News

Why Revolutionaries call their opponents Extremists

23 Comments

Or How one Eminent Canonist at Rome
Just Admitted that Bergoglio is a Usurper

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The salvation of souls is the most important thing. That is why in the time of perfidy and falsehood it is a grave moral obligation to warn the faithful of the imminent danger to their souls, from whatever quarter that threat comes.

I too, personally, cannot comprehend or contemplate the prudence that would keep silent while letting wolves gobble up sheep and ship them off in boat-loads to Hell.

That is why, I think every catholic who is struggling with the question of whether Berogoglio is the Pope or whether Benedict did not really resign, needs to read the report I file here below.

I say this because I have just had the occasion to talk with one of the most eminent and respected canonists in the Church and show him my Disputed Question on the Renunciation. He holds a doctorate in Canon Law and a very important position in the Academic world here at Rome. I met with him this morning, as he graciously granted me an audience despite knowing something about my writing on the subject.  I respect that.

And for that reason, since I am interested in truth, and not in damaging reputations, I won’t mention his name. But since what he said is important and needs to be heard by everyone in the Church, I will summarize as best I can remember. (I did not record the conversation, and what follows is not a transcript.)

I explained my academic background and preparation. Then I mentioned the comment of Mons. Nicola Bux, last year in October, about the possibility that in the Renunciation of Pope Benedict there was a substantial error which made it invalid to cause him to lose the office of the Papacy, then we discussed the problem according to canonical principles.

This eminent canonist in the course of our 20 minute conversation, agreed with me on the following points of law:

  1. A papal resignation falls under the category of legal acts which pertain to the cessation of power.
  2. The cessation of power is never presumed, it must be manifest in the legal act.
  3. The Roman Curia assists the Pope in the exercise of the Petrine Ministry, but no one in the Curia, not even the Secretary of State shares in the Petrine Munus.
  4. During a sedevacante there can be no innovation in the law.
  5. If Ratzinger did validly resign, then from the moment he did, there was a sede vacante.
  6. During a sede vacante the entire Church is obliged to judge who is not pope and who is pope based on the norm of the law, not on the hearsay or claims of anyone, let alone journalists.
  7. Canon 145 §1 does define every ecclesiastic office as a munus.
  8. Canon 332 §2 does require the Church to recognize that a papal renunciation takes place when there is a free and manifest renunciation of the Petrine Munus.
  9. Canon 1331 §2, n. 4, does not forbid an excommunicate to exercise or hold a ministry in the Church, and does not equate ministerium with dignity, office or munus.
  10. Christ’s promise and prayer for the Successor of Saint Peter is infinitely more important of a support for the Pope than all the prayers and good works of the Church for the Pope.
  11. It is necessary that the entire Church take care that a Petrine Succession, that is, the passing of the office of the papacy from one man to another, takes place in the way canon law and the will of Christ intend it.
  12. Our concern for the solution of this problem should be based on the highest charity and justice for both Benedict and Francis.
  13. There is no canon in the Code of Canon Law which says that ministerium = munus.

So much for what we agreed on. It was very substantial, and I much appreciated the occasion to speak with such a brilliant mind on the law.

However, we had fundamental disagreements. Here I will list those which I remember. These are positions which I do not hold, but represent substantially those of the canonist:

  1. Any questioning of the legitimacy of Pope Francis for the purpose of taking from him a legal claim to the Papacy is the greatest evil in the Church.
  2. Any canonical study or investigation which so questions Pope Francis’s claim if it is motivated by such a motive, is to be entirely refused before even being heard.
  3. Scholastic theology is not the mind of the Church and it does not determine reality.
  4. Canon Law does not determine reality.
  5. Munus is contained in ministerium, so he who exercises ministerium holds a munus.
  6. Canon 17, which establishes the legal norm for the interpretation of every canon, is not operative in any discussion of Pope Francis’ legitimacy or Benedict’s resignation.
  7. Catholics investigating either issue should read and accept the scholarly works of only those authors who sustain that Bergoglio’s claim is valid and the Benedict’s resignation is valid.

Discussion

The usurpation of power is an act whereby someone who does not have claim to a right, claims that right. We live in an age of usurpation, as can be seen from the daily news. But when you encounter a canonist who takes the position that the holding of power makes legitimate the claim to power, you are face-to-face with proof that there is no reason or legal obligation to support their revolution.

So, though we did not discuss the opinions of Cardinal Burke, when I consider that Cardinal Burke called all who question the legitimacy of Pope Francis’ claim to the papacy, “extremists”, I wonder what he would say on these same points. Because what is extremism, in the bad sense of the word, anyhow? Is it claiming that 2+2 must = 4, and that those who say it does not are wrong? Or is it saying that anyone who questions a legal claim, because it lacks a foundation in law and right, is nuts?

The most egregious affirmations made by this canonist are contained in nn. 5 and 6.  To reject the norm of canon 17 in the reading of the Code is basically to throw in the dust bin any obligation to hold that the Code means what Pope John Paul II said it meant and what it itself or canonical tradition says it means.

To claim that munus is contained in ministerium is pretty much to reject the entire Incarnation, because that is the doctrine of those Christians who claim that the doing of a ministry gives you authority. It’s the protestant principle of office, as a very eminent historian of the comparison of ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation recently affirmed to me in a private chat.

So, basically, if munus is contained in ministerium, then if anyone starts dressing like the Pope and acting like the pope, nominating bishops and consecrating them, THEN HE IS THE POPE! Because, after all the papal office is contained in the papal ministry, do the ministry and you have the office!

Finally, for a canonist to say that Canon Law does not determine reality in a discussion on the question of the canonical validity of the Renunciation is basically to concede that the Renunciation is clearly and manifestly NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE NORM OF CANON 332 §2.

So the next time anyone tells you that you must accept Pope Francis as the pope BECAUSE OTHERWISE you are a sinner or a heretic or a schismatic, maybe you should reply,

“In the Catholic Church only he is pope who has been canonically elected after the death or canonical resignation of the previous man. If one of the most eminent canonists of Rome, who supports Pope Francis, admitted to Br. Bugnolo on Nov. 19, that the Renunciation is not in conformity with the canonical requirements of the law, then I think I have an UNSHAKEABLE RIGHT by baptism to refuse Bergoglio as a usurper, for clearly, Bergoglio’s own supporters after nearly 7 years should have a canonical argument which proves his claim! And if they do not, there is none! And if there is none, why in Heaven or Earth, to I have to accept him without such a claim?”

POSTSCRIPT: It is VERY noteworthy that this eminent Canonist did not use certain arguments. He did Not:

  1. Cite the maxim referenced in Canon 1404, the First See is judged by no one (Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur), because he recognizes that an act of renunciation is of the man who holds the office, in as much as he is the man who accepted the office, not inasmuch as he is the man who holds the office.
  2. Appeal to universal acceptance: a crazed notion invented by some English speaking laymen, who having selectively quoted from John of Saint Thomas, want to apply a reflex principle, developed in an age before there was a Code of Canon Law, for troubled consciences in the time of a valid election, to silence honest inquiries into an invalid election which the principles of the Code of Canon Law clearly put it in doubt.
  3. Employ any ad hominems. That is, he did not insult me or question my motivation.
  4. Appeal to any meeting held in the Vatican after Feb 11, 2013 12 pm, noon, and before Feb. 28, 8 pm, when Benedict left the Vatican, in which there was an official determination or discussion of the canonical validity of the act to determine it was valid. Being an expert canonist at Rome, he would have heard of any, after nearly 7 years.
  5. And most importantly, perhaps, he made NO appeal to anything said by Benedict after Feb. 28, 2013, evidently because as a sane canonist, he recognizes that no testimony after the fact, regarding liberty or intention, has any bearing on the validity of a past act. Both need to be manifest in the act itself at the time of the act.

________

CREDITS: My photograph of the Holy Water fount at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. The sculpture beneath it shows a cherub inviting the faithful to bless themselves with the Holy Water, while a demon cringes that anyone do something so extremist.

THANKS TO MY READERS: I wish to take this moment to thank all my Readers at this blog for encouraging me in my work and study to study the Renunciation. I would not have been prepared to debate the Renunciation with this eminent canonist, if I had not already learned a great deal from trying to answer your many questions and concerns during the last year.

 

News

Pope Benedict’s forced Abdication

6 Comments

HOW IT WENT DOWN

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As the long time readers of my blog, From Rome, know, I have extensively covered the Renunciation of Pope Benedict in articles analyzing it’s canonical value (here), who perpetrated the seizure of power from him (here), how it lead to his de facto imprisonment (here) and how, nevertheless, He has triumphed over all his enemies by it (here). Moreover, I have covered the signs he has given after the fact that he never resigned validly (here, here and here). And in many other articles.

Now I want to focus on how the Renunciation happened, that is who was behind it and how it went down, to show that in some respects it might have been a forced and in others, a free act, and how and why Benedict may have sound reasons to be continually hesitant to admit what he really did and why.

History is Context

Fred Martinez, of Catholic Monitor Blog, is doing some excellent work at cutting through the propaganda of the controlled Catholic media. In his post of Monday, October 29, 2018, entitled, “Is Francis our first gay Pope?” he laid out in great detail all the evidence that the core agenda of Bergoglio is to achieve the agenda of the LGBTQ movement.

Two days and one year later, Raffaela, who blogs at, Il Blog di Raffaela. Riflessione e Commenti fra gli amici di Benedetto XVI, published a very excellent historical chronical of Pope Benedict’s war against pedophilia in the Church, in a blog post entitled, “Le decisioni e l’esempio del Papa Benedetto XVI nel combattere la piaga della pedofilia nella Chiesa. Cronologia“ (English translation: The decisions and example of Pope Benedict XVI in fighting against the plague of pedophilia in the Church. A Chronology).

These two excellent contributions to Church history by lay bloggers are the necessary context to understand the forced abdication of Pope Benedict, or rather, to discern what I believe are the general and specific indications that in some way the Renunciation was demanded of Pope Benedict and in some way it was a free act.

Rules of Power

The first forensic criterion to employ is the common principle, often quoted here in Italy, of Cui prodest? This Latin maxim means, literally, Who is profiting from it? And the soundness of this principle in forensic investigations is based on the principle of moral theology, that no one does anything purposeful without a reason, and thus no one commits a crime unless something is to be gained by it.

So, Rafaella shows us that Benedict was a strong opponent of pedophilia in the clergy and was willing to remove Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests and even place Commissioners on large and powerful groups, to punish this abominable vice.

But after his abdication (I use this term to refer to a forced renunciation), there comes into power Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Mafia of St Gallen and the Lavender Mafia, who are pushing the gay agenda, openly and flagrantly.

The common sense inference, then, is that one of these three groups or all of them insisted on the removal of Pope Benedict.

This is less a conjecture than a simple application of the rules of power struggles. The Papacy since the time of the Italian Risorgimento, has lost all real temporal power. It can be invaded at any time, and the powers of the nations can at any time take away its status as an independent diplomatic entity. The result of this loss of temporal power, means in truth, that the Papacy is left with a small enclave which is populated only by the Roman Curia and ruled by the Cardinals.

Now while the Cardinals each do not have as much power as the Pope, all of them together, with all their political and financial connections round the world, do in fact have more power than the pope.  Therefore, it would not be surprising if in the century following the suppression of the Papal States, that the College of Cardinals would come to dominate the power structure of the Vatican and that the Pope might become simply the public pawn of an all male club of ecclesiastics.

Now if these political inferences are correct, it would be expected that if a Pope started to impose discipline upon the subjects of each faction of Cardinals, by booting out of the priesthood or suspending some of their best friends and supporters, who were pedophiles, that eventually a zealous pope might in fact undercut all the power structures which put him in and maintain him in power.

What was happening in the year prior to the Renunciation?

With these speculations as a preface, let’s consider just some of the groups that Benedict XVI penalized in the year prior to Feb. 11, 2013, and watch how the timeline supports the inferences of risk, which I just outlined.

  1. On Feb. 2, 2012, Mons. Scicluna (who now leads Bergoglio’s pro gay clerical investigation team) marks out Pope Benedict as the person responsible for punishing pervert priests.  This may sound like praise, but it also might be painting a bull’s eye upon the target to be removed.
  2. From Feb. 6 to 9, 2012, there is a Conference in Rome for Bishops and heads of religious orders on the need to remove perverts. Members of the Conference again finger Pope Benedict as being the prime mover of it.
  3. Feb. 16, 2012 onwards: The Legionaires of Christ, their Movement and their woman’s branch come under strictures and strong measures against sexual perversion and the evil role of their founder.
  4. Spring, 2013: Church of Ireland rocked by allegations.
  5. May, 2012: Members of the Legionaires of Christ are reduced to lay state, new strictures upon the institute imposed by Papal order. New investigations.
  6. Spring and Summer, 2012: Pope Benedict begins to demand resignations of bishops.
  7. July 2, 2012: Pope Benedict appoints Archbishop Muller to the CDF. Shortly after this, he begins considering a renunciation. Before the end of summer, he mentions it to Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, who was effectively the real monarch at the Vatican and who was blocking Benedict on many things. (Why mention this to your chief opponent?)
  8. October 2012: Don Oko publishes the book, Pope Benedict against the Homo-Heresy.
  9. October 11, 2012: The investigation into the Legionaries is put on pause, allegedly because the Cardinal assigned needs to rest.
  10. January 30, 2013: the Acts of the Conference from a year ago are published an presented to Pope Benedict.
  11. February 1, 2013: Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles announces that Cardinal Mahoney is banned from all public activities as a Bishop on account of his gross mishandling of cases of pedophilia in that Archdiocese. At the same time he names 126 priests of the Diocese as involved in such crimes. (Sicluna and Mahoney share the same episcopal lineage)
  12. Feb. 5, 2013: New promoter of Justice at the CDF, Fr. Oliver, mentions Sicluna in a statement wherein he fingers Benedict as the key man in the Vatican for punishing pervert priests.
  13. Feb 7, 2013 — From Rome Blog has it from a source at Rome, that on this day, Mr. Gotti, who had been dismissed from IOR the previous summer, without the knowledge or consent of Pope Benedict, had an hour long meeting at the Vatican with Cardinal Bertone, the then Secretary of State, in which the Cardinal affirmed Benedict’s decision to reinstate him fully and back him in his investigation of the Vatican Bank.
  14. Feb. 11, 2013 — On a single sheet of paper, to the surprise of nearly everyone, who is left speechless, except Cardinal Sodano, Pope Benedict reads out a statement of renunciation.

In short, in one year Pope Benedict had shown himself willing to take down the most powerful priestly institute in the conservative flank of the Church AND to take down one of the most powerful Cardinals in the liberal flank of the Church.

Further information on what was going on in the Vatican Bank is neatly summarized by the Blog, Informatii si mesaje, in their post of Dec. 18, 2018, entitled, “Cardinals’ Mafia — plot against Benedict XVI“, which excerpts reports by Edward Pentin, Marco Tosatti (Rorate Caeli translation), Maike Hickson and Louie Verrechio from 2015.

An Examination and Discussion

The decision to tell Mr. Gotti that he would be reinstated on Feb. 7, and the decision to renounce on Feb. 11 simply do not add up. You cannot have any real hope that you will reinstate someone if you are planning ahead to resign in 4 days. That makes no sense. Also, it makes no sense that Benedict was planning to resign since the summer (as Bertone claims in 2016), and never find the 14 errors in the Latin text you are planning to read out-loud in the Consistory of February.

We do know that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is ground zero of a  Jewish Gay Mafia with strong ties to the financial industry, and that the Archdiocese has strong ties with this Mafia. We know that on Jan. 5, 2013, the ATMs at the Vatican were shut down by Deutch Bank, a move many have speculated was a signal to Benedict that the financial powers wanted him out.

Conclusions

I believe, therefore, that the demand for the Pope’s resignation was most probably made after February 7, 2013 and before the consistory of Feb. 11, 2013. — If Giuseppe Auricchio, the seer of Avola, Italy, can be believed, he foresaw that Benedict would receive a demand he could not agree to. — If you examine the text of the renunciation, you will find a Latin rife with errors, of the kind which would result if a non expert wrote it and had only 4 days or less to find errors in it. So it is very possible that Benedict was given a text, and that He modified it to make it appear to be a valid resignation, but in fact rather to make it to be an invalid resignation. And that, not knowing who was behind those demanding his resignation, he has never admitted what he really did, so as to protect himself and the Church from this Mafia.

I have not proven a crime, however, I have only outlined a chronology that needs to be further investigated, a chronology which leads me to use as an operative hypothesis, that Benedict DID NOT write the original text of the Renunciation, only changed perhaps the word munus to ministerium.

In my next report, I will discuss the errors in the Latin text and what they show about who may have written it.

Editorials, News

Meet Giovanna Chirri, mother of the notion that Benedict resigned the papacy

6 Comments

giovannachirri_904617

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:

https://twitter.com/GiovannaChirri/status/300921810071982080

In English, that reads:

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:

https://twitter.com/GiovannaChirri/status/300921810071982080

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.

Editorials

A Rare Voice of Truth

8 Comments

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.

 

News, Videos

Feb 14, 2013: Pope Benedict warned Roman Clergy that He had not resigned

7 Comments

The evidence is there for all who want to see it. But you can only see it if you pay attention and think about what you are looking at and hearing.

Thus it was that 3 days after His declaration of renouncing the Ministry, Pope Benedict calls together all the Clergy of Rome to give them an impromptu talk, nearly an hour long.

On what?  His renunciation of the Papacy?

NO NOT AT ALL!

On what then?

On the history of Vatican II and how what it intended to do was overcome by the Conspiracy of the Main Stream Media of that day to present the Council as advocating and teaching something entirely different.

Sound familiar?

Yes, because that is what exactly happened THREE DAYS BEFORE, when upon announcing His decision to renounce the petrine ministry, so as to dedicate himself to prayer, the Main Stream Media depicted what he did as a renunciation of the Papacy!

Thus, on Feb. 14, Pope Benedict to correct this error speaks to the entire Clergy of Rome and explains how Vatican II was misinterpreted and how the truth must come out by presenting the reality of what it did and said and not repeating what the Media claimed had happened.

During which discourse he says explicitly, “Now that I have decided to retire…”!

Note what he says.

He never says, “Now, that I have announced my renunciation of the Papacy”.

He is speaking for nearly an hour with eyes raised in the air, NOT reading from a script.

Does that sound like someone who has to resign because of frailty?

In short, Pope Benedict was giving the Roman Clergy all the information and principles of discernment to realize one day in the future, that He had not renounced the Papacy and was still their Bishop.

This is the brilliant mind of a man who can think 10 steps ahead of his enemies, and spill the beans in broad daylight without them realizing that he is undermining their coup d’etat.

This is a man who also profoundly realizes that he does not know, whether anyone around him can be trusted with the truth, so he speaks in parables. And it fits perfectly with all the other things he did that fateful month of February, 2013, as you can see from my report, “Benedict said in every way that He he did not resign“.

Finally, he indicates His trust in the Clergy of Rome that they will discover the truth one day, when, while referring to the preparations for the Second Vatican Council, he points out that the real fruitfulness of that ecclesial meeting lay in the fact that all the Bishops took the responsibility to join in prayer, action and small group meetings to discuss what was to be done, thereby indicating that the Clergy of Rome will be able to resolve this problem when they begin to do the same.

The original talk of Our Holy Father was in Italian, but an English translation is available:

__________

La Stampa, one of the leading Marxist papers of Italy, did not realize it at the time, but as of the Spring of 2019, when the proof that the Renunciation was invalid was widely publicized, they removed their entire report and left only the photo of the event.

News

ChiesaRomana.info per la causa di Benedetto

3 Comments

I Cattolici di Roma hanno iniziato una nuova piattaforma informatica per i Cattolici di Roma in comunione con Papa Benedetto XVI, il vero papa.

ChiesaRomana.info

Come si dice nell’articolo, W Papa Benedetto, su ChiesaRomana.info:

La vera Chiesa di Roma è la Chiesa in comunione con il vero Vicario di Cristo, Papa Benedetto XVI.

Chi è il papa non è un dogma di fede ma un fatto canonico determinato secondo la norma di legge.

Un papa eletto canonicamente rimane il Vicario di Cristo fino alla morte naturale o fino a quando non rinuncia al suo ufficio secondo la norma del Canone 332 §2, che richiede la rinuncia al munus petrino.

Essendo che Papa Benedetto XVI non ha mai fatto tale cosa, rimane secondo il Diritto canonico e secondo il Diritto Divino, il Successore di San Pietro, Il Pontefice Romano, Il Vescovo di Roma, il Vicario di Cristo con tutti i suoi privilegi.

ChiesaRomana.info quindi è un sito di informazione per i Cattolici in comunione con Cristo e il Suo Vicario. — Diffondete la verità!

Per segnalare un evento ecclesiastico o con riferimento alla Chiesa di Roma, lasciare un commento con i dettagli o un collegamento ipertestuale. Grazie!

La speranza dei Cattolici fondatori è di organizzare la difesa della Chiesa di Roma contro le forze d’apostasia, d’idolatria e d’eresia che si stanno diffondendo dappertutto.

Canon Law, News

The Church of Rome Now Knows that Benedict is the Pope!

30 Comments

All Leading Members of the Clergy have been informed

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A Member of the Swiss guard on duty near the Palazzo Sant’Uffizio, who kindly paused his duty for a moment, this morning, so I could snap his foto. May the true Spirit of the Swiss Guard in defending the true Pope and him against all false claimants now take hold of the entire Church of Rome!

As of noon today, November 15, 2019, the Church of Rome has been informed that Pope Benedict XVI is still the Roman Pontiff and Successor of Saint Peter on account of having not resigned according to the norm of Canon 332 §2.

I can personally testify to this, in a court of law, because I have personally shared, in English or Italian, my scholastic question demonstrating conclusively, with 39 arguments, that Pope Benedict never renounced the petrine munus, as required by Canon Law, the Natural Law, the Moral Law, the Evangelical Law and Divine right. I have done this in printed version and or via email from my personal account.

I first personally shared the information with His Holiness in February of this year, in the English version, and again in April. Then in October, I shared it with him again in the Italian version. I have shared it with all the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, whom He has elevated to that dignity and who reside in Rome. I have shared it with all the men whom either are Cardinals or are thought to be such, who head the Congregations of the Roman Curia. I have shared it with the Cardinal Governor and the Head of the Swiss Guard, with Cardinals Mueller, Brandmueller, Sarah and Burke.

I have shared it with nearly all the clergy of the Roman Church: with the Cardinal Vicar appointed by His Holiness and with the man who exercises that ministry at the request of Bergoglio. I have shared it with all the auxiliary Bishops of Rome, having personally hand-delivered a printed copy to the Curia at the Lateran. I have shared it with all the clergy of the City, who are priests or monsignori, who have an email address which is published (more than 650).

I would share it with all the clergy and deacons who do not have an email address, but that would cost about 1000 euro fore mailing and printing costs, which I do not have (as a friar I have no money) nor is anyone offering at the present.

I NOW ASK THE ENTIRE CHURCH TO PRAY TO THE HOLY SPIRIT so that the clergy of the Church of Rome might recognize their GRAVE AND SOLEMN DUTY to adhere to Christ’s true Vicar and insist that the CANONS OF THE CHURCH be upheld AND THUS depose the USURPER who is raping HOLY MOTHER CHURCH on a daily basis!

For more information about this see ppbxvi.org

If you support the Church of Rome taking action on this information, please leave your comment below as a testimonial, and indicate the Diocese in which you live, so that your testimony can show that the entire Church of God wills this problem solved!

News

Pope Benedict XVI signals His blessing for efforts to restore Him to the Apostolic Throne

17 Comments

Rome, Nov. 14, 2019 — In another massive blow to the Bergoglian regime, there was published today, a letter written by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on June 8 of this year which signals his approval of efforts to restore him to the Apostolic Throne. (see report here).

In his letter he closes with the prayer:

Lord, help us in these hours to remain and be true Catholics!

“True Catholics” (Veri Catholici, in Latin) is the name of the International Association working for the restoration of Pope Benedict (see their website here). They are THE Association which has publicly defended his claim to the papacy since November 2018, nearly a year ago.

The date of both his letter and its publication, is also significant, because this Spring many members of that Association had written to Pope Benedict — myself one of them (see my report here) — telling him that we recognized that in accord with the norm of Canon Law that he was still the true and only pope.

The mention of the term “True Catholics” in his letter just days before I reported on his tacit consent, and published just 2 days after my report, “Breaking — Evidence that Pope Benedict XVI intentionally pretended to resign” is an indubitable sign that the Holy Father approves of our efforts to restore him to power.*

The website for the official Movement to Restore Pope Benedict is:

ppbxvi.org

Finally, this closing prayer in his letter of June 8, puts to rest once and for all, all speculation that Pope Benedict XVI approves of what Bergoglio and his followers are doing, or had any intention collaborating with Freemasonry. — It’s a definitive statement that he wants the Cause of God to win and for us not to lose heart. But also a sign that he is, as I said, a de facto Prisoner in the Vatican and that the Cardinals are NOT his faithful allies.

To be truly Catholic or a true Catholic means first of all, after loyalty to God, loyalty to the Pope: loyalty to him when he is good health, or poor health; when he is brilliant and when he is mistaken, correcting him in his mistakes that harm the Church; remaining faithful to him and in his service even when and if all the Cardinals and Bishops abandon him or betray him. This is what the Church truly needs right now.

___________

* The From Rome Blog is read nearly daily from the Vatican. It’s author is even tailed by Italian Secret Police when he strolls around the Vatican. It’s no secret what is written on this blog. And that is the whole purpose. — If he did not want to signal his support, then he knows what not to say and when not to say it. That is how Rome works. Finally, remember, this is not my work or any work of any group of Catholics, it’s God’s work, because it is nothing other than upholding Canon Law and the Catholic Faith, and when you do that you know that you have all Heaven at your back!

 

News, Videos

From Rome Blog: Saint Peter’s Square, Nov 13, 2019 at 11 AM.

3 Comments

Gloria.tv reports today, that the numbers attending Bergoglio’s Wednesday Audience have plummeted with the growing recognition that the man is simply not even a Christian.

While I cannot confirm their report, since I did not attend the Audience, I can comment on what I saw, since I am a trained Anthropologist.

When Benedict was recognized by the entire world as Pope, the General Audiences were much like they were in the days of John Paul II: you would see many large organized groups of pilgrims, organized by their national delegations; hordes of priests, religious and Catholic associations all wearing their respective habits proudly and openly.

Today, however, as I examined the crowd, the difference was striking.

There were few if any priests to be seen, and mostly by themselves leading small groups of lay pilgrims.

There were fewer religious, and not in large groups, only two or three.

The nuns were particularly absent, only a few pairs here and there.

I saw no Catholic Associations at all, no banners, no chanting after the Audience as Catholics were wont to do in years past.

What I did see that was troubling but perfectly in accord with what is going on at the Vatican was this: many male gay couples, walking pleasantly and showing a sense of satisfaction in having attending the Audience.

In 2012, things were very different. If any such couples came to Saint Peter’s they were NOT seen at General Audiences. They would enter St Peter’s Square and do photo ops with their friends, usually in an aggressive in your face manner, often with obscene symbols, hand-signs or gestures.

Under Benedict they came to mock, now they come to adulate.

That is the Bergoglian Church in a nutshell.

THIS HAS BEEN A FROM ROME BLOG REPORT, St Peter’s Square, Nov. 13, 2011.

Ecclesiology, Faith, News

BREAKING! — Evidence that Pope Benedict intentionally pretended to resign

23 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Rome, Nov. 12, 2019 — This is earthshaking! I just had a long talk with Nino Oliva, the writer who has documented the events surrounding Giuseppe Auricchia and the messages from Our Lady of the Pine, which occurred at Mammanelli, near Avola, in the province of Siracusa, Italy, from 1990 til his death in 2012.*

The stunning news is this: Mr. Oliva confirmed for me that before his death, Giuseppe Auricchia was visited by Vatican officials sent by Pope Benedict in the summer of 2012,** when he made the decision to resign. Mr. Auricchia twice also visited the Vatican in previous years, including once in the first years of Pope Benedict.

This means that Pope Benedict had certain knowledge of the contents of these messages  BEFORE February 11, 2013 and BEFORE he made the decision to resign the ministerium, in an act which made it appear that he resigned the papacy, but which canonically was invalid.

On this basis, I can state with high probability THAT POPE BENEDICT PURPOSEFULLY FEIGNED A RESIGNATION TO DEFEAT THE FORCES OF DARKNESS spoken of by Our Lady of the Pine.

These revelations warned him of the plot and the objective. It was not simply a power battle in the Curia, it was a diabolic plot to take over the Church and the Petrine Succession so as to establish a Satanic Church within the Catholic Church which would consume it completely.

By feigning to resign he kept them from seizing the Papal Office, so that the faithful might not be deprived of Christ’s Vicar.  This was done as a spiritual assitance to the elect, though their number be very few, on account of Christ and Our Lady’s great love for Catholics who are faithful to God in heart, mind, lips and actions!

Read the stunning revelations for yourself, and consider how the feigned invalid resignation (see ppbxvi.org) brilliantly undermined their evil plans and protected the Church for those who want to remain faithful to Jesus.

This explains everything, why he never affirmed to have resigned the papacy, but at the same time why he made it look like he did. (See How Benedict had defeated “Francis”)

The Content of The Messages in regard to Pope Benedict

Among those messages there are these stunning revelations about our times in regard to Pope Benedict (see link here) — the English translation is my own:

Avola, April 15, 2008:  The Lord Jesus says: At Rome there exists a conspiracy of wicked men which seeks to remove My Vicar from the post of Peter. — O Rome, Eternal city of Hills, (contrary) forces have united together to see the post of Peter toppled, communism and atheism, but their time has not yet arrived.

Avola, May 11, 2008:  The Lord Jesus says: … I am the Good Shepherd Who suffers with My faithful sheep to keep the sheep who plot to leave and flee within My sheepfold.  The Catholic Church is My Sheepfold.  In this human world, the Shepherd is My Vicar.  Who listens and puts into practice his word, is with Me. Who does not follow the Church in the word of the Pontiff is outside of Me and hence against Me.  You priests who want to abandon My Way in name of a presumed justice, mind your steps, when they take false directions you will have set in motion the schism.  Then humanity will be placed under scourges and submit to ruin and God will gather the just to form them with the Pope, the priestly heart of the new Church.  Come to Me, to Jesus.  Come to your Shepherd, draw near to My Love and through this you will draw near the unfailing fountains of My Gospel Message: this is the Way, this contains the Truth, this will bring you My life.”

Avola, Sept 28, 2008:  Our Lady says: Remain close to Pope Benedict XVI, he is a holy man and is very close to My Maternal Heart.  Sons and daughters, you should pay attention, little by little the end times are approaching.  He will suffer much for My Son Jesus, he is always at the ready to preserve the teachings of the Church but will be persecuted.  Do you not see what is happening around you? I intercede with My Son to protect him from evil.  Do not be surprised if one day he is isolated, and this will be able to happen in the near future.  There will be in the world a political revolt of godless men, then one will see in Italy the hatred of those who are godless, in his (Pope Benedict) place they will enthrone a false prophet for the people of evil.  This event and other events will be verified before the triumph of My Son occurs, He who in His Glory will come in your midst, then all evil will disappear.  Pray, pray, pray for My son, Pope Benedict XVI.”

Avola, September 15, 2009:  Our Lady told Giuseppe:  The Holy Spirit asks the Pope to fulfill all which Our Lady has asked for at Fatima and in all the places of Her Apparizione, for Her elect in this last times.  Our Lady blesses all. Soon every home, every family will live in itself the joy of having seen the Lady clothed with the Sun and Her beloved Son.

Avola, March 25, 2010:  Our Lady says:  My most beloved sons, you need not change the scriptures or the sacred institutions to oppose those who want to destroy My Vicar.  The true way for you priests is to lead them back along the narrow path. — Saint Michael the Archangel says:  Your Vicar is surrounded by traitors, who have chosen his successor.  Great are his sufferings. Pray much so that Pope Benedict XVI is not taken from you.  Woe to the world! The mystical body of Christ will be crucified again!

Avola, March 28, 2010:  Our Lady says: Those who have wandered off will follow the imposter.  Pay attention! Do not follow him! Do not obey his words, in these times follow My son, Pope Benedict XVI, surrounded by enemies and traitors, pray, remain near to him with your prayers so that he not be substituted.  He will lead you to the salvation of your souls and of the whole Church.

Avola, April 9, 2010:  Giuseppe Auricchia speaks:  At these words the Holy Virgin showed me the Piazza and the Basilica of Saint Peter and then a room where the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, was slumped over in an arm chair. He seemed very sick and worried, while two prelates, clothed in reddish purple with round hats on their heads, after having entered, bring a document and seek to have the Pope sign it.  This document the Pope does not sign. The Holy Virgin explains:

“There are many traitors in the holy city who prevail much upon the Holy Father, who is surrounded by enemies, and has been put to a great test.  Those in whom he can trust can be counted on the fingers of a single hand.  It is strange to see your own house fallen into the hands of Satan, the house is the Church.”

Avola, April 11, 2010:  Our Lady says:  If you destroy the Vicar of Christ, Benedict XVI, you will destroy yourselves, because in this way you will constrain Me to send even sooner the Day of Judgement.

Avola, April 30, 2010: Our Lady says:  My faithful remnant follows the actual pope, Benedict XVI, whom they want to eliminate.  Continue to follow him and remain faithful to Him and to the teaching of My Church, established by the Apostles.  Do not allow yourselves to turn aside on account of apostasy and heresies.  I tell you that the next Pope will be an imposter and wicked forces are behind this schism.  My sons, be prepared, so that you might be able to follow the priests faithful to the Pope and to the teaching of the Church.  Preserve the holy missals and the books of the old Holy Mass, because the apostates will change the words in a dramatic way.

Avola, June 6, 2010:  The Lord Jesus says:  My faithful priests will remain united to Pope Benedict XVI and yet it will be difficult to find them.

Avola, August 5, 2010:  Our Lady says: The balance swings strongly to the left in the holy city of Rome.  There is being worked out a plan to destroy our most beloved Vicar and a man of black secrets is awaiting the moment to ascend upon the catthedra of Peter.  Many legions of demons have been unleashed upon the world and seek to destroy the capital.  Since for mankind sin is man’s kingdom, the faith wobbles and the candles are going out.  My Son, will He find a small glimmer of faith when He returns upon the Earth?  There are many problems today, which regard the House of My Son. There is not but one sole foundation and it is the House of My Son, with Peter as the first head and today He is represented by your Pontiff, Benedict XVI.

Avola, February 26, 2012:  Our Lady  speaks:  Dear Sons, it has been permitted to My messenger to say these words after he has received the secret message which he will publish on March 25.  The men who govern think themselves wise, they do not recognize that they are guided by Satan.  Among them there exists a group of planners who want to construct a universal republic.  Their plain is to eliminate the true Church of God.  They will obtain this swiftly if the Throne of Peter is abandoned, behold why I announce to you the death of the Pope, but know that they no longer know inside themselves how to save themselves.  Humanity finds itself with its feet in the dock and awaits its sentence before the Tribunal of God.

Avola, March 25, 2012:  The Lord Jesus speaks:  My Son, it is time that there be manifested at Rome the political upheaval which thrives and the internal battle among men, but more important is that there has been a conspiracy of error and deceit, which Satan and the princes of darkness will put in motion one day to destroy My House, so as to establish a union under one world government, one sole church of God which will be without God.  They want to take My Vicar out of it, so that those who hate the Son of God might rule it.

________

* These apparitions have never been formally approved or disapproved, from what I gather after having questioned Mr. Oliva at great length. While it is true that some of the Bishops have personally discounted them and that the local clergy pay them no heed, no formal investigation was undertaken nor has any canonical decree been issued, as I gather from Mr. Oliva. If you do a web search of the kind – Nostra Signora del Pino, Avola – you will find abundant references to these apparitions from long before the Synod on the Amazon. Also Note: These apparitions DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with devotions to Our Lady under the title of “Our Lady of the Pine” anywhere else in the world. They are called, “Our Lady of the Pine” only for this reason, that the first message was received under a Pine tree at Mammanelli, Avola, Italy.

** For those who have never lived in Sicily, like I have for 3 years, I should tell you that summer begins in March and ends in November. You have to turn the heat on after Christmas, and whenever it rains, the Sicilians say, “Today it feels like winter”, because it rains like 3 days of the year. So if you think this never happened because Sig. Oliva said to me in Italian, “Credo di Sì, prima che è morto” (I believe so, before he died), when I asked, “Quando è successo, nell’estate di 2012? (“When did this happen, in the summer of 2012?”), you are grasping for straw. As you can see from the messages above, they were made before his death, and everyone knowledgeable about them knew of them when they were made, as they were not secrets. Some people are so anglo-centric that they think that unless an apparition occurred in English or was made known to the English speaking world, it never happened or is not from God. Being an Italian, I laugh at that. Being a translator who has published 2 critical English translations of medieval texts, I am however not scandalized that someone should think that he word summer means in Italian or Sicilian what it means in English, even though these languages are spoken in entirely different parts of the world and climates. It’s a lot like the problem Protestants have who read the King James version of the Bible and encounter the expression, “the Brethren of Jesus”, which in Greek can also be read, the Cousins of Jesus. They insist Our Lady had other children, because the refuse to accept that the Greek word does not mean by “brethren” what English means by that term. This problem arises also with the expression in the Gospels about Jesus being Crucified by nails being thrust into His “hands.” Some people without any knowledge of classical languages expect the nails to be in the palms of the hand, because in their modern language the term “hand” refers to what is beyond the wrist the of the arm. But in ancient languages, “hand” can refer to everything which is beyond the elbow. As someone who holds a B. A. in Cultural Anthropology I am aware of the problem, but it does not cause me to have doubts, because I understand that in each culture the definition of common things can vary.

 

 

 

 

News

Former Rector of Gregorian University: A Heretical Pope loses office immediately by the law itself

9 Comments
Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J, greets His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There has been an ongoing debate as to whether a man who is the pope loses his office immediately after having taken a pertinacious and manifest position which is heretical.

Most of this debate regards citing authors in previous ages or decades, against the opinion of Bishop Athanasius Schneider and others, like Steve Skojec, who hold that he needs to be judged and/or that no one can judge him.

Here, however, is the opinion of Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S. J., former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome. Father Ghirlanda is one of the most highly respected Doctors of Canon Law in the City of Rome, if not in the Catholic Church. He still teaches at the Gregorian. Considering the opinions just given by Cardinal Burke which impinge on this controversy, I think it’s apropos to cite Father Ghirlanda’s position, not made in reference to the Cardinal’s comments, but from March 3, 2013, no less, in Civiltà Catiolica, the leading Jesuit publication in Italy:

The original Italian can be found here.  Here is that text quoted in part, on this subject:

Allora, se il Romano Pontefice non esprimesse quello che già è contenuto nella Chiesa, non sarebbe più in comunione con tutta la Chiesa, e quindi con gli altri Vescovi, successori degli Apostoli. La comunione del Romano Pontefice con la Chiesa e con i Vescovi, secondo il Vaticano I (3), non può essere comprovata dal consenso della Chiesa e dei Vescovi, in quanto non sarebbe più una potestà piena e suprema liberamente esercitata (c. 331; “Nota Explicativa Praevia” 4). Il criterio allora è la tutela della stessa comunione ecclesiale. Lì dove questa non ci fosse più da parte del Papa, egli non avrebbe più alcuna potestà, perché ipso iure decadrebbe dal suo ufficio primaziale. È il caso, ammesso in dottrina, della notoria apostasia, eresia e scisma, nella quale il Romano Pontefice potrebbe cadere, ma come «dottore privato», che non impegna l’assenso dei fedeli, perché per fede nell’infallibilità personale che il Romano Pontefice ha nello svolgimento del suo ufficio, e quindi nell’assistenza dello Spirito Santo, dobbiamo dire che egli non può fare affermazioni eretiche volendo impegnare la sua autorità primaziale, perché, se così facesse, decadrebbe ipso iure dal suo ufficio. Comunque in tali casi, poiché «la prima sede non è giudicata da nessuno» (c. 1404), nessuno potrebbe deporre il Romano Pontefice, ma si avrebbe solo una dichiarazione del fatto, che dovrebbe essere da parte dei Cardinali, almeno di quelli presenti a Roma. Tale eventualità, tuttavia, sebbene prevista in dottrina, viene ritenuta totalmente improbabile per intervento della Divina Provvidenza a favore della Chiesa (4).

This is my English translation, bold face added:

Now, if the Roman Pontiff does not express that which is contained in the Church, he would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and hence neither with the other Bishops, who are successors of the Apostles. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican 1 (cf. footnote 3 below), cannot be manufactured out of the consent of the Church and Bishops, inasmuch as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (cf. canon 331; cf. the Nota Previa to Lumen Gentium, 4.). Thus, the criterion is the safeguarding of the ecclesial communion itself. There, where this might no longer be the case on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because he would fall by the law itself (ipso iure) from his primatial office.  This is the case, admitted in doctrine, for notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff might fall, but as a “private teacher”, which does not require the assent of the faithful, because through faith in the personal infallibility which the Roman Pontiff has in the exercise of his office, and hence, in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we are obliged to say that he cannot make heretical affirmations while willing to impose his primatial authority, because, if he were to do such a thing, he would fall ipso iure from his office.  Nevertheless, in such cases, since “the first see is not judged by anyone” (canon 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there could only be a declaration of the fact, which would have to be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present at Rome.  Such an eventuality, however, though foreseen in doctrine, is considered to be entirely improbable through the intervention of Divine Providence on behalf of the Church (see footnote 4).

FOOTNOTES

3. Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3074.
4. Cf. F. J. Wernz. P. Vida., “Ius canonicum”, tome II, “De Personis”, Rome, 1933, 517 seqq.

When Father Ghirlanda says a heretic, who is pope, would fall ipso iure from the office – that is, would by that very fact immediately lose the office of the papacy — I believe he is speaking of Canon 1364 which imposes itself the penalty of excommunication for all apostates, heretics and schismatics, without limitation to what office they hold. But he might also be referring to the Divine Law, since as Scripture clearly teaches, no one who calls God a liar is in communion with His Son (cf. 1 John 1:5-6, for example). This not only applies to all popes, but to all Bishops and priests who hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church, that is any munus, as canon 145 §1 specifies.

What is noteworthy about the article in Civiltà Cattolica is that Father Ghirlanda is not writing an article on controversial points, he is merely reciting the received tradition, prior to the Conclave of 2013 regarding the loss of the papal office. His main thesis does NOT regard heresy in a man who is pope, but in what way a man who is pope holds or is united to the papal office, because he took the position that it is impossible for a man who was pope, but renounced the office, to be called “Pope emeritus” and that this title should NOT be accorded to Ratzinger. — He does not consider, however, the implications of the title, namely, as many have since opined, that its conferral signifies an incomplete or invalid renunciation.

Finally, I agree with Father Ghirlanda, that it is more probable the Divine Providence will prevent the final or ultimate defection of a pope (because Christ promised His prayer for Simon that his faith not fail). I would go so far to say that it is de fide, because of Scriptural support. But what exactly is that Divine Protection preventing? The event, the deviation, the pertinacity, the formal defection, the ultimate defection? All of these, step by step, with more grace the more the one who is pope deviates? That does not seem to be clearly explained by anyone, so far. But it would make a very interesting Doctoral thesis in the theology of Providence and Grace.

Contrariwise, if Christ’s prayer prevents a true Pope from final defection, then the final defection of a man whom one thinks is the pope would be an infallible sign that his canonical claim to the office was vitiated by some substantial error. This is substantially the argument of His Excellency the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, USA.

News

Pope Benedict XVI condemns Idolatry

3 Comments

The complete transcript of this Homily can be found in 7 languages (here).

Let us not imagine, that the St Gallen Mafia and their agenda were not already known to Pope Benedict in 2008. It has been shown in other cases that his entire Pontificate was one long preaching against their errors, heresies and apostasy, for he knew what was to come.

Here are some excerpts of his Homily on Sept 13, 2008, in front of Notre Dame, at Paris. What he said that day is perhaps the reason why the French government took the burning of that Church so lightly, because the Holy Father’s homily directly attacks the Satanism behind Globalism:

In the First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, we discover, in this Pauline year inaugurated on 28 June last, how much the counsels given by the Apostle remain important today. “Shun the worship of idols” (1 Cor 10:14), he writes to a community deeply marked by paganism and divided between adherence to the newness of the Gospel and the observance of former practices inherited from its ancestors. Shunning idols: for Paul’s contemporaries, this therefore meant ceasing to honour the divinities of Olympus, ceasing to offer them blood sacrifices. Shunning idols meant entering the school of the Old Testament Prophets, who denounced the human tendency to make false representations of God. As we read in Psalm 113, with regard to the statues of idols, they are merely “gold and silver, the work of human hands. They have mouths but they do not speak, they have eyes but they do not see, they have ears but they do not hear, they have nostrils but they do not smell” (Ps 113:4-5). Apart from the people of Israel, who had received the revelation of the one God, the ancient world was in thrall to the worship of idols. Strongly present in Corinth, the errors of paganism had to be denounced, for they constituted a powerful source of alienation and they diverted man from his true destiny. They prevented him from recognizing that Christ is the sole, true Saviour, the only one who points out to man the path to God.

This appeal to shun idols, dear brothers and sisters, is also pertinent today. Has not our modern world created its own idols? Has it not imitated, perhaps inadvertently, the pagans of antiquity, by diverting man from his true end, from the joy of living eternally with God? This is a question that all people, if they are honest with themselves, cannot help but ask. What is important in my life? What is my first priority? The word “idol” comes from the Greek and means “image”, “figure”, “representation”, but also “ghost”, “phantom”, “vain appearance”. An idol is a delusion, for it turns its worshipper away from reality and places him in the kingdom of mere appearances. Now, is this not a temptation in our own day – the only one we can act upon effectively? The temptation to idolize a past that no longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings; the temptation to idolize a future which does not yet exist, in the belief that, by his efforts alone, man can bring about the kingdom of eternal joy on earth! Saint Paul explains to the Colossians that insatiable greed is a form of idolatry (cf. 3:5), and he reminds his disciple Timothy that love of money is the root of all evil. By yielding to it, he explains, “some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs” (1 Tim 6:10). Have not money, the thirst for possessions, for power and even for knowledge, diverted man from his true Destiny, from the truth about himself?

Dear brothers and sisters, the question that today’s liturgy places before us finds an answer in the liturgy itself, which we have inherited from our fathers in faith, and notably from Saint Paul himself (cf. 1 Cor 11:23). In his commentary on this text, Saint John Chrysostom observes that Saint Paul severely condemns idolatry, which is a “grave fault”, a “scandal”, a real “plague” (Homily 24 on the First Letter to the Corinthians, 1). He immediately adds that this radical condemnation of idolatry is never a personal condemnation of the idolater. In our judgements, must we never confuse the sin, which is unacceptable, with the sinner, the state of whose conscience we cannot judge and who, in any case, is always capable of conversion and forgiveness. Saint Paul makes an appeal to the reason of his readers, to the reason of every human being – that powerful testimony to the presence of the Creator in the creature: “I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Cor 10:15). Never does God, of whom the Apostle is an authorized witness here, ask man to sacrifice his reason! Reason never enters into real contradiction with faith! The one God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – created our reason and gives us faith, proposing to our freedom that it be received as a precious gift. It is the worship of idols which diverts man from this perspective. Let us therefore ask God, who sees us and hears us, to help us purify ourselves from all idols, in order to arrive at the truth of our being, in order to arrive at the truth of his infinite being!

(Featured image for this post is from the Associated Press Report on this event, see here)

News

The Shameful Confession of Cardinal Burke: Those who doubt Bergoglio is the Pope hold an “extreme” position

19 Comments
U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, patron of the Knights and Dames of Malta, center left, and a group of priests pose with Pope Francis during his general audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican Sept. 2. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) See POPE-AUDIENCE-SMILE Sept. 2, 2015.

It has been six and a half years of blasphemies, insults against God and His Teaching, against His Son and His immaculate Mother, open attacks on the truth of Scripture, the Divinity of the Son, the Resurrection, the discipline of the Sacraments etc. etc., topped off by acts of open idolatry and apostasy in the Vatican and Saint Peters.

And now, Cardinal Burke chooses to speak on what he thinks of “Pope Francis”, In a November 9, 2019, Interview by Ross Douthat. Here is an excerpt (see the entire article here):

Douthat: I agree that the Catholic subculture you describes exists. But I also see, as this pontificate has advanced, a growing paranoia and alienation among conservative Catholics, a temptation toward conspiracy theories that shade into sedevacantism, the belief that the pope is not the pope. I’m curious whether you worry that criticism of the pope contributes to this.

Burke: It’s true that for all the good social media does, they also give a voice to these extreme positions. And in my criticism I’ve been deeply concerned not to call into question respect for the papal office.


Douthat: You believe Francis is a legitimate pope?

Burke: Yes, yes. I’ve had people present to me all kinds of arguments calling into question the election of Pope Francis. But I name him every time I offer the Holy Mass, I call him Pope Francis, it’s not an empty speech on my part. I believe that he is the pope. And I try to say that consistently to people, because you’re correct — according to my perception also, people are getting more and more extreme in their response to what’s going on in the church.

Draw your own conclusions. But to help you do that I will merely cite the Code of Canon Law of 1983 promulgated by John Paul II, Vicar of Christ, which code is binding on earth and heaven. From my article, “Bergoglio definitively leaves the Catholic Church“:

According to Canon 1364… which reads….

PART II : PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES

TITLE I: OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 – 1369)

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

From my article, “The Monstrosity of Allegations against ‘Team Bergoglio‘”:

Canon 1329, § 2 reads, in the Latin:

Can. 1329 — §2. In poenam latae sententiae delicto adnexam incurrunt complices,qui in lege vel praecepto non nominantur, si sine eorum opera delictum patratum non esset, et poena sit talis naturae, ut ipsos afficere possit; secus poenis ferendae sententiae puniri possunt.

The official English translation of this, from the Vatican website is:

§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.

These canons apply both to those who perpetrate or participate in idolatrous worship but also those who are heretics or promote heresy, such as attacking the Teaching of the Christ against giving the Sacraments to public sinners.

As for the canons which demonstrate that the Renunciation of Benedict was invalid, see ppbxvi.org.

Just to make sure everyone recognizes the current context of events, according to my encounters with laypeople in Italy who do not work for the Church and speak freely to me in private, more than 60% of Catholics in Italy do not believe Bergoglio is currently the pope, either because he was never validly elected, or loss the office by heresy or apostasy. To Catholics, clergy included, to whom I present the contents of the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope  Benedict, there is 100% unanimity that Benedict is still the pope and that Bergoglio never was. So basically, Cardinal Burke’s comment needs to be seen as something impinging upon a majority of Catholics in Italy, at least. This makes his comments very newsworthy.

In Conclusion

The comment of Cardinal Burke clearly refers to Conservatives, not Sedevacantists, and therefore ostensibly to all Catholics who entertain or sustain the possibility that Bergoglio either never was validly elected or lost his office, on account of WHAT THE CHURCH HERSELF TEACHES about the nature of heresy, schism, apostasy, idolatry.

Therefore, there is no contextual way to explain this away, without recourse to the gratuitous assertion that the Cardinal did not mean what he said, and did not hear what Ross Douthat was saying. I find that incredible. Thus, I conclude:

Cardinal Burke has followed the lead of Cardinal Sarah and impaled his reputation* for the sake of supporting Bergoglio, jettisoning in the process not only the Code of Canon Law and any appeal to right reason in its understanding, but also the law of Charity enshrined in the Eighth Commandment of the Decalogue, and in the Greatest and First Precept of Jesus Christ: Love one another as I have loved you.

He has also jettisoned his reputation as a Canon Lawyer, because after the Academic Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, to which the Cardinal was invited but did not attend, I was told the argument presented was very sound by a Canonist who works in Rome.

In fidelity to both Christ Jesus and Moses, I ask all to pray for Cardinal Burke, who does not realize in how great an error he has fallen simply to please a man. Let us hope that he apologizes for saying such a nasty thing about faithful Catholics and explain why it is he has adopted such a non-think position, when by profession and duty he should be an advocate for applying Canon Law equally to all.

Finally, I have moderated my own emotions in writing this post, but I will not censor the comments of those who believe it necessary to speak more pointedly. That is because (1) I have written Cardinal Burke offering to speak with him about the Renunciation, and do not consider it proper to say anything more about this matter in public, but (2) recognize the right of all Catholics in virtue of Canon 212 to make their voices heard, even if times what God might consider respectful, those needing correction might not think is respectful.

My Public Question for Cardinal Burke:

Q. Do you really mean to say that an apostate, heretic, schismatic, usurper, theoretically can be a member of the Church or the Pope? Or are you saying that you feel your loyalty to the man whom you think is the Pope is greater than your loyalty to seek and defend the truth of history? — I ask this because I want to know where you stand.

_________

* Anomianism is the error of thinking that Christian Charity frees the person from the obligation of following laws or rules. Saint Paul condemned this in his Letters to the Corinthians. — The Catholic position has always been that inasmuch as written law, promulgated by the State or Church, enshrines principles of the Natural, Moral, Divine or Evangelical Law, it requires our observance and obedience, because it is directly or implicitly invoking the authority of God.  All Church Law does this as regards the authority of Christ, Her Founder. Thus, to adopt an anomian approach to any question or dispute, and call those who honestly seek answers in the laws or teaching of the Church, extremists, is to completely reject the Divine Authority as the rule by which all things must be judged.

Faith, News

The Angel of Akita requests Prayers of Reparation for Desecration of the Vatican

2 Comments
The miraculous statue of Our Lady of Akita weeps for the sins of mankind.

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On the Feast of Saint Francis, Bergoglio had a pagan ritual honoring Pachamama in the Vatican gardens, during which time idolatrous worship was given idols and a tree was planted to placate the demon goddess of earth. This was the first abomination. Then Bergoglio had the idol brought into Saint Peter’s and receive veneration there, along with a bowl of desecrated earth.

Most Catholics do not know, but to desecrate the Vatican Gardens is an extremely diabolic act, because when Pope Leo XIII in his haste to discover the bones of St Peter had some poorly trained Archeologists dig up the tomb of Saint Peter beneath the High Altar, they dumped all the dirt they found IN THE VATICAN GARDENS. Later is was realized that that DIRT was the ashes of Saint Peter the Apostle and the Roman Martyrs burned on stakes by the Emperor Nero.

Therefore, to desecrate the Vatican Gardens is to desecrate the SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS of the Church of Rome. It is a ghastly vile act!

Akita, Japan

It was not surprising, therefore, that two days later the Angel of Akita, who had appeared to Sister Agnes Sasagawa 46 years ago, should appear again. If you do not know, at Akita, which is an approved apparition of Our Lady, Our Lady’s Statue wept repeatedly in the presence of Catholics and pagans, and forewarned of a great battle inside the Church between Cardinals and Bishops. (Google “Our Lady of Akita” for more about this apparition).

I report this, because, in my work for Ordo Militaris Inc., I had the unique opportunity to visit Akita in May and pray before the miraculous statue of Our Lady. The Message of Akita is about our days and it is a powerful call to repentance, constancy, perseverance and fortitude in the face of lies and wickedness.

Remember, the Message of Akita:

If men did not repent, Our Lady at Akita warned of world wide destruction by fire from the sky, and said that Catholics would have no consolation in those terrible days but the Holy Rosary and the Sign of Her Son (the Cross). That the living would envy the dead.

I mention, on my own authority, that Tertullian, a Father of the Church, taught that the worst sin of mankind is THE SIN OF IDOLATRY and that this sin alone MERITS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD. A destruction forestalled only by Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary and mankind’s acceptance of that Sacrifice. This is the logic of the Apocalypse: when mankind rejects the Gospel at the end of time, that Destruction will rain down upon the whole world.

So you can infer the connections between these events and what Bergoglio did and is doing.

Message of the Angel of Akita

The Message was given on October 6 of this year, and is reported by WQPH of North Worcester, Massachusetts, USA, which is an EWTN affiliate. Their report is here in full (link).

Here is the message:

This is the speech said by Sister Sasagawa that Sister M heard firsthand.

On Sunday, October 6th at 3:30am in Akita, the same angel appeared before me (Sister Sasagawa) as from some 30 years ago (see Note 1).  The angel first told me (Sister Sasagawa) something  private.

The good thing to convey to everyone is, “Cover in ashes” (see Note 2) “and please pray the Penitential Rosary every day.  You (Sister Sasagawa) become like an child and every day please give sacrifice.”

Ms. S was asked by Sister M, may I tell everyone about this?, which when asked, per Sister M, she was told Okay by Sister Sasagawa.  Also, “Please pray that I (Sasagawa) be able to be like an child and give sacrifice,” was said by Ms. S as heard by Sister M.

-end of message-

Note 1: In Akita, the angel that appeared before Sister Sasagawa as a woman, and without thinking, Sister Sasagawa blurted out “Older sister”.  It seems she resembled her older sister who had died.  She was told “No, I am something that protects you.”

And then, “Let’s go to church”, and Sasagawa was guided there.  (It is thought to be the guardian angel of Komatsu).

Note 2: Jonah’s prophecy (Jonah 3:1-10) (October 8th first reading) clad in sackcloth and sit upon ashes.

Since an Angel from Heaven asked us to make reparation like Jonah (see scriptural references here) I strongly urge everyone to do this.

The Penitential Rosary, what is it? Why pray it?

Here is the text of the Penitential Rosary in English, for those who have never heard of this devotion:

http://avalon44.tripod.com/r/pr.htm

Please note, that this devotion is approved by the Church.

Please note the REASONS why the Penitential Rosary is to be recited, which reasons explain why the Angel of Akita asked that we pray it, in response to the sacrileges at the Vatican:

THE PENITENTIAL ROSARY IS RECITED:

1. To implore mercy and pardon for our sins, and for all the sins of our brethren.
2. To obtain the grace of conversion, a sincere sacramental confession, and amendment of life.

Also, read what is said at the bottom of the link for the Penitential Rosary to understand more about this and why an Angel of Heaven was sent to give this message to the world.  This, I believe, is a lot more important than initiatives by men who should be doing their duty, but instead pray. For us without such a duty to act, we should be the ones praying.

Now, the combining of this Office with the Holy Rosary, said with arms extended in the form of a cross, has also been dictated by God Our Lord to Maria Concepcion Zuniga recently. He told her that “this will be a Penitential Rosary that will please the Heavenly Father a great deal,” because He, Christ, would be the One Who would stand before the faithful who recite it and offer it in remission for all the sins of the world – their own and those of others.

Among the members of a single family (as we human beings are), there must be solidarity. Some must compensate for others. And in the measure that we see God offended, in that measure we must offer penance, counteracting the works of the disordered world with works of virtue, of charity, and of atonement, for the purpose of attaining forgiveness for everyone.

Finally, the whole import of this Message from Heaven is this: IF YOU are in the state of mortal sin, habitual sin, have not confessed, YOU BETTER RUN TO CONFESSION as soon as possible, because God’s patience is running out. He is going to destroy this world sooner than we think, and the spiritual consequence of Bergoglio’s monstrosities will be terrible wars and persecutions, just like the false messiah was awarded a peace price but when on to cause 17 or more wars and the deaths of millions.

 

Videos

From Rome Blog: from St Peter’s Basilica this evening

1 Comment

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Many ask me, where do I blog from, where do I live.

I am a Franciscan Hermit, without a hermitage. I live wherever I find help to live. I am currently living at Rome, and since many have asked me to make a video, which I really know nothing about, I made this short video with a cellphone, this evening as I walked pass the Basilica of St Peter’s, now, very sadly, desecrated by pachamama worship.

 

Spirituality

Contra Spiritus idolatriae: A short guide to the discernment of spirits

4 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the most useful books that anyone can read to begin the spiritual life is the work by Saint Ignatius of Loyola on the Discernment of Spirits, which is called his book on Spiritual Exercises.

I say for beginners, because that is what the great Saint Theresa of Avila judged it to be, for beginners.

For beginners, because it deals with the first level of discernment: what is truly good and what is truly evil.

What is truly good is all that which leads you to take the side of Christ and live for Heaven, to arrive at Heaven and do all that is necessary to help others get there.

What is truly evil is all that which leads you to NOT take the side of Christ and NOT live for Heaven, to NOT arrive at Heaven and to do anything which impedes you or yourself to get there.

The second level of discernment is for those who have taken the side of Christ.  As St. Ignatius says in his Spiritual Exercises, such persons can only be deceived by devils who APPEAR TO BE GOOD and angels of light, but which are experts in deceit.

So, on the second level, St Ignatius gives indirect rules for discernment, as to whether the propositions of a spirit to your soul leave you in a state of encouragement, light, zeal, or rather in a state of discouragement, darkness and sadness.  He lays down this rule, that for those walking the way of virtue, a spirit from God adds to one’s encouragement, light, or zeal to serve Jesus Christ, and an evil spirit instead leaves one empty in proposing things too great, darker in understanding the will of God, or of less zeal in the things of Jesus Christ. Whereas, for those not on the path of virtue, a good spirit will cause one to lose zeal for serving creatures, see the lies in which one lives and turn aside from the pursuit of creatures, while an evil spirit will increase one’s obsession in the pursuit of creatures incite to the violation of more moral laws etc..

But, at the second level, this indirect rule of discernment of St Ignatius is often difficult, because it is indirect.

Or in other words, the rule of St Ignatius can confound souls, because it appears to fixate on interior states of the subject, how he feels and what he experiences, and thus in an age of sentimentalism and subjectivism is rarely practiced correctly, which is why the Society of Jesus in modern times has lost its path to God.

Rather, the direct rule of discernment at this second level is easier, namely, all which turns us away from loyalty to creatures and or towards loyalty to the service of God, is from a good spirit, and whatever does the opposite is from an evil spirit.

At this level it becomes extremely dangerous to use the imagination, because, just as the true God is the true reality of the spiritual world, so the soul which seeks him cannot find him in the world of imaginations. This is why St John of Cross counsels so strongly against reading novels for such souls. Today, we would say he counsels against watching movies, romances, television.

A soul dedicated to the service of God at this level has nothing to gain by such endeavors. And if tempted to know of them so as to counsel souls, he does better to read the critiques of zealous souls at a lower level than to watch them himself and put himself at risk of losing the grace of God.

At this second level, the key to right discernment is the criterion how to discern Spirits of Idolatry from Divine Spirits, that is evil angels from false ones. Because, as of yet, the evil angels will not manifest themselves, they will study the psychology of their victims and seek a weak point, where they will attempt to turn the soul away from God and towards seeking some satisfaction in creatures.

This is why at this level it becomes more important to fast (so as to break all attachments to food and drink inasmuch as this is inordinate and not necessary to do the will of God), to humble oneself at prayer and in daily life, especially in encounters with others (so as to break the chief vice which is pride), and to scrub one’s soul of attachments, many of which hold the soul back from serving God with a pure heart.

The lessen to be learned at this level is, God is My All, there is nothing I need which is not for His service, nothing which I desire other than to do His Will and remain faithful.

This self reflection is vital, because bad habits can lead to attachments and small deviations can allow the evil spirits to sway the soul back into sin. Here the study of the Divine Law, that is of the morality revealed by God, is vital, because through the smallest holes of ignorance about what is and what is not a sin, a soul can fall into great error, great evil and be transformed into a devil on earth, without recognizing it. So many clergy and religious have fallen from God on this score, and it is a rare soul who having strayed at this second level, returns to the Divine Service.

At the Third Level, a soul which has been faithful, whether for a short or a long time, will be tested to dedicate itself to the Divine Service through some greater work, whether it be by an inspiration to undertake a work of mercy or a work of justice.

These inspirations come most commonly from one’s guardian angel, so it is very important, in a state of grace, to make a promise to one’s Guardian Angel to heed his inspirations in all things, great and small, and to develop the knowledge of discerning when he is giving advice and following it IMMEDIATELY without any DOUBT or criticism. This takes a lot of practice and the soul often goes astray by following suggestions which are not from one’s guardian angel, but rather from the spirits of idolatry, that is of the world, the flesh or the demonic: and so the indirect rules of discernment of Saint Ignatius are a great help. We need to remember the lessons our Guardian Angel gives us and make a habit of doing readily the good works he inspires, because through them He will make known to us what God wants us to dedicate ourselves to and reveal to us our vocation, if we have one, whereby we are dedicated to God or his service.

Our Lady of the Annunciation is the example we need to follow in all our discernment. She showed Herself to be a master of discernment at the approach of the Archangel Gabriel, to know whether he was of God or not. She did not presume, she applied these rules. She also avoided the very common error of thinking that we need to wait in prayer to know what to do. Common knowledge is also a source of information about what good works to do, so as soon as She heard Elizabeth was in need, She packed up her things and headed out to help her. She was not a pietist, who believed prayer solved everything, and She was not a spiritualist, who believed that one only acts on the basis of inspirations had in prayer.

Let us pray for one another, that we be faithful to God, more faithful to God and live to be faithful to God in all we do. Amen. Ave Maria!

 

News

May 30, 2010, Our Lady of the Pine forewarned the world about Bergoglio, the imposter

22 Comments

Here at the From Rome Blog private unapproved revelations are not normally discussed. But when an as-of-yet unapproved private revelation exactly foretells 9 years beforehand what is happening today, every Catholic has to stop and wonder and pay attention, because God alone knows the future of contingent events… Here follows our English translation of the words of Our Lady of the Pine on May 30, 2010, to a humble soul in the environs of Avola, Sicily, in the Diocese of Noto: (Italian original)

Our Lady: “My Sons, today I desire to share with you this wonderful friendship and the joy, that one finds in helping others.

All this while I have been inviting you, as a preparation, to the parousia of My Son in His second coming. I am pointing out to you this bridge of protection which We are giving you, and you will be escorted to My triumph, by means of the purification I am providing.

You must understand that We are protecting your souls.

Do not fear what will happen, these are things which must happen, but occupy yourselves solely with your duty to My Son.

You, Giuseppe, have the great responsibility to reveal to the world Our messages, but do it with joy, as an instrument of God.

Except for the messages of March 25, 2010, of the night of April 9, 2010 and that of April 11, all the others have been published, but no one wanted to listen to Our words.

Everything which has happened and which will happen has been revealed and no one can say: “We were not told beforehand”.

You have been called to be a living witness of God.

Announce that sorrows, horrors will yet occur.  Entire nations will disappear from the Earth and all humanity will drink the bitter chalice.

My Sons, walk on this bridge which I have indicated to you, to share with Us the joy and the era of peace on earth for yourselves.

Evil will be driven out and the victory of My Son will liberate you, but you must pray to have guidance, because very soon you will see a schism in My Church.

My faithful remnant follows the present Pope, Benedict XVI, whom they want to eliminate.

Continue to follow him and to remain faithful to Him and to the teaching of My Church, founded upon the Apostles. Do not allow yourselves to be turned aside by the apostasy and by heresies.

I tell you, that the next pope will be an imposter and the forces of evil stand behind this schism.

My Sons, be prepared, in this way you can follow those priests who are faithful to the Pope and to the teaching of the Church. Preserve the holy Missals and the books of the old Holy Mass, because the apostates will change the words in a dramatic way.

My sons and daughters, have courage and trust.  You, My son, do not fear if you are persecuted for Our cause, I and My Son will be with you to protect you and to help you in this hard trial.

Blessing you all, I am Mary, the Immaculate Virgin, the Mother of Sorrows.

Canon Law, Liturgy

How the Code of Canon Law upholds Liturgical Tradition

Pope Saint Pius X offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Missale Romanum of Saint Pius V, which remains still the liturgical law of the Roman Church.

The fundamental principles of the Code affirm the liturgical traditions of the Church and require that the code be understood as such.

We can see this from Canon 2, which reads in Latin:

Can. 2 — Codex plerumque non definit ritus, qui in actionibus liturgicis celebrandis sunt servandi; quare leges liturgicae hucusque vigentes vim suam retinent, nisi earum aliqua Codicis canonibus sit contraria.

Which in English translation says:

Canon 2 :  The Code does not for the most part define the rites, which are to be observed in celebrating liturgical actions: on which account the liturgical laws in force up to now retain their vigor, unless any of them be contrary to any of the canons of the Code.

Here the determinative term in the Code is “liturgical laws” (leges liturgicae). In the Roman Rite, as has been observed by many: the new form of the mass, the Novus Ordo, had been celebrated for 13 years at the time the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983. As such it had not yet obtained any force of law by mere custom, which requires 30 years (canon 26). It also had not the support of a papal law, since Pope Paul VI in 1969, when publishing the decree, Missale Romanum, neglected to give the new form of the mass the force of law, leaving only minor aspects of the Missale to be determined by his decree and significantly — by the Hand of God — leaving unsaid in a legal act his will that it be imposed or become law (cf. canon 37).

Hence, canon 2, must be read as requiring the decree, Missale Romanum of St Pius V, to remain in force, since it was the principle liturgical law still enforce at the time the new Code was promulgated. We see this affirmed in part by the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, of his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, which says the ancient liturgy was never abrogated. Those who argue, that that same decree gave force of law to the new liturgy, have little to argue upon, since in it Pope Benedict limited himself to affirming the facts of law, not in promulgating new ones. That he recites a history of liturgical innovations since the reign of Pope John XXIII determines nothing, because a narrative is not a law or legal decree.

In this, we see that Pope Benedict XVI was simply manifesting the intent of John Paul II in promulgating the Code. The authentic meaning is for tradition, and all other canons need to be read in that light, in virtue of canon 17, which as has been often said here at the From Rome blog, requires that all canons need to be read in the light of canonical tradition and the mind of the legislator and their proper senses.  Since the liturgical innovations of Paul VI were not yet law or customary law in 1983, they cannot be appealed to in the reading of any canon in the present code, and those who do so are violating canons 2 and 17.

Finally, the most important thing to remember, when there arises any controversy over the liturgy at the canonical level, is that the context of the New Code approves the Ancient Liturgy. Never cede to the revolutionaries or those duped by the practice of putting praxis above law and custom, that the New Code upholds the innovations.

For example, let’s apply canon 2 and 17 to the reading of canon 938, which reads:

Can. 938 — § 1. Sanctissima Eucharistia habitualiter in uno tantum ecclesiae vel oratorii tabernaculo asservetur.

§ 2. Tabernaculum, in quo sanctissima Eucharistia asservatur, situm sit in aliqua ecclesiae vel oratorii parte insigni, conspicua, decore ornata, ad orationem apta.

§ 3. Tabernaculum, in quo habitualiter sanctissima Eucharistia asservatur, sit inamovibile, materia solida non transparenti confectum, et ita clausum ut quam maxime periculum profanationis vitetur.

§ 4. Gravi de causa, licet sanctissimam Eucharistiam, nocturno praesertim tempore, alio in loco tutiore et decoro asservare.

§ 5. Qui ecclesiae vel oratorii curam habet, prospiciat ut clavis tabernaculi, in quo sanctissima Eucharistia asservatur, diligentissime custodiatur.

And in English says:

Canon 938: §1 Let the Most Holy Eucharist be habitually reserved in only one tabernacle of the church and/or oratory.

§2. Let the tabernacle, in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved, be situated in some conspicuous, fittingly ornate part of the church and/or special oratory, (which is) apt for praying.

§3 Let the tabernacle, in which the Most Holy Eucharist is habitually reserved, be immovable, constructed of non transparent solid material, and so closed that the danger or profanation be most of all prohibited.

§4 For grave cause, it is licit to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist, especially at night time, in some safer and decorous place.

§5 Let he who has the care of the church and/or oratory, take care that the key to the tabernacle, in which the Most Holy Eucharist be reserved, be most diligently guarded.

Now let us examine this Canon carefully to understand what it means and does not mean.

First of all it speaks of two kinds of tabernacles, those in which the Sacrament is kept (nn. 1-5) and those in which it is kept habitually (nn.  1,3, 4). Thus it does not require that there only be one tabernacle as many have been told it means.  It only requires that for the most part, the tabernacle in which the Sacrament is habitually kept, be one. What does this mean? It means, that there should be numerically only one tabernacle in which the Sacrament is kept 24/7. However, there can be other tabernacles where the Sacrament is kept for a time, which is apt for praying (ad orationem). Here the Code uses the classical Latin term for liturgical prayer, orare, and thus signifies the Mass and any other liturgical service. But for security, another tabernacle at night time, in a more secure place can be had. So from this canon we can see at least 3 kinds of tabernacles are approved. The one for liturgical prayer, the one for habitual reservation, and the one for night time security.

Now, if we read this canon in the light of canon 2 and canon 17, which require us to understand it in continuity with liturgical and canonical tradition, we can see that it in no way at all abolishes the usage which was common for centuries of having a tabernacle on every altar (ad orationem), a tabernacle for principle reservation of the Sacrament and a tabernacle in a secure place, such as the Sacristy, for security.

In fact, when one recalls that Pope Pius XII magisterially taught that to separate the tabernacle from the altar would be an error,* we can see from canon 17, that canon 938 must be understood to include the obligation that at least the tabernacle for prayer (ad orationem) be situated upon an altar. That means, that in § 2 of Canon 938 it is requiring that it be upon an altar. And that canon 2 and canon 938 §2 is allowing it also to be upon the High Altar and every altar where public prayer is offered (ad orationem), since there is no greater praying that at the Altar where the Mass be offered.

Thus this canon in no way causes or requires that other tabernacles not be used or be removed. And if anyone order that a contrary practice be executed, then the subject receiving such an order has the right to refuse its execution. If the order be given verbally and not in writing, then the subject can refuse to comply on the grounds of canon 40, which makes all compliance invalid prior to receiving the administrative act in written form. He may, but is not required, then ask that a rescript first be granted (canon 60) codifying in written form and a legal act the order. If the order be given in writing or by rescript, then if the written act does not contain reference to a grant of authority (to the one commanding) to derogate from canon 2, 17 or 938, then the one receiving the written command can refuse it on the grounds of canon 41 and 38, namely, that such an act is nullified in virtue of canon 38, because it runs contrary to the law of canon 938, and that thus in virtue of canon 41 the one receiving such a command can omit its execution.

______

* Pius XII, Allocutio, Assisi, Sept 22, 1956: “To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and nature should remain united.” (complete text here in PDF)

 

Editorials, Faith

While we are on the topic of idolatry …

3 Comments

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.

Canon Law

Munus and Ministerium, a Canonical Study

16 Comments

Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to.

However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized.

For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.

First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect.

Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.

For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.

This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.

This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus….

The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2.  It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.

For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law.  I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.

This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.

According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.

Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law

This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com.  In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.

For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found:  Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium.  Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code.

Let us take a look at each, briefly.

Ministeria:

The Nominative and Accusative Plural:  Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233,  237, 385, 611 and 1035.  Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..

Ministerii:

The Genitive. Occurs 13 times.  In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548.  These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis  officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:

In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:

Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

Canon 519:  The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.

Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.

And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of  announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:

756 § 2.  Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

756 §2  In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.

Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.

Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.

In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:

Can. 1389 – § 1.  Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.

2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.

Which in English is:

Canon 1389 §1  Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.

2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.

Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.

This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.

Ministeriis

The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times.   In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.

And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:

Can. 1331 – § 1.  Excommunicatus vetatur:

1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel  quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;

2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;

3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.

The English  is:

Canon 1331 §1.  An excommunicate is forbidden:

  1. from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
  2. from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
  3. from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.

Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.

Ministerio

 The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.

Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.

This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.

Ministeriorum

The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.

And finally the Nominative Singular form.

MINISTERIUM

Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.

First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.

The Latin reads:

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.

The English reads:

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.

Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.

Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.

Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.

Which in English is:

Canon 1384  Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.

The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.

To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.

This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.

In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.

Munus in the Code of Canon Law

Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.

The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).

While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.

I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.

But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:

First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.

This occurs only once in canon 145, §1

Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.

Which in English is:

Canon 145 § 1.  An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end.

Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is  Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:

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.

In English:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction:

Can. 1484 – § 1.  Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.

Which in English is:

Canon 1484 §1.  The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.

Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.

Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:

4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia

Which in English reads:

  1. He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.

If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!

Note well, ministerium is not included in that list!  thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!

This study of Munus and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.

The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.

Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus.  thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.

——

(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)

News and Commentary on the Catholic Church