Here at the From Rome Blog, my posts regard both history and conjectures about why that history came about or what it means.
Having recently viewed a video by someone who follows a man who claims to be Christ in His second coming, because the video referred extensively to posts at the From Rome Blog, I see that not everyone who reads my blog understands how to discern facts from conjecture.
A Blog, it must be said, is a very personal publication. As human beings we naturally seek to know the truth. Some of that we can know directly through the facts of history, and some of that we cannot know directly, so we must resort to interpretations. The weakest kind of interpretation is the conjecture, for a conjecture is an interpretation in which the facts (to prove it) and which are not know, are conjectured to exist.
Conjectures by their very nature tend to follow the sensibility as much as the rationality of those who write them. My conjectures do the same, and some of them might seem sensationalist. But I know how to distinguish my own conjectures from reality.
I write this post because I see that not everyone of my readers understand this.
So for clarity, I make this declaration.
That Pope Benedict XVI is the pope is statement which is not a conjecture, but rather the presumption of the law, because the law of the Church says that a pope resigns when he renounces his munus. And since Pope Benedict XVI has never done that in the way canon 332 §2 requires him to do it (fact), as the man who is the pope, we all must recognize that he is still the pope.
However, why he resigned the ministry and not the munus, and more so, why he even resigned, is something of which not a few Catholics do not see sufficient explanation in what has been reported, said, stated and repeated. This is because there is an inherent irrationality about saying Pope Benedict XVI resigned for this or that reason, and not finding the facts which make that evident (for example, in Non solum propter, he says he is resigning for health reasons, but he is still in rather good health after 6 years).
Since I seek the truth I understand that conjectures to complete the information lacking in what we know are possibly as much correct as incorrect, but at the same time I recognize that historically those who engage in such conjectures are more often wrong, because to make a conjecture which turns out to be verified by future revelations of facts, takes a great deal of familiarity with all the known causes which could have possibly influenced the event about which one is conjecturing. That is why insiders normally are better at conjecturing. And I am not an insider.
So please do not take my conjectures as dogma or history. They are not.
The fact is, that Pope Benedict XVI has never resigned according to the norm of Canon 332 §2.
But why he has or has not, is not certain to us. We would have to ask him, and he has not, to my knowledge, ever been asked why he renounced the ministerium and not the munus. So conjectures go on and on.
However, when it comes to canonical arguments, those arguments are as sound as the canons, principles and reasoning based upon them. Their certitude is thus much higher.
So when reading my blog, please keep this in mind.
The Mafia of St. Gallen rules by lies. Their entire project is built upon a lie, which they were successful in passing off to the world and defending during nearly seven years.
I speak of the false notion that Pope Benedict XVI resigned the papacy, when in truth all he did was resign from active ministry.
The Mafia of St. Gallen should really have a second name, the Mafia of Holy Gall, because if they are anything, they are bold liars. Nevertheless, they are bold because being composed of those practiced in sexual abuse of others, they know how to gaslight the faithful.
These tactics they have used on the Bishops and clergy, and through them, by getting them to spread false ideas of virtue and prudence, they have succeeded in gaining control of nearly all Catholic Media.
ON POINT
For those Catholics, like myself, who have been trying to get the world see their lies, the most effective weapon this Mafia has against us is not to directly attack us, but to ignore us in public. Then to get other Catholic news agencies to ignore us in public. Then to get Catholic social media sites to ignore us.
The present sites have decided to ignore totally all which is published at The From Rome Blog: Church Militant, The Remnant, Rorate Caeli, Catholic Family News, Gloria.TV (since Nov. 19), Chiesa e Post Concilio, UnaVox, LifeSite News, National Catholic Register, etc. etc. etc., and nearly all sites for the Traditional Latin Mass. — There is no need to mention sites run by the clergy, as they ALL ignore The From Rome Blog. None of these groups do this by chance, its by a predetermined deliberate decision. In many cases they have been asked by members of the clergy or Cardinals to do this. In other cases its because of who funds them or their fear of losing funding or advertisement if they buck the Great Narrative.
This is important, and not merely a personal lament. Because, you see, all the work that investigators like myself do, is pointless if no one ever knows about it.
But there is something you can do, and that means you have to recognize that it is not enough that you visit sites which expose the Mafia for what they are, YOU NEED TO SHARE THAT NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIA with others.
I have repeatedly seen that when I specifically ask 1 friend to share 1 of my blog posts, that The From Rome Blog will receive about 750 hits in the next 36 hours on account of that 1 friend sharing one post, on, let’s say, FaceBook.
At present, there is only one of the 20,000 sometime readers of my blog who share my posts on Facebook. I won’t name the other sites which regularly feature a link to one or more of my posts, lest they be attacked by the Mafia. (THOUGH I THANK THEM PROFUSELY).
But I think you can see, that YOU my readers need to step up and do your part.
Because, we must ask ourselves: Will the Mafia of St. Gallen succeed?
And, we must respond: YES, IF YOU LET THEM.
______________
CREDITS: Many thanks to ComplicitClergy.com for the use of their graphic. They do excellent work exposing the Lavender Mafia, and you should be reading their site regularly to know how to avoid the tentacles of the ecclesiastical Mafia.
Confessions of a hard-headed and lazy-minded friar
Don’t give up on your brothers and sisters who uncritically accepted that Bergoglio is the pope. Keep trying to get through to them, and give them some time. Most people are either too busy with their own lives or not yet intellectually or emotionally prepared to hear that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because he never resigned validly.
To help you understand this, I will confess myself till last fall to have been one of these Catholics.
On Feb. 11, 2013, I was in Rome. I was studying theology and canon law at the Faculty of Saint Bonaventure. When I returned from classes that afternoon, my landlady knocked on my door, and asked me: “Have you heard, the Pope resigned!” — “What, I said!?” — “Come see it on television.
I should have immediately sought to find out what the Pope actually did say.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I should have immediately been suspicious that the journalists were playing with the facts.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
Feb. 12-16: The next days, I should have gone to the Vatican to get a copy of the Latin.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In my Canon Law class, I should have asked a question about the Renunciation, or at least sought out my professor about it.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I was, as the days passed, somewhat suspicious that the Latin text was not being published. I should have kept my suspicion and acted on it.
BUT I DISMISSED MY SUSPICION
Feb. 20: A friend on the internet sent me a copy of Prof. Radaelli’s appeal to the Pope to take back his Renunciation. I read it, and should have strove to understand it better.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I should have payed attention to everything that was happening on Feb. 28.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I should have gone to the Vatican to speak with some Cardinal or Bishop to understand what had happened.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
Then there was the Conclave and Bergoglio was elected. Rorate Caeli blog published immediately a denunciation, saying this man was a heretic an raving nutcase. I should have taken them more serious.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I came to know more and more that Bergoglio was a left wing looney. That should have left me some motive to investigate how and why the Renunciation took place.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
The English translation of the Act was published near the end of March, 2013. I knew the delay meant that something was rotten in Denmark. I therefore should have looked at the Latin (I am nearly fluent in Latin).
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
I let the months pass.
I let the years pass.
2016: Someone told me that Ann Barnhart was saying the Renunciation was invalid. “Who is Barnhardt, I asked?” “She is the woman who burned the Koran on video”. “Oh, I said, Hmm”. I should have searched to know what she had said, for anyone who can burn a Koran is worth listening to.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
Then someone told me a few months later that Ganswein had said in his talk at the Gregorian that Benedict was till the pope. I should have investigated.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In 2017, someone told me again about Barnhardt. I should have taken the time to find her blog.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
Someone then told me that Father Gruner said the Renunciation was invalid in some video. I should have looked into this, because I know that Fr. Gruner was no loony.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In 2018, in the Spring someone told me about Barnhardt again. This time I found her blog and read a little of it. I should have read all of it and listened to her videos.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In August of 2018, someone told me about Barnhardt again, and I read her core argument. She seemed to have a good argument. I should have opened up my Latin version of the Code of Canon Law and looked at what Benedict had said in Latin.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In September 2018, the topic became more talked about, since Veri Catholici at the beginning of the Month was proposing a Second Synod of Sutri. So I looked more at the issue, but not enough. I was still reading the English translation of the Code, even though I had the Latin on my bookshelf. I could have opened it.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In October 2018, I heard someone say that Pentin quoted Bux about there possibly being substantial error in the act of the Renunciation. I know of Bux and know he is a theologian of repute. So I read the Text of the Renunciation in Latin and the Code of Canon Law in Latin and saw immediately that the Renunciation WAS INVALID. I should have done something.
BUT I NEGLECTED TO DO THIS.
In November, 2018, after burying my mom, I had more time, now that I was not carrying for all her needs during the night, to examine this problem of substantial error. I saw the issue was grave and needed to be studied. I finally resolved to do what Mons. Bux said and investigate the issue. So I wrote my Scholastic Question, gathering all the arguments on both sides of the debate.
CONCLUSION
I often wonder why it is so hard to convince others of the truth of the failed renunciation. And you may also. Maybe you are tempted to give up on others who simply do not want to listen or care.
I hope that this sincere confession of my own encourages YOU to realize that some of the greatest and most zealous souls to fight for Pope Benedict may be among those priests and religious who have on many occasions ignored you or this issue, have yet to seriously consider it. Just like I did for 6 years.
Thus read the headlines in the newspapers within days of the publication of the official Latin text of the Act of Renunciation made by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013: Clamorous Errors in the Latin text of the Renunciation. (here and on point, here). These articles only spoke of the errors of commissum not commisso and vitae instead of vita.
And in this case, the headlines were not misrepresenting the reality. For I have discerned at least 40 errors!
Yet, the propaganda machine immediately went to work and anyone who on social media in 2013 began talking about errors was immediately and viciously attacked as judging the pope! — The real purpose was that the Lavender Mafia was very worried about anyone questioning the validity. I remember my professor in Canon Law diverting the lectures he made in February and March of that year to teach things about certain canons in an erroneous way so as to stifle any consideration of the invalidity. But he did it with such subtlety that only after all these years do I recognize what he did. — The other voices shouting down criticism of the Latin are all part of the circles of those conservative Cardinals who just impaled their reputations by demanding unquestioning obedience to Bergoglio after his acts of idolatrous worship and reverence. That was when the controlled opposition of Trad Inc. was born. It was their first act of loyalty to the regime. And it indicates they were positioned to respond and were told what to do.
So for the sake of a more exact historical truth, I will discuss here these errors and give an English translation of what Pope Benedict XVI’s Latin said (in a Later post, since there are too many errors to be discussed). I do this to correct any misunderstanding given by my previous English translation of the Act of Renunciation, in the article I entitled, “A Literal English translation of Benedict XVI’s Discourse on Feb. 11, 2013“, where by “literal” I mean faithful to the sense, not to the grammar of the Latin employed.
I base my comments on the Latin text on my own knowledge of the Latin tongue garnered in 14 years of translating of some nine thousand Letter sized pages of medieval Latin ecclesiastic texts into English. I will be the first one to say that I do not think I am an expert in the matter, but I do think it would be no exaggeration to say that there are only a handful of men alive today in the Church who have translated more Latin than myself. I also wrote a popular Ecclesiastical Latin Textbook and Video series, which I produced for Mansfield Community TV, in Massachusetts, USA, and which The Franciscan Archive distributed for some years after the publication of Summorum pontificum.
And thus, conceding I can always learn from others, I will also draw from two German Scholars who publicly critiqued the Latin text: the professor of Philology, Wilfried Stroh (see here) and those of Attorney Arthur Lambauer, a Vienese lawyer, whose comments are recorded in part here.
I can also give personal witness to the fact that the Latinists who have worked in the Vatican during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI are aware of all of these errors (and probably of more) and have only been reticent for personal reasons, from what I gather from having had the occasion to dine with one at an Agritourismo, at Bagnoregio, Italy, in the summer of 2016.
First, the Latin Text in Black, with RED indicating the errors of expression (numbering each), after which I will comment on each error section by section, because there are so many. The official Latin text can be found at the Vatican Website (here).
Fratres carissimi
Non solum propter tres canonizationes (1)ad hoc Consistorium (2) vos convocavi (3), sed etiam ut vobis (4) decisionem (5) magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita (6)communicem(7). Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata (8)ad cognitionem certam(9)perveni (10)vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse (11)ad munus Petrinum aeque (12) administrandum.
To say propter tres canonizationes is to mean for the sake of or on account of, three acts of canonizing. This grammatical structure in Latin means, not that the Pope has called the Cardinals together to conduct or announce the canonization of three groups or individuals, but that somehow the Cardinals have been convoked to honor the acts of canonizing or because the acts themselves cannot be completed without them. But the act of canonization is a papal act which does not require the Cardinals. Therefore, the correct Latin should be in trium canonizationum annuntiationem, that is, to announce my decision to decree three acts of canonization, as the Latin construction beginning with the preposition in is used to express purpose. This is a common error of those who have never carefully read any Latin text and who impose a modern meaning upon what they think a Latin preposition means.
To say ad hoc Consistorium may very well be the custom of the Papal court — to this I cannot comment — however, in Latin, since consistorium is an act of standing together, not a place to which the Cardinals are convoked, but a solemn way of gathering together, the correct grammatical structure should be in hoc consistorio.
A pope when he acts, speaks in the first person plural, that is, with the royal “We”. The man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man and not the pope, speaks with the first person singular, “I”. Therefore, the correct form of the verb here should be convocavimus.
The Latin verb communicem takes the preposition cum not the dative of reference, and thus vobis should read instead vobiscum. As it stands, the only possible grammatical function of vobis would be as a dative accompanying decisionem either as a dative of possession (your being cutt-off) or a dative of object with a verb of separation which begins with de- (a decision for you, a separation from you, etc.)!
I agree here with Dr. Stroh, that the word should be consilium not decisionem, because this latter Latin word means a “act of cutting off”, or at best an “act of making a decision”, which clearly is not apropos to the thing at hand, because the Pope has not included them in the decision making process, only declaring a decision which he has already made. And consilium is the proper word for such a thing as that, when done by a superior with authority, if Benedict has this in mind. But if he is playing on the double meaning of decisio and decisione in Latin and English, then decision must stand, but then the meaning is very different.
This is the most absurd error of them all. The person who wrote this does not even understand that in Latin you use the dative of reference not a phrase beginning with a preposition as in modern languages. This should read Ecclesiae vitae, for as it stands it says on behalf of the life of the Church or for the sake of the life of the Church; unless of course he is making a reference to a grave threat to the life of the Church for which this act is intended to defend that life. This may be, but as nearly all modern computer programs which do translations into Latin get this wrong in just this way, I will presume it is ignorance, not a hint.
Since the renunciation is by the person, not the pope, we see in the next sentence that He begins speaking in the first person as the man, but I think since this subordinate clause is still that part of the text said by the Roman Pontiff, as the Pontiff, it should be in the first person plural. communicemus. The sentence which follows, therefore, in the first person, should begin a new paragraph, to show this distinction of power.
This is entirely the wrong word. Because this word in Latin refers to the exploration of a place or region or the investigation into a thing which physical dimensions or size, or is the military term for spying or watching something to gain information. It is never used with spiritual things, for certainly your conscience is not a world unto itself, it is a faculty of knowing. The correct term should be one which means exposed or settled, on account of the reference to being before or in the presence of God.
These words are not only badly chosen but insufficient to precipitate the indirect discourse which follows. The correct Latin way of saying this is to write nunc bene cognosco quod (I now recognize well that) instead of ad cognitionem certam perveni (I have arrived at certain knowing).
This verb does not have the sense of arrived, in matters which deal with knowledge. It rather means to attain, which would make sense if you were spying on the enemy, but to say you have attained certain knowledge by examining your conscience is absurd, because the conscience only recognizes moral truths, it is not the fount of knowledge or certitude.
Here there is a clause in indirect discourse following cognitionem certam. The correct form, if such an expression be kept at all (cf. n. 9 above) should be introduced with quod and be in the nominative, not accusative, because the object of the certain knowledge is a fact known, not a knowing that. And thus, on account of the error in n. 9, the verb here should be sunt, the whole phrase reading vires mihi ingravescente aetate non iam aptae sunt. I think the emphatic dative of possession mihi should be used rather than the possesive adjective meae, because the strength spoke of is intimate to his physical being, not just some exterior possession.
Doctor Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong adverb. The correct one should be recte or apte or as I suggest constanter (rightly, aptly, or consistently).
Bene conscius sum (1) hoc munus secundum suam (2) essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo (3) et loquendo exsequi (4) debere (5), sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis (6) rapidis mutationibus subiecto (7) et (8) quaestionibus magni (9) pro vita fidei (10) perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium (11) etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae (12) necessarius est, …
The use of conscius is more common of knowledge had with others, but when of oneself, in the rare usage of the Latin poet, Terrence, this construction must be formed thus: mihi sum conscius, and not conscius sum, to show that the knowledge is of oneself but that the adjective precipitates indirect discourse. And thus a comma should be placed after conscius to conform to modern standards of punctuating Latin.
Here there is simply the error of someone who thinks in Italian, because the possessive adjective for the third person, in Latin, is NEVER used for a thing in a sentence, only for the subject of a verb. The correct Latin, therefore should be eius though it could be omitted entirely since the phrase secundum essentiam spiritualem is a standard of measure and its object is implicitly understood. Dr Stroh rightly points out that naturam should be used instead of essentiam. I agree, because St Bonaventure says nature refers to the being of a thing as a principle of action.
Here whoever wrote the text is ignorant that in Latin agere refers to all actions, physical or spiritual, and thus is an improper pair with loquendo which is also an act. It is difficult to understand to what the writer is referring, since nearly everything a pope does is by speaking. It is not as if he cleans toilets or does manual labor. Perhaps, the better word would be scribendo, that is writing.
The Latin verb here is badly chosen, because exsequi refers to a work done, but the subject is not a work but a munus or charge, which is a thing. The proper Latin would be geri that is, conducted in the sense of the modern fulfilled or executed.
This is the wrong verb to express what is intended. It is proper or necessary that the duties of the office be fulfilled. But it is not a debt, which is what debere means. The correct Latin should be oportere that is, that it is proper or necessary so as to reach the goal intended.
Whoever wrote this has no experience reading Latin, as tempus refers to seasons. The concept of time in Latin is not the same as with moderns. The idea that seems to be the intent of the expression is in our our contemporary world, but Latin would say that as in saeculo nostro, because saeculum is the Latin term for the world in the sense of time, this generation, or culture, not mundum, which refers to the cosmos as a physical reality or place.
And on account of error n. 6, this phrase must be rewritten entirely, as velocium or celeriummutationum using the genitive of description not dative of reference, and hence there is no need for subiecto. The Latin rapidus is used for hurried or swift changes, which is simply not historically accurate.
And thus, likewise, on account of the dropping of subiecto this conjunction can be entirely omitted.
Here the magni, of great value, seems hardly appropriate, because the questions of faith in modern times are nearly all the product of unbelievers fretting over their imagination of a world without God; magnis to agree with quaestionibus or magni momenti would be more correct. But magni can stand because it is so Ratzingerian as anyone can tell from his writings.
Here there is the same error as before, and thus the Latin should read fidei vitae or fidei.
Here you have the error of a First year Latin student who forgets that object go before verbs in Latin, not afterwards: the reading should be Evangelium annuntiandum.
Here the wrong word is chosen, because clearly the soul does not grow old or weak by age, but the spirit does. And thus the correct Latin should be animi. Dr. Stroh agrees with me.
qui ultimis (1) mensibus in me modo tali minuitur (2), ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum beneadministrandum (3) agnoscere debeam (4). Quapropter bene conscius (5) ponderis huius actus plena libertate (6) declaro (7) me ministerio (8) Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium (9) die 19 aprilis MMV commisso (10) renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae (11), sedes Sancti Petri vacet et (12) Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
In Latin you signify recent things by saying praecedentibus not ultimis. Dr. Stroh suggests: his praeteritis since the emphasis is on recent in the past.
Here the tense is wrong, since the reference is to what has happened in recent months, and is still happening, the correct tense is the imperfect minuebatur and take mihi as a dative of reference not in me.
It is nonsensical to say that you are administering a ministry, the better word should be gerere, as before. But the entire phrase is incorrectly formed, since incapacitatem should follow the rule of capax and take an infinitive in predications (as in the Vulgate) or a genitive (Seneca) with adjectives or gerundives, so the whole should read ministerii mihi commissi bene gerendi.
Seeing that the text is being read as if a decision is already made, to say that you “ought to acknowledge” is contextually out of place, according to time. Also, as a clause subordinate to an imperfect, it must be in the perfect subjunctive. The phrase should read something like iustum fuerit, “it was just that”.
Attorney Lambauer rightly points out that this construction with conscius takes the reflexive pronoun mihi before it. But in proper syntax the ponderis huius actus should precede conscius. Two errors here.
Now come the errors which touch upon the nullity, invalidity and irregularity of the act. Because the renunciation has to be made freely. That it is declared freely is good too, but presumed and not necessary, unless there is someone apt to think it was being forced. Why say this? So this phrase, if kept, should be with the verb renuntiare, and both should NOT be in indirect discourse, because to announce or declare that you are renouncing, is not to renounce anything, but to announce something, and that is not the act specified in Canon 332 §2 which requires a renunciation as the essential act, not a declaration.
This verb if left should introduce a phrase which prepares the listeners about intent or such like, not the act of the renunciation.
This is the wrong object of the Act of renunciation, which according to Canon 332 §2 should be muneri. Dr Stroh, writing it seems in February 2013, notes that this error makes the renunciation invalid. I agree!
The Petrine Munus and Ministerium are not entrusted to the elected pope, but received by him in the Petrine Succession immediately as he says, “Yes, I accept my election”. This is basic papal theology 101. If you get that wrong, it can sanely be questioned whether you were compos mentis at the time of the act. Unless of course the entire phrase ministerio … per manus Cardinalium … commisso is meant to rebuke the Cardinals for allowing him a ministry but not conceding him any real authority. Though such an intent would be both sarcastic and effect the invalidity of the resignation. So this should read in succesione petrina or something similar
This should be a me accepto or a me recepto, that is, “accepted by me” or “received by me”.
This is the one phrase which is correct, but which no one but an expert in the Secretariate of State would know, because, as an eminent Vatican Latinist told me, it is the customary way of indicating the Roman time zone in Latin. Dr. Stroh and Attorney Lambauer, writing from Germany, did not know this.
Here the indirect discourse should end, or rather, the expression of the first person, I, should end, because the calling of a conclave is a papal act, the man who is pope, who just renounced, has NO authority to call one. So here the Latin should resume with the Papal WE, et declaramus.
Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis (1) pro omni amore et labore (2), quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis (3). Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus (4) sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro (5) vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim. (6)
Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII
Again, the error of the First Year Latin student. The phrase should read gratias vobis agimus. First because of the proper word order of Latin, second because He is now thanking them as the Roman Pontiff, because they collaborated with him, not as a man, but as the Pope, the verb should return to the first person plural. Two errors here.
If you are grateful for their service and collaboration, you do not say amore et labore, which refer to physical work and physical affection; you say, rather, omnibus amicitiabus operibusque to show that the friendship and works were multiple and united one with the other. Four errors here.
Again, the First Year Latin student’s error of getting the word order wrong. It should read: pro omnibus defectibus meis veniam peto and the phrase should be introduced by devobis or de omnibus. Two errors here. It is also awkward to return to the use of the first person singular here, even though it it necessary regarding the confession made.
Dr. Stroh rightly points out that this is the wrong verb, the correct Latin is committimus.
Dr. Stroh again reminds that the correct Latin temporal expression is in futurum.
In Latin there is no conditional. The subjunctive is used to express wishes, but not with the verb to wish! You say rather serviam, “may I serve” not servire velim, “may I wish to serve” which makes no sense, simply be more direct and say, “I wish to serve” (servire volo).
CONCLUSION
I think it would be no exaggeration to say, that if anyone saw even some of these errors and did not ask the Holy Father that they be corrected before the act was published, he sinned mortally against his duty of loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. I also think that the number of these errors is qualified forensic evidence that IF Benedict wrote this text and read it freely, that he was either not in a proper state of mind or did not act with mature deliberation.
Finally, if anyone says that the Act of Renunciation has no errors or must be accepted to be a Papal resignation, not merely a renunciation of ministry so as to devote oneself to prayer, then they are clearly talking about another document, because there are so many errors in this Act that no sane person could ever claim that it is binding on anyone. For if it was intended as an act of papal renunciation, and was written by the Pope, then clearly he has already lost too much of his mental faculty to renounce validly, because to renounce validly you at least have to know how to write an intelligible sentence, in whatever language you chose to renounce, and you have to name the office with a word which means the office. Duh!
Public Notice: I spent only 2 hours analyzing the text, so the Vatican surely had enough time to correct it before February 28, 2013, which was 17 days later. I speculate that they did not, because then someone would have objected that the word ministerio had to be changed to muneri, and the reality was that Pope Benedict was insisting that it not be, because He did not intend and had never intended to renounce the papal office or its grace.
This is our English translation of the article published by ChiesaRomana.info yesterday.
How did it happen that the entire world
thinks that Pope Benedict XVI
renounced the papacy?
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Behind every great man, there is a woman;
and behind every great act of a man, the insistence of a woman.
Today, nearly the entire world believes that Pope Benedict XVI renounced the papacy on Feb. 11, 2013.
And perhaps, dear readers, you think so too.
But the truth of what really happened that day has been obscured by the psychological presumption induced by the announcement made moments after the renunciation, by Mrs. Chirri. I am not kidding you!
Did you know that? The entire world thinks that way because of a single tweet, from a pool reporter for ANSA, known as Mrs. Giovanna Chirri. and here is that tweet:
B16 has resigned. He leaves the pontificate as of February 28.
This tweet is in fact the first announcement of the renunciation. It caused Giovanna Chirri to become immediately the most famous journalist in the world, for that moment. For the sake of posterity she subsequently gave several interviews so that we all might understand better the series of events which took place on that day. Here is her testimony, given to the magazine, Familiga Cristiana, on the third anniversary of the Renunciation (Italian original here), the English translation of which is our own:
Though the Consistory should have concluded at that moment, the Pope remained seated, and began to read, again in Latin, from a white sheet which he held in his hand. He said two things first of all: that he had not convoked the Cardinals solely to hear his approval of two decrees for the canonization of saints, but that he had to say something “important for the life of the Church”, and that he was growing old: his precise words were ingravescente aetate. At these words I felt as if a hand was placed upon my throat and a ball was being inflated in my head: because Ingravescentem aetatem is the document whereby Pope Paul VI took from the Cardinals the right to elect a pope, after they obtained their eightieth year of age: they were words which signified retirement. Benedict XVI continued to speak in a Latin, which fortunately was much more comprehensible than that of Cardinal Amato; he spoke for some time, saying that he no longer had the strength to govern the Barque of Peter in a world which is increasingly face paced. He explained that in conscience he had decided to leave, that the Cardinals will have to hold a Conclave to elect a successor and that he was establishing the beginning of the sede vacante at 8 pm on February 28.
I heard what he said but as one who had not heard; I was breathless and my legs trembled as I sat. I could not hold my left hand steady, even when I tried with my right hand. I began to make telephone calls seeking help and confirmations. At the Vatican, where obviously, everyone had something else on their mind, no one picked up the phone. I was prey to a sensation of terror which I had never experienced in my life. At this point, Pope Ratzinger had finished speaking. Some of the faces of those present grew pale; Monsignor Guido Pozzo, sitting next to him, seem to have turned to stone; different Cardinals had fixed stares and the muscles of their faces were frozen. In an unreal silence, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, said in Italian: “This news strikes us as a bolt of lighting out of the blue”.
As you continue to read her testimony in Italian, you see immediately that after three years, she has understood in part the error she made that day, for she no longer speaks of a renunciation of the papacy, but expressly now speaks only of a renunciation of ministry.
Hence, if on February 11, 2013, Mrs. Chirri announced to the world one thing, and three years after in 2016, she explains that Benedict had renounced something else, perhaps we can shake off our presumption that what she said first was correct? One thinks so.
Compare what she said in 2014 on the first anniversary of the renunciation, when she was interviewed by Antonio Sanfrancesco, likewise of Famiglia Cristiana, in an article entitled, La Giornalista che diede la notizia, Non rispiravo, ero terrorizato (qui). A title – which in English, means: The journalist who broke the story, I could not breathe, I was terrorized – which does not give the reader any confidence that she had a clear mind at the moment of her tweet.
This history and the alteration of the narrative is important for all of us because, according to the norm of Canon Law, there is no canon which regards a renunciation of ministry! This is because in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, ministry is never associated with power or office, but only with action or the execution of a duty. Moreover, in canon 1331 §2 °4, ministry is not even listed among those things which an excommunicated person is forbidden to acquire. Hence, in the Code, an excommunicate can exercise a ministry.
Obviously, if the thing, according to its genus, which Pope Benedict renounced on Feb. 11, 2013 is something which someone not in communion with the Church or with the pope, can exercise, how can it be possible that in renouncing it Pope Benedict separated himself from the papal office? That does not make sense. It’s not even rational to contemplate.
Hence, it appears that in changing her story, Mrs. Chirri no longer agrees with what she wrote on that day:
Indeed, let us read that tweet with precision: it contains the words, dimesso, lascia and pontificato, which in English are resigned, leave and pontifcate. But no where in the Latin text of the renunciation does Pope Benedict use any Latin words which mean these things!
Hence, if we are to speak properly and with precision, her tweet is not a report of news, but an interpretation of the event, an interpretation which arises out of the state of her mind in that moment in which she rushed to get the scoop on the news before any other journalist.
Now, at last, perhaps the time has come for the Church to recognize that none of us is obligated to understand that act of renunciation according to the state of mind of Mrs. Chirri, the Mother of the Papal Resignation. I call her, “the Mother of the Papal Resignation”, because in the understanding of the world, it was she who gave everyone to understand the act as an act of renunciation of the papacy, not merely of the ministry, an understanding and interpretation which all who study Canon Law are forcing themselves to find in the Code of Canon Law, but fail to do so, because it ain’t there.
ORIGINAL CREDITS: Testo di Famiglia Cristiana citato dall’articolo citato qui sopra. L’immagine in evidenza, della Sig.ra Chirri trovato sulla pagina di Famiglia Cristiana nel articolo di 11 Febbraio 2014, citato qui sopra, ma senza attribuzione di proprietà intellettuale. Si presume fair use per tutti due. Il tweet di Chirri è replicata dal suo conto su Twitter che è ancora in rete.
The From Rome Blog rarely endorses anything, because the purpose of this Blog is not promotion, but a defense of the Catholic Faith and the exposé of corruption.
As every Catholic knows, who is living on the planet Earth, from the moment Pope Benedict XVI announced his renunciation of ministry, the Catholic Media have not shown themselves loyal to truth, and are increasingly drawn into the maelstrom of lies and propaganda tricks of the Ecclesiastical Mafia and Globalist organizations.
For that reason, among Catholic thinkers, writers, personalities and “leaders”, all those with some sort of connection to the Ecclesiastical Institution for their jobs or income have increasingly gone silent.
Since this Blog is dedicated to Jesus Christ, under His Name of Truth, we consider it a matter of eternal salvation and urgent necessity to signal from time to time a Rare Voice of Truth.
In this case, we speak of a layman who has no such ties to anyone. But for Catholics who have never read the Fathers of the Church or the great Saints who fought against Heresy and moral corruption in the Church, if you want to know what kind of spirit they had, you can find a very good example in Frank Walker and see him in action every day on his Youtube Channel, Canon212.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmv9dP1xm0I
Frank is not the kind of guy who will raise 500 hundred thousand from you by hankering you for money and spitting out the party line. He is the kind of guy who would rather tell you the truth and lose your donation. He is zealously Catholic on every topic. I can rarely say to myself, that I disagree with anything he says, and that is saying something, because I have read the entire Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the Lives of the Saints and have spent 12 years in intensive academic study of Scholastic Theology and Philosophy, and have read nearly all the Encyclicals of the modern popes, the biographies of every Pope and several histories of all the Ecumenical Councils and the English Reformation. — So I will be the first to say I do not know everything, but when you come across a layman who is consistently knowledgeable and faithful to the Church and Her perennial teaching on every point, you have to tell others about him.
So do not waste your time listening to the controlled media or the controlled opposition or in waiting for some member of the Hierarchy to really tell it as it is. Just listen to Mr. Walker’s DAILY news commentaries. They are the Catholic equivalent of what might be called the Anti-Pravda, as he will cut through all the propaganda being put out by the Ecclesiastical Mafia and tell you the bald faced truth.
He also runs a very informed news aggregation site by the same name: Canon212.com and reports from Florida, in the USA. — And remember to thank him in a way a Franciscan Brother without a penny to his name cannot, with a generous donation!
He is a rare voice of truth, and I encourage all catholics to start imitating him. We need to rebuild Catholic Media up from the ground of faith and saintly zeal our forefathers lived and breathed.
While we are on the topic of idolatry, a word needs to be said about the First Commandment and how it has not been observed as it ought for quite some time.
If you move the tabernacle to the side of the sanctuary or to some other place…
If you put the celebrant’s chair on the axis or at the apex of the nave…
If you refuse to kneel and open your mouth to receive Communion…
If you insist your opinions are more important than the Doctors and Fathers of the Church..
If you insist that you must remain in communion with a heretic, apostate or idolater…
Then, you sin gravely against the First Commandment, because:
God is the First, Infinite and Omnipotent.
God is the only source of Truth and Right.
God is the only source of the Catholic Religion and the Catholic Church.
God sees all, knows all, but forgives nothing which is not confessed with contrite penitence.
You cannot fool God. You cannot deceive God. You cannot pretend with God.
Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Religious, and self appointed lay apostles need to take note:
For a single lie one merits to go to eternal damnation, because God is Truth and does not suffer liars.
Don’t insist your pet theories are the truth. The truth is out there, because truth is the acknowledgement of what is, not of what you want it to be.
If your favorite talking head cannot figure out what heresy is,
If your favorite talking head does not know or does not care what canon law says,
If your favorite Cardinal or Bishop or Priest cannot figure out what canon 332 §2 means,
You risk going to eternal damnation with them…..
A word to the wise.
It’s a mortal sin to respect liars … because all liars are idolaters.
Follow Jesus, follow Canon Law since He upholds it from Heaven. Break with anyone who breaks with them, for such men are false apostles and godless atheists.
_____________
* The Secret of Fatima depicted in art, source of image unknown.
As I have reported before, in February 2013 there was a de facto coup d’etat at the Vatican, the result of which was the imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI, and the convocation of an illegal, illicit and invalid Conclave, which resulted in the illegal, illicit and invalid election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Now, I invite the entire Church to examine more carefully what happened in the 58 minutes after the Consistory of February 11, 2013, which ended just before noon, Rome time, on that day.
According to Canon Law, it was the grave and solemn duty of the Dean of the College of Cardinals to approach Pope Benedict and ask for a written copy of his act of Renunciation.
Here are the relevant Canons of the Code of 1983 which regulate what should have been done:
Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.
Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.
Needless to say, I have added some color to the letters of the text to make it clear that, in the very 2 Canons which Cardinal Sodano should have carefully read and acted upon, there is made by the Code itself the distinction between munus and ministerium. And yet for 6 years, and especially during the last 12 months, those who have sustained that the renunciation was valid, dared use the argument that there no distinction between the terms!
It seems so true, that it is almost a law, that whatever one investigates about the Pontificate of Bergoglio, one uncovers nothing but lies and frauds. This is clearly the greatest.
The Laws which governed what Cardinal Sodano should have done
Because in that key moment, before Sodano through Father Lombardi gave the Sig.ra Chirri the go ahead to publish to the world that Benedict had resigned, He will leave the Pontificate on Feb. 28 (B16 è dimesso. Lascia il Pontificato Feb 28), he HAD TO read these 2 canons, or at least recall them.
Let us therefore take a closer look at these 2 canons, which regard what is to be done when someone, with mere Executive authority, receives notice from someone, with the jurisdiction to posit an adminstrative act, that he is to take an action.
My English translation of the Canons:
Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his office (suo munero), before he receives the documents (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) their integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of them has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.
Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.
What Cardinal Sodano did
First, as Canon 40 states, Cardinal Sodano’s first duty was to ask Pope Benedict XVI for a written copy of the Act of Renunciation. This is because, as read out-loud, anyone fluent in Latin, as Cardinal Sodano is reputed to be, would have noticed multiple errors in the Latin, most grievous of which was the enunciation of commisum not commiso by the Holy Father. This touched upon the integrity of the act.
Second, in receiving the Act of Renunciation in the authentic Latin Text, and finding that it was as it was intended to be read, he was obliged to examine if the act was in conformity with Canon 332 §2, which reads:
Canon 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
My translation:
Canon 332 §2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his office (muneri suo), for validity there is required that the renunciation be done freely and duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.
And thus, in this examination, the Cardinal had to confront the very Distinction between munus and ministerium that was founded in the Act of Renunciation, which contains the terms munus and ministerium, but renounces only the ministerium!
Clearly anyone reading Canon 40, would see that munus means office or charge! And in reading canon 41 that ministerium means execution of the duties of the office. Clearly he would as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals realize that it is one thing to have a munus to do something, quite another to put into motion his ministerium to execute it. — He was acting on the very basis of that distinction, because before he acted, he held the munus to act, and in acting he executed the ministerium to act!
For this reason, Cardinal Sodano must be questioned if not publicly accused of having closed his eyes! That is, of having ignored the distinction and his own grave duty and invalidly executed his office, by declaring the act a valid act of renunciation of the papal office!
This is especially true, because Canon 41 forbids (“let him omit the execution“) and Canon 40 invalidates the action of the executor to proceed to any action, not only because the core act of renunciation was invalid, as per canon 188 (for substantial error), to effect the loss of papal office, but also because, being invalid, the Cardinal Dean could NOT recognize that the command to call a conclave was opportune.
There are other anomalies in the Act of Renunciation which also should have caused the Cardinal to stop and refer to Pope Benedict, namely:
The Act of Renunciation is not an act of renunciation, but the declaration of an act of renunciation. As such it lacks the formal quality of a canonical act per se, since it is one thing to announce, another to enact!
The Act of Renunciation contains what appears to be a command to call a conclave. But this command is NOT a command, because it is a declaration not a command, and it is made in the First Person singular, which signifies the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, NOT the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the pope. But the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, whether he has renounced or not cannot call a Conclave, since he has no authority to do so!
The Act of Renunciation contains no derogation of any terms of canon law which it violates as is required by canon 38.
The errors in the Latin demonstrated clearly that the Holy Father had prepared the Act in secret without the counsel of canon lawyers and Latinists, and that therefore, it may lack formal interior consent or be based on other errors of fact or law or comprehension of Latin.
Thus, for Cardinal Sodano to proceed to act as if the renunciation were valid, violated the general principle of law, that the validity of the renunciation of power or right is NOT to be presumed.
This is a general principle of jurisprudence and is even found in Canon Law, in an applied form, in Canon 21:
Can. 21 — In dubio revocatio legis praeexistentis non praesumitur, sed leges posteriores ad priores trahendae sunt et his, quantum fieri potest, conciliandae.
Canon 21 — In doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws are to be compared with prior ones, as much as can be done, be reconciled to them.
In a word, Cardinal Sodano by acting was claiming a munus to act (Canon 40) and using that authority to exercise a ministry (Canon 41) to deny that the Pope had a munus which had to be renounced (Canon 332 §2)!
Thus the Act of Renunciation appeared to be null from MANY manifest aspects of the terminology and grammatical structure. Canon 41 therefore required that he confer with the Pope to have them corrected! Canon 40 invalidated any action he took prior to recognizing the act as authentic and integral, that is, not canonically invalid, irritus or null. — And in Canon Law, as per canon 17, to recognize something as valid, does NOT mean insisting it is valid, when it is not! That is fraud.
By omitting the honest fulfillment of his duties, he acted with reckless disregard for his own office as Dean. He exploited the canonical defects in the Act to perpetrate a horrible crime of misrepresentation. This was tantamount to robbing the Roman Pontiff of his office by exploiting his authority, so as to declare valid what was invalid to produce a papal resignation!
Thus, according to the terms of Canon 40 and 41, Cardinal Sodano should have acted differently. The act of renunciation was of ministry, not of munus, and therefore was NOT an act of resignation. Therefore the declaration of a resignation, which had to have emanated from Cardinal Sodano’s desk, was a canonical lie and fraud! And since, ignorance of the law in those who should know the law is not presumed, Cardinal Sodano cannot be excused from an abuse of his office (munus).
What Cardinal Sodano should have done!
Upon receiving the document of Renunciation, and noticing that the renunciation of ministerium was not the act specified by Canon 332 §2, he should have spoken with Pope Benedict in the presence of 2 credible witnesses and brought this to his attention, as Canon 41 requires. Then he should have asked whether it was his intention to renounce the Petrine munus or simply to renounce the Petrine Ministerium. In the latter case, he should have (1) asked the Holy Father to issue a Motu Proprio naming someone to be his Vicar extraordinaire who would have the potestas executionis but not the office of the Pope, during the remainder of his life, OR, (2) in the case that he indicated that it was his intention to resign the papal office, he then should have asked him to sign a corrected copy of the act, containing the word muneri instead of ministerio and correcting all the other errors, whether of form, of Latin, or grammatical structure etc.. To have done anything less would be a grave sin of disrespect for the Office of the Successor of St. Peter, to which the Cardinal was bound by solemn vow to protect and defend.
Simple. Easy. Legal, Legit. By failing to do that, he convened an illicit, illegal and invalid Conclave, and made Bergoglio an Antipope, not the Pope!
Rome, October 8, 2019: The much beloved and respected Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, gave an interview to the notorious Marxist Newspaper, here in Italy, the Corriere della Sera. (The very same paper which was asked by the Vatican Secretary of State to attempt to get Pope Benedict to deny his tacit acceptance that he was still the pope).
In his interview, Cardinal Sarah made this shameful confession of impiety:
First, just three days after the Apostasy in the Vatican Gardens, in which Bergoglio presided over the adoration of the idol of Pachamama (the Andean equivalent of Astaroth), the Cardinal made this outrageous statement, in reference to Bergoglio:
«Chi è contro il Papa è ipso facto fuori dalla Chiesa. La Provvidenza ci vede benissimo, sa?».
My translation:
He who is against the Pope is by that very fact outside the Church. The (Divine) Providence sees us very well, you know?”
In all my years as a Catholic I have never heard such an absurd form of papolatry stated. There have been many Saints who argued or disagreed with the pope. They are now in Heaven. Saint Paul, the first of them, and his opposition is approved of by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.
Arguably, then, What Cardinal Sarah has said is pure heresy. It is in the very least a false and gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith.
But the Cardinal, to utter this just after the wicked deed in the Vatican, is incredible. That he uttered it at all, after 6 years of Bergoglio’s daily heresies and opposition from many Cardinals and Bishops, is incredible. IS THE CARDINAL SAYING THAT BURKE, SCHNEIDER, BRANDMULLER, ETC. are OUTSIDE of the Church?
But Cardinal Sarah’s impiety does not stop there. In the same interview he says, immediately before the above statement:
« La verità è che la Chiesa è rappresentata sulla terra dal Vicario di Cristo, cioè il Papa ».
My translation:
The truth is that the Church is represented on earth by the Vicar of Christ, that is, the Pope.
One wonders if the Cardinal has ever been to seminary. Because for more than a thousand years the Church has taught:
That Christ Jesus is represented on earth by His Sacred Ministers who receive valid ordination and jurisdiction in the Apostolic Succession.
To say that the Church is represented by the Pope, is to make the Pope the Vicar of the Church, not the Vicar of Christ. It also excludes that anyone else represents the Church.
But when you add both these errors of the Cardinal together, what he is really saying seems to be:
The Church of Apostasy, which is the New Christ to be worshiped, is represented on Earth solely by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, its Pope
I think if you ever thought that Cardinal Sarah is papabile, that you better think again.
If he wants to retract these words, now that he realized what was done on Friday, then he now has the grave obligation to do so!
I write you because I know you in the past have shown yourself to be Catholic and to speak the truth, which few do these days.
I also write you because you have indicated that you know what transpired in the Vatican Gardens on Friday, October 4, 2019, when many Catholic Bishops and Clergy and religious attended a Pachamama ritual of adoration.
Something about myself: I hold a B. A. in Cultural Anthropology from the University of Florida (Class of 1986), where I studied the cultures of the native peoples of the Americas intensely. I graduated with honors and was nominated to Phi Beta Kappa. I am familiar with the rituals of the pagans of Latin America from academic study. I have read the Theologia Moralis of Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori in Latin. I am the translator of St Bonaventure’s Scholastic Treatise on the One and Triune God, published by The Franciscan Archive in 2014.
In regard to what happened, I have never seen such an outcry on social media about Bergoglio’s scandals like this one. The Laity are right, this was a pagan ceremony.
Bergoglio invited, participated, approved and attended. He was not just a witness.
There was employed an idol of Pachamama, the Andean Earth Mother Goddess.
The Idol received the veneration of latria, when all those in the circle bowed down to it.
Bergoglio showed respect for the ceremony by inclining his head on occasion.
When one recalls that during the Decian persecution Bishops were considered apostates, with loss of all office and right to communion, for merely procuring a document which said they had sacrificed to Mars, even though they had not, this goes way beyond that.
A lot of laity, myself included, think that the Faith needs to be protected by the Bishops by a formal act.
I am only a brother. But if I were a Bishop, I would think like this:
I am a successor to the Apostles, whom Our Lord rebuked when He said, “When I return, will I find Faith on earth?”
By “faith”, Our Lord always mean, faith in Himself, the true God.
As a Bishop it is my duty to prevent public scandal which arises from the sins of the faithful. This duty is more incumbent upon me, when the sin is by a fellow Bishop. Because if the Bishops remain silent when another publicly sins, the faithful and general public conclude that no Bishop has the Faith, and that the Catholic Church is merely a farce.
To avert such a scandal and to put things in true light, I therefore must make a public statement.
Canon 1364 already declares excommunication latae sententiae. Therefore, I do not need jurisdiction or office to publicly declare that this man, Bergoglio, has incurred excommunication for formal and material participation in the ritual of adoration of a false God, on sacred soil, participated in by priests and religious consecrated to Christ, into which ceremony there was mixed in, by the perpetrator, Bergoglio, the Our Father.
The Public Scandal is notorious. The actions are undeniable. The sin and crime are committed by the person not the office he holds. Therefore action can be taken by anyone who has grave moral responsibility, whether he holds jurisdiction of office or has a grave duty as a successor of the Apostles.
Apostasy by means of a pagan ritual of this kind is not a canonical crime which requires a trial or court to declare. Because apostasy of this kid is principally in the external act, consent to which is presumed. Unlike the canonical crime of heresy, which exists formally not only out of public expression but manifestation of pertinacity of the mind, the pertinacity must be investigated because the state of the mind, which is hidden, must be made manifest. Therefore in a public act of false worship, no investigation need be made. The Divine Faith requires that we do not attend such ceremonies and as soon as we detect that we are present at one, we must get up and leave. Moreover, we cannot invite priestesses or priests of pagan religions to our homes or properties to perform an act of false worship of an idol. Nor can we receive, as Bergoglio did, the idol as a gift after the pagan ritual. Therefore, the consent to the act is indisputable. This is a clear case of a canonical crime running contrary to the entire obligations of the Faith (Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me), against Hope (There is no other Name by which men are to be saved) and against Charity (Thou shalt love Me with all thy heart, and mind and soul).
Therefore, Bergoglio has incurred the excommunication in the canonical sense..
Therefore, I as a successor to the Apostles have the right and duty to publicly declare it.
Having read the book by Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest, and knowing that the failure to speak out for Bishops and priests is a mortal sin and the chief reason for their damnation, considering my state of life in the Church as a Bishop, I must act if I do not wish to be damned and share in giving scandal about this horror.
Therefore, I will declare that Bergoglio has incurred latae sententiae excommunication for his formal and material participation and cooperation in an act of false latria rendered to the idol of Pachamama in the Vatican Gardens.
These would be my thoughts, if I were a bishop.
I humbly petition, in virtue of Canon 212, that you think similarly and take action to stem the grave scandal and put to end once and for all the pretense of this man to be called a member of the Catholic Church.
One of the most common canards used to discount that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope is that, regardless of all the Canonical Evidence that he did not, He has never publicly affirmed that he did anything other than resign the papacy.
This bold assertion is the kind of propaganda used by intelligence agencies to confuse the Enemy. And if you have not yet considered the evidence, you should take note not to be led astray.
In propaganda of the kind which is used in psychological manipulation, the first characteristic sought is to lie and lie boldly. As Rousseau affirmed, “Lie, Lie and Lie, and something will come of it”, or as Adolf Hitler said, the biggest lie is the most effective:
All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
The Big Lie operative in the Church today says that “Benedict resigned”. As I pointed out in my previous post on the Vatican Coup d’etat of Feb. 11, 2013 (see link here), the Vatican has NEVER affirmed by a canonical document or press release that Pope Benedict resigned or renounced the Papacy. They merely confirmed a TWEET by a pool reporter, who knew some Latin.
This contradicts the expressed obligation of the Papal Law on Elections. Because in Pope John Paul II’s Law, Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 37, the Cardinals are obliged not to act if there has been no lawful vacancy of the apostolic see:
37. I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, the Cardinal electors who are present must wait fifteen full days for those who are absent; the College of Cardinals is also granted the faculty to defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election.
And, thus, obviously, to observe that norm, the Cardinals MUST VERIFY whether there is in fact a lawful or canonical sede vacante.
In the present case, therefore, that means that they must verify that the norm of Canon 332 §2 was fulfilled. But, again, as I have said before, the Vatican has never publicly affirmed that the resignation was canonically in conformity to Canon 332 §2, which is the only canon on papal resignations.
That Pope Benedict never resigned the petrine munus, as Canon 332 §2 requires, is a fact of history. Just read the Latin text of his renunciation and follow the norms of Canon Law on how to read it (see link here, and a discussion here; see an analysis of all the official Vatican translations, all fraudulent, which have attempted to present the Big Lie, here)
But, before we consider the testimonies from our Holy Father, let us first unpack the propaganda, of the Big lie, which is employed by nearly the entire Hierarchy, except Bishop Gracida.
Exposing the Fallacy of Resorting to the Big Lie
Therefore, the canard, that Benedict needs to affirm that he has not resigned the Papacy, before anyone can take seriously the canonical arguments that he did not do so validly are to be accepted — is a complete absurdity! It’s propaganda to support the Big Lie, because it takes as its first premise (though implicit) that the assertion that Benedict did resign has the pride of place, that is, the greater authority.
The international Association of Catholics, which is opposed to the Kasperites, and called Veri Catholici, recently un-packaged the fallacy of resorting to the Big Lie, thus:
THE INSANITY IS UNENDING! — A supporter of Cardinal Burke told VC HQ that so long as Benedict does not confirm that he meant what he said, there is no evidence that what Cardinal Burke THINKS B16 meant is FALSE. Thus VC will discredit its own organization with #PPBXVI truth!
The correct forensic principle, which a canonist SHOULD know, is that what someone says is prima facie what he means, and he who claims that the intention was such as to make it other than prima facie IS REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS INTERPRETATION by a first hand DENIAL of the prima facie.
THUS there is no necessity AT ALL that Benedict confirm that he resigned the ministry not the office, NAY there is the necessity for the Cardinals to obtain from Benedict the statement THAT HE NEVER INTENDED TO RENOUNCE THE MINISTRY BUT RATHER THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY.
But this is impossible and contra factum, because FOR SIX YEARS BENEDICT HAS DRESSED LIKE THE POPE, SIGNED AS THE POPE, GIVEN BLESSINGS AS THE POPE DOES, AND ACCEPTED THE HONORS AND DIGNITY OF THE POPE! If that aint confirmatin of PPBXVI.org nothing is!
And if anyone should claim that he calls Bergoglio the pope and lets him run the church as a pope, nevertheless, though that could put in doubt the 6 year testimony, IT DOES NOT FORENSICALLY INVALIDATE THE PRIMA FACIE rather it argues for coercion or insanity, not validity!
Because FOR THE VALIDITY OF A PAPAL RESIGNATION there is required nothing but the DUE MANIFESTATION OF THE FORMAL SIGNIFICATION OF AN ACT OF RENUNCIATION OF THE PAPAL OFFICE: intentions not expressed are praeter rem!
though (a corruption of) liberty, (or) freedom (as can arise) from coercion or simony can corrupt a valid formal signification, cf canon 332.2 and 188.
(In this quotation I have corrected some typographic errors and elipsees in Italics)
With this preliminary introduction, let us proceed to the main subject then.
Pope Benedict’s Testimonies that He has not Resigned the Papacy
There are several things Pope Benedict did to signify that he never had the intention to resign and that he never did resign.
1. Normas nonnullas
First of all on Feb 22, 2013, he issued certain modifications of Pope John Paul II’s law on Papal Elections. In that Apostolic Letter, entitled Normas nonnullas (see link here), Pope Benedict did NOT make any changes to suit the occasion of a Papal resignation!
This is significant, because the Papal Law only tangentially refers to a sede vacante arising from a papal resignation, and clearly, if He had resigned the Papacy, he should have addressed that error in the Papal Law modifications which he enacted into law on Feb. 22, 2013! Not only did he NOT do that, but he modified a section of the law regarding PAPAL FUNERALS (n. 49). In this way he was giving a big sign that he was going to hold out as the Pope until death.
2. Final Audience of Wednesday, February 27, 2013: in Saint Peter’s Square
Next, In His Holiness’ final public audience to the Faithful, he confirmed this in extraordinary terms which cannot be reconciled with a papal resignation:
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.
The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministrydoes not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.
(In this quotation I have added color to the text)
The Pope could not be more clear, he had resigned the active ministry of the office, not the office. He was resigning the power of governance, but remaining the pope.
All this refers not to a resignation, but a forced abdication or a voluntary retirement of someone who still retains the Papal dignity and office.
3. Pope Benedict leaves Vatican on Feb 28, 2013, as the Pope, not as Cardinal Ratzinger
The Final and loudest visible message was sent by the Pope on the following day, when he left the Vatican, but did NOT lay aside the symbols of the office of the Pope:
He is given official escort as a Head of State by the Italian Republic
He flies, not to Munich, where his brother lives, but to Castel Gandolfo, the private residence of THE POPE.
Any objective observer must therefore conclude, that he remains the Pope, and is signaling that he remains the Pope. Because he is acting as the Pope, retiring from a Vatican that no longer wants him, but NOT as a Pope who has just resigned the Papacy.
Q.E.D.
______________________
NOTA BENE: Someone may say, But Pope Benedict recently said in June, 2019, that “There is only one Pope, and he is Francis”… That report was entirely false, and intentionally so. Here is more about that from Veri Catholici. Click on both links to read the two stories, the false claim by the Catholic Herald, and the debunking of the false claim by Life Site News:
Or, Why did Pope Benedict XVI do what he did on Feb. 11, 2013?
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Pope Benedict XVI, who has been lauded by many as a brilliant theologian, is in my opinion, a more brilliant chess player, for he has defeated the AntiChurch with the most incredibly subtle and effective manuever which could ever be conceived, and which takes a great deal of study to recognize, if you, like myself, took at face value the hearsay which has been put out for the last six years.
Admittedly, the honor and glory for it belong first of all to God, Who enlightens all men and inspires them at times to do things mere mortals could never conceive of. But also, thanks goes to God for sending Our Lady to Fatima to reveal to Sr. Lucia a secret which has until this day remained hidden, so as to give sound counsel to the true Successor of Saint Peter in the End Times.
How Pope John Paul II strengthened the Bulwark of the Church against the AntiChurch
I believe that with that knowledge, Pope John Paul II did 3 things: first, he chose Joseph Ratzinger to come to Rome and prepared him to succeed him (perhaps because he sensed that Ratzinger had the gift of prophecy); second, in 1983, he added the term munus to canon 332 §2, to constrain all of his successors to the obligation of renouncing the Petrine Munus so as to resign the papacy; and third, in 1996, he promulgated a new law on Papal Elections, which would nullify any attempt of the AntiChurch to usurp the Papacy or elect successors to AntiPopes (by requiring that all valid conclaves meet within 20 days after the death of valid popes).
Pope John Paul II warned the Church of the AntiChurch which was rising. He beatified Ann Catherine Emmerich (on the Vigil of St. Francis of Assisi, in 2004) to give papal approval to her own visions in this regard. It should not be surprising then, that in secret, or I should say, in the bright light of day, in papal acts he prepared the Church against that Evil to come!
By these three acts, Pope John Paul II set the chess board and enabled his chosen successor, Ratzinger to enact a stratagem of deception to defeat the forces of darkness.
The Forces of the AntiChurch struck quickly
No sooner than Pope John Paul II had died that the St Gallen Mafia, which had been meeting in that Swiss town for some years, mobilized to put Bergoglio on the Apostolic Throne in the Conclave of 2005. Bergoglio, as is now known, garnered the most votes after Ratzinger. In his campaign to get elected he promised radical financial reforms in the Vatican, so he could pose as a savior and reformer, though his agenda was that of Cardinal Martini, to make the Church into the Bride of the Anti-Christ.
Recently an Argentine Priest revealed, that Pope Benedict, soon after his election in 2005, had asked Bergoglio to be Secretary of State (see report here). Benedict intended by this offer to diffuse the conflict which arose in the Conclave, and to draw out the real intentions of Bergoglio. Bergoglio’s refusal manifested his deceit, because all the reasons given in the Conclave for his election, which in truth could be done by a Secretary of State, if honest, would have spurred him to accept Benedict’s offer. But without the papal authority, his evil and malign agenda could not be advanced. — By this sign of offering the olive branch of peace, Benedict signaled to his own supporters, that after himself there would come an Anti-pope (cf. Prophecy of St Malachy).
With the threefold knowledge of the future had from the Third Secret, from Pope John Paul II and from his own experience in the CDF, Pope Benedict now knew what he had to do. He knew Bergoglio wanted power and would be blinded by its offer. He took preparations to defend the Church with tradition and as the pressure built from the St Gallen Mafia, he crafted their defeat in secret. At the same time, he openly warned the faithful, that the Message of Fatima was about to be fulfilled (On May 13, 2010, saying “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete…”).
Benedict knew that removing the Lavender Mafia from the Vatican was key to defending the Church. But as court documents revealed, in the WikiLeaks controversy, as that effort led to the destruction of the careers of many sodomites, they moved against Benedict to have him removed. His Pontificate had removed hundreds perverts from the clergy.
As I have written before, there was in my estimation a formal attempt at a Coup d’etat (see report here). And this was actually put in motion, with the intent to effectively imprison Pope Benedict (see Report here). — The Conclave pact in 2005 among the warring factions of Ratzinger (Church) and Bergoglio (Anti-Church) also prepared the way (see report here). But, with their cause lost at that conclave, the St. Gallen Mafia would have to wait for Benedict to resign, because being old, he revealed that he was inclined to resign in a few years, anyhow. As he lingered on, however, their rage and impatience exploded.
The restoration of the Ancient Mass (July 7, 2007) and the expansion of the permissions for its use (April 30, 2011) caused a general outburst among the wicked clerics. I myself know this took place in the Italian Bishop’s Conference in 2011, because a Bishop who attended told me how Cardinals and Bishops stood up, one after another, and said the most vile things against Benedict. I also know personally, from the testimony of a Sicilian Businessman, who was in Shanghai, that the Cardinal of Palermo had warned that Benedict could die within a year from poor health. The St Gallen Controlled Media expanded this and reported it as if the Cardinal has said that Benedict had a year to live or else. That report was published around Feb. 11, 2012! (note the date)
Benedict’s Master Stroke
Pope Benedict XVI then played his master stroke. In the Summer of 2012 he indicated to Cardinal Bertone that he was going to resign. He discussed the matter with no one but his secretary Ganswein and a few others. I believe that he wrote the text of abdication in the Fall of 2012. I also postulate that he intentionally showed the Latin text (the invalid one) and a faulty German translation (which makes it appear the Latin is a valid formula) to members of the St Gallen Mafia, to obtain their consent to it. By that act he sealed their doom.
Because only one who was fluent in Latin and knowledgeable about Canon Law and who accepted the traditional metaphysics of the Church would be able to see that the resignation by that formula would be invalid. Ratzinger further prepared the ground by emphasizing for years before, that his favorite theologian was Saint Bonaventure. This caused scholars, like myself, to start studying St. Bonanveture’s Scholatic method for textual analysis of the signification of expressions, which is unparalleled among all the Doctors of the Church.
The only thing is, that Benedict began to give signs of the truth, not only for the sake of the Faithful, but to annoy the St Gallen Mafia. He kept wearing the papal cassock, retained the titles of Your Holiness and signed with PP. Benedictus XVI, and continued to give the papal blessing. He did these things to get faithful Catholics to examine the text of resignation and discover it was invalid. — He did this also, because, I believe, he was obeying Our Lady’s word at Fatima, in which She had revealed that there would come a time in which the Catholic world thought there were 2 popes, but only one of which was the true pope. The one who was the true Pope would continue to wear white, the other would usurp the office; and that the Anti-Church would attack the true Pope and the faithful gathered about him.
By an invalid resignation Pope Benedict has canonically invalidated everything Bergoglio has done, can do, and can ever do! Bergoglio is now an AntiPope because of the clever trick Benedict played on him. And Bergoglio is so entangled by this stratagem of Benedict that he cannot admit its existence, because if he does, he must give up his claim to the papacy.
If Benedict should die, then there will be no valid Successor of Saint Peter unless the pre-Bergoglian Cardinals meet in conclave within 20 days. Otherwise, as Pope John Paul II declares in the promulgation of Universi Dominici Gregis, at the end of the text, any action the Cardinal Electors take will be invalid. If they fail to do this, the Church will not be bereft of a pope, because, as Pope John Paul II taught in UDG’s prologue, the institution of the College is “not necessary for a valid election” of the Roman Pontiff: there is still the ancient Apostolic Law regarding the right of the Roman Church to elect the Pope.*
Benedict has defeated “Francis”!
Note: I wish to publicly apologize to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for anything I have said in criticism of him, since it was not until today that I understood what he had did and why he had done it, nor that as Pope he was acting for the good of the Church in the best and only way he could see to do, acting on the basis of the counsels of Our Lady and Pope John Paul II. — Finally, I entertain the possibility that some Cardinals know of this grand stratagem of Benedict and that is why they act so dumb when asked about the question of validity or invalidity of the resignation.
FOOTNOTE:
* The right of election will fall to those Catholics of the Diocese Rome, who recognize that Benedict always was the only true pope, and that Bergoglio was always and is only, and nothing more, an Antipope. See my Disputed Question on Defecting Cardinals, here.
I will summarize in this article the suppositions and analysis which the volunteers and members of Veri Catholici have worked out in recent days about what really went on in the Vatican in 2012 — 2013. I will do so in a Timeline, which makes understanding what was going on easier. This will be a recitation of facts, with an interpretation which explains them all elegantly.
2012
In March 2012 Pope Benedict XVI established a Commission of Cardinals to investigate leaks of reserved and confidential documents on television, in newspapers, and in other communications media (in what is known as the Vatileaks scandal). It first met on Tuesday, 24 April 2012. Cardinal Herranz served as the Chair, and was accompanied by Cardinals Jozef Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi. (Wikipedia: Vatican Leaks Scandal)
Fall
Someone leaks the results of the Vatican Commission on Gays in the Vatican to Team Bergoglio, which in response begins feverish activity at Rome (Documented by Dr. Sire in the Book, The Dictator Pope). This activity aims for the forced abdication of Benedict.
Early November: The Coup d’etat is hatched. Team Bergoglio demands the resignation of Pope Benedict to prevent the revelations of the Dossier to be presented by Vatican Commission on Gays in the Vatican. The contents of the dossier will implicate all the key members of Team Bergoglio and thus all force and expediency must be employed to stop its publication.
The conspiracy includes not only Team Bergoglio, but all named in the Dossier, the names of whom are given to Team Bergoglio by someone working in the Commission.
The terms of the Coup d’etat are as follows:
Pope Benedict will resign
Pope Benedict will not publish the contents of the Dossier
Pope Benedict will continuously testify that he resigned willingly
If Pope Benedict refuses, Team Bergoglio threatens the Pope with assassination, citing the published testimony of an Italian Journalist on Feb. 11, 2012 saying that the assassination will be within 1 year. The date Feb 11, 2013 is chosen for the resignation to signal to the Lavender Mafia round the world, that the abdication has been forced precisely to defend their evil institution.
Pope Benedict, taking counsel from no one, because he trusted no one, decides to go along but to leave tell tale signs for the Catholic world, so that any intelligent observer will discern what is going on. He extracts the condition of the promotion of his personal secretary to the position of the Pontifical Household, believing this will keep him safe and to signify that after his resignation, He is still the only one true Pope.
Nov. 23: James Michael CardinalHarvey, who had been the Prefect of the Papal Household under Benedict is named Cardinal Priest of Saint Paul outside the Walls, in an apparent reward for his role in allowing Benedict to be betrayed in the Vatican Leaks scandal and to make way for Ganswein.
Dec. 7: Father Georg Gänswein, the private secretary of Pope Benedict from the time he was a Cardinal, is named Prefect of the Papal Household.
December 17: The Pope received a report on “Vatican lobbies” prepared by Cardinals Julián Herranz, Salvatore De Giorgi, a former archbishop of Palermo, and Jozef Tomko. The same day, the Pope decided to resign. (Wikipedia: Vatican Leaks). This decision is forced and is Benedict’s sign to Team Bergoglio that he has accepted the terms given in the Coup d’etat.
2013
January 6: The Feast of the Epiphany. Father Gänswein is ordained Archbishop of Urbs Salvia. He becomes the only holder of the office of Prefect of the Papal Household to ever enjoy the dignity of an Archbishop. Another Papal sign that the renunciation would be invalid and that Benedict would retain the true dignity of Pope. The choice of the titular see, Urbs Salvia, which was a center of the Imperial Cult of Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, is another sign to the Catholic world that Benedict’s resignation would be invalid, as the Prefect will care for the Pontifex Maximus. (That Bergoglio does not have an officer of the Papal Household caring for him is another sign he is not pope.)
Feb. 11, 2013: Pope Benedict XVI, his capacity as Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter renounces “the ministry which he received at the hands of the Cardinals” and calls for a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff. The alternate use of titles Successor of Saint Peter for himself and Supreme Pontiff for the one who would follow him is another sign to the Catholic world of the coup d’etat and forced resignation. But in his act of resignation, in resigning the ministerium not the munus he makes his resignation canonically invalid and sends a BIG CANONICAL MESSAGE to the Church warning them of what is going on (cf. Canon 332 §2). He also includes several errors in Latin in the text as written and as spoken to show that he is being coerced and has not acted freely.
Upon Benedict’s finishing the reading of Non Solum Propter, Cardinal Sodano, a chief conspirator in the Coup d’etat stands up and shouts out: This takes us as a surprise, like a bolt of lightning from heaven. He then orders all in the Vatican to say nothing about what the Act of Pope Benedict means, because he notices that the renunciation is of ministerium, not munus, as agreed. Not wanting to show that he is a member of the coup, he refrains from saying Benedict resigns. He orders Father Lombardi to speak with Journalists and find one who thinks it means he abdicated. Having found Giovanna Chirri, Lombardi gives her the go-ahead to spread the fake news, and after the journalists of the world (prepared by Team Bergoglio) make it a fact, the Vatican Press Office confirms the fake news in the afternoon. — This is the Marxist tactic of using hearsay to repress truth. This hearsay is now the unquestionable dogma of the Lavender Mafia world wide. The sign that priests, bishops and cardinals, as well as laymen, will not question it is a tangible proof of their adhesion to the coup d’etat or beguilement by it.
Feb. 28: Pope Benedict, alarmed that no one has understood the signs he has given, gives his final address spelling out explicitly that he has resigned the active ministry, not the munus, in a last desperate attempt to stop the forced resignation. The lack of response from any Cardinals leads Benedict to believe that he has no friends among them and that they too are part of the Lavender Mafia. He flys to Castle Gandolfo where he hopes to be rescued by Catholic Forces who recognize his resignation is invalid.
Feast of Saint Joseph, Protector of the Church: March 19: At the papal inauguration of Pope Francis, Cardinal Tomko, a member of the Commission on Gay activity in the Vatican, was one of the six cardinals who made the public act of obedience on behalf of the College of Cardinals to the new pope at his papal inauguration. (Wikipedia: Cardinal Tomko) — In an act of obvious agreement to the coup d’etat. A sign, perhaps, that he was the one who leaked information of the investigation to Team Bergoglio in the late summer of 2012. — The date of March 19 was chosen to indicate to the Lavender Mafia that the coup had protected their evil institution.
March 23: Bergoglio, warned that Benedict’s residence at Castel Gandolfo may be to escape the terms of the Coup d’etat, meets with him there and orders his return to the Vatican as a prisoner.
2014
June 12 : Bergoglio awards Cardinal Herranz for his silence by raising him from the dignity of a Cardinal Deacon to that of a Cardinal Priest. (Wikipedia: Cardinal Heranz).
2016
April: Pope Benedict approves the up and coming talk by Archbishop Gänswein at the Pontifical University of St Gregory the Great, in which the Archbishop affirms that Benedict retains the petrine munus and ministry, as another desperate attempt to get Catholics to study the timeline of events. Bergoglio responds with force and orders them both to silence on these matters.
2019
February to May: Benedict having received a canonical brief demonstrating his renunciation was invalid as regards the petrine munus, tacitly accepts it to indicate canonically that he knows he is still the Pope, and politically, that he is under duress not to speak.
+ + +
In fine: His Holiness Pope Benedict, XVI remains a prisoner in the Vatican waiting patiently that someone in the Catholic world will read this timeline and realize what it means.
As my faithful readers may know, I began the From Rome Blog, on September 7, 2013 A.D. with a book Review of Enrico Maria Radaelli’s book, Il Domani Terribile o Radioso? del Dogma, which was a profound medication on the importance of recognizing Beauty as as one of the transcendentals of being. I remain ever thankful that my review so pleased Professor Radaelli that I had the honor of dining with him about a week thereafter.
I met him only on another occasion or two, and he urged me on in my proposal to blog, taking up the more profound questions of the day. I was at the time much immersed in my preparation of the English translation of the Commentaries of Saint Bonaventure, but I took heed of his encouragement.
Often it happens, that a chance meeting or reading will lead to greater things, of which one has not the foggiest notion or daring imagination to foresee. And at other times a slight negligence or carelessness about a chance reading or meeting can be the cause of grave omissions.
I see this now, more than 6 years after the events of February, 2013. At that time I was a student in the Faculty of Theology of Saint Bonaventure, at Rome, and I was given a copy of Professor Radaelli’s Supplica to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, in which he urges the Pope to take back his renunciation. He published this on Feb. 18, 2013.
At the time my mind focused only on one part of his argument: namely the faulty notion that whereas a pope could lawfully resign, it was metaphysically unsound to do so. Reading Professor Radaelli’s paper in Italian, which you can read from this link, today, here, I had the difficulty of thinking about his entire argument and the problem he was addressing, since I think in English. I saw that the Professor had written with the most profound emotion and philosophical sense, but I dismissed what he warned of, summarily, since I was given to the same fault of many Catholics, namely of holding that papal power is such that there can be no question of immorality or defect in anything a Pope could lawfully do.
An acquaintance who had served several Bishops in Italy as their private secretary also in those days approached me to ask my opinion of the resignation. He told me that there was an article in the Corriere della Sera about clamorous errors in the text of the resignation, which would make it invalid. I remarked curtly, that how could the Vatican be ignorant of Latin, after all. And upon reading Canon 332 §2 in the English and Italian found nothing to object to. — Though I remained unsatisfied that there was not yet an English translation of the act of renunciation, which, if I remember correctly, only appeared in March after Bergoglio took the name “Francis.”
Professor Radaelli’s work is entitled, Why Pope Benedict XVI should withdraw his resignation: it is not yet time for a new Pope, because if there is one, he will be an Anti-Pope. (This English translation of the Title, is my own). The Italian is:
Now, I can see that Professor Radaelli had a profund metaphysical sense which went way beyond my grasp at the time. He was warning the world that a papal resignation had to be in conformity with the metaphysical nature of the Papacy, as an office and gift of grace originating and bestowed by the Living God, Who is Being and Existence Himself. Not being a native speaker of Italian I did not at that time see what was motivating him so strongly to object. I see now that it was that the resignation, in Italian, was being called a dimissione, that is a letting-go of office. This is the secular term for leaving office. It implies that the office is entirely in the power of the one holding it, is something secular, and has no metaphysical realty of itself other than a relation to those served.
But this is precisely the nature of a ministerium in Latin, when considered in of itself. Thus, the metaphysical sense of Professor Radaelli was giving off a loud alarm. He did not express this alarm in terms of canonical invalidity but of moral non conformity.
Though no one at the time was discussing the issue of ministerium vs. munus — because nearly everyone was reading a faulty Italian translation of the act of renunciation (prepared by the Vatican) and no one was reading the Code of Canon Law in Latin — the Professor was speaking prophetically in a true sense to warn the Church of Rome of the dire consequences to come.
For this reason, because of my own cavalier attitude to Professor Radaelli’s work, I owe him an apology. And I think the whole Church does also.
I only awoke to the problem when I actually looked at the Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2 in the Latin, and the text of the renunciation in Latin. Then I saw immediately the problem. Further investigation of what Canon 17 required confirmed it.
Today, I know by acquired human reason and by divine faith that Pope Benedict never validly resigned, because to affirm the opposite would require that one reject the entire Catholic Faith, right reason and human language itself. The inherent perfection of Beauty, as a transcendental of being which is inscribed in all things, a perfection which is expressed in the balance of good and truth and unity in a perfect harmony and order, preaches most loudly to all who will hear Her, that such is the case.
Henry III (1017-1056). Called the Black. Holy Roman Emperor. 3 Popes Deposed at the Synod of Sutri (1046). Engraving by A. Closs. Colored. (Photo by: PHAS/UIG via Getty Images)
In his recent article at Rorate Caeli, Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider writes a long article to quell the raging doubts Catholics now have regarding Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy.
But in that Article the learned Bishop gets his history lesson wrong, when he writes:
Popes were deposed several times by secular powers or by criminal clans. This occurred especially during the so-called dark ages (10th and 11th centuries), when the German Emperors deposed several unworthy popes, not because of their heresy, but because of their scandalous immoral life and their abuse of power. However, they were never deposed according to a canonical procedure, since that is impossible because of the Divine structure of the Church. The pope gets his authority directly from God and not from the Church; therefore, the Church cannot depose him, for any reason whatsoever.
(Emphasis added)
As I recited in my article, Yes a Pope can be canonically deposed, the history of the Papacy contradicts the Bishop’s assertion, for the Church does recognize as legitimate a Synod which canonically deposed 3 claimants to the papacy, one of which had to be the legitimate pope.
I quote my own article:
The events are summarized by John Cardinal Newman, and summarized in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the events:
The proceedings of the Synod of Sutri, 20 December, are well summarized by Cardinal Newman in his “Essays Critical and Historical” (II, 262 sqq.). Of the three papal claimants, Benedict refused to appear; he was again summoned and afterwards pronounced deposed at Rome. Sylvester was “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery”. Gregory showed himself to be, if not an idiota, at least a man miræ simplicitatis, by explaining in straightforward speech his compact with Benedict, and he made no other defence than his good intentions, and deposed himself (Watterich, Vitæ Rom. Pont., I, 76); an act by some interpreted as a voluntary resignation, by others (Hefele), in keeping with the contemporary annals, as a deposition by the synod. The Synod of Sutri adjourned to meet again in Rome 23 and 24 December. Benedict, failing to appear, was condemned and deposed in contumaciam, and the papal chair was declared vacant. As King Henry was not yet crowned emperor, he had no canonical right to take part in the new election; but the Romans had no candidate to propose and begged the monarch to suggest a worthy subject.
Now, its not heresy to say that something happened, even if nutty Sedevacantists fell off their toilets when I wrote my article in September, accusing me of heresy. If the Church did depose a Pope canonically, its clearly not heresy to say that they did, or that the Church holds in practice that the Church can. Why since 2 of the deposed popes are depicted on the frieze of the Lateran (constructed in the 19th century), you could even argue the Vatican endorses both their papacies and their deposition, since Pope Clement II is also depicted there, who replaced all three.
Whether the Divine Constitution of the Church opposes such a notion or not, I think, is a concept of the constitution of the Church which excludes her history. Because if the Divine Constitution of the Church does make that impossible, then it’s also illicit, and thus immoral. But the Church has recognized the validity of the Synod of Sutri for 10 centuries, and the validity of the election of Pope Clement II for 10 centuries. So if anyone can quote a theologian or canonist after Sutri who said otherwise, quote him. But can we rely on his authority and not that of the Church by Her tacit acceptance? If we rely on such an opinion, are we not constrained to say the Church was in error for 10 centuries? And if we say that, are we not heretics?
As I said before, if Benedict IX did sell the papacy to Gregory VI, then the sale effected nothing, since you cannot validly sell an ecclesiastical office. That means that Benedict IX was the true Pope, because even if he did resign after the sale thinking he did sell the office, he was in substantial error and therefore his resignation was invalid. I suppose one could argue the Synod was in substantial error thinking it could depose Benedict or anyone for that matter, and that therefore Clement II’s election was invalid on account of substantial error, but the Church has never said that. The Frieze above the interior columns of the Lateran sill show Clement II as the one true valid Pope during the years of his reign.
I think its more probable, that whereas the Pope cannot be deposed as pope or for being pope, the man who is pope, who sins against the office by Simony or Heresy, can be deposed. But I admit that is my private fallible opinion. The Church’s Magisterium has not addressed such a specific case, to my knowledge, to handle the Synod of Sutri. The probability which causes me to hold such an opinion is that such an opinion avoids contradicting defined dogma and canons, by admitting an exceptional case in which the Law Maker Himself would not want otherwise unbending laws to prevail.
Recently at One Peter Five, a website which is subtitled, “Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition”, Robert Siscoe has published an article to quell the raging doubts Catholics have about the legitimacy of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy: the first part of which is entitled: “Dogmatic Fact, the One Doctrine which proves Francis is Pope“, and the second part of which is entitled, “For Each Objection, an answer why Francis is Pope“.
There is nothing much to be said for his article other than it’s a lawyer-esque attempt to convince his audience using 3 different shell games. As you may know, a shell game is where you put a ball under one shell and then quickly shuffle the shells on a table top so that the onlooker loses track of which of the shells contains the ball, and then you ask the onlooker to guess under which shell the ball is. In American popular discourse, a shell game, therefore, is a trick whereby you pretend that something is one thing at one time, when it really is not.
Here are Siscoe’s 3 Shell games:
The Church
In Siscoe’s mouth the verbal expression “The Church” has two distinct meanings: the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, AND the mass of those who uncritically accept that the resignation of Benedict XVI is valid because they never examined its conformity to Canon 332 §2.
The Shell Game that Siscoe plays with these 2 senses can be reduced to a simple Sophistic argument (i.e. invalid syllogism), thus:
Major:The Chuch (founded by Jesus Christ) cannot be deceived about who is the Pope.
Minor:The Church (of all those who have not examined the resignation of Benedict) accept Bergoglio as Pope Francis.
Conclusion: Therefore, The Church (founded by Jesus Christ) accepts Bergoglio as Pope Francis.
This kind of argumentation is a false illation, because the term “The Church” has not the same signification in both the major and minor premises of the syllogism. Aristotle calls this the Sophism of the undistributed middle term, or the equivocation.
Fallible Private Opinion
In Siscoe’s mouth, the phrase “Fallible Private Opinion” has two senses: in one sense its a judgement about something wherein the judgement may or may not be correct, because its not based on objective reality but on an interpretation of reality. In the other sense, its any fact of objective reality which he wants to ignore for the sake of his argument.
The Shell Game that Siscoe plays with these 2 senses can be reduced to a simple Sophistic argument (i.e. invalid syllogism), thus:
Major: No merely infallible private opinion about dogmatic facts can assert itself as more authoritative than the judgement of the majority of men and women in the Church, since the Church’s sensus fidelium and Her indefectibility protects Her from error.
Minor: That Benedict’s act of renunciation regards the ministerium and not the munus, is a fallible private opinion.
Conclusion: Therefore, no one has the right to sustain that Benedict’s resignation is invalid against the vast majority of the members of the Church.
The error of this illation is found chiefly in the Minor. Because, that Benedict said ministerio not muneri in his act of renunciation is NOT a private opinion, but a fact of history.
Siscoe may not know it, but the Science of Logic teaches that the verity of premises flows down to their conclusions in valid illations. Thus:
Major: That Benedict renounced his ministerium, is a fact of history.
Minor: That canon 332 §2 requires the renunciation of munus, is not a fallible private opinion, but a fact of law, being the very text of the Law.
Conclusion: That Benedict’s act of resignation is not in conformity with canon 332 is a fact of history.
Siscoe might want to ignore canon 38, which says that any Motu Proprio which runs counter to the terms of the law, EVEN IN THE CASE IN WHICH the one positing the act is IGNORANT of the law, is invalid UNLESS there is an express derogation from the law by the competent authority (in this case by the Pope), but Canon 38 is there and Catholics cannot ignore to apply it to this case. Thus the conclusion infallibly follows, since the act of resignation contained no derogation from canon 38 or 332, that:
Benedict did not validly resign.
Peaceful and Universal Acceptance
These words mean two things in the mouth of Siscoe: in one sense they mean universal and peaceful and CANONICAL acceptance by the Church (see last quotation in part II). In the other sense they mean peaceful and universal acceptance CANONICAL OR NOT by the Church (see the citation of Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori).
So Siscoe’s usage of both terms can be reduced to this syllogism:
Major: The acceptance (Canonical) by the Church of of a man as Pope requires that all accept him as validly elected.
Minor: Bergoglio has been accepted (even if it be unCanonically).
Conclusion: Bergoglio must be accepted by all the Church as validly elected.
Siscoe’s illation is false because he is using 2 different senses of accepted. If he used the ancient reflex principle in its proper context, as he cites it in the final citation of that article, and did so AT THE BEGINNING of his article it would be obvious that he is beating against the air, because since the controversy regards whether Benedict canonically resigned, the key quality to be examined in the resignation is its conformity to canon law.
In Conclusion
Siscoe misunderstands the notion of infallibility. Infallibility as a quality is the natural property of God alone as Infinite Truth. Infallibility as a charism of grace is vouchsafed to only a validly elected successor of Saint Peter. But infallibility is a quality of every true proposition, on account of truth being per se infallible, even if the thing asserted be asserted by a non infallible created person without any gift of grace.
Siscoe also seems to not know the distinction between an opinion and a fact. One can have an opinion about whether there is life on Mars, because we yet do not know if there is or is not. But one cannot have an opinion of whether there is life on Earth, since that is a fact. An opinion can be had when both sides, pro and con, are possibles. But when there can be no truth on one side of the judgement, an opinion is impossible.
NOTE WELL: In this controversy, there is a fallible private opinion which is being asserted by some as superior to truth, reality and law, and it is this: that the renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of munus. Those who hold this opinion have yet to prove it, and the only valid proof must be in accord with the norm of Canon 17.
La realidad más decepcionante en la Iglesia católica actual no es la perversión sexual, por muy asquerosa que sea. Porque mientras que los actos de perversión sexual son moralmente incorrectos, si un hombre conserva la verdad de la Fe, todavía existe la posibilidad de su arrepentimiento.
Entonces, la tragedia más grande es, pues, la pérdida de la Fe, la pérdida de la verdad. Cuando una mente llega a amar mentiras, a amar mentir, a vivir en la mendacidad y a defender y promover la mendacidad, el alma del hombre ha descendido a regiones infernales.
Tal alma no tiene nada de sí misma o en sí misma para disponerla para que se arrepienta, porque ha dado la espalda a la verdad.
Por eso, en cuanto a la controversia sobre la renuncia de Benedicto, los que dicen que renunció válidamente, no tienen excusa ante Dios o la Iglesia.
Debido a que, como el Vicario de Jesucristo, Juan Pablo II decreta en el Canon 332 §2, la validez de una renuncia papal surge solo de causas objetivas, no depende de que usted o yo digamos si es válida o no.
De hecho, por lo que ese canon declara en su cláusula final, NADIE EN LA IGLESIA tiene el derecho o la autoridad de decir que una renuncia que no esté en conformidad con ese Canon es válida.
Canon 332 §2 – Si el Romano Pontífice renunciase a su MUNUS, se requiere para la validez que la renuncia sea libre y se manifieste formalmente, pero no que sea aceptada por nadie.
Así, EL ÚNICO CRITERIO para juzgar la validez de una renuncia papal está en los hechos objetivos del acto de renuncia:
Hay una renuncia del MUNUS papal.
Esa renuncia se hace libremente, sin la imposición de fuerza injusta.
Esa renuncia se manifiesta debidamente de acuerdo con las normas de la ley por un acto verbal público.
Eso significa que NADIE tiene el derecho de especular si la renuncia es válida o no: solo es válida si cumple con las TRES condiciones simultáneamente. NO ES VÁLIDA, de lo contrario, es decir, si no cumple alguna de estas condiciones.
Por lo tanto, cada cardenal, obispo, sacerdote o cualquier cabeza habladora que sale en las redes sociales, cada periodista, laico, laico o religioso consagrado, ESTÁN OBLIGADOS POR LA FE CATÓLICA para juzgar la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI como INVÁLIDA, PORQUE
EL PAPA BENEDICTO NUNCA RENUNCIÓ a su MUNUS.
de hecho, el 11 de febrero de 2013, dijo explícitamente, renuncio al ministerio que recibí …
Eso hace que su acto de renuncia sea NULO Y ANULADO, porque no está en conformidad con la obligación de renunciar al MUNUS papal.
Por lo tanto, todos los argumentos a favor de la validez, todas las racionalizaciones, todas las especulaciones acerca de la intención de renunciar a la oficina, NO TIENEN SENTIDO. Aquellos que realizan tales actos intelectuales o verbales NO TIENEN DERECHO A HABLAR Y NINGUNA AUTORIDAD PARA JUZGAR EL ASUNTO.
Por lo tanto, ruego a todos los católicos: no sigan el camino de Lucifer, quien se rebeló al principio de los tiempos, porque quería su propia voluntad, no la de Dios. No siga el camino de Adán y Eva, que no escucharon a Dios y no mortificaron sus mentes y su corazón, sino que se rebelaron y le dijeron a Dios lo que estaba bien y lo que estaba mal. No sigan a los judíos sin fe, que habiendo visto todos los milagros de Jesús y su inmaculada santidad e integridad, eligieron rechazarlo por hacer su propia voluntad y seguir a las elites de su propio tiempo.
Le pongo en aviso. Rechace el significado claro del Canon 332 §2 y trate de obviarlo con especulaciones y excusas, y será condenado de manera que Dios lo privará de la Luz y de toda gracia.
Porque al hacer eso, NO TIENE EXCUSA ANTES DE DIOS O LA IGLESIA.
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, the true and only Pope of the Catholic Church, still.
The most disappointing reality in the Catholic Church today is not sexual perversion, however gross that is. Because while acts of sexual perversion are morally wrong, if a man retains the truth of the Faith, there is still a possibility of his repentance.
So, the greatest tragedy is, then, the loss of the Faith, the loss of truth. When a mind comes to love lies, to love to lie, to live in mendacity and to defend and promote mendacity, the soul of the man has descended to infernal regions.
Such a soul has nothing of itself or in itself to dispose it to repent, for it has turned its back on truth.
This is why in the Controversy over Benedict’s resignation, those who say he validly resigned, have no excuse before God or the Church.
Because, as the Vicar of Jesus Christ, John Paul II decrees in Canon 332 §2, the validity of a papal resignation arises from only objective causes, it does not depend on you or me saying its valid or not.
Indeed, as that canon declares in its final clause, NO ONE IN THE CHURCH has the right or authority to say that a resignation which is not in conformity with that Canon is valid.
Canon 332 §2 — If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his MUNUS (office), there is required for validity that the resignation be made freely and duly manifested but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.
Thus THE SOLE CRITERION for judging the validity of a papal resignation is in the objective facts of the act of resignation:
There is a renunciation of the papal MUNUS.
That renunciation is made freely, without the imposition of unjust force.
That renunciation is manifested duly in accord with the norms of law by a public verbal act.
That means that NO ONE has the right to speculate WHETHER OR NOT a resignation is valid or not: it is only valid if it meets all THREE conditions simultaneously. It is NOT VALID, otherwise, that is if it fails to meet any one of those conditions.
Thus, every Cardinal, Bishop, priest, or talking head on Social Media, every journalist, layman, laywoman or consecrated religious, ARE BOUND BY THE CATHOLIC FAITH to judge the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI INVALID, BECAUSE
POPE BENEDICT NEVER RENOUNCED his MUNUS.
in fact, on Feb. 11, 2013, he said explicitly, I renounce the ministry which I received….
That makes his act of resignation NULL AND VOID, because its not in conformity with the obligation to renounce the papal MUNUS. Indeed, in accord with Canon 38, every juridical act which is NOT in conformity with the norm of law is presumed to be INVALID, unless there is added expressly a clause which derogates from the obligations of the law. — There is no wiggle room here!
Thus, all the arguments in favor of the validity, all the rationalizations, all the speculations about intention to resign the office, ARE POINTLESS. Those making such intellectual or verbal acts HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK, NO AUTHORITY TO JUDGE THE MATTER.
I therefore plead with all Catholics: do not go the way of Lucifer who rebelled in the beginning of time, because he wanted his own will, not that of God. Do not go the way of Adam and Eve who would not listen to God and would not mortify their minds and heart, but chose to rebel and tell God what was right and wrong. Do not follow the faithless Jews, who having seen all the miracles of Jesus and His immaculate Holiness and integrity, chose to reject Him for the sake of doing their own will and following the elites of their own day.
I put you on notice. Reject the plain meaning of Canon 332 §2 and try to obviate it by speculations and excuses, and you will be damned, God will deprive you of the Light and every grace.
Because in doing such, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE BEFORE GOD OR THE CHURCH.
February 14, 2019 A. D. — Today Diane Montagna’s article, entitled, “Did Benedict really resign? Gänswein, Burke and Brandmüller weigh in,” was published at Life Site News.
First, let me say a big thank you to Diane Montagna for bringing the controversy to the greater attention of the general public. In this way, all Catholics, who have a right to know of its existence, can at last be informed.
However, I do not praise the article’s author for the article itself, which in all frankness, I must say is full of sophistic arguments: that is false manners of argumentation, and even false assertions, all marshaled in an attempt to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign, and that everything His Holiness and his private secretary have said about this, is to be ignored!
I find it shocking that two Cardinals, to defend the validity of the resignation, have resorted to telling the whole world not to pay attention to what the Pope has said about the meaning and effect of his own act! This is tantamount to rebellion against the papacy, in my mind!
I also wish to contradict the attempt by the article to smear Catholics who hold that the resignation is invalid as persons who are NOT knowledgeable about Church Law, the text of the papal resignation, or who are excessively scandalized by Bergoglio. As I pointed out in my previous article on How Usurpation of the Papacy leads to Excommunication, all those involved in asserting an invalid resignation is valid are risking excommunication for schism and positing acts which only a pope can do. So they have a lot of reasons to ignore a serious and just consideration of the facts, especially if they just went along to get along.
But enough of preamble. let’s examine the sophisms in Montagna’s Article, in order of their appearance.
Archbishop Gänswein dismisses the argument as making no sense. So since he confesses not to understand it, there is really nothing proved by quoting him. I will observe that in German, which is the Bishop’s ancestral tongue, there is no equivalent of ministerium, munus and officium except by one word. So its easy for a German thinker to miss the problem of saying ministerium instead of munus. What the Archbishop says previously contradicts what he says now, so he probably was thinking in German then or is now. But surely he can understand the controversy, seeing that I sent him last month, with proof of delivery, a printed copy of my entire Disputed Question on the topic. But then again, maybe he cannot read English?
Later on in the article, after quoting Archbishop Gänswein as saying openly that Benedict did NOT resign the PAPAL OFFICE, Montagna quotes an anonymous theologian as sustaining,
supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities.
Ugh, what can one respond to such ignorance? Other than that Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 §2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 §1 and canon 41, which reading amply demonstrates that the Supreme Legislator Himself, Pope John Paul II, in promulgating the new Code of Canon Law requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things. — Those who are faithful Catholics, therefore, already know they refer to two different things, because the Pope orders us to do so!
Then the same anonymous theologian quotes canon 15 §1 (actually he quotes §2, but I think that is an error), as saying that the resignation must be presumed valid. But that canon says that a law, which expressly invalidates an act, invalidates even if the one positing the act is ignorant of the law. Thus this canon argues against the validity of the resignation, not for it!
Then the same anonymous theologian confuses the annulment process with this controversy, saying that Catholics who think the resignation is or may be invalid, must wait for the judgement of the Church! Actually, canon 188 says that resignations made in substantial error are invalid by the law itself. That means, they are invalid before any sentence of any court determines the facts: they are null, void and never had any legal effect.
Then, the article quotes Dr. Roberto de Mattei, who cites Canon 124 §2. — As an aside, I would ask that Dr. de Mattei respond to my criticism of his previous error of attempting to raise an opinion of late scholasticism to the level of an interpretative principle of canon law, in contradiction to the obligation of canon 17 — But that canon also contradicts Dr. de Mattei, because it regards only acts which are manifestly conform to the obligations of the law, when in the present controversy one deals with a prima facie non conformity! That is, with the fact that at first glance at the Latin of Non solum propter (Text of apparent resignation) and canon 332 §2, they are not speaking of the same things! For the former renounces the ministerium, but the latter refers to resignations of munus.
Then Dr. de Mattei attempts again to flip a canon. This time its canon 1526 §1, the burden of proof is upon him who asserts. Seeing that it is the Cardinals and Dr. de Mattei who long ago asserted first of all that the resignation is valid, the burden of proof is rather on them! That is why, the mere fact that the Cardinals and the entire Vatican have never published a canonical affirmation of the validity is a strong argument they have NEVER examined if it was. But in the case of a resignation, a Cardinal Elector is gravely bound to personally verify that the resignation is valid, because otherwise he will participate in an illicit Conclave and elect and Anti-Pope!
Then, Cardinal Brandmuller attempts to flip two sound dicta: de internis non iudicat praetor(a praetor does not judge of things internal) and quod non est in actis, non est in mundo (what is not in the act does not exist in the world). I say this, because he cites these to argue that those who doubt the validity of the resignation are in error. However, since those who doubt the validity, as I do, do not base our arguments on interior intentions, nor on suppositions, but on the text of the act of renunciation itself, we are acting in perfect harmony with those dicta. Nay, rather, its Cardinal Brandmuller and Burke and Gänswein who violate these, because they say the Pope intended to resign the munus, therefore he did resign the munus, and that ministerium means the munus which is not renounced in the text, because the Pope intended to resign the munus, they judge the Pope’s intention not the act itself!
Then, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.” This, I will admit — for those who have not read the Code of Canon Law and studied this question of substantial error on account of not saying munus nor referring to the office — might be difficult to prove, because many are ignorant of the Canon Law and its obligations. But for those who do, or should know it, it is not! — Just see my disputed question on it. You can find it in Spanish translation here. In that Question, I carefully examine and refute the 19 reasons alleged for the validity and marshal 39 arguments, drawn from Canon Law, Theology, Philosophy, etc. against the validity.
Finally, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “It seems clear to me that Benedict had his full mind and that he intended to resign the Petrine office.” — Having given no argument but his speculation about the intention of what Pope Benedict XVI intended to say, other than to deny what he expressly has said on other occasions, the opinion of this eminent Canonist must be disregarded as any gratuitous unproven declaration which runs counter to the facts is disregarded.
In conclusion, I would ask these three eminent prelates to read Canon 17. Therein, Pope John Paul II obliges all Catholics to understand canon 332 §2 in a specific manner. In that manner, it can be seen that there is no question at all that the renunciation of Benedict is invalid by reason of substantial error (canon 188) in thinking that a renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of the papacy.
I believe that the Cardinals in particular, perhaps out of their familiarity with the Annulment process which focuses on the intention as the formal principle of the validity of the bond of Matrimony, are missing the point of the teaching of Pope Boniface VIII (Decree of Boniface VIII (6th vol), 1.1, T.7, Chap. 1: De Renunciatione:) that papal renunciations deal formally with the verbal signification of the act, not on the intention of the one renouncing. Also, they differ significantly in this, that the power to tie the bond of marriage consists in the ones who take marriage vows. But the power to remove the munus of the papacy is held exclusively by Christ the Lord in glory, who has promised Peter to uphold the letter of Canon Law promulgated by his successor, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, and Who cannot act unless the renunciation expressly conform itself to that canon.
In controversies, we often forget the higher principles and end up disputing only in regard to the minutiae. This is dangerous, because the chief motives, especially in controversies in the Church, should depend upon Eternal and Divine principles.
For this reason, it is important for us to remember that Christ Jesus founded the Catholic Church and is the Author and Grantor of all ecclesiastical offices: offices, which are of supernatural origin and to which He has affixed a gift of grace (munus) which cannot be alienated except by explicit renunciation.
We know this by Divine Revelation. For when He asked Simon bar Johan what men thought of Himself, Peter responded: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
To which Our Lord, Messiah and Redeemer responded: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Gospel of Saint Matthew, Chapter 16)
We often fail to recognize, that by a Divine Promise God, who cannot be bound and obligated to man, has nevertheless bound and obligated Himself to man in what He has promised. In regard to the Petrine Office (munus petrinum), Christ has actually bound HIMSELF to the official acts of the Roman Pontiff and to the words thereof. He has thus WILLED as GOD not to act, if the Roman Pontiff does not allow Him to act, and to act when the Roman Pontiff allows Him to act.
While this binding of God to Peter is not universal, it nevertheless does regards Papal Acts, where the man who is Pope acts as pope. It also regards the man who is pope, inasmuch as he is a man, in the matter of accepting and renouncing the Papal Office (munus petrinum). For when a man accepts his election or acclamation as Pope, Christ bestows on the man the office and gift of grace (munus) which he gave Saint Peter to be passed on to the Bishops of Rome until the end of time. The Church in Her wisdom has signified this office and gift of grace with the only Latin word which means both office and gift, “munus”.
No other Latin word having such a meaning, Pope John Paul II, as legislator of the New Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, added munus to Canon 322 §2, as the fundamental condition to spark, as it were, the recognition of a papal resignation.
While men can ignore that word in canon 332 §2, Christ cannot.
This is no exaggeration, no mere human opinion. Because since it is of Divine Faith that Christ promised to bind and loose according to the word of His Vicar. His vicar in adding that word to the canon regarding papal resignation, did bind Christ Himself not to withdraw the office and gift of grace (munus), if the munus were NOT renounced.
The Sacred Hierarchy, and especially the College of Cardinals, need to recognize this fundamental theological truth of Christology and Ecclesiology, and return to a correct recognition of the facts of the case. They must ignore what men say about what happened on February 11, 2013 on the basis of what a pool reporter, with little knowledge of Latin thought Benedict signified. They must ignore what all who think what that act signified. They must attend solely to Canon 332 §2 according to what that canon says in its Latin official text. They must read it in accord with canon 17 and the text Non solum propter.
They must recognize, that when the Vicar of Christ does not renounce the office and gift of grace which Christ gave to him alone, Christ cannot transfer it to another, even if the whole Church wants Him to transfer it. He cannot act, until His Vicar acts. And even if His vicar is confused due to old age, He cannot act.
Thus, it’s indubitably true that Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and that Christ Himself regards Benedict alone as His Vicar on Earth. God Himself can do no other. He cannot break His promise to Peter.
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.
