado. Nuestro Señor señaló que la necesidad de su hambre les permitió no observar la ley sobre la cosecha. Él respondió con una forma semítica contundente, diciendo: “¡El sábado se hizo para el hombre, no el hombre para el sábado!”
La ley contra la cosecha fue instituida no menos que por Moisés, quien tenía mucha más autoridad en la Antigua Alianza (Moisés básicamente escribió todo, bajo la inspiración y dirección de Dios) que el Papa tiene en la Nueva Alianza (el Papa no puede cambiar el Biblia, ni siquiera el Padre Nuestro, aunque muchos clérigos están confundidos sobre este punto).
Además, está claro, según los principios de la lógica (ex minore),** que si Nuestro Señor dice que es lícito apelar a un estado de necesidad, suspender las leyes del Antiguo Pacto, porque los hombres tienen hambre un sábado por la tarde , entonces, obviamente, es lícito actuar en consecuencia CUANDO LA SALVACIÓN DE TODAS LAS ALMAS EN LA TIERRA HASTA EL FINAL DE LOS TIEMPOS se ponga en peligro grave e inminente. Negar esto sería pura locura.
Este principio de la suspensión del derecho positivo durante un estado de necesidad es sancionado por nada menos que el Papa Pío VI, en su Bula, Cum nos superiori anno, del 13 de noviembre de 1798, donde concede a los Cardenales el derecho a derogar Todos los aspectos no esenciales de las leyes papales sobre los cónclaves, a causa de la supresión de facto de la Iglesia de Roma por la República romana, dirigida por los revolucionarios franceses. ***
Extendiendo esta lección a los asuntos de la Iglesia, se deduce que, como buenos cristianos, estamos obligados por la fe divina a regresar al principio general que Jesús estableció, a saber, LA SALVACIÓN DE LAS ALMAS ES LA LEY MÁS ALTA. Para la Salvación de las Almas, el Padre Eterno sacrificó a Su propio Hijo, y Su propio Hijo aceptó Su muerte ignominiosa en una Cruz. PARA LA SALVACIÓN DE LAS ALMAS.
Si hay alguien, por lo tanto, en la Iglesia, que sostiene que debemos esperar a que el Papa (Benedicto) haga algo, o algún papa futuro que haga algo, ESTÁN FUERA DE SUS MENTES y más correctamente, SON FARISEOS que elevan las leyes positivas establecidas por la Iglesia (que indican lo que no se puede hacer sin el permiso de los superiores) al nivel de reglas que requerirían que la Iglesia se suicidara esperando algún tipo de intervención divina sin colaboración humana. Una intervención divina sin colaboración humana, en el presente caso de la Sede impedida, NUNCA SE HA PROMETIDO explícitamente. (Entiendo que hay algunas grandes promesas de Nuestro Señor y Nuestra Señora, pero ninguna de ellas se refiere explícitamente a una promesa de resolver este problema).
Derecho Apostólico (ius apostolicum)
El concepto de Derecho Divino (ius divinum) es un concepto de la escolástica tardía clásica, muy popular en la época del Concilio de Trento y posteriormente. Se refiere a cosas que han sido decretadas por Dios. El oficio de Pedro existe por derecho divino, por ejemplo.
El derecho apostólico (ius apostolicum) no está tan reconocido. Se refiere a las decisiones de los Apóstoles para el gobierno de la Iglesia. Es de derecho apostólico que la iglesia en una ciudad pueda ser gobernada por varios sacerdotes, por ejemplo.
Tanto el derecho divino como el derecho apostólico son superiores a la ley canónica. Por otro lado, lo que la mayoría de los católicos no saben es que, durante más de 1000 años, a excepción de los cánones decretados en los Concilios, la Iglesia no tuvo derecho canónico. El derecho canónico no es de institución divina o apostólica, aunque el Primer Concilio de Jerusalén c. El año 45 d. C. transmitió decisiones y es el ejemplo de todos los Concilios y Sínodos en la Iglesia.
El derecho apostólico también incluye algunas cosas que no se observan en el curso normal de los asuntos, porque desde la época de los Apóstoles, la Jerarquía Sagrada, para el buen orden de la Iglesia en circunstancias normales se han establecido cánones o leyes establecidas para conducir los asuntos de La Iglesia de otra manera.
Tomemos, por ejemplo, la elección de los obispos. Los apóstoles nombraron obispos antes de morir. Pero cuando pasaron a la gloria eterna, lo dejaron a cada diócesis por derecho apostólico para elegir su propio obispo. Y por “a cada diócesis”, me refiero a los católicos de cada diócesis, laicos, religiosos y clérigos. Así es como la Iglesia sobrevivió a 10 persecuciones romanas. Nadie estaba escribiendo a Roma para pedir una cita, cuando murió su obispo.
Además, es de derecho apostólico que cada obispo sirva como ordinario de su diócesis hasta la muerte. No había retiro (jubilación). Esa es una novedad creada por Pablo VI para eliminar a católicos del Colegio de Obispos y reemplazarlos por revolucionarios sodomitas. El derecho canónico reconoce implícitamente que este concepto de jubilación obligatoria es contrario al Derecho Apostólico, ya que no requiere que los Obispos renuncien, solo dice que deben presentar una carta de renuncia al cumplir los 75 años.
También es de derecho apostólico que los obispos puedan reunirse en sínodos y concilios. Hasta donde yo sé, no hay evidencia de que cada sínodo en la Historia de la Iglesia, que se considere un verdadero acto jerárquico, haya sido aprobado por el Papa. Las leyes positivas actuales requieren que el Papa consienta, pero el derecho apostólico no requiere eso. El derecho apostólico es más racional, porque cuando no hay papa o cuando el papa está preso, ¿cómo pueden obtener los permisos los obispos?
Pero la razón general para la reactivación del derecho apostólico tiene que ver con el principio inherente de subsidiariedad en una sociedad perfecta. Este principio fue reconocido por el papa León XIII. Sostiene que cuando la autoridad superior en una sociedad perfecta falla, entonces la autoridad inferior tiene el derecho de asumir el deber de la autoridad superior y actuar en la medida en que sea necesario actuar para preservar o defender esa sociedad. Dado que el Colegio de Obispos en su conjunto sucede a los Apóstoles, cuando la Sede de Pedro se ve obstaculizada, cada Obispo tiene el derecho moral y apostólico de ejercer en cierto sentido la autoridad de los Apóstoles para volver a poner a la Iglesia en buen estado de funcionamiento. Esta es una responsabilidad asombrosa reservada a casos extremos de necesidad, como está sucediendo hoy, con un gobierno hereje público del Vaticano y un Papa (Benedicto) que piensa que ya no es su deber gobernar la Iglesia o reivindicar sus propios derechos como Vicario de Cristo
En un estado de emergencia, el derecho apostólico y divino revive en puntos que ahora, en el curso regular de los asuntos de la Iglesia, regulados por la ley canónica, presuponen una Sede Apostólica que no está impedida. Estas leyes positivas de la Iglesia, que, si se observan, conducirían a la destrucción de la Iglesia o la pérdida de almas están suspendidas en vigor. Es decir, ya no es un delito canónico o una falta moral NO observarlos con la debida razón.
Si hay obispos o cardenales católicos en la tierra, deben reconocer esto antes de que sea demasiado tarde, o la desafortunada advertencia de Nuestra Señora de Akita sucederá, que los fieles se vean privados de los sacramentos de la Penitencia y la Eucaristía y Órdenes, porque ningún obispo tuvo la sensatez de ver que tenía el derecho apostólico o divino de actuar para preservar la Sagrada Jerarquía durante un papado impedido.
Esto se debe a que, con los Apóstoles ya no en la Tierra, y la Sede de Pedro en silencio, todos y cada uno de los miembros del Colegio de Obispos que permanecen católicos pueden asumir lícitamente los deberes de los Apóstoles para la propagación y preservación de la Fe.
Algunas de las cosas que cualquier obispo, con o sin jurisdicción, puede hacer, por derecho divino o apostólico, durante un papado impedido son las siguientes:
Llamar y convocar un Sínodo o Concilio para condenar las causas de la Sede impedida, o condenar a quienes la están perpetrando. (El Papa Julio II sanciona esto en principio) ****
Llamar y convocar un Sínodo o Concilio para deponer a los demandantes al papado que no tengan títulos canónicos válidos. (Esto se hizo en Sutri en 1046 y fue sancionado por San Pedro Damián, el Papa San Gregorio VII y el Bl. Papa Víctor III)
Reprobar a un papa por renunciar parcialmente y descuidar sus deberes apostólicos del ministerio. (Esto podría decirse que no es tan extremo como los nn. 1 o 2, por lo tanto, también se aprueba ex maiore)
Condenar a los herejes por su nombre, condenar las herejías. (Todos los obispos tienen este deber y derecho por derecho divino y apostólico)
Llamar y convocar un Sínodo o Concilio para condenar las herejías y perversidades que se están propagando por los Enemigos de la Iglesia, ya sea dentro o fuera de la Iglesia.
Ordenar obispos católicos para las diócesis que hayan sido asumidas por un obispo hereje donde el obispo católico haya declarado herejía o apostasía. (San Atanasio de Alejandría hizo esto en muchas ocasiones durante la crisis arriana)
Ordenar sacerdotes y diáconos católicos para los fieles de cada diócesis que se ven privados de los sacramentos debido al clero herético o cismático en su área. (San Atanasio de Alejandría hizo esto en muchas ocasiones durante la crisis arriana)
De hecho, durante los primeros 1500 años de la Iglesia, vemos a obispos regularmente haciendo muchas, si no todas, estas cosas. Tenían el beneficio de no estar plagados de conciencia por la ley positiva de la Iglesia, pero el sistema funcionó. Ahora que la Sede Apostólica, más aún el Vaticano, está completamente impedida y tomada por los herejes, ¡los obispos deben actuar!
Este no es el caso imaginario de los sedevacantistas a los que no les gusta un Papa ni el caso más sólido de los tradicionalistas que no quieren abandonar las tradiciones litúrgicas de su Rito: este es el caso de un ataque frontal directo a la Nueva Alianza: el Depósito de la Fe, las Escrituras y la Tradición, a través de la negación abierta de dogmas y doctrinas y disciplinas clave que provienen de Jesucristo y sus apóstoles.
Oraciones y Peticiones
Por favor oren por los obispos de la Iglesia, porque si no actúan, toda la riqueza, el poder y el prestigio de la Iglesia serán robados por una secta de sodomitas marxistas y cientos de millones de almas perecerán sin la doctrina y los sacramentos debidos.
Por favor, hable también con su obispo, si parece ser algo católico. Esto es crucial Conozco a católicos que tienen contactos y que están haciendo esto ahora. Pero aún queda mucho por hacer.
Los laicos católicos, debido a la inacción de los obispos, se ven obligados a aceptar sacramentos de los herejes y cismáticos y sodomitas perversos. Tienen el derecho divino de ser atendidos pastoralmente por el clero católico que está en comunión con el verdadero Papa. Y este derecho está siendo TRASGRESIDO DE MANERA DEMONÍACA Y UNIVERSALMENTE en todas las diócesis del mundo católico en la crisis actual.
Tenemos el derecho divino y apostólico de actuar con insistencia y con plena aprobación de la enseñanza y el ejemplo de Cristo.
* Utilizo citas aquí, para señalar lo absurdo que es este enfoque, sin ninguna evaluación razonable de los acontecimientos históricos, porque los Cardenales aceptaron una renuncia inválida y luego eligieron inválidamente a un psicópata arco-hereje, por lo que no es exagerado dudar de que los Cardenales están dispuestos o son capaces de reconocer lo que es un fiel católico
** Ex minore es un término técnico de lógica medieval que se refiere a declaraciones (argumentos) que se basan en apelar a algo que es verdadero en un caso menor, y argumenta a partir de eso, que debe ser cierto en un caso mayor. Nuestro Señor hace esto todo el tiempo, por ejemplo, en Sus parábolas del Rey preparándose para la guerra, el arquitecto preparándose para construir una torre, etc., como ejemplos de cómo si la prudencia es necesaria en las cosas terrenales, es aún más necesaria en cuestiones de salvación eterna.
*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Roma, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.
****Este Derecho Apostólico se incorporó en la Si summus rerum Opifex del Papa Julio II, en el Quinto Concilio de Letrán del 16 de febrero de 1513, que disponía que, si se violaba esta ley sobre los cónclaves papales con respecto a una elección simoniaca, los Cardenales que no participaban en la simonía podrían recurrir a un Sínodo o Consejo para destronar al antipapa elegido de forma no canónica. Bagliani y Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. Esta ley papal se publicó anteriormente como La Bula, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, 14 de enero de 1505 (ibid., P. 39). Este principio, reconocido por el Papa Julio II y el Quinto Concilio de Letrán, es el que autoriza el llamado de los Sínodos “imperfectos” en tiempos de necesidad, como el nuestro.
The Christmas Creche at the Vatican, December 2019, awaiting the Birth of the Child Jesus.
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
In this Article I will collect all the pertinent evidence. As I am trained in Cultural Anthropology, I will proceed by a forensic method.
Universal Christian Tradition
… holds that Christ Jesus, the Eternal Son of God, was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary in a grotto of Bethlehem, in the early hours of December 25, in the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, while Saturinus was governor of the Roman Province of Syria (which held jurisdiction over Iudaea), and Herod the Great, King, at Jerusalem.
The forensic requirement to disprove the universal tradition, therefore, must be of the highest level. Namely, those who claim that Christ was NOT born on December 25th have to prove their claim. The presumption of right is with tradition.
For this reason, I am not going to presume the tradition is false or wrong. I aim to cite the evidence which is known that corroborates it. I am not a Cartesian who thinks that an a priori doubt makes an investigation scientific, because it actually obstructs an impartial consideration of the evidence, wherein there should neither be doubt nor prejudice to either side of the outcome. Nevertheless, I am an anthropologist, so I know that the universal Christian testimony of the ages is EVIDENCE which cannot be discounted.
In such an investigation, we look for evidence which requires that the birth of Jesus be no later than an no earlier than. These two limits or time points, are called the non postquam and the non antequam, or the point not after which, and the point not before which, respectively.
The Life of King Herod sheds light on the Non Postquam
The narrative in the Gospel of Saint Matthew cites some important historical facts. Let’s begin with the visit of the Magi to the court of Herod. The presupposition of this testimony of Saint Matthew is that Herod was holding court at Jerusalem.
Herod, at the end of his life had very poor health and knew his end was near. At the same time he grew arrogant and insisted on imposing his religious views upon the Jews of Jerusalem. Herod was half jew and mixed-in pagan practices. He went so far as to set up an image of the imperial Roman Eagle above the gate of the Temple, at the entrance to the Court of the Gentiles. This was outside the Temple precinct, but it outraged the zealots. Their rabbis convinced their young men to tear it down. This caused a riot and Herod had the rabbis and the young men who participated in stealing the image sent to Jericho to be executed. They were executed, by being burnt alive, on the night of a Full Moon. We know of these events from Josephus Flavius’ history of the era, entitled the Antiquities, Book XVII, chapter VI, n. 5.
We can deduce several things from Josephus’ account: Herod was still in Jerusalem when the zealots were executed. He was capable of great brutality just as Saint Matthew says. And that the execution took place on January 10, 1 B.C.. (Note that after 1 BC comes 1 AD, there is no year 0), because that is the only Full Moon visible at Jerusalem in this period.
According to historians, Herod left for Jericho, to partake of its curative waters some time no later than the mid of February of the same year. This means that the Magi had to have found Herod at Jerusalem no later than Mid February, 1 B.C. This is the non postquam, since the Magi could not have visited both the Child Jesus and Herod after mid February, 1 B.C..
Tradition holds that the Magi visited Christ on the Epiphany, which is on January 6th.
This non postquam is confirmed by the Roman Historian, Macrobius, in his Saturnalia, Book II, n. 11, where he says that Herod ordered the slaughter of newborns under 2 years of age, at the time of the death of his own son, Antipater. Antipater died 5 days before Herod, who himself perished on April 8, 1 B.C.. So the slaughter of innocents had to have been ordered after April 2nd and executed before Herod’s death. The loss of his heir, Antipater, would have given Herod strong reasons to seek the slaughter of any rival King of the line of the House of David, thus confirming Saint Matthew’s account.
The non postquam enables us to make a first guess at a non antequam when we add the requirements of the Gospel of Luke who says that after 40 days, Our Lady presented the Child Jesus in the Temple, and then the Holy Family returned to Nazareth. Therefore, the Magi had to visit before the 40th day after the birth of Jesus. This means, that the birth of Jesus had to have been before January 6th, 1 B.C..
The Baptism of Jesus sheds light on the Non Antequam
According to the Gospel of Luke 3:23, we know that Jesus was about 30 years old when He began His public ministry, and that this ministry began with His Baptism by John. John himself began preaching a baptism of repentance in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, according to Saint Luke 3:1. Roman Emperors counted their regnal years from January 1 to December 31, even if they assumed power before January 1. This means that the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar began on January 1, 29 A. D.. This corresponds to the Prophet Daniel 9:25 who said that in 483 years after the issuing of the Decree to Rebuild Jerusalem (issued in 454 B.C.), the Messiah would be revealed.
Hence, counting back 30 years, Jesus was born sometime in the Fall to Winter of 2 B.C.. This means that Christ could not have been born before Sept 21th, 2 B.C..
The prophet Daniel also foretold that the Messiah would be “cut off” after a 3.5 year public ministry (Danial 9:27). This is confirmed by Saint John in His Gospel who records 4 Passovers celebrated by Our Lord (John 2:13, 5:1, 6:4, and 11:55). This means that Christ’s Baptism occurred sometime after Nov. 8, 29 B. C., and that therefore, His birth has to be after Nov. 8th, 2 B.C..
It was Jewish custom of the time that Rabbi’s did not begin their public ministry until they were 30 years of age. We also know from the Gospel of Saint Luke, that Our Lord fasted for 40 days in the desert before He began His public ministry. Therefore, since Jewish fasts were preparatory, the fast would have had to ended before His 30th birthday. Hence, the non antequem must be no earlier than December 18th, which is the 40th day from Nov. 8th.
The Temple Service of Zechariah sheds light on the non antequam
We know from the testimony of Saint Luke that the Archangel Gabriel appears to Zechariah while his turn was up for service in the Temple. From the study of Temple practices and the order of the Levites who served there, we know that Zechariah had to have been in the Temple from September 5 to September 11th of the year he served. That means, with travel and other normal delays, that John the Baptist could have been conceived no earlier than the 15th of September, and probably later, since Elizabeth would only be capable of conceiving naturally one out of every four weeks. We also know that Saint John was 6 months older than Our Lord, according to the same testimony of Saint Luke, when he refers to the time the same Archangel was sent to Our Lady. This means that Our Lord was conceived not earlier than March 15th, and thus born no earlier than Dec. 15th. This corroborates the calculation derived from Christ’s Fast and Baptism.
Epiphanius’ testimony on Epiphany sheds light on the non postquam
The ecclesiastical writer of the 3rd century after Christ, Epiphanius says that the Feast of Epiphany was established to commemorate the date of the Wedding Feast of Cana, as the beginning of Christ’s public ministry. If we combine this with the 7 days of Saint John’s Gospel, reckoning that these days were after Christ’s birthday, not before it, then we have a non postquam date of Dec. 31st.. This interpretation is more sound, because it can be expected that after 40 days of Fasting, Our Lord would have returned to Nazareth to meet with His Mother, and from Her learn of the Wedding Feast. It also makes sense, in that Our Lady was giving Him the push to reveal Himself, that He would not have done so before his 30 day birthday, lest He violate established custom.
Conclusion
From the historical record, the Gospel Narratives themselves require that we accept that the Birth of Jesus as occurring after Dec. 18th and before Dec. 31st..
Now, the mid-point between the non antequam and the non post quam, in such studies of this kind is the one with the highest mathematical probability of being the correct date. So what is the mid point of December 18th and December 31st ?…… Calculate it for yourself…
FULL OF THE GRACES AND MERCIES WHICH
THE ETERNAL SON BROUGHT DOWN FROM HEAVEN
AT THE “FIAT MIHI” OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY!
+ + +
POSTSCRIPT
If you have noticed, the evidences point to Christ being born in 2 B.C.. You might ask, “Was not Christ born in the year 0 or 1 A.D.?” — Answer: No, because there is no year 0, the year which follows 1 B. C. is 1 A.D.. — But 1 A.D. begins 1 year and 1 week after the birth of Christ. Why is that? — Answer: Because the regnal year of Emperors begins on January 1st, and only once Christ attains the age of 1, can the regnal year be 1. So the First Year of the Christian era is the first full calendar year in which the Child Jesus is 1 year old. Another way to look at it, is this: the year Zero in which many Christians think Christ would have to be born is really the year 1 B.C., because until the day Christ was born, it was Before Christ’s birth. So, in 2020 A.D., we will celebrate the 2020th year of age, according to His Blessed Humanity, of the Incarnate Word of God.
Saint Athanasius, the first Bishop non-martyr venerated as a Saint, during the Arian Crisis, when neigh but 5 Bishops remained Catholic, employed Apostolic Right to defend the Church against Apostasy.
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
We live in a very bizarre age, when professional gossipers (aka journalists) are the puppet masters of the masses, because 95% of everyone allows them to dictate the boundaries of reality, history, morality and religion. And until some noted journalist uses the word, “Heresy”, “Schismatic” or “Apostate” in reference to someone who merits the term(s), then no rational person would ever accuse a fellow Catholic of such a horrible offense on his own judgement, because as they say, “everyone knows that it is schismatic to refuse communion with a fellow Catholic in good standing. And good standing means, he has not yet been officially condemned by the Church!”
This is gaslighting, of course. Gas-lighting is a term which everyone should familiarize themselves with. It is the tactic of those practiced in psychological manipulation used to get clients, subjects, inferiors to deny the reality they see and know and accept that the reality is what the manipulator claims it to be.
As soon as Bergoglio was “elected” the gaslighting began. You are seeing things, He is the pope, you cannot talk that way about the pope. Dissent is a mortal sin. If you do not accept him you are outside the Church. You are not Catholic!
Lately, as the heresies and malevolence of Bergoglio explode out of all proportions to any previous heretic in the history of the Church, some Catholics who were formerly famous for their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy are going into apoplectic fits in their attempts to stifle recognition of the reality. ‘Recognize and Resist’, is their mantra. They are hell bent, literally, on remaining in communion with Bergoglio and don’t you dare rain on their fantasies by showing them facts of Canon Law (canon 1364, 1329 etc.) which show that by Divine right, heretics are outside of the Church as soon as they profess heresy.
These apologists of the revolution are just as hell bent on denying the reality of the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict (cf. ppbxvi.org for complete information). They become discombobulated and lash out. They show that their attachment to “Pope Francis” is neither rational or reasonable, it is visceral. How visceral depends, I suppose, on whether they observe the 6th or 9th Commandments.
This complete psychological and intellectual and spiritual breakdown is a result of what I call the Iscariot Conundrum. I use “Iscariot” here in the sense of the Aramaic word for a man from the same town as the false Apostle, Judas Iscariot. Since like him, they have sold the true Christ for the 30 pieces of silver of public recognition by the Cardinals as a “faithful Catholic”* and since they did it for purely selfish, sentimental, non-rational and non-legal or non-dogmatic reasons, they explode with emotion the more you point out to them that they have built their house upon a false premise. So they lash out more and more and lose all traces of the fine Character they once exhibited, becoming in the process, ironically, the very likeness of dialogue which Bergoglio is, a nasty, name-calling Troll.
A State of Emergency
No less that Archbishop Gänswein, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and the Head of the Pontifical Household (which has only one guest, HINT HINT) said that what Benedict did in February 2013 was on account of a state of emergency.
His words and opinions are debated as to what they mean, but it would be ludicrous to deny the reality which is visible to all the world, namely, that THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS IMPEDED.
To say the Apostolic See is impeded, means that the Pope cannot act as Pope for some reason, either external coercion, or there is no pope, or the pope refuses to act out of some irrational or rational conviction. This ‘being impeded’ causes a state of necessity, because the visible head of the visible Church is for all practical purposes non-functioning. The state of necessity is necessity of the kind which is required for continued functioning of the Church. Since the normal order of governance is obstructed, the observance of merely positive laws upon which it are based, by necessity, must be omitted.
Our Lord teaches us this general principle on the small scale, when, on one occasion He and His Apostles crossed a wheat-field during a time in which they had had nothing to eat (Mark 2:23), and some of them ate the grains of wheat which were near to being harvested, some Pharasees complained they were violating the Sabbath Laws against doing work on the Sabbath. Our Lord pointed out that the necessity of their hunger allowed them to not observe the law on harvesting. He replied with a forceful Semitic way of speaking, saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!” (Mark 2:27)
The law against harvesting was instituted no less than by Moses (Exodus 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:12,14), who had a lot more authority in the Old Covenant (Moses basically wrote the entire thing, under God’s inspiration and direction) than the Pope has in the New Covenant (the pope cannot change the Bible, not even the Our Father — though a lot of clergy are confused on this point).
Also, it is clear, by the principles of logic (ex minore),** that if Our Lord says it is licit to appeal to a state of necessity, to suspend laws of the Old Covenant given by Moses, because men are hungry on a Saturday afternoon, then obviously it is licit to suspend laws of the Pope, in the New Covenant, WHEN THE SALVATION OF ALL SOULS ON EARTH UNTIL THE END OF TIME is put in grave and imminent danger. To deny this would be sheer insanity. This is poignantly true, when one faction in the Church wants to suspend the New Covenant and found a new religion, and the other faction must chose between observing certain man made laws and allowing the Covenant to be transgressed, or not observing them so as to prevent the transgression of the Covenant.
This principle of the abeyance of positive law in a state of necessity is sanctioned by no less than Pope Pius VI, in his Bull, Cum nos superiori anno, of Nov. 13, 1798, where he grants to the Cardinals the right to derogate from all non essential aspects of the papal laws on Conclaves, on account of the de facto suppression of the Church of Rome by the Roman Republic, led by French Revolutionaries.***
Extending this lesson to the affairs of the Church, it follows then, as good Christians, we ARE OBLIGED by divine faith to return to the general principle which Jesus laid down, namely, THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. For the Salvation of Souls the Eternal Father sacrificed His own Son, and His own Son accepted His ignominious death on a Cross. FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.
If there is anyone, therefore, in the Church, that holds that we must wait for the Pope (Benedict) to do something, or some future pope to do something, THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS and more correctly, THEY ARE PHARASEES who are raising up the positive laws established by the Church (which indicate what cannot be done without permission of superiors) to the level of rules which would require the Church to commit suicide waiting for some sort of divine intervention without human collaboration. A divine intervention without human collaboration, in the present case of the impeded See, HAS NEVER BEEN explicitly PROMISED. (I understand that there are some great promises from Our Lord and our Lady, but none of them refer explicitly to a promise to solve this problem.)
Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum)
The concept of Divine Right (ius divinum) is a concept of classical late scholasticism, very popular in the time of the Council of Trent and thereafter. It refers to things which have been decreed by God. The office of Peter exists by divine right, for example.
Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum) is not as well recognized. It refers to the decisions of the Apostles for the governance of the Church. It is of Apostolic right that the church in one city can be governed by several priests, for example.
Both Divine Right and Apostolic Right are superior to Canon Law. As an aside, what most Catholics do not know, is that for more than 1000 years, except for canons decreed in Councils, the Church had no canon law. Canon Law is not of Divine or Apostolic institution, though the First Council of Jerusalem c. 45 A.D. did hand down decisions and is the exemplar for all Councils and Synods in the Church.
Apostolic right also includes some things which are not observed in the normal course of affairs, because since the time of the Apostles the Sacred Hierarchy, for the good ordering of the Church in normal circumstances has laid down canons or established laws to conduct the affairs of the Church differently.
Take for example the election of Bishops. The Apostles appointed Bishops before they died. But when they had passed to eternal Glory, they left it to each diocese by Apostolic Right to chose their own bishop. And by “to each diocese”, I mean to the Catholics of each diocese, laity, religious and clergy. This is how the Church survived 10 Roman persecutions. No one was writing Rome to ask for an appointment, when their Bishop died.
Also, it is of Apostolic Right that every Bishop serves as ordinary of his diocese until death. There was no retirement. That is a novelty created by Paul VI to eliminate Catholics from the College of Bishops and replace them with sodomite revolutionaries. Canon Law implicitly recognizes that this concept of mandatory retirement is contrary to Apostolic Right, in that it does not require Bishops to resign, it says only that they should submit a letter of resignation upon reaching the age of 75.
It is also of Apostolic Right that the Bishops can convene in Synods and Councils. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that every Synod in Church History, which is regarded as a true hierarchical act, was approved of by the Pope. The current positive laws require that the Pope consent, but Apostolic Right does not require that. Apostolic Right is more rational, because when there is no pope or when the pope is a prisoner, how can the Bishops get permission?
But the general reason for the revival of Apostolic Right has to do with the inherent principle of subsidiarity in a perfect society. This principle was recognized by Pope Leo XIII. It holds that when the higher authority in a perfect society fails, then the lower authority has the right to take up the duty of the higher authority and act inasmuch it is necessary to act to preserve or defend that society. Since the College of Bishops as a whole succeeds the Apostles, when the See of Peter is impeded, each and every Bishop has the moral and Apostolic Right to exercise in a certain sense the authority of the Apostles to put the Church back in proper working order. This is an awesome responsibility reserved to extreme cases of necessity, such as is happening today, with both a public heretic ruling the Vatican and a Pope (Benedict) who thinks it is no longer his duty to govern the Church or vindicate his own rights as Christ’s Vicar.
In a State of Emergency, Apostolic and Divine Right revive on points which are now, in the regular course of Church affairs, regulated by canon law, presupposing an Apostolic See which is not impeded. These positive laws of the Church, which if observed, would lead to the destruction of the Church or the loss of souls are suspended in force. That is, it is no longer a canonical crime or moral fault NOT to observe them with due reason.
If there are any Catholic Bishops or Cardinals on earth, then they need to recognize this before it is too late, or the woeful warning of Our Lady of Akita will come to pass, that the faithful become deprived of the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and Orders, because no Bishop had the sense to see that he had the Apostolic or Divine right to act to preserve the Sacred Hierarchy during an impeded Papacy.
This is because, with the Apostles no longer on Earth, and the See of Peter silent, each and every member of College of Bishops who remains Catholic can licitly assume the duties of the Apostles for the propagation and preservation of the Faith.
Some of the things any Bishop, with or without jurisdiction, can do, by Divine or Apostolic right, during an impeded Papacy are as follows:
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the causes of the impeded See, and or condemn those who are perpetrating it. (Pope Julius II sanctions this in principle)****
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council, to depose claimants to the papacy who do not hold valid canonical titles. (This was done at Sutri in 1046 and sanctioned by St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Gregory VII and Bl. Pope Victor III)
Reprove a pope for resigning partially and neglecting his Apostolic Duties of Ministry. (This arguably is not as extreme as nn. 1 or 2, an thus ex maiore is also approved)
Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the heresies and perversities being spread by the Enemies of the Church, whether inside or outside the Church.
Ordain Catholic Bishops for Dioceses which have been taken over by a heretical bishop or where the Catholic Bishop has declared for heresy or apostasy. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
Ordain Catholic priests and deacons for the faithful of each Diocese who are deprived of the Sacraments due to heretical or schismatic clergy in their area. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
In fact, during the first 1500 years of the Church, we see Bishops regularly doing many if not all of these things. They had the benefit of not being plagued in conscience by positive Church law, but the system worked. Now that the Apostolic See, nay the Vatican, is completely impeded and taken over by heretics, the Bishops must act!
This is not the imaginary case of Sedevacantists who don’t like a pope nor the sounder case of Traditionalists don’t want to abandon liturgical traditions of their Rite: this is the case of a direct frontal attack on the the New Covenant: the Deposit of the Faith, Scripture and Tradition, through open denials of key dogmas and doctrines and disciplines which come from Jesus Christ and His Apostles.
Prayer and Petitions
Please pray for the Bishops of the Church, for if they do not act, the entire wealth, power, prestige of the Church will be robbed by a sect of marxist sodomites and 100s of millions of souls will perish without right doctrine and sacraments.
Please also talk to your Bishop, if he appears to be somewhat Catholic. This is crucial. I know Catholics who have contacts and who are doing this right now. But more needs to be done.
The Catholic laity, on account of the inaction of the Bishops, are being forced to accept Sacraments from heretics and schismatics and perverse sodomites. They have the Divine right to be cared for pastorally by Catholic clergy who are in communion with the true Pope. And this right is being DEMONICALLY AND UNIVERSALLY TRANSGRESSED in all dioceses throughout the Catholic world in the present Crisis.
We have the Divine and Apostolic right to act with insistence and with full approval of Christ’s teaching and example.
* I use quotes here, to point out how nonsensical this approach is, devoid of any reasonable assessment of historical events, because the Cardinals accepted an invalid resignation and then invalidly elected an Arch-Heretic Psychopath, so it is no exaggeration to doubt that the Cardinals are willing or able to recognize what a Faithful Catholic is!
** Ex minore is a technical term of medieval logic which refers to illations (arguments) which are based on appealing to something which is true in a lesser case, and argues from that, that it must be true in a greater case. Our Lord is doing this all the time, as for example in His parables of the King preparing for war, the architect preparing to build a tower etc., as examples of how if prudence is necessary in earthly things, it is all the more necessary in questions of eternal salvation.
*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Rome, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.
**** This Apostolic Right was incorporated into Pope Julius II’s, Si summus rerum Opifex of Feb. 16, 1513, Fifth Lateran Council, which provided that if this law on Papal Conclaves were violated as regards a simoniacal election, the Cardinals not involved in the simony could have recourse to a Synod or Council to dethrone the uncanonically elected antipope. Bagliani & Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. This papal law was published previously as the Bull, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, January 14, 1505 (ibid., p. 39). This principle, acknowledged by Pope Julius II and the Fifth Lateran Council, is that which authorizes the calling of “imperfect” Synods in the time of necessity, such as ours.
THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, THAT IT WILL APPEAR BEFORE ALL NEW POSTS
(Scroll down below this Call to Prayer, to see new posts)
There are a lot of prayer initiatives around, which are merely human in origin. But when we pray, we should do so out of supernatural motivation and especially when requested by Heaven.
One of the most important prayer initiatives in Catholic History, is the Request that we pray much for the Holy Father. This request comes from no less than the saintly Children at Fatima, who urged us not only to pray very much for sinners, but that we should pray very much for the Holy Father.
This prayer request for the Holy Father comes from Sr. Lucia and from Jacinta, who being shown the grave difficulties in the Church spoke of the need to pray for the Holy Father for 2 reasons: That he might perform the Consecration to Russia requested by Our Lord; and that he might endure the persecution that he would one day suffer from those all around him.
Regarding the first reason, Sr. Lucia makes this statement in her Memoirs, p. 414:
“‘The Holy Father! Pray very much for the Holy Father! He will do it, but it will be late. Nevertheless, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will save Russia, which has been entrusted to it.'”
Jacinta’s Two visions
Regarding the second reason, Jacinta calls for prayers for the Holy Father, after seeing TWO of the events which are now taking place in the Church (Source): which Sr Lucia relates her third Memoir:
Also, in her third memoir, she tells us about two incidents in which Jacinta saw visions of a future Pope, and these also relate to the secret.
One day, while they were near the well at Lucia’s home, Jacinta asked her if she had seen the Holy Father. When Lucia replied, “No,” Jacinta said: “I don’t know how it was, but I saw the Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head buried in his hands, and he was weeping. Outside the house, there were many people. Some of them were throwing stones; others were cursing him and using bad language. Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.”
Sr Lucia then tells us: “At another time, we went to the cave called Lapa do Cabeço. As soon as we got there, we prostrated on the ground, saying the prayers the Angel had taught us. After some time, Jacinta stood up and called to me: ‘Can’t you see all those highways and roads and fields full of people, who are crying with hunger and have nothing to eat? And the Holy Father in a church praying before the Immaculate Heart of Mary? And so many people praying with him?’ Some days later, she asked me: ‘Can I say that I saw the Holy Father and all those people?’ ‘No. Don’t you see that that’s part of the secret? If you do, they’ll find out right away.’ ”
Let us respond!
Many authors believe that this FIRST vision of Jacinta is a prophetic revelation of what Pope Benedict is suffering since February 2013, because at no time in the history of the modern Papacy has a Pope resided in a small house, and been nearly universally derided by those in the Church. The image of a house being pelted with stones by those around it, also seems to imply that the worst enemies of the Holy Father are those in the Vatican which surrounds where he presently lives: in the Monastery of Our Lady Mother of the Church, at the heart of the Vatican Gardens.
The second vision of Jacinta appears to be Heaven’s indication of how to respond to the First vision: namely by JOINING WITH THE HOLY FATHER in prayer to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!
Let us be that “so many people” praying with the Holy Father “before the Immaculate Heart of Mary”!
Chose whatever prayers you wish, but PRAY, PRAY, PRAY!
THIS IS THE LEAGUE OF PRAYER for the Holy Father. Spread the word and recruit others to offer:
Daily prayers.
Worthy communions and confessions.
Acts of penance and sacrifices.
Fasting and abstinence.
Alms for the poor.
Recitation of THE MOST HOLY ROSARY.
Acts of Consecration to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, whether personal or in groups, parishes, Dioceses etc.
Knowing how to achieve victory is the greatest morale booster for troops preparing for battle. For that reason I wish to focus here on
the FORMULA for victory: M + A = V
Here is the explanation:
“M” Stands for …
Our Lady does nothing in vain. Being the Queen of Heaven and Earth and the Queen of the Elect, as She worships God Her Son, She sees in Him the entire future and each one of us. So She knows well in advance what needs to be done and how to prepare for it.
Now, I am going to make an educated guess what Our Lady’s grand strategy for defeating the Anti-Church is, inasmuch as it involves our collaboration.
I get this idea from watching a film on the Apparitions at Montechiari, in the province of Bergamo, by Our Lady under the title of the “Mystical Rose”. In one of those apparitions at Fontenelle, a natural spring outside of Montechiari, among the fields of wheat, Our Lady said it was Her desire that the wheat of these fields be gathered together to make hosts which would be used in Communions of Reparation at Fatima and at Rome.
What Our Lady was exactly referring to, I cannot say. I am not an expert in the apparitions of Our Lady Mystical rose.
However, when hearing of this desire of Our Lady, the thought struck me, that Our Lady may have had a long term plan in all Her apparitions on Earth, and that She was not only appearing to Her children, but preparing places of devotion to Her Son and to Herself which would be FORTRESSES of spiritual power and places of the formation and salvation of souls in the End Times.
As I wrote the other day, Franciscan Saints were convinced that the 12th Chapter of the Apocalypse had to do with Our Lady’s triumph over the Anti-Church at the end of Time. Great Marian Saints such as St. Louis Marie de Montfort were convinced of the same thing.
It follows logically, therefore, that if Our Lady was coming down from Heaven to promote devotion to God through Herself, that She might have also been preparing PLACES which would be the HUBS of Her power-network among Her children in the Final Days.
The thought struck me then, that perhaps we Catholics can best fight the Anti-Church by building an international alliance of Marian Shrines and Marian Faithful. I think the Enemy realizes the great danger of these places too, because I just saw reports that Bergoglio not only attacked the title of Our Lady, “Corredemptrix”, but that he is preparing to dismantle Fatima!
This international alliance of Marian Shrines is what I call the INTERNATIONAL MANTLE OF OUR LADY. This is what the “M” in the formula of victory stands for.
At each Shrine the faithful would found a Seminary for the formation of priests. It might have to start in secret, to avoid open persecution. But what better places to learn to be an Ambassador of Jesus Christ? These seminaries should be places that the faithful enrich with donations of sound Catholic Books, religious artwork, and all that is necessary to train and outfit future priests. Then as men are trained, when faithful Bishops visit, they can ordain these men and send them out to the local dioceses. These can also be the places they consecrate new Catholic Bishops to replace the apostates who have seized local dioceses.
The “A” stands for …
Now, the “A” stands for the prudence of Saint Athanasius. Saint Athanasius was the first Bishop venerated as as Saint who was not a martyr. That is because of all the Saints of his age, and in a way of all the Saint in the entire history of the Church, this man had his head on straight! He understood that Divine Law trumps all positive law, even the laws of the Church, which if observed in a time of crisis would lead to the destruction of the Church at the hands of Antichrists.
We know from the historical record that Saint Athanasius regularly did the following, without hesitation or scruple:
He left his own diocese to travel the world so as to encourage the faithful in other dioceses.
He ordained Bishops and Priests in other dioceses, where the churches had been taken over by Heretics.
He wrote letters to the Bishops of the world with authority urging them to hold fast to the faith.
He disregarded any calls for him to stop any of the above, even when they came from the Pope or Emperor.
He recognized that the State had no authority to suppress the true Catholic Faith, and was eminently discrete with civil authorities who were allies of heretics.
He went so far, as some historians say, that he was excommunicated by Pope Liberius. But he did not care one wit. He knew that in the just cause of opposing Apostasy, he was in the right.
He remembered that Christ Jesus railed constantly against the religious authorities of His own day who observed man made laws to such an extent that they destroyed souls or deprived them of saving truth.
Saint Athanasius, of all the Saints, was the one who understood Our Lord best of all in these matters. THE SALVATION OF SOULS is the highest rule.
At the same time, Saint Athanasius was an eminently pro-Catholic Church man, that is, he did not consecrate bishops or ordain priests to form a private club, but always for the dioceses so that they might keep the faith and provide the sacraments for ALL CATHOLICS who refused the heresy of Arian.
There is just no Saint in the history of the Church who was so darn virile and chaste at the same time. Every member of the clergy today should read his life and then lower his head in shame for his lack of zeal in defending the truth as Saint Athanasius did: NO MATTER WHAT THE PERSONAL COSTS, NO MATTER WHAT THE RISK OF REPUTATION, FAME, WEALTH, HOME, COMFORTS!
We can see a kind of courage like this in the many priests who were and are viciously persecuted for the Faith since the time of the Council and who had to take refuge in a private chapel and being an apostolate on the periphery of the Church. They got very little support. And if they did not say the Old Mass they probably even got even less support.
We need Bishops like this to restore the Sacred Hierarchy by ordaining men devoted to Jesus and Mary.
M + A = Victory
We need to pray that Bishops are infused with this prudence of Athanasius, and that the laity devoted to Our Lady are infused with the zeal to take what She had given and in gratitude now put it to work. In this way we can achieve victory, inasmuch as it is our duty to collaborate with Our Lady in the Victory which She has promised, but which will not exclude our collaboration.
We urgently need to make Marian Shrines the new seminaries of the clergy of the True Catholic Church and trained to fight the Anti-Church. We may have victory over the Anti-Church soon, but the world might be much more hostile for the rest of time. Having seminaries up and functioning, will greatly encourage faithful Bishops to act and ordain new clergy.
The Victory over the Anti-Church, however, may NOT include that we recover the great centers of Christianity from the Anti-Church. This maybe the warning contained in the message given to Melanie at La Salette, that “Rome will become the Seat of the Antichrist…. What falls at Rome will never arise again”.
But the Church will continue until the end of time, and what more spiritually sound example than Saint Athanasius can there be for the clergy? What more spiritually strong fortresses for formation, than the Marian Shrines of the World, where Our Lady appeared?
These are my thoughts. I may be wrong. I claim no authority for them, but common sense and guess work. I confide them, however, to Bishops and to the souls devoted to Our Blessed Mother in the End Times.
Nunc est “Ora et labora!”
And so, to this end, to not leave a suggestion without putting good works into practice, we need to recognize that, Now it is the time for “Prayer and work”.
First, a prayer. Prayer cannot hurt, because God answers good prayers and knows when not to answer improper ones. May He inspire us always to pray good prayers.
LET US PRAY:
ALMIGHTY AND ETERNAL WORD OF GOD, Who out of Thy infinite Mercy descended into the Virginal Womb of the Blessed Mary to save us wretched sinners and to establish Thy True Church upon Earth, for the salvation of all souls, LOOK PROPITIOUSLY upon Thy servants who cry unto Thee, that under the Mantle of Thy Immaculate Mother, Thou might deign now in this terrible battle in which we find ourselves, to Send forth Thy Holy Ghost TO STRIKE THE HEARTS of Bishops with repentance and tears and to open their minds with the gifts of heavenly grace, especially with a share in the prudence of Thy faithful Bishop, Saint Athanasius, that they might have the zeal to go throughout all the Earth like the Apostles of the last days, ordaining for Thee new ministers of God for the salvation of Thy Remnant; and deign to INSPIRE those souls devoted to thy Ever Faithful Mother to organize and found centers of formation for faithful priests, so that Thy Vineyard, which is Thy Mystical Body on Earth, might not be without workers for the harvest, before That Great and Terrible Day, which will soon be upon us! We ask this in Thy Blessed Name, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Second, Action:
Contact souls devoted to Our Lady, wherever you can find them and exercise an apostolate to inspire them to support the formation of priests who reject the Apostasy of Freemasonry, Idolatry, Sodomy, Marxism etc.. There are few souls today willing to do anything, and all of those who are for Pope Benedict XVI are devout servants of Our Lady. So it is prudent to look for more among Her children.
So, if you are able, found a non profit in your area, under the title of Our Lady and work to found a house of formation near a Marian Shrine in your nation. There are also many devout Catholics who have purchased properties near Marian Shrines who would love to help in such a holy project by donating their property or allowing its free use. Search them out.
Be confident that Our Lord will back your efforts: build and they will come! — If you are not able, encourage others to do the same. We cannot allow the Avalanche of Apostasy to overwhelm us without taking action! Prayer is NOT enough!
POST SCRIPT
While I have written about the Apocalyptic implications of remaining in communion with the Head of the Anti-Church, as regards what Saint John said in the Apocalypse, and what the laity need to do, and here suggesting a way forward, I was informed this morning that already a group of Priests in Spain 4 weeks ago began such an effort. The Holy Spirit is truly at work! Learn more via this video in Spanish. We all need the zeal to begin to do the same! And we need to stop heeding the voices that advocate “Recognize and Resist”, “Do nothing”, “Wait for God and Our Lady to intervene”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvhEGtlur5E
CREDITS: La Virgen de las Cuevas, by Zurbaran, 1645-55, in the public domain, retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bellas_Artes_Sevilla.jpg
A Medieval Illumination, showing the Adoration of the Beast by the false Catholics of the end times.
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The beloved disciple and faithful son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostle Saint John warned us a little less than 2000 years ago: In the end, a Great Apostasy would sweep away many Christians.
Saint John tells of the Great Apostasy in the Twelfth Chapter of his Book of the Apocalypse, also known as the Book of Revelations. I will put in red text the interpretation of this chapter given by Franciscan Saints* and I will use the English text of the Douay Reims Bible for the scriptural citation:
12 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: (Heaven here refers to the Catholic Church, which is Heaven on Earth. The appearance of the woman refers to the Dogmatic Declarations of the Magisterium about Our Lady, as Ever Virgin, Immaculate Conception, Assumed into Heaven, Queen of Heaven and Earth. The twelve stars refer to the affirmations by the Church of Our Lady’s 12 privileges)
2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. (This refers to the struggles in the Church among theologians and believers against the faithful Catholics who are true children of Mary and know that the most authentic and certain path to God is through Mary to Jesus.)
3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: (This refers to the Satanic plot of Freemasonry and other nefarious groups to establish the Mystical Body of the Antichrist in the Church and thus prepare the world for the coming of the AntiChrist)
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. (This refers to the Great Apostasy which will occur after Our Lady is declared Assumed body and soul into Heaven. It will entail the near total apostasy of all the Clergy, who are as the stars in the Heaven of the Church, and it indicates that they will submit to the Father of Lies and give themselves up to the most horrible vices and errors)
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. (This refers to the Rise of the true Church in war against the Anti-Christ. This true Church will be faithful Catholics consecrated to Our Lady and embracing the whole doctrine of God, and who by their fidelity will be raised up to form a renewed Sacred Hierarchy to replace the old which has apostatized)
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days. (This refers to the true Catholic Faith which in the end times will have to take refuge in lowly and humble places, because the wealthy and powerful will give up their souls to the rule and domination of demons)
7 And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: (This refers to the war between the sons of God vs the sons of the Devil, that is, the war between the true Church and the Anti-Church. The Leaders in this war will be led on each side by men inspired and devoted to Saint Michael and Lucifer, respectively)
8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. (This refers to the victory of the true Church over the false AntiChurch).
9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (This refers to the definitive excommunication of the AntiChurch and its members from the Catholic Church).
10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night. (This refers to the future pope of great virtue who will preside over the renewed Church and condemn the AntiChurch)
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death. (This shows that the victory will be obtained by faithful Catholics who risk everything to defend the true Faith, putting their trust in the Blood of Jesus, Who already overcame the world, flesh and the devil).
12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. (This refers to the joy Catholics will have in those days seeing the Church delivered from this monstrous cult of satanists, pedophiles and sodomites, but warns the world, since being cast out of the Catholic Church they will seek to rule over and weaponize the world against the Faithful).
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child: (This refers to the ensuing attacks of the godless against the true Faith until the end of time, for the whole world led by the AntiChurch will attack Our Lady who defeated them)
Obviously, the teachings of the Franciscan Saints about these matters is not binding in faith, but so far their predictions have turned out to be very accurate. The hatred of the Catholic Faith and the plot to destroy the Church, while brewing for ages, broke out in the Church after the Dogmatic Definition of the Assumption of Our Lady, body and soul into heaven. The wicked clergy could not stomach this dogma which countered their lusts, impiety and fake religious pretensions. They engineered a Council which ushered into the Church the “smoke of Satan” (as Pope Paul VI said):
The pope, concerned, writes:
“… We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation.
“The Church is no longer trusted. We trust the first pagan prophet we see who speaks to us in some newspaper, and we run behind him and ask him if he has the formula for true life. I repeat, doubt has entered our conscience. And it entered through the windows that should have been open to the light: science.”
Storm clouds
The post-conciliar wounds make themselves felt:
“… It was thought that, after the Council, sunny days would come for the history of the Church. Nevertheless, what came were days of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching, of uncertainty … We tried to dig abysses instead of covering them …”
This Satanic Smoke has progressively blinded the eyes of the Clergy and Sacred Hierarchy, and even of many of the religious orders, into inclining more and more away from the perennial columns of Faith and Devotion, Hope and true Charity which the Church established from of old in Her Sacred Liturgies, Canons and Disciplines. It was under this Smoke that the good were persecuted and driven out, the wicked and perverse introduced into the high places. This was a necessary preparation for the Great Apostasy, because to achieve their goal the servants of the Father of Lies needed to prepare a whole generation of clergy who either loved falsehood or who had not the manliness to fight it.
This was achieved by introducing the God of the Club, which was initially proposed as merely a form of extreme clericalism but transmogrified to be a true idolatry upon the altar of which 10s of thousands of young people were sacrificed to sexual predators and only those who kept it quiet were promoted to the status of Bishops.
However, without a doubt this “striking out of heaven of a third of the stars” refers to a moment when nearly all the Clergy are separated from the Church (heaven). This, in my opinion, is adequately and perfectly described by the apostasy of the clergy from Christ’s true Vicar by following the lie of the MSM and wicked clergy that Benedict had resigned the office of the papacy, when in truth he never did anything of the kind. By no longer naming Benedict in the Canon of the Mass they show and seal their schism from Christ, from Benedict, and from the Church. They become fallen stars and are swooped up into the work of the great Dragon who is Satan.
Because, in the Greek, the word Apostasy means a falling away. It does not have the technical meaning we attribute to it in Canon Law today as a complete intellectual denial of the Catholic Faith.
As we are now in the full swing of the Dragons tail, we have to stop denying what is going on. All those Bishops who teach heresy and promote sacrilege by giving the Sacraments to public sinners, by condoning wickedness and teaching it, plus all those Bishops who do not oppose this, are all part of the Apostasy. There are even a few very wicked men, who agree with the apostasy but want to raise money by pretending to criticize it even as they insist you remain in communion with the leader of the Apostasy.
In this battle, we cannot afford to pretend any longer, nor to compromise. As Our Lady lamented at Akita, the Church in this battle will be filled with those willing to compromise, especially among clergy and religious.
The Pachamama worship was no accident. The adoration of the Andean Dragon Demon of the underworld is not a coincidence. This was not a political decision, it was an intentional act to involve everyone in the worship of Satan.
We must join the battle (See, Saving souls in the time of Apostasy) and urge the bishops and clergy to condemn the heresies of the Anti-Church and to break off communion with Bergoglio. (See the Article: Every Priest has the Right etc.) So long as the False Prophet and AntiChurch is recognized as having authority they will use it to destroy the entire Church world wide. Those who insist on recognizing their authority therefore must be presumed to be deceived by some sort of devil, because they are giving power to the Beast, who hungers to damn all souls to Hell so he can reign over and torment them for all eternity.
The wicked know what they are doing. They might try to gaslight you into not seeing what they are doing or in not doing anything to oppose them, but they know what they are doing. — I see this on a daily basis at Rome. As soon as you put a value judgement on heresy, apostasy, immorality or show canonically that the Renunciation is invalid, they lose all composure and snap at you like mad devils, a torrent of lies and abuse coming from their mouths. Their faces warp with the most nasty and biting expressions. They cannot endure your presence and run off. — Though this is not new. When I was studying at Rome 7 years ago, I found the same spirit, though confined, to certain faculties of theology in the Pontifical Institutes. But now this spirit reigns, it has captured the Vatican by guile and treachery.
Finally, I want to emphasize that, when Saint John says a third of the stars, I believe he means nearly all of them in that age, because in the night sky you can only see about a third of the visible sky on any one night.
And we have entered the night…. and it is WAR!
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do Thou, o Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Power of God, thrust down into Hell Satan, and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world, seeking the ruin of souls!
Saint Michael the Archangel, First Defender of the Kingdom of Christ, pray for us!
,________
* I heard this explanation from an old Franciscan priest, when I became a Franciscan. I no longer remember the Saints he cited. And he has now passed from this life.
When I began living my traditional franciscan vocation more than 20 years ago, I was invited by two zealous Catholic laymen to join them in their apostolate of street-evangelization on the streets of South Boston.
Their apostolate only had one goal: seeking the salvation of souls.
No one appointed them to this apostolate. They did what they did out of love for the Sacred Heart of Jesus. And they were organized. They had times and places where they knew there were more souls to catch. They had purchased in bulk — and even printed their own — tracts explaining the Catholic Faith or urging the practice of virtue. They had tracts against suicide, alcoholism, sodomy etc..
It was a courageous apostolate, standing outside in all kinds of weather and enduring with patience all the nasty things that those who hate God, Jesus or the Catholic Faith are wont to say.
Generally speaking, however, those not interested in hearing the Gospel simply would ignore us.
But no one reacted with greater disdain and anger that those with not normal inclinations on the streets of South Boston, when you offered them a tract on “How to cure yourself”.
These laymen did not mince words. And in those days you still could speak like a Catholic without risking jail. Here at WordPress, I dare not be so frank. But I am sure you understand what I am trying to say.
The reason why I mention this is that here at Rome, when I hand out information about Pope Benedict’s Renunciation I see a similar reaction, and it is very disturbing.
Yes, the Catholics of Italy, South America, Africa and the Orient all receive the information with joy and gladness. By “all”, I mean about 85%. That is a great sign of hope for the Church!
But the Catholic men of the United States who are seminarians immediately express the most cold disdain. Of them only about 5% accept the information, the rest refuse.
I think Catholics in the United States of America should take great care to warn their Bishops about the kind of men they send to Rome. If they do not care about truth, nor about who is the true pope, then what will they care about in the Church of the next generation when these seminarians become Bishops?
This disdain I believe is the fruit of the “recognize and (and not really) resist (except to raise money)” lunacy which has gripped all those clergy and talking heads who make money off speaking authoritatively in the Public Forum about the Faith.
It is not surprising that men who act like Protestant Ministers should be supporting notions which lead to the separation of Catholics from the Pope and from the Catholic Faith, or engaging in daily attacks on the Papacy as if it were the whore of Bablyon.
To call good evil and evil good is the sin against the Holy Spirit. As Our Lord taught, however, one incurs this sin precisely when one calls His Authority the source of evil and attributes to His Authority the workings of the Devil.
Catholics need to wake up and start asking what kind of spirit is behind the news outlets and talking heads they read on-line. Because it is the same spirit I see on the streets of Rome and which I saw on the streets of South Boston: hatred for the truth.
We know by Divine and Catholic Faith that a true Pope will never teach error. If the man we think is the pope does teach error, then we better examine the reasons why we think he is pope, because we are certainly deceived on some point.
_______
CREDITS: The leading image is a screen shot from “Disdain for Plebs Meme
T-shirt”, at https://www.redbubble.com/people/redearthshirtco/works/34193234-disdain-for-plebs-meme-t-shirt-and-accessories?p=pouch where you can purchase their products (This is an unsolicited referral which does not constitute an endorsement, but which is made in gratitude for using their image in this post. The From Rome Blog received no compensation for this and has no financial relationship with the company selling these items).
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 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 futher. All he does is keep smiling and raising his right and left hand now and then with the V sign, for victory.
So in accord with the Papal Law on Conclaves, UDG, n. 5, the Cardinal from Paris asks that the College discuss and decide what is to be done, since the Papal Law says nothing about the manner in which the Cardinal Elect is to accept the office, whether it be by a Yes or No or by some other sign.
Two factions arise among the Cardinals. On the one side, a minority hold that the Cardinal Elect, by the words used has not accepted his election and must be considered either in error or mad. On the other side, the position taken is that of the Cardinal of Mexico City, who reasons this way: There is no more certain a manner of indicating that one has accepted the dignity of a prince than to respond in a manner which requires his listeners to acquiesce to his authority. Now by responding in this manner, does not the Cardinal Elect clearly show his intent to act like a prince? And therefore, his intention to accept the election? Is he not just putting our loyalty to the test? I for one will not fail in my loyalty to the Supreme Pontiff in this his first act of office!
This line of reasoning wins over the majority and they vote to regard the manner of speech chosen by the Cardinal Elect as meaning, “Yes, I accept”.
The Cardinal Deacon, then approaches the Cardinal Elect and asks him by which name he wants to be known. He replies, “Ignazio I”.
And years pass. And there is nothing controversial in the pontificate of Ignatius the First. Not in the least.
Except for this one thing.
Every time journalists manage to get an interview with him, and they ask him about the moment of his election as Pope, they ask him what he said, and he says: ¡Viva Guadalajara!
About 6 years into his reign as pope, one journalist, by the name of Marco Tosatti III, wanting to understand this better, asks a very specific question of Pope Ignatius I, during a plan trip.
Tosatti III: I know, your Holiness, has been asked this same question many times. And we are all impressed by your talent for humor and your jocundity, which is so unique among the Popes. But the day of your election, if I may ask again, can you tell just what you said, when the Cardinal Deacon asked you if you would accept your canonical election?
Ignatius I: I said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!
Tosatti III: Is that all you said?
Ignatius I: Yes.
Tosatti III: Did you not say, Yes?
Ignatius I: No, I never said Yes or No. I simply said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!
Marco Tosatti III publishes his interview and it goes round the world. The Pope never said yes.
A few days later, another Italian Vaticanista, by the name of Sandro Magister V, obtains an interview with the aged Cardinal Deacon, who confirms the story: Yes, he never said, yes. In fact there was a controversy in the Conclave, and now that Pope Ignatius I has abolished the pontifical secret on his election, I can reveal that we held a vote in accord with Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 5, and we determined that canonically speaking, this phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! would be taken to mean, “yes, I accept”.
Magister V also publishes his interview, which causes even more of an uproar and travels round the world.
About two weeks later, an old lady from the suburb of Madrid, Spain, where Pope Ignatius I grew up, flys to Rome and enters the Piazza of St Peter with a sign, saying, “He is not the Pope!” The Gendarmerie, the Vatican Police, attempt to take the sign from her, there is a scuffle and they end up punching her and she punching them back. Eventually they take both her and the sign away.
But the pilgrims in the piazza photograph and video record the entire travesty and these images go world wide on all social media platforms.
The next day in all the majors newspapers and MSM sites the one topic is why they beat up this poor old women. And the journalists who are allowed to interview her in the Vatican jail all receive the same statement, prepared by her attorney: In my suburb of Madrid, where I grew up with Pope Ignatius I, the phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! has always meant, “You got to be kidding. I would no more agree to that than support the team from Guadalajara, by shouting ¡Viva Guadalajara! at a soccer match with our own team!”
At this news, journalists flock to Madrid, Spain and interview all those they can find who knew the Pope as a child or youngster. And they all agree that what this old lady said is the absolute truth.
And these journalists report what they find. And, the next day, Ignatius I gives an interview and says: You see, there is nothing I hate more that arrogance and sycophantry. So when I saw that there were no worthy candidates for the Papacy, I determined to do what I could to delay as much as possible the Conclave, so the most unworthy ones would be taken by the Lord or not be able to vote, having reached the age of 80. So I contrived the deception I used to fool everyone. And it worked. But now that my purpose has achieved its goal, I willing admit that I was never pope, because I never accepted my election as the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, I will now stop pretending to be pope and go back to Madrid and enjoy my final years of life by drinking cerveza and watching the Madrid Soccer team. Good-bye and Adios!
_____________
The Limits of Discretion
So ends the fictional canonical case I have created. As you can see, strange things can happen if the discretion which we Catholics traditionally accord to the Cardinals goes beyond all limits. There are just some things they cannot do even if they want to.
One thing they cannot do, even if they want to, regards the interpretation of verbal texts. As a translator of medieval texts, I understand well that there are 3 ways of determining the meaning of any obscure phrase. The first is intrinsic, the second extrinsic and the third is referential.
Intrinsic methods look to the meaning of the words used and their grammatical structure. Extrinsic methods look to the context in which the phrase is used and impose a theory about what the intent was in the author’s mind in using the obscure phrase. Referential methods look for other occurrences of the same obscure phrase in the writings of the same author, his contemporaries or those authors he read or cited.
And as a translator, I have learned the hard way, that the worse method of interpretation is the extrinsic method. The intrinsic method can be used but it requires great discretion and a good knowledge of the author one is reading. The referential method is the most certain but one has to take into account that every author might use standard phrases slightly differently.
¡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.
Don’t let anyone tell you to shut up, when you point out that some are saying the renunciation of Pope Benedict was or could be invalid.
Don’t let them coerce you by telling you that it is absurd to suppose that a Papal act be invalid.
Don’t let them get away with such a claim!
Why?
Because, no less that Pope John Paul II declared that a papal resignation could be invalid!
First, the FACTS of the Laws
And not only declared, but he enshrined the possibility into the Papal Law on Conclaves: Universi dominici gregis, n. 3, where it says in Latin:
3. Praeterea statuimus, ne Cardinalium Collegium de iuribus Sedis Apostolicae Romanaeque Ecclesiae ullo modo disponere valeat, nedum de iis sive directe sive indirecte quidquam detrahat, quamvis agatur de componendis discidiis aut de persequendis factis adversus eadem iura perpetratis, post Pontificis obitum vel validam renuntiationem.(14) Curae autem sit omnibus Cardinalibus haec iura tueri.
Which in good English is:
3. Moreover, We establish, that the College of Cardinals not be able to dispose in any manner of the rights of the Apostolic See and Roman Church, much less to detract anything from them either directly or indirectly, even though it be done concerning the resolution of disputes or the prosecution of deeds perpetrated against the same rights, after the death and/or valid renunciation* of the Pontiff. (14) Moreover, let it belong to the care of all the Cardinals that these rights be watched over.
* The reference to a “valid renunciation” is to Canon 332 §2, which lays down 2 reasons for an invalid renunciation (lack of freedom in renouncing the petrine munus, and lack of due manifestation of the renunciation of the petrine munus).
Some would like to have it that Canon 332 §2 is merely laying down the requisites to be observed in a papal resignation, and that it does not exist to be used by anyone, let alone a layman, to discern or determine when a resignation is valid or not.
The assertion is a perfect form of gas-lighting: You cannot let the masses use the Code of Canon Law, you cannot let them read the Papal Law on Conclaves, but if they do, you must convince them that what they see does not mean what it says or that what they read there is something they cannot use in an argument or apply to any particular case! Thus might be the counsel of any modern day Screwtape to his Trad inc. minions.
This objective is supported by the absurd arguments being used to attack those who are examining the resignation, such as that argument evinced by Mr. Sammons the other day:
Evidently, if we take Mr. Sammons at his word, he must rail against Pope John Paul II, against the Papal Law on Conclaves and against the Code of Canon Law of 1983, all which admit the possibility of an invalid renunciation! — Evidently railing against Popes is o.k., so long as you recognize that they are popes. — This seems to be the new dogma of Trad Inc. Even though Catholic Tradition holds that in nothing can a pope be judged but faith.
Having seen this form of gas-lighting, we must begin to ask ourselves, “Whom we should listen to or obey? A Layman or Pope John Paul II?”
After all, to turn Mr. Sammon’s rhetoric against him: What does it matter what Mr. Sammons wants?
Second, the Implications of the Law
As it has been amply proven that Pope John Paul II held that a papal renunciation could be invalid, we should use the intellects God gave us to use and think about what that means. We should not let the gas-lighting false apostles, out there, stop us from thinking.
First, if a papal renunciation could be invalid. That means that objectively speaking it could be invalid. That means that it can be recognized by men who are capable of knowing objective reality. That means that men should recognize it if it be, and should NOT harken to any propaganda to ignore the problem. Because, obviously, if Pope John Paul II wanted us to listen to propagandists who do not want us to see that a resignation was invalid when it was invalid, he would never have mentioned that there could be an invalid resignation.
Second, that means that the Church has the duty to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid, since the Code of Canon Law binds everyone in the Church. The Papal Law on Conclaves binds the Cardinals, and so they are also obligated to recognize an invalid resignation is invalid.
Third. Now how is anyone to do that? Pope John Paul II shows us how in canons 40 and 41, where everyone in the Church who has an office is obliged to examine the administrative act of his superior to see if it is effective and authentic. Though canon 41 speaks only of acts which are null or inopportune, clearly an invalid resignation is both.
That means it was the duty of all the Cardinals as of 11:45 AM, February 11, 2013, when the Consistory ended (approximately, as I do not know the precise minute of termination) until today to examine the act. If the act was invalid, they were obliged to omit the Conclave, and if they find now that it is invalid, they are obliged to say the conclave was invalid.
CONCLUSION
So you see, now, how wrong Cardinal Burke was, when he condemned a whole category of Catholics as “extremists” if they doubted that Bergoglio was the pope. Because if that doubt arises from an invalid resignation, then they are not only NOT extremists, they are the most faithful Catholics in the Church, and they are doing what all Cardinals should have done and still refuse to do!
No, your Eminence, there are No Extremists here, but there are a lot of Presumptuous Princes!
Now almost no one in the Church is a canon lawyer, but a good number of the Cardinals are. And if you have studied canon law or civil law, then you know a general principle of law which is applicable in this case:
A cessation of power is never to be presumed!
As I mentioned previously, this general principle of law is enshrined in Canon 21 (and implied in many other canons, such as canon 40). It is really a summation of common sense. Because if one presumed the cessation of power, then the rule of law would break down, because presumption has a way of inclining to disorder and chaos, in particular, to the kind of disorder and chaos we have seen in the Church for nearly 7 years.
Now a papal renunciation pertains to a cessation of power, as the learned and eminent Canonist I spoke with recently admitted. Therefore, we cannot presume a pope has validly resigned. The presumption, rather, is that he has not resigned. Presumption here refers to the inclination of our judgement prior to seeing the facts and evidence.
Now Canon 332 §2 says that a pope resigns when he resigns his munus.
But Pope Benedict in his act of Feb. 11, 2013, renounces the ministerium he received.
Therefore, at this point, before any further study, each and every Cardinal had the duty to presume that the renunciation was invalid. He had to presume this, because, the presumption of law requires that he hold that there has been no cessation of power, when a pope renounces ministerium instead of the required munus.
Canon 17 then requires the Cardinals to examine the Code of Canon Law (as I did here) to understand the proper sense of terms, or the canonical tradition (as I did here), or the mind of the Legislator (as was done by Father Walter Covens here). But all of these conclude the renunciation of ministry does not effect a renunciation of the papacy.
So who is the extremist now? The Catholic who holds, as he should, to what the law presumes? Or the Cardinal who did not do his duty nor his homework but rails at Catholics who have done what he neglected to do? Presuming against the very presumption of the law.
It almost seems as if the Cardinals were already inclined to rid themselves of Pope Benedict, and so, whether he was in error or not, whether he wanted to bifurcate the papacy or not, whether the renunciation was valid or not, they did not bother one iota to due their due diligence before convening in Conclave. — If there ever was a reason to doubt the validity of the Conclave of 2013, this is the first and prime of them all!
Third, Action Item:
Ask your favorite priest, Bishop or Cardinal, when did he apply canons 40 and 41 to the Papal renunciation?
Because in those 2 canons, all who hold an office in the Church — even the simple priest who is no longer mentioning Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, where the name of the Roman Pontiff is named — all, I say, had the duty to examine the Latin text of the Renunciation and determine whether it fulfilled the requirements of the Latin text of Canon 332 §2. So ask them, “On what day and hour, in what place and with what books and references did you do your duty specified in canons 40 and 41 as regards the declaration of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013, called, “Non solum propter”?” — You have every right to ask this question, before listening to anything they say about the renunciation, because obviously, if they never did their duty, they have no moral right to tell you anything about what the Act of Renunciation means, let alone, to regard anyone else as the Pope, other than Benedict.
(For more information about Canons 21, 40 and 41 and what should have been done on Feb. 11, 2013, after Pope Benedict XVI read his Act of renunciation, see here).
______
CREDITS: The image of the Pope is from https://agrellcarving.com, who carved the Throne on which he is sitting and which produces other fine products of furniture (This is not a paid advertisement, but the image is copyright by Agrell Carving).
As Catholics begin the effort to make known to the clergy that they were defrauded of their loyalty to Christ’s Vicar on Feb. 28, 2013, it is important to have at hand a short summary of the canonical problems in Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Non solum propter. (Official text here at Vatican website)
Here is such a short summary.
6 canonical errors in the Act of Renunciation
In the Act, the Roman pontiff renounces “the ministry committed to him through the hands of the Cardinals” on the day he was elected. But canon 332 §2, in the official Latin text of that canon, requires that the renunciation be of the petrine “munus”, that is the Papal Office (cf. canons 331, 333, 334, 749). Therefore, the act is NOT a renunciation of the papacy. Thus, in regard to canon 332 §2, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS. And if it be said or thought to be an act of renunciation of the papacy, then the assertion or estimation is false by reason of Canon 188, which declares IRRITUS any renunciations of office vitiated by substantial error, that is by an error which touches the substance of the act (which, in this case, is constituted by the essence of the act as an act of renunciation of the munus, not of the ministerium).*
In the Act, the Roman Pontiff does not name the office by any proper canonical term, and thus the act is also an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of canon 332 §2, that the act be duly manifested (rite manifestetur), since that which is not named is not manifest.
In the Act, the Roman Pontiff’s liberty regards that which he does, not that which he does not do, which, since he does not do it, whether he be free to do it or not, is not expressed. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS INVALIDUS by reason of the requirement of canon 332 §2, that the act be freely executed (libere fiat).
In making a declaration of renunciation, instead of renouncing, the act is also an ACTUS NULLUS, because canon law does not regard declarations to be canonical acts. They are merely announcements. (cf. Penal section on announcements regarding persons who have incurred latae sententiae excommunications ipso iure).
In making what appears to be a renunciation of the papacy, without naming the papal office as required by Canon 332 §2, the man making the declaration, inasmuch as he is the man, who received the office and who is attempting to separate himself from the office, had need to obtain from the man who is the Pope, an express derogation of the terms of canon 332 §2, in virtue of canon 38, and since he did not, since no concession of derogation of that requirement is mentioned in the act, then by reason of canon 38, the act, which is both contrary to the law of Canon 332 §2 and gravely injurious of the right of the faithful to know who is the true pope and when he has canonically resigned, is an ACTUS SINE EFFECTU, that is an act which lacks all effect.
Finally, in renouncing “the ministry”, the Roman Pontiff posits a legal act which is not foreseen in the Code of Canon Law, since no canon therein speaks of a renunciation of ministry. Therefore, the act is an ACTUS NULLUS according to the norm of law. Therefore, in accord with canon 41 no one with an office in the Church has any duty to recognize it.
__________
* I do not include substantial error as one of the canonical errors in the Act, because the act was never one of a renunciation of the papal office. The argument that substantial error vitiates the act, technically, has more to do with the mis-perceptions or false claims made about the canonical value of the act, than with the act itself. Speaking of substantial error is thus necessary when discussing it with someone who is operating under the false premise that the Pope renounced the papacy, but eventually one must talk about the reality of what the Pope actually said on that day, and distinguish that reality from the misperception which was published to all the world.
POST SCRIPT: Note that in the title of this post I use the word “invalid” in the common sense of an act which does not effect what one thinks it effects, but properly speaking the term should be “vitiated” or “erroneous”, because as you can see from the list of 6 canonical errors, 3 regard nullity, 2 regard invalidity, and 1 regards being without effect.
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Lou,
You got the legal presumption wrong.
A renunciation is presumed invalid unless it clearly renounces that which it is supposed to renounce.
Just like a last testament is invalid, unless it clearly says it is leaving something to someone.
For those who know Bellarmine, a doubtful pope is not a pope, it is the application of the same legal concept of interpretation to the opposite circumstances.
All this has to do with the concept of Cessation of power. In law, the cessation of power is not presumed. Thus, the cessation of right is not presumed. Contrariwise, in the election of a man to the papacy, we have the right and the Church is bound by law, not to regard it valid unless it meets all the necessary requirements of validity and or legitimacy.
Thus, a doubtfully resigned pope is still pope.
So, since I have corrected an Italian American in the USA, I guess there is no harm correcting an Italian at Rome, who spent years in Brazil.
So Dr. De Mattei, if I can be so bold — and I will be — though it is contrary to what a Franciscan should so in normal circumstances — but now is not normal. Since the Rule of Saint Francis obliges us to hold fast to Roman Pontiffs canonically elected, I would point out to you by a personal note, that THE INVALIDITY OF THE RENUNCIATION MADE BY POPE BENEDICT
DOES
NOT
NEED
TO
BE
PROVEN!
It does not need to be proven, because according to ius testimentarie, that is the genus of right which regards testaments, THE INVALIDLY IS PRESUMED unless it is proven otherwise by a clear and certain statement!
For the Record, Mr. Verrecchio holds that the Renunciation is invalid, as a conclusion. Dr. de Mattei holds that it is valid as a presumption. Each is a different error, and Verrecchio is a better thinker, in my judgement. But until everyone gets the legal principle right, the problem wont be solved.
As I replied again to Louie, in the same post,
Dear Mr. Verrechio,
I did read your comment, you said that you conclude that the resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.
I said, the legal presumption is that a resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.
The point seems to be a fine one, but it is not. A presumption of law is a principle, not a conclusion. It does not exist under certain circumstances and in certain minds or as derived from certain beliefs or not. It exists a priori to all of these on account of the very nature of the legal act.
You do not have to prove it (the invalidity). You do have to accept it (the legal principle), to be a sane rational person…
I could have more easily commented on Dr. de Mattei’s piece by simply saying:
THE INVALIDITY OF THE RESIGNATION HAS BEEN PROVEN!
13 MONTHS AGO!
If you would only read sources which are found outside of the clique of approved outlets you read! >>
VERICATHOLICI.WORDPRESS.COM
And you do not need to take me at my word. Ask any attorney-at-law who practices Estate Law or simply peruse my notes from my meetings with 2 top Canon Lawyers at Rome:
_________
* Just a short note on what happens to a pope who validly resigns. If he was a Cardinal beforehand, he returns to being a Cardinal. This is shown by the statement drawn up by Pope Pius XII in the case of an invasion of the Vatican by Axis forces during World War II. In the case of Pope Celestine V, he returned to being a hermit, because that is what he was before he was the Pope, though he remained a bishop, having been consecrated such after his election (Not all popes were consecrated Bishops). Unless of course, before one resigns, he makes other dispositions, as certainly is within his power to do so. Thus, Pope Benedict, if he really wanted ever to resign validly, could have first established the canonical status he would adopt after resignation, declare his resignation would take place on a certain date, resign on that date, and then assume that status which as Pope he had granted himself as the man who would be soon NOT the pope.
THIS ARTICLE has been published simultaneously in Italian at ChiesaRomna.Info
CREDITS: The featured image is by the author of this article.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]