February 14, 2019 A. D. — Today Diane Montagna’s article, entitled, “Did Benedict really resign? Gänswein, Burke and Brandmüller weigh in,” was published at Life Site News.
First, let me say a big thank you to Diane Montagna for bringing the controversy to the greater attention of the general public. In this way, all Catholics, who have a right to know of its existence, can at last be informed.
However, I do not praise the article’s author for the article itself, which in all frankness, I must say is full of sophistic arguments: that is false manners of argumentation, and even false assertions, all marshaled in an attempt to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign, and that everything His Holiness and his private secretary have said about this, is to be ignored!
I find it shocking that two Cardinals, to defend the validity of the resignation, have resorted to telling the whole world not to pay attention to what the Pope has said about the meaning and effect of his own act! This is tantamount to rebellion against the papacy, in my mind!
I also wish to contradict the attempt by the article to smear Catholics who hold that the resignation is invalid as persons who are NOT knowledgeable about Church Law, the text of the papal resignation, or who are excessively scandalized by Bergoglio. As I pointed out in my previous article on How Usurpation of the Papacy leads to Excommunication, all those involved in asserting an invalid resignation is valid are risking excommunication for schism and positing acts which only a pope can do. So they have a lot of reasons to ignore a serious and just consideration of the facts, especially if they just went along to get along.
But enough of preamble. let’s examine the sophisms in Montagna’s Article, in order of their appearance.
Archbishop Gänswein dismisses the argument as making no sense. So since he confesses not to understand it, there is really nothing proved by quoting him. I will observe that in German, which is the Bishop’s ancestral tongue, there is no equivalent of ministerium, munus and officium except by one word. So its easy for a German thinker to miss the problem of saying ministerium instead of munus. What the Archbishop says previously contradicts what he says now, so he probably was thinking in German then or is now. But surely he can understand the controversy, seeing that I sent him last month, with proof of delivery, a printed copy of my entire Disputed Question on the topic. But then again, maybe he cannot read English?
Later on in the article, after quoting Archbishop Gänswein as saying openly that Benedict did NOT resign the PAPAL OFFICE, Montagna quotes an anonymous theologian as sustaining,
supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities.
Ugh, what can one respond to such ignorance? Other than that Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 §2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 §1 and canon 41, which reading amply demonstrates that the Supreme Legislator Himself, Pope John Paul II, in promulgating the new Code of Canon Law requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things. — Those who are faithful Catholics, therefore, already know they refer to two different things, because the Pope orders us to do so!
Then the same anonymous theologian quotes canon 15 §1 (actually he quotes §2, but I think that is an error), as saying that the resignation must be presumed valid. But that canon says that a law, which expressly invalidates an act, invalidates even if the one positing the act is ignorant of the law. Thus this canon argues against the validity of the resignation, not for it!
Then the same anonymous theologian confuses the annulment process with this controversy, saying that Catholics who think the resignation is or may be invalid, must wait for the judgement of the Church! Actually, canon 188 says that resignations made in substantial error are invalid by the law itself. That means, they are invalid before any sentence of any court determines the facts: they are null, void and never had any legal effect.
Then, the article quotes Dr. Roberto de Mattei, who cites Canon 124 §2. — As an aside, I would ask that Dr. de Mattei respond to my criticism of his previous error of attempting to raise an opinion of late scholasticism to the level of an interpretative principle of canon law, in contradiction to the obligation of canon 17 — But that canon also contradicts Dr. de Mattei, because it regards only acts which are manifestly conform to the obligations of the law, when in the present controversy one deals with a prima facie non conformity! That is, with the fact that at first glance at the Latin of Non solum propter (Text of apparent resignation) and canon 332 §2, they are not speaking of the same things! For the former renounces the ministerium, but the latter refers to resignations of munus.
Then Dr. de Mattei attempts again to flip a canon. This time its canon 1526 §1, the burden of proof is upon him who asserts. Seeing that it is the Cardinals and Dr. de Mattei who long ago asserted first of all that the resignation is valid, the burden of proof is rather on them! That is why, the mere fact that the Cardinals and the entire Vatican have never published a canonical affirmation of the validity is a strong argument they have NEVER examined if it was. But in the case of a resignation, a Cardinal Elector is gravely bound to personally verify that the resignation is valid, because otherwise he will participate in an illicit Conclave and elect and Anti-Pope!
Then, Cardinal Brandmuller attempts to flip two sound dicta: de internis non iudicat praetor(a praetor does not judge of things internal) and quod non est in actis, non est in mundo (what is not in the act does not exist in the world). I say this, because he cites these to argue that those who doubt the validity of the resignation are in error. However, since those who doubt the validity, as I do, do not base our arguments on interior intentions, nor on suppositions, but on the text of the act of renunciation itself, we are acting in perfect harmony with those dicta. Nay, rather, its Cardinal Brandmuller and Burke and Gänswein who violate these, because they say the Pope intended to resign the munus, therefore he did resign the munus, and that ministerium means the munus which is not renounced in the text, because the Pope intended to resign the munus, they judge the Pope’s intention not the act itself!
Then, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.” This, I will admit — for those who have not read the Code of Canon Law and studied this question of substantial error on account of not saying munus nor referring to the office — might be difficult to prove, because many are ignorant of the Canon Law and its obligations. But for those who do, or should know it, it is not! — Just see my disputed question on it. You can find it in Spanish translation here. In that Question, I carefully examine and refute the 19 reasons alleged for the validity and marshal 39 arguments, drawn from Canon Law, Theology, Philosophy, etc. against the validity.
Finally, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “It seems clear to me that Benedict had his full mind and that he intended to resign the Petrine office.” — Having given no argument but his speculation about the intention of what Pope Benedict XVI intended to say, other than to deny what he expressly has said on other occasions, the opinion of this eminent Canonist must be disregarded as any gratuitous unproven declaration which runs counter to the facts is disregarded.
In conclusion, I would ask these three eminent prelates to read Canon 17. Therein, Pope John Paul II obliges all Catholics to understand canon 332 §2 in a specific manner. In that manner, it can be seen that there is no question at all that the renunciation of Benedict is invalid by reason of substantial error (canon 188) in thinking that a renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of the papacy.
I believe that the Cardinals in particular, perhaps out of their familiarity with the Annulment process which focuses on the intention as the formal principle of the validity of the bond of Matrimony, are missing the point of the teaching of Pope Boniface VIII (Decree of Boniface VIII (6th vol), 1.1, T.7, Chap. 1: De Renunciatione:) that papal renunciations deal formally with the verbal signification of the act, not on the intention of the one renouncing. Also, they differ significantly in this, that the power to tie the bond of marriage consists in the ones who take marriage vows. But the power to remove the munus of the papacy is held exclusively by Christ the Lord in glory, who has promised Peter to uphold the letter of Canon Law promulgated by his successor, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, and Who cannot act unless the renunciation expressly conform itself to that canon.
Today, if not beforehand, Jorge Mario Bergoglio publicly and manifestly apostatized from the Catholic Faith, when he signed the “Human Fraternity Document,” which professes all religions to be “willed by God in His wisdom.”
According to The National, Bergoglio signed the “Human Fraternity Document” in Abu-dhabi today (see link for more photos).
The Human Fraternity Meeting official website gives the text of the document: the outrageous affirmation is found under the second bullet point, which reads:
Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;
Apostasy is apostasy, whether you apostatize in the bathtub or on the papal throne; whether you do so out of fear of being slain by a Jihadi or whether you do so for a pot of porridge, an invite form George Soros, or a photo op. The reason or cause or motive can be different, but the result is the same: you reject faith in the One True God.
While a man may apostatize by embracing a non-Christian Faith, such as Judaism or Islam, he can apostatize also by affirming that which destroys the entire faith. Thus, its apostasy to say such things as, “God does not exist” or “God is a devil”.
If you were to say God wills that religions be different and many, then you have also apostatized, because you are saying that God is indifferent to religion. But the god who is indifferent to religion is not the Christian God. So by saying such a thing, you have taken as your god, the Father of Lies.
Some of the most fundamental names of God, of which no Christian can feign ignorance, is that God is True, One, Good and exists. To deny any of these is apostasy.
Perhaps a Modernist, who is trained somewhat in canon law, will say that you cannot know with certitude that anyone is an apostate — if you are a Modernists, you do not believe in objective religious truth, so its to be expected that you say such a thing — but as Catholics we know that the certitude of conclusions flows infallibly from the certitude of principles and facts and laws.
In canon 1364 §1, the Pope levels excommunication latae sententiae against all apostates, even if they be the Pope. This is how the Pope in promulgating the Code of Canon Law protects Catholics from future popes who apostatize. Those who have not the faith will say, the Code of Canon law does not bind the pope (though canon 38 contradicts them), or that to deny God is the author of only 1 true religion is not apostasy (they will attempt to pretend that Judaism of old still exists, and that Talmudic Judaism is not another false religion). But Catholics know better.
Finally, they will call Catholics names for saying what I just said. Maybe they will even call me a “sedevacantist” — I am not, because I hold with Canon 332 §2 that Benedict is still the pope —but no Catholic, even those who still think that Benedict’s resignation is valid, are sedevacantists for holding such things, as its simply common sense to say that Bergoglio is an apostate when he publicly signs a document which contains such a statement.
Please put your local priest on notice about what Bergoglio said, and INSIST that his name no longer be mentioned in the Canon. Catholics are right to disrupt the Mass, if need be, to shout down anyone who thinks otherwise. We have this right, because God is a God of Truth, He is no condoner of falsehood of any kind. And our Baptism requires that we hold fast with God in this.
Please put your Favorite Cardinal on notice. Write or call or email him, however you can contact him. Remind him, that if he will not stand up and defend God as the author of One True Religion, he is an apostate too.
Remind the clergy, in particular, that if some sort of division arises among those who say that Bergoglio is by this an apostate and that he is not by this an apostate, that the division is not caused by those who say he is, but by Bergoglio for signing such a document, and by those who refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of that sin. Therefore, if anyone should be quiet and shut up, its the latter 2 groups, not Catholics who agree with what I have written here!
Since, I intend to respond to the charges brought against my position, I recommend that all readers first read both articles, in chronological order. — Since the commentator is anonymous, I will refer to him by the initials of his nome du plume: CC.
The argument marshaled against my position contains a list of ridiculous errors. The first of which is derived from juridical positivism, which holds that nothing is certain in reality unless it be judged by a competent court of law, holding constitutional authority to judge the matter. This is the kind of error no one but a Canonist or Lawyer would fall into, because it reduces the realm of epistemological truth to that of what a court recognizes as facts. Now, its quite understandable that someone exercising the profession of a lawyer or canonist, who must prove everything to the level of certitude had in the courts before whom he appears, to have such a habit of mind, but is quite a grand moral and philosophical error to hold that such a criterion is validly applied to the whole of reality.
On the contrary, the human mind can know truth with certitude. This is a fundamental presupposition of all human endeavor, because if it be denied, then there could be no faith given by one man to another on the basis of human judgements. Now just as the human mind can exist outside the mind of a lawyer before a court, so the human mind can know truth with certitude outside of the court of law. To say otherwise, would be psychotic, that is divorced from reality.
I say this to preface the notion of latae sententiae excommunication as a canonical penalty in the new code of Canon law. Many canonists, proceeding from the mindset of juridical positivism hold that whereas such penalties are published in the Code, they are either never incurred or that they can never with certainty be known to be incurred, until, in both cases, a competent authority declares them.
The fundamental error of this position, is that the very Latin of the penalty contradicts their position: “latae sententiae” in Latin means, without the necessity of a juridical sentence being handed down. This means, that the one who violates the law which bears this penalty for violation, is penalized BEFORE and WITHOUT any public declaration of the penalty being inferred. This being the case, a human mind can know of it with certitude. The certitude I speak of here is the certitude of natural reason which from facts which are in the external forum and known by documented evidence or eye-witness testimony, can be with seen as fulfilling the conditions for the excommunication to be incurred.
What CC attempts in criticizing me is a sophistic error: For first he argues that such excommunications cannot be known with certitude, and then asserts that such certitude can only be had in a court of law, from which he infers that I am wrong in saying that Cardinals are excommunicated. — As an aside, no where in my article do I say that any Cardinal is excommunicated; I merely said that Cardinals and Bishops are subject to the penalty.
While it it true, that in the Catholic Church, the incurring of any ecclesiastical penalty, whether declared or not, should be made known by ecclesiastical authority for the sake of the unity of the Church, it is not true, that all of them are NOT incurred if ecclesiastical authority through corruption, fear, sloth or some other vice, fails to declare that they are incurred. For excommunications latae sententiae are incurred by the law itself. Those who say otherwise are simply ignorant of Latin. To say this idea of excommunication as “automatic” is merely a canard, since as is clear it depends not upon the private individual or merely the act of violation, BUT by the imposition before the fact by the Supreme Legislator, the Pope, of a penalty which applies to all future violations ipso facto.
He extends this error of juridical positivism in the most clericalist manner by denying that a Catholic can know with certitude if a Conclave be valid or not, when a Conclave is called to elect another pope, while the first pope is still alive! — This is pure insanity! That is like saying a layman cannot know the Moon is eclipsing the Sun, just because he saw the Moon blot out the Sun! — You have to be totally psychotic to even say such a thing.
The truth is, the certitude that a Conclave is invalid is had from the certitude of the facts according to which it would not be licit to convene the Conclave. In the case in question, this certitude derives from the certitude that Pope Benedict XVI never resigned the petrine munus. Which certitude is objective, real, verifiable, documented and testified to by 2 things: the document Non solum propter, which only renounces the ministerium, and canon 332 §2 which says a Pope resigns when he resigns the munus. Since every Latinist knows that ministerium and munus are not only different words, but which do not share the same significations in ecclesiastical usage, the certitude that Pope Benedict XVI never resigned the Papal Office is both prima facie and a necessary consequent of the law (especially since canon 38 required that if Benedict wanted to signify munus by ministerium, he would have had to explicitly derogate the obligation of canon 332 §2 in its fundamental conditional clause).
Those who have studied and understood philosophy know that both in logic and in moral and legal affairs, the certitude of principles and causes extends and flows down through to conclusions and effects. A Canonist who is expert in the procedural rules of declared and imposed penalties which are not latae sententiae, might think differently, since he moves in a world of courts, but that is not the whole of reality. Thus to discount canon 359, the canon which forbids Cardinals to convene a conclave when there is no sede vacante, is not only absurd but should make anyone who knows Canon Law doubt whether CC has ever read the law.
Next, in regard to his attempt to fault me for misreading 1382, he seems never to have read the Code of Canon Law of 1983, which specifically obrogates the old code and makes recourse to its terms unauthentic when the new code establishes a greater penalty, which is true in the case of episcopal consecrations. And no, contrary to CC’s assertion, when I said, “ordain” I mean “consecrate” because the consecration of Bishops is a species of the power of ordination, a thing everyone who knows his theology of the Sacraments knows well enough. CC furthermore goes off into the fog, by saying in effect that an AntiPope consecrating Bishops or nominating Bishops is only guilty if he is feigning to have the authority of the Pope to confer jurisdiction. What kind of argument he is trying to make by moving this against the case in question, I do not know, because that is what an Anti-Pope objectively does!!!
The appeal to canon 1405 §1, 2°, namely, that the Pope alone judges the Cardinals, is praeter rem, because in legislating canonical penalties which apply to everyone in the Church, without exception, Pope John Paul II did judge the Cardinals beforehand. Those who have studied Canon Law and understand its nature know this well.
Finally, all CC’s other assertions saying things cannot be known or known with certitude, by anyone but the Canonist or Judge in a court of Canon Law, or by the Pope alone, is merely an extension of juridical positivism, an absurd professional error of snobbery among poorly schooled lawyers. Canonists who know the Faith understand well that Canon Law’s fundamental context is the Catholic Faith and that it must be understood in a manner which does not conflict with objective reality and epistemology. Like the Catholic Faith, it is not a gnostic science in which the truth is only known by the initiates who study at Pontifical Universities.
I invite all those who have not yet done so, to read my original article on the Excommunication of Cardinals and Bishops who participate in the usurpation of the Papal Office more carefully, and they will see how I speak of moral causes and the terms of the law, and how I never said anyone was excommunicated, only that if they know what they did, they merit to have incurred the penalty. This is perfectly Catholic.
As a Postscript, I add, that I am not in the least offended by the publication of CC’s critique. I appreciate the occasion to manifest the truth better through the clash of mental swords. — I would also note that, what really irks Canonists and Bishops about my article is that I have put them on notice that their offices and privileges be derived from a true Pope, not a fake pope; in other words, I am reminding the malicious ones that their entire project is null and void, and that they are risking losing communion with Christ, canonically speaking, if they have not already done so.
Canon 359 expressly withdraws authority from the College of Cardinals to elect a Pope, when the Papal Office is still retained by another: there being no sede vacante. To call a conclave when there is still a true Pope, thus, is illicit. To elect another is to participate actively and immediately in the crime of the usurpation of the Papal Office.
Usurpation is the crime whereby someone without a legitimate claim, lays hold upon or claims an office which is not his. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Usurpation is discussed under several canons, usurpation of office in canon 1381.
Though the crime of usurping the papacy is not named in the code expressly — since it has not occurred for centuries, those participating in such a crime can still be excommunicated latae sententiae out of the consequences of such an act, and this in two ways: 1) by the Anti-Pope ordaining bishops and collaborating with him in that, 2) by the crime of schism.
The first regards the crime of usurpation itself in the act of ordaining Bishops.
The worse crime of usurpation mentioned explicitly in the code is in canon 1382:
Can. 1382 — A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Pope John Paul II cited this canon to declare that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, was excommunicate on account of his ordination of their 4 Bishops. Bergoglio cited this same canon to “excommunicate” Bishop Williamson, after he was reconciled by Pope Benedict XVI, who undid John Paul II’s excommunication.
This applies to Anti-Popes, inasmuch as not being the legitimate successors of Saint Peter, their ordaining of Bishops is without true pontifical mandate. It also applies to Bishops who ordain those nominated by Bergoglio, since they too have no true pontifical mandate to act.
Accomplices of both are also punished by the same punishment, as is clear from canon 1329.
Can. 1329 — §1. If ferendae sententiae penalties are established for the principal perpetrator, those who conspire together to commit a delict and are not expressly named in a law or precept are subject to the same penalties or to others of the same or lesser gravity.
§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.
Since the excommunication leveled in canon 1382 takes place immediately without the necessity of any public declaration by any authority, in accord with Canon 1329 §2 all the Cardinals involved in the uncanonical election of an Anti-Pope are also ipso facto excommunicated, since they participate intimately and immediately in his claim to exercise the pontifical mandate.
While it can be argued that those in substantial error as to the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation ought not be excommunicated, because they had good will, they must confront canon 15, which says in § 2: Ignorance or error about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another is not presumed. Thus, as soon as any Cardinal Elector sees that Benedict resigned the ministerium, not the munus, and that Canon 322 §2 requires the resignation munus — all the while refusing to repudiate the validity of that resignation — he becomes indisputably culpable of the usurpation of the Papal office by way of consent to uphold Bergoglio’s claim to exercise the pontifical mandate, and as such, merits punishment under canons 1382 and 1329 §2.
The second way to excommunication latae sententiae, is through the crime of schism.
Cardinals and Bishops participating in supporting an Anti-Pope are also involved in the crime of schism, since they formally separate themselves from communion to the true Pope. Thus they are also subject to excommunication from canon
Can. 1364 — §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs alatae sententiaeexcommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
Thus, the controversy over the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation becomes one of the greatest import for Catholics, to know who is truly their pastors and who are truly schismatics and excommunicates. This is not a joking matter, and any Cardinal or Bishop who treats it as such, should be sternly reminded of such.
Presumption and Silence
Finally, it needs to be pointed out, that whereas there is a presumption of validity of every Conclave, in the event of the death of the Roman Pontiff, however, in the case of a papal resignation, there is no such presumption, and since it is the grave duty of the Cardinals to act in accord with Canon Law in the election of the Roman Pontiff, they had the grave and solemn duty to verify that the resignation of Pope Benedict was in conformity with Canon 332 §2. If they did verify that, why have they never admitted to having verified it? And if they did not, they ostensibly become culpable of usurpation out of negligence in so grave a duty.
Indeed, the Vatican is full of Doctors of Canon Law, but to my knowledge neither in February of 2013 nor in the following six years, as any Canon Lawyer from the Vatican published any study showing that Non solum propter effects a valid resignation in conformity to canon 322 §2. Nor does it seem that anyone in the Diplomatic Corps asked the Vatican for such a verification.* Nor does it seem that the Italian Government, bound by the Lateran Treaty to uphold only constitutional governments in the Vatican, ever asked for such a verification or explanation. — If this be true, its of the gravest indications that the resignation was never put to any kind of rational scrutiny, but was presumed to be valid by a bunch of giddy men who wanted Benedict out of the way.
Image Credits: Getty Images, Conclave of March 2013.
* For example, Eduard Hapsburg, the Ambassador of Hungary to the Vatican, recently insulted Catholics who question the validity of the resignation. But when asked for a verification of the resignation, remained utterly silent.
En el artículo anterior titulado LavalidezdelarenunciadeBenedictodebesercuestionada, ParteI, recité la historia de la controversia sobre la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI sobre el tema del error sustancial en la renuncia y luego procedí a explicar más de 20 argumentos en contra de validez.
Aquí, enumeraré los argumentos para la validez, en la medida en que los encuentre y los entienda. Si usted conoce sobre más argumentos, favor de avisarme en la sección de comentarios a continuación. Después de cada argumento a favor de la Validez, publicaré, para conveniencia del lector, el argumento en contra, que se desvía de esta pequeña manera de la forma escolástica adecuada. No hay un orden particular entre los argumentos, pero los más fuertes están al final.
¿Ya sea que el Papa Benedicto XVI, mediante el acto expresado en su discurso “Non solum propter”, renunció a la oficina del Obispo de Roma?
Ad contrarium:
Y parece que lo hizo:
Porque, el Papa Benedicto XVI como Papa está por encima del Derecho Canónico. Por lo tanto, no necesita renunciar según la forma del Canon 332 §2. Por lo tanto, renunció válidamente.
Ad obj. 1: Argumentar que el Papa está por encima de la Ley Canónica, y por lo tanto la renuncia es válida, es un sofismo, que cuando se examina es equivalente a otras 2 proposiciones erróneas, a saber: “El Papa como Papa está por encima de la ley canónica, ergo etc.” y “El Papa como el hombre que está por encima de la ley, ergo etc.” A la primera, le diré: En primer caso, es verdad que el Papa está por encima del Derecho Canónico. Sin embargo, el Papa, al renunciar a su cargo, no renuncia como Papa, sino como el hombre que es el Papa. Por lo tanto el argumento es praeter rem. Al segundo, digo: es falso decir que el Papa como el hombre que es papa está por encima de la Ley Canónica, porque la mente del Legislador del Código de Derecho Canónico, el Papa Juan Pablo II, en el canon 332 §2, expresamente declara cuándo una renuncia papal es tal y debe considerarse válida. Por lo tanto, si un Papa renunciara de una manera que fuera válida, pero que los Fieles tuvieran que considerar como inválida según la norma de ese Canon, habría caos en la Iglesia. Sin embargo, al interpretar la mente de un legislador, no se puede suponer ninguna tesis que haga que la ley sea defectuosa. Por lo tanto, el Papa Juan Pablo II tuvo la intención de atar al hombre que es papa, en una resignación papal. Por lo tanto, el segundo es falso también.
Porque está claro que el papa Benedicto quiso renunciar. Por lo tanto, él renunció. Por lo tanto, su renuncia es válida.
Ad obj. 2: Argumentar que el Papa quiso renunciar, por lo tanto renunció, es emplear un sofismo que oculta un término medio no distribuido. Porque si el Papa quería renunciar al ministerio del oficio, entonces renunció al ministerium. Pero tal renuncia no se conforma con el Canon 332 §2, ya que el canon no renuncia al munus. Por lo tanto, no es válida. Del mismo modo, si el Papa quería renunciar al munus, entonces NO renunció al munus si es que dijo ministerium. E incluso aunque él creyó haberlo hecho, es inválido, según el canon 332 §2 de acuerdo con el acto, y de acuerdo con el canon 188 debido a un error sustancial.
Debido a que el Papa Benedicto, después de su renuncia, declaró públicamente que renunció válidamente, entonces renunció válidamente.
Ad obj 3: Argumentar que el Papa renunció válidamente porque después de su renuncia declaró públicamente que renunció válidamente, es emplear un subterfugio. Porque en esa declaración pública declara que renunció válidamente al ministerio petrino. Que renunció válidamente al ministerio petrino, no se disputa. Pero si eso es lo que él renunció, entonces no renunció al munus. Por lo tanto, ese acto no efectuó una renuncia al oficio. Por lo tanto, si se afirma que es una renuncia papal válida, la afirmación es falsa según el canon 332 §2.
Porque, el Papa Benedicto, después de su renuncia, declaró públicamente que renunció libremente, por lo tanto renunció.
Ad obj. 4: Es cierto que la libertad en una renuncia es una de las condiciones necesarias para una renuncia papal según el Canon 332 §2, pero no es cierto que sea la única condición. La primera condición es que sea una renuncia de munus. No era. Por lo tanto, este argumento es praeter rem.
Porque el Cardenal Sodano, como Decano del Colegio de Cardenales, al convocar al Colegio, actuó como si fuera válido, por lo tanto, es válido.
Ad obj. 5: No hay un Canon de la Iglesia o una delegación especial del Romano Pontífice que tome la decisión del Cardenal Diácono de llamar a un cónclave eficaz de la validez de una renuncia inválida, o autoritativamente determinante de la validez de una renuncia. Por lo tanto, que lo haya hecho, no prueba nada. No, el canon 332 §2 lo niega expresamente.
Debido a que el Colegio de Cardenales se reunió para elegir un Sucesor del Papa Benedicto, por lo tanto, mediante ese acto declarado o hecho, la renuncia fue válida.
Ad obj. 6: No existe un Canon de la Iglesia o una delegación especial del Romano Pontífice que tome la decisión del Colegio de Cardenales de conciliar o elegir a un Papa, eficaz de la validez de una renuncia inválida, o autoritativamente determinante de la validez de una renuncia. Por lo tanto, que lo hayan hecho, no prueba nada. No, el canon 332 §2 lo niega expresamente.
Porque todo el Colegio de Cardenales después de la renuncia y después del Cónclave de 2013 actúa y sostiene que Jorge Mario Bergoglio es el verdadero y válido Papa.
Ad obj. 7: Respondo lo mismo que para obj. 7.
Porque todo el mundo acepta que Jorge Mario Bergoglio es el Papa Francisco.
Ad obj. 8: El canon 332 §2 al decir, “y no que sea aceptado o no por nadie” en su frase final, lo niega expresamente. Por lo tanto, es falso.
Porque, un católico debe sostener como papa, a quienquiera que los cardenales, o los obispos, o el clero de Roma, sean el papa.
Ad obj. 9: Respondo lo mismo que para obj. 8.
Porque la elección de un Papa por los Cardenales es un hecho dogmático, que todos los católicos deben aceptar.
Ad obj. 10: Si bien es cierto que la elección válida de un Papa por parte de los Cardenales es un hecho dogmático que todos los católicos deben aceptar, no es cierto si la elección no fue válida. Pero una elección no es válida si el Papa anterior aún vive y aún no ha renunciado válidamente. Por lo tanto, esta objeción no es válida, en la medida en que la renuncia sea inválida. Por lo tanto, de su propio ser es insuficiente para probar el punto argumentado.
Debido a que la renuncia del papa Benedicto XVI es un acto papal, que no puede ser cuestionado, según el anexo: prima sedes a nemini iudicatur.
Ad obj. 11: Si bien es cierto que los actos del Romano Pontífice son actos jurídicos que no pueden ser cuestionados, no es verdad que las declaraciones hechas en primera persona por el hombre que es Papa, que son la materia de tales actos o declaraciones, no pueden ser juzgadas. El canon 332 §2 demuestra que tal acto puede ser juzgado ya que el canon juzga tales actos. Que tal materia del acto papal no es un acto del papa como papa, ya se ha demostrado anteriormente. — Si dice que el acto de declaración es un acto papal, no el acto del hombre, por lo tanto, debe considerarse válido, ya que el Papa es el legislador supremo y el árbitro del significado de los actos canónicos, debe responderse que la declaración (“Yo declaro”) se hace en la primera persona del singular, no en la primera persona del plural, por lo que el legislador supremo ya ha renunciado explícitamente a su papel en la declaración de renuncia.
Porque, un católico con buena conciencia debe suponer que si la renuncia no era válida debido al uso de la palabra ministerium no munus en la frase clave del acto, los Cardenales, de acuerdo con el canon 17, se demostraron a sí mismos que el Santo Padre, El Papa Benedicto renunció lo suficiente al papado, o que celebraron un consejo privado con el para conocer su sentido y significado, momento en el que significó en privado que había renunciado al papado al renunciar al ministerio del papado.
Ad obj. 12: Si bien es cierto que un católico debe estar dispuesto a presumir tal cosa, tal presunción no hace válida una renuncia inválida. No, de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, se debe tener en cuenta que la causa final de una renuncia inválida es que no se manifiesta de acuerdo con la norma de la ley (rite manifestatur). Cuya norma requiere un acto público que es un acto presenciado por lo menos con 2 testigos y hecho verbalmente. Tal acto nunca ha sido publicado. Entonces, incluso si se hiciera, es un acto secreto y no haría una renuncia inválida, válida.
Debido a que el Papa Benedicto dijo: “declaro que renuncio al ministerio, …que me fue confiado por medio de los Cardenales, … , asi que la Sede de San Pedro quedará vacante en”, indicó claramente que su renuncia era para efectuar una perdida al oficio (munus). Por lo tanto, su renuncia estuvo de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, a pesar de no usar explícitamente la palabra munus, ya que ese Canon requiere su validez. Por los tanto, la renuncia fue válida.
Ad obj. 13: Esta objeción fue refutada en los argumentos de la Primera Parte, pero su complejidad merece una respuesta más completa para aquellas mentes que no pueden entender cómo es inválida. Primero, como se demuestra en la Primera Parte de este Artículo, una renuncia es válida si incluye una renuncia de munus, no es válida si no lo hace. Y de acuerdo con Canon 17, si hay alguna duda sobre si munus está incluido en el Canon 332 §2 como una condición sine qua non o de acuerdo a su significado en un sentido más amplio, uno debe tener recurso a otras partes de del Derecho, la tradición canónica, y a la mente del Legislador (Juan Pablo II) del Código. Como se ha mostrado en otraparte, no hay base para un argumento del canon 17 de que ministerium puede significar munus. Sin embargo, como ministerium es seguido por 2 cláusulas subordinadas, el argumento de que no es válido, debe responder a esa condición. En latín, algunas cláusulas subordinadas pueden alterar el significado de la cláusula principal. Y es cierto que hay una forma poética, en la que parte de una cosa puede sustituir al todo, como cuando en la Misa en el Rito Latino decimos: “Entres a mi casa” para que signifique “Vengas a mi alma”. Sin embargo, con respecto al latín del texto de la renuncia, decir, “que recibí de las manos de los Cardenales” no impone ninguna necesidad de referencia al Ministerio Petrino per se, porque Ratzinger también en ese momento recibió el ministerio Episcopal y Pastoral de la Diócesis de Roma. La segunda cláusula, “asi que la Sede de San Pedro quedará vacante”, se ha demostrado en la Parte I que no requiere ninguna necesidad. Para aquellos que no entienden la gramática latina, esto necesita ser explicado. Porque, en una cláusula subordinada como “asi que … quedará vacante”, la cláusula es una cláusula de propósito del tipo que comienza con la partícula “ut“, y por lo tanto es una cláusula pura de propósito que indica solo una meta. Si la clausula subordinada de propósito hubiera comenzado “de tal manera que” (quomodo) o “de tal manera como para” (in tali modo quod) hubiera sido una cláusula de propósito de tal característica que tuviera el poder de alterar la manera de significado en la clausula primaria, y permitir el uso de significado metonímico, eso es, cuando una parte refiere al todo. Como el Papa Benedicto no dijo nada de ese tipo, esta forma de leer la cláusula subordinada no es posible. Por lo tanto, sigue siendo inválido. Sin embargo, incluso si se tuviera un significado metonímico, sigue siendo inválido según el Canon 332 §2, ya que no se manifestaría debidamente. Porque como si alguien pronunciara los votos matrimoniales diciendo: “Te tomo como mi empanada vienesa”en lugar de decir “Te tomo como mi esposa”, sería necesario recurrir a una interpretación para hacer que la frase signifique tomar una esposa, por lo que en un acto de renuncia, cualquier forma de significado metonímico rendiría inválido el acto porque públicamente no manifiesta la intención debidamente.
En su acto de renuncia, el Papa Benedicto XVI declaró dos cosas. El primero con respecto a su renuncia, el segundo con respecto a la convocación de un cónclave “que un cónclave para elegir a un nuevo Sumo Pontífice sea convocado por aquellos cuyo deber es”. No habría dicho esto si su intención no fuera renunciar a la oficina del papado. Por lo tanto, renunció a la oficina del papado.
Ad obj. 14: Este argumento es una combinación de dos argumentos, uno de los cuales se ha refutado previamente, a saber, aquel que se refiere a su intención, que fue refutado en Ad obj. 2. Aquí responderé al otro que se refiere al comando papal de convocar un cónclave. Dado que el Papa declaró que se convocaría un cónclave para elegir a un nuevo Romano Pontífice constituye la segunda cláusula independiente de su verbo, “Yo declaro”. Por lo tanto, es lógicamente independiente y no tiene ninguna necesidad en la alteración del significado de la primera cláusula, que se refiere a la renuncia. Por lo tanto, si la renuncia no se manifiesta debidamente de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, que el Papa declara que se debe llamar cónclave es una declaración papal que está totalmente viciada por el error sustancial en su primera declaración. Así, el canon 188 invalida la ejecución de este mando. Esto es especialmente cierto, ya que en la declaración de convocatoria, no requiere que la convocatoria se realice antes o después de que el Papa deje de ser, ni en una fecha específica o incluso durante su vida. Para ver esto más claramente, recuerde el ejemplo de los argumentos en contra de la validez, en donde un papa hipotético declara: “Renuncio a los plátanos para que el 28 de febrero, a las 8 p. M., Hora romana, La Sede esté vacía” y simplemente agregue “y que se convoque un cónclave para elegir un nuevo pontífice romano”. Como se puede ver en esta hipotética, la segunda declaración no hace válida la primera, simplemente continúa con el error sustancial: un error sustancial que también hace que el Cónclave de 2013 y todos los actos de Bergoglio como Papa sean inválidos.
Canon 332 §2 requiere la renuncia del oficio. Pero ministerium también significa oficio. Por lo tanto, cuando el Papa Benedicto renunció al ministerium, renunció al munus.
Ad obj. 15 : Canon 332 §2 lee de la siguiente manera: “Si el Romano Pontífice renunciase a su munus, se requiere para la validez que la renuncia sea libre y se manifieste rite, pero no que sea aceptada por nadie.” Como se puede ver en este Canon, que es el único que se ocupa de las renuncias papales, la condición fundamental es que el Papa renuncie a su “munus“. Ahora, mientras que algunas traducciones modernas lo traducen como oficina (inglés), otras como cargo (español), otras como función (italiano), está claro en el Código de Derecho Canónico que su significado canónico principal es oficio. Esto se puede ver en su uso en los Encabezados del Nuevo Código para los capítulos sobre las Oficinas eclesiásticas.Esto se confirma mediante una cita directa del canon 145 §1, donde cada oficio eclesiástico es llamado un “munus“, no un “ministerium”. Un examen del Código también revela que un ministerium nunca se llama una “oficio”. Ahora, como el Código de Derecho Canónico requiere en el Canon 17, que el Código mismo se lea de acuerdo con la tradición de los textos canónicos, las fuentes del derecho canónico y la mente de su legislador (el Papa Juan Pablo II), estos hechos deberían ser suficientes pruebas para excluir la posibilidad de que “ministerium” se pueda leer como munus. Esto se confirma mediante la comparación del Canon 332 §2 con el canon correspondiente en el Código de Derecho Canónico promulgado bajo el Papa Benedicto XV, donde se habla de un Papa que renuncia, pero no dice a qué renuncia. Es evidente y significativo que el Papa Juan Pablo II en el código de 1983 agregó la palabra “munus” para especificar a qué se debe renunciar para efectuar una renuncia papal. También es evidente que en ese Código de Derecho Canónico “ministerium” se refiere al ejercicio de una oficio. Además, si uno examina todas las renuncias papales anteriores para las cuales hay evidencia textual de la fórmula de renuncia, siempre se encuentran las palabras que significan oficio:onus, munus. No se encuentra ministerium. Los nombres propios para los oficios se encuentran como epicopatus y papatus. O la dignidad que resulta de la oficina se nombra con las palabras honor o dignitas. Así, de acuerdo con el Canon 17, todas las fuentes de interpretación autorizada concluyen sobre 1 resultado: que un Papa solo renuncia cuando renuncia al munus, al oficio, no a la ejecución del oficio, ministerium. Por lo tanto, incluso si el Papa Benedicto pretendía, y en privado después afirmó, afirmaba o afirmaría, que pretendía usar “ministerium” para munus, su acto de renuncia no es válido debido a ese error sustancial, en virtud del canon 188, y no puede hacerse válido por ningún acto posterior. Tendría que ser rehecho con la palabra, “munus“. Entonces, el argumento es inválido por un sofismo, de leer “munus” en su mayor según su significado en latín, pero leer “ministerium” en el menor de acuerdo con su uso vernáculo. Por lo tanto, su conclusión se alcanza a través de un término medio no distribuido, y por lo tanto también es inválida.
No hay ministerium petrino sin un oficio petrino, ya que los dos son inseparables en cuanto a su derecho y ser [secundum ius et esse], según el Derecho Canónico. Por lo tanto, aunque el Canon 332 §2 requiere que un Papa renuncie a su munus para que renuncie válidamente, sin embargo, una renuncia a su ministerium es suficiente para efectuar esto porque aunque “munus” nombra el oficio papal en relación al don de Dios de gracia y deber, “ministerium” nombra el mismo oficio de acuerdo a su relación con la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, renunciar al ministerium petrino, es renunciar al munus petrino.
Ad obj. 16 : Debe decirse que este argumento debe ser respondido mediante un interemptio (eso es una refutación completa de las premisas en un silogismo), ya que es falso en sus proposiciones principales y secundarias. En su versión menor, es falso al estar basado en un error de interpretación de las obligaciones del Canon 332 §2 de acuerdo con la costumbre general de la ciencia de la teología, y no de acuerdo con la norma de ley. En su principal, o premisa, es además falso afirmar que el ministerium no es separable de su oficio de acuerdo con el derecho en cuanto a derecho y el hecho de ser [secundum ius et esse]. Con respecto a lo primero, uno debe responder así: Porque en la ciencia de la teología, las palabras pueden tener significados diferentes con respecto a cosas iguales o disímiles. Pero todo esto es praeter rem (irrelevante) en cuanto a una discusión del significado canónico de un acto de renuncia de un oficio eclesiástico, aún más, en cuanto a un oficio establecido por el Verbo Encarnado de Dios. En tal asunto, el argumento debe centrarse en el oficio según su ser en la Divina Voluntad e intención, no como oficio según se entienda de acuerdo a la teología personal del hombre que es romano pontífice. Esto también es cierto con respecto a la Iglesia Romana, cuyo Novio no es el Romano Pontífice, sino el mismo Cristo Jesús, que ahora reina en la Gloria. Por esa razón, no solo está obligada a dar el consentimiento de Su voluntad al Redentor, sino también a la aprobación de Su mente. Por lo tanto, uno propondría una manera de observar la ley canónica que sería equivalente al adulterio, si uno sostuviera que era lícito que la Iglesia Romana considerara el significado de un acto canónico según la manera del mundo, la carne o incluso interpretación privada. Por lo tanto, no solo Cristo, por Su promesa a San Pedro, está obligado por el canon 332 §2, promulgado por Su Vicario, el Papa Juan Pablo II, a no retirar la gracia y el oficio [munus] a menos que se renuncie explícitamente, así también a la Iglesia Romana, que es su novia virgen más fiel y su esposa virgen. Por lo tanto, la Iglesia debe considerar que las obligaciones del canon 332 §2 requieren una renuncia al munus, en tanto que el Canon 17 requiere que ese término se entienda en el canon 145 §1. En ninguna parte del Código de Derecho Canónico se encuentra que un ministerium considerado como el oficio en sí. Entonces, si bien fue la intención del autor de Non Solum Propter, en tanto que era hombre, significar la Oficina Papal en su relación con el servicio que presta, no por ese solo hecho se convierte en un acto que la Iglesia pueda aceptar como rite manifestatum, pues se tendría que recurrir a una interpretación y a una lectura del texto fuera del marco de reglas de significado del Código de Derecho Canónico que tendrían que ser empleadas. Y como tal, no sería canónicamente válido, incluso si uno pudiera sostener que era teológicamente suficiente. Sin embargo, incluso si uno fuera a conceder que las palabras ministerium …. commissum habló del munus petrinum en su relación con la Iglesia, ya que no se renuncia a nada más que a lo que se renuncia explícitamente, el acto no haría nada más canónicamente que una renuncia al ministerio en la medida en que se encuentra en tal relación, mas no del oficio en sí mismo. Y, por lo tanto, no sería eficaz renunciar, ni suficiente el dar a entender la renuncia al oficio en su relación a Dios y Su don de la gracia. Pero dado que esta misma relación se refiere a ello según su principio de ser [secundum essendi principium] – ya que es un regalo inmediato de Cristo y se establece mediante un acto de Su voluntad, tal renuncia no afecta lo que es esencial para ello. — El acto permanece, por lo tanto, viciado por un error sustancial en su forma de significación, y por lo tanto no es válido ipso iure, por el canon 188. — Finalmente, con respecto a la premisa del argumento, a saber, que el ministerium no se puede separar de la oficina secundum ius et esse, debe decirse que esto está falsificado por el derecho litúrgico y canónico. Porque desde la supresión de las órdenes menores, el estado del acólito y el lector se denominan “ministerios” [Canon 230 §1], sin embargo, tales ministerios no confieren el derecho de ejercer dicho servicio en ningún momento, sino solo la idoneidad de hacerlo a petición del celebrante de un acto litúrgico. Por lo tanto, ministeria son separables en cuanto a derecho y el hecho de ser, del munus. – Por tanto en conclusión, parece ser obvio que el argumento entero es falso, ya que una conclusión que es deducida de una premisa falsa y un menor falso es enteramente falsificada.
17. La aceptación pacífica y universal de un Papa es causada por y es el efecto de una elección papal válida. Por lo tanto, después de 6 años, incluso si la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI fuera inválida, su silencio de facto en la usurpación de la Oficina Papal por parte de Bergoglio es equivalente a una renuncia. Por lo tanto, ya sea que la renuncia sea inválida o no, ahora debe considerarse válida.
Ad obj. 17: Aunque, en el derecho común, la posesión es nueve décimas de derecho, y por lo tanto, la usurpación puede llevar a la adquisición del derecho y en la Ley Romana usucapióne puede obtener el derecho legal a la propiedad después de un largo tiempo, tal principio no es válido por dos razones. Primero, no es válido teológicamente con respecto a un oficio eclesiástico que fue establecido por Jesucristo, el Verbo Encarnado, por un acto personal inmediato. Del cual tipo es el oficio de Papa. La razón teológica es esta: que nadie puede arrebatar nada de la Mano del Dios viviente (Juan 10:28). Y, por lo tanto, ninguna usurpación del oficio papal puede restringir a la Deidad, que es la justicia infinita y la omnipotencia misma, para transferir la gracia del munus papal a otro.Sostener lo contrario, sería una imposibilidad teológica y absurda. Segundo, no es válido canónicamente, debido al Canon 359, que especifica que el Colegio Cardenalicio tiene autoridad para elegir un Pontífice Romano solo durante una sede vacante. — Por lo tanto, si la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI no fue válida, no había una sede vacante y, por lo tanto, el Colegio no tenía autoridad para elegir un sucesor. — En cuanto a la aquiescencia tácita: de la Historia de la Iglesia se desprende claramente que, en contra de las afirmaciones de un antipapa, no se consideró que ningún legítimo reclamante de la Sede apostólica cediera simplemente por no perseguir su derecho. Sin embargo, el argumento de la aquiescencia tácita, sin embargo, no aplica en el caso en disputa, porque el hecho de que uno actué en error sustancial no constituye una aquiescencia tácita, ya que la aquiescencia tácita requiere la capacidad de consentimiento, cosa que es imposible por ignorancia invencible en el caso de error sustancial. — Finalmente, con respecto a la aceptación universal y pacífica de una elección papal: mientras que este principio es ciertamente un principio reflejo válido para las conciencias preocupadas en el caso de una elección válida, no hay posibilidad de una elección válida cuando el Colegio no tiene derecho a actuar, ya que es contrario no solo a la Ley Canónica sino a la Ley Divina para elegir a otro Romano Pontífice mientras el Papa aún vive y no ha renunciado válidamente. Tampoco es válido, en cuanto a su menor implícito: a saber, que ha habido una aceptación pacífica y universal de la renuncia papal. No ha habido, como demuestra el prefacio a esta pregunta en disputa. Por lo tanto, la aplicación de este principio reflejo en el presente caso es, en el mejor de los casos, praeter rem (irrelevante), peor aún, un subterfugio
18. La renuncia de Benedicto a ministerium efectúa válidamente una renuncia al oficio porque, debido al Canon 10, que dice expresamente que solo las condiciones de invalidez hacen que un acto sea inválido, ya que el Canon 332 §2 habla de invalidez solo en relación con la libertad de coerción y manifestación debida, no del nombramiento del oficio, ya que Benedicto tenía la intención de nombrar el oficio papal, como se desprende de su aceptación del título de Papa Emérito, el nombramiento del ministerium en lugar del munus no invalida el acto de renuncia. Además, Benedicto como papa es el legislador supremo, por lo tanto, interpreta oficialmente la ley (cf. Canon 16 §1), por lo que puede renunciar al munus petrino renunciando al ministerium petrino.
Adj. obj. 18: Si bien es cierto que el canon 332 §2 habla de invalidez pero solo en relación con las condiciones del acto, no obstante, el canon 188 habla expresamente de invalidez de renuncias que están viciadas por un error sustancial. Ahora, no hay un error más sustancial en renunciar a un oficio eclesiástico, que renunciar a un accidente del mismo o su segundo acto de ser (ministerium) y creer que al hacerlo, una suficiencia significa el oficio (munus). Además, el canon 18 requiere que los términos del canon 332 §2 se entiendan estrictamente, ya que el último canon restringen al que renuncia. Por lo tanto, la renuncia debe considerar explícitamente el munus del oficio papal, que en ese canon y en el canon 749 §1, como todas los oficios episcopales (cf. Paul VI, Christus Dominus) en todo el Código, se refiere exclusivamente como munus, porque no es meramente un cargo u oficio eclesiástico (officium) o servicio (ministerium) establecido por costumbre o la Iglesia, sino que es un don de gracia y oficio (munus) establecido por el Dios vivo por un acto personal e inmediato (cf. Mateo 16:18). Que cada oficio (munus) pueda ejercer uno o más ministeria (ministerios) no soloNOes un argumento para la validez de la renuncia de Benedicto sino más bien un argumento en contra de la validez, a causa del canon 188, canon 17 y canon 41 (en latín), el último de los cuales asocia expresamente ministerium con la mera ejecución de un oficio eclesiástico y esto, porque el enfermo puede renunciar a la ejecución de un oficio o sus servicios, quien todavía desea conservar la dignidad del oficio, como lo demuestra la historia de la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, en virtud del canon 17, que requiere explícitamente que los textos de cada Canon se entiendan de acuerdo con el significado apropiado de las palabras que contienen, ya que el contexto del Código de Derecho Canónico los usa, el argumento extraído del Canon 10, aquí, no es válido porque es praeter rem, es decir, aplicable solo a las condiciones de invalidez en el Canon 332 §2, no del canon 188. — Si dice, si, el Canon 10 se aplica solo a los términos expresados en el Canon 332 §2 y así permite una interpretación amplia de la cláusula condicional que habla de una renuncia del munus petrino, entonces debe responderse, que tal lectura del canon 10 anularía los requisitos del canon 17, que los términos deben ser entendidos correctamente, o al menos fallan por insuficiencia, ya que el significado amplio de munus en el Código de Derecho Canónico es officium no ministerium; qué sentido de officium se refiere a oficio, no a la ejecución de un ministerio. — Respecto al Canon 16 § 1, hay que decir, que sí, el Papa Benedicto como Papa es el legislador supremo e intérprete del derecho canónico. Pero él es sólo legislador, cuando legisla; mientras que el canon 332 §2 fue legislado por el papa Juan Pablo II. Además, aunque cualquier Papa puede interpretar oficialmente el derecho canónico, debe hacerlo por un acto papal, no por un error sustancial.Por lo tanto, el canon 16 no se aplica en tal caso. Más bien, más bien, el Canon 38 gobierna expresamente en este caso, cuando dice: Un acto administrativo, incluso si es promulgado por un rescripto dado Motu Proprio, carece de efecto en la medida en que perjudica los derechos de otro o es contrario a la ley o costumbre comprobada, a menos que la autoridad competente haya agregado expresamente una cláusula de derogación. — Finalmente, con respecto a la intención manifiesta del Papa de renunciar al munus papal, he respondido a esto arriba en la respuesta a las objeciones 2, 3 y 4.
19. Como sostiene el Dr. Taylor Marshall en su video, “La renuncia del Papa Benedicto: un análisis”, “ministerium” y “munus” nombran lo mismo: el oficio papal. Por lo tanto, renunciar a uno es renunciar al otro. Por lo tanto, la renuncia es válida.
Ad obj. 19: A una afirmación gratuita, no es necesario responder, porque no es un argumento. Sin embargo, contra esta afirmación, uno debe responder, ya que ataca la naturaleza de la realidad misma. Porque las palabras tienen significado, de lo contrario no serían signos de comunicación. Y diferentes palabras pueden tener un significado diferente, o no habría ninguna razón para usarlas. Así, el lenguaje humano por necesidad sostiene la afirmación de que ministerium y munus pueden tener diferentes significados. Cualquier diccionario de latín también lo sostiene, como cualquiera que tenga uno puede demostrar. Pero que ministerium y munus en el derecho canónico significan lo mismo, es totalmente falso, como se ha demostrado anteriormente al referirse, de acuerdo con los requisitos del canon 17, al Código mismo que en el canon 41 asocia “ministerium” con el mero ejercicio de oficio, y canon 145 §1 que define un oficio eclesiástico como un “munus”, no un ministerium. Por lo tanto, el propio Código de Ley Canónica utiliza los términos en diferentes sentidos, y no equipara sus significados como refiriéndose a un oficio eclesiástico, en el sentido de que “obispado” o “papado” se refieren a un oficio. — Esta es una refutación suficiente de acuerdo con la norma del derecho canónico. Pero como la afirmación oculta un grave error del tipo de Nominalismo promovido en Tübingen, merece ser refutado de acuerdo con la ciencia de la filosofía. Porque así como hay 10 categorías de ser de acuerdo con el Filósofo en su Praedicamenta, las palabras se pueden decir en referencia a una o más categorías de ser. Ahora, en el canon 145 §1, el Legislador Supremo predice munus de cada oficio eclesiástico. Pero en ninguna parte del Código predica el ministerium de cualquier oficio eclesiástico, solo de los roles o servicios prestados por alguien que ocupa un oficio o en su lugar. Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el canon 17, queda claro que esto representa en la mente del Legislador que munus significa el ser de algo real, a saber, un oficio, pero ministerium significa la acción o el servicio prestado por alguien que tiene dicho oficio. Por lo tanto, se dice que munus es una sustancia en sí misma, y se dice ministerium de una sustancia en acto. Pero esta es la distinción de ser y acto, de sustancia y accidente, según la Praedicamenta. Por lo tanto, existe una distinción real entre munus y ministerium, en los sentidos utilizados en Canon 332 §2, 145 §1 y canon 41, así como existe una distinción real entre cualquier agente y las acciones del agente, aunque este último es inherente al anterior. Si esto se niega, entonces el andar de Pedro, que en Pedro es Pedro, cuando Pablo lo imita perfectamente sería tanto Pedro en Pablo como Pedro en Pedro, lo cual es absurdo. Por lo tanto, el andar de Pedro en Pedro no es una sustancia sino un accidente, como el color de la piel de Pedro o el acento de su voz, que se puede duplicar en otras cosas, sin tener que hacerlos Pedro. Del mismo modo, el ministerio petrino, que es la acción o servicio que el que tiene el oficio petrino debe y puede prestar, puede ser perfectamente imitado en otro, sin que ese otro sea el Papa. Esta es la base completa de la colaboración de la Curia romana con cada verdadero Papa, cuando Él delega la ejecución de una parte de su Munus Petrino a cardenales y obispos y sacerdotes en el Vaticano o en cualquier otro lugar. Por lo tanto, para nombrar al Munus Petrino no basta con nombrar al Ministerio Petrino (incluso si se reconoce que Benedict hizo esto, lo cual he demostrado no es el caso en los argumentos de la primera parte), porque al igual que cuando Pedro renuncia a su andar, sigue siendo Pedro, así que cuando el Papa renuncia a su ministerio, sigue siendo el Papa. La racionalidad semiótica o ratio significandi para esto es que, al igual que la sustancia y el accidente son separables, su unidad no es necesaria; por lo tanto, el significado del que es el accidente en el otro no muestra una referencia necesaria o determinante al que es la sustancia. Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el canon 332 §2, que requiere una manifestación de libertad e intención que esté de acuerdo con la norma de la ley, tal forma de significado no es válido, porque requiere una interpretación que la Ley no sostiene como algo posible de acuerdo con canon 17.
Recientemente, el destacado teólogo del vaticano y ex miembro de la Congregación para la fe, Mons. Nicola Buxopinópúblicamente que la validez de la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI debería estudiarse con respecto a la cuestión de lo que parece ser un error sustancial en la fórmuladerenuncia.
Mons. Bux no fue el único en plantear este tema. De hecho, las dudas sobre la validez del acto de renuncia fueron planteadas inmediatamente después de que se conoció la noticia. Flavien Blanchon, un periodista francés que trabaja en Roma, escribiendo solo 2 días después, citóauneminenteeruditolatino que señaló errores en el texto de abdicación y señaló que la presencia de cualquier error, de acuerdo a la tradición canónica, se consideraba un signo de falta de deliberación, rindiendo el acto nulo y sin efecto.
Luego un año después, Antonio Socci especuló abiertamente que la renuncia pudo haber sido inválida a la falta de voluntad interior otorgada por Benedicto. En el mismo año, un estudio muy notable publicado por un profesor en derecho canónico en el Instituto Teológico de Legano, Suiza, en 2014 por el P. Stefano Violi, que discutió canónicamente la renuncia: LaRenunciadelPapaBenedictoXVIentrehistoria, leyyconciencia, sin embargo, sin levantar la cuestión de su invalidez. (Es obligatorio leerlo debido a su rica cita de la historia canónica de las renuncias papales) Sin embargo, el estudio, al identificar el asunto de la renuncia a considerar el ministerio activo, no al munus, dejó en claro que la cuestión de El error sustancial que invalidaba la renuncia, fue una cuestión real, fundamentada en el texto del acto mismo.
Sin embargo, el 19 de junio de 2016, Ann Barnhardt planteó específicamente la cuestión de una duda derivada del canon 188, que cita error sustancial como fundamento suficiente para establecer motivo para una determinación canónica de invalidez en cualquier renuncia. Lo hizo después de los notables comentarios del secretario personal del Papa Benedicto más temprano el 20 de mayo, en los que afirmó que Benedicto todavía ocupaba la Oficina Papal. (Textocompletotraducidoalinglés)
Mons. Henry Gracida, obispo emérito de Corpus Christi, Texas, en los Estados Unidos, y ex miembro del Opus Dei, también ha sostenido esta misma duda y otras en relación con la validez de la renuncia. Entiendo que el Obispo ha escrito a muchos miembros de la Jerarquía Sagrada y la Curia sobre estos asuntos para instar a que se tomen medidas. (cfr. abyssum.org : Sugiere una declaración pública de 12 Cardenales pre Bergoglio)
SegúnAnnBarnhart, en el año siguiente, el abogado Chris Ferrara y la señora Anne Kreitzer también sostuvieron esta misma duda. El historiador RichardCowdenGuido opinó lo mismo el 11 de mayo de 2017. Y, el famoso controversialita italiano, AntonioSocci, citóaVioli detenidamente el 31 de mayo de 2017 y sostuvo la misma tesis.
El 11 de agosto de 2017, el popular programa de televisión católica, CaféconGalat, en una edición en inglés, discutió por qué el Papa Benedicto XVI sigue siendo el verdadero papa. Si bien este programa enfatiza la falta de libertad en el acto, incluye el asunto relacionado con la falta de conformidad con el Canon 332 §2 y el canon 188.
En algún momento antes de marzodeesteaño, el Padre Paul Kramer sostuvo también que el canon 188 anuló la renuncia, debido a la falta de conformidad de las renuncias al canon 332 §2 al mencionar ministerium en lugar de munus.
En mayo de este año, a más tardar, el P.Juan Juárez Falcón expuso la razón canónica de la invalidez de la renuncia, sobre la base de un error sustancial, en un artículo titulado “DosGravesRazones”. El Dr. José Alberto Villasana Munguía lo siguió el 27 de junio, coincidiendo con su opinión.
Finalmente, el Papa Benedicto XVI en sus cartas privadasalcardenalBrandmüller, publicadas en el verano de 2018, solicita abiertamente sugerencias para una mejor manera de renunciar, si no lo hizo correctamente.
Hay una serie de católicos notables que sostienen esta duda, y desde que Mons. Bux solicitó una investigación de este asunto, agregaré aquí en forma escolástica, algunos argumentos a favor de sostenerlo, en el curso de los cuales se refutarán todos los argumentos sustanciales en contra. En el transcurso del tiempo, a medida que los encuentre, o piense en otros nuevos, los agregaré a esta lista.
Acerca de que si el Papa Benedicto XVI, mediante el acto expresado en su discurso “Non solum propter”, renunció al cargo del Obispo de Roma?
Y parece que no lo hizo:
Primero, porque un error sustancial, en un acto de resignación, se refiere al vis verborum, o significado de las palabras, en cuanto a la forma y la materia del acto. Pero el acto de renunciar a un ministerio se refiere a uno de los accidentes propios del cargo (cfr. canon 41) por el cual ese ministerio puede ser ejercido correctamente. Por lo tanto, si uno renuncia a un ministerio, no renuncia a el cargo. Y si cree haber renunciado al cargo, al renunciar a uno de los ministerios, está en un error sustancial en cuanto al significado de las palabras que ha usado. Pero en el texto, NonSolumPropter, Benedicto XVI renuncia al ministerio que recibió como obispo de Roma, cuando fue elegido. Por lo tanto, entender que actuar como una renuncia al cargo es cometer un error sustancial en cuanto al efecto del acto. Por lo tanto, según el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida.
San Pedro Apóstol ejerció muchos ministerios en muchos lugares. Pero nadie es el verdadero sucesor de San Pedro, excepto el obispo de Roma (canon 331). Por lo tanto, si uno renuncia a un ministerio petrino, no renuncia al cargi de Obispado de Roma (cf. cánones 331 y 332), que tiene otros ministerios en virtud de su cargo. Por lo tanto, si uno cree que ha renunciado al Obispado de Roma al renunciar a un ministerio petrino, está en un error sustancial y, por lo tanto, según el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida.
Según San Pablo (1 Corintios 12), existen diversas gracias, ministerios y cargos en la Iglesia, ya que la Iglesia es el Cuerpo de Cristo. Por lo tanto, como el obispo de Roma puede ejercer varios de estos ministerios, se deduce que uno no renuncia al Obispado de Roma si renuncia a uno de estos ministerios, ya que ningún ministerio es coextendido con el Obispado de Roma. Ergo en tal renuncia, si uno cree que ha significado suficientemente la renuncia al Obispado de Roma, está en un error sustancial. Por lo tanto, según el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida.
Según Seneca (Moral Essays, volumen 3, John W. Basore, Heineman, 1935), hay que distinguir entre los beneficios, las oficinas y los ministerios. Los beneficios son los que son otorgados por un desconocido, los oficios por los hijos, las madres y otras personas con las relaciones necesarias, y los ministerios por los funcionarios que hacen lo que los superiores no hacen. El Ministerio Petrino es un servicio a la Iglesia. Pero el oficio del obispo de Roma es un deber para Cristo. Si uno renuncia al ministerio de un sirviente, no renuncia al oficio de un hijo. Ergo en tal renuncia etc..
La validez de un acto de renuncia no puede basarse en la definición subjetiva de las palabras, o la mera intención del que renuncia. Si ese fuera el caso, la interpretación haría del acto un acto de renuncia. El acto en sí no lo declararía. Pero la Iglesia es una sociedad pública fundada por el Dios vivo encarnado. Por lo tanto, la renuncia a los oficios debe ser no solo intencional sino también pública, para dar testimonio del hecho de que el oficio fue establecido por el Dios vivo y encarnado. Pero la oficina del obispo de Roma es tal oficina. Ergo en tal renunciación etc.
Como Msgr. Henry Gracida argumenta en su blog, abyssum.org: Si Cristo no aceptó la renuncia de Benedicto como válida, porque el acto en sí no era canónicamente válido por el canon 188, entonces Cristo estaría obligado en justicia a privar a Bergoglio de la gracia, de modo que Su falta al no ser papa sea MÁS EVIDENTE para todos con fe, esperanza y caridad. Pero es MÁS EVIDENTE para todos, incluso los no católicos, que NO tiene la gracia de Dios en él ni en sus acciones. Ergo, o Cristo es injusto, o Cristo es justo. Él no puede ser injusto. ¡Ergo, Bergoglio no es papa!
Del mismo modo, Cristo oró por Pedro para que su fe no fracasara, y para que pudiera confirmar a sus hermanos en el Colegio Apostólico. Ahora, esta oración de Cristo debe ser eficaz, ya que Cristo es Dios y el Hijo Amado del Padre Eterno, y debido al oficio de San Pedro no es algo meramente útil para el Cuerpo de Cristo, sino necesario en asuntos de fe y unidad. Por lo tanto, la oración de Cristo por los sucesores de San Pedro debe ser eficaz de alguna manera con respecto a la fe y la unidad de la Iglesia. Pero Bergoglio ataca manifiestamente tanto la fe como la unidad de la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, lejos de juzgar que en este hombre la oración de Cristo no tenía la intención de ser efectiva. ¡Ergo, Bergoglio no es un sucesor válido de San Pedro!
Del textodelactoderenuncia. El papa Benedicto admite en la primera oración que posee el munus petrinum. Pero más abajo, dice que renuncia al ministerio que había recibido como obispo de Roma. Por lo tanto, no ha renunciado al munus. Pero munus significa oficio y don de gracia (cf. Canon 145 §1 y Pablo VI, ChristusDominus). Por lo tanto, no ha declarado que ha renunciado al cargo y al don de la gracia. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
Desde el sentido de la lengua latina, que carece del artículo definido e indefinido. Cuando dices: Renuntio ministerio, no dices si has renunciado al ministerio o a un ministerio. Por lo tanto, dejas sin decir a qué ministerio has renunciado. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
De la ley papal UniversiDominiciGregis, sobre las elecciones papales: Uno no es elegido para el Ministerio Petrino, sino para ser el Obispo de Roma. Por lo tanto, a menos que uno renuncie al Obispado de Roma, uno no ha desocupado la Sede de San Pedro. Pero en declaracionespúblicas, el Papa Benedicto XVI, después de marzo de 2013, se limita a decir que ha renunciado al ministerio. Por lo tanto, se encuentra en un grave error habitual con respecto a lo que se requiere en un acto de renuncia del cargo del Obispado de Roma. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
Del Código de Derecho Canónico: las renuncias canónicas son válidas si 3 cosas son válidas: libertad de coerción, recta intención, significado inequívoco. Esto se confirma en el canon 332, § 2, que niega expresamente que la aceptación de una renuncia afecte a su validez o no validez. Pero el PapaBenedictoadmiteensuscartasalCardenalBrandmüller que su intención era conservar algo de la Dignidad Pontificia. Su secretario privado también ha afirmado públicamente que él ocupa la sede de la Sede de Pedro, pero aún comparte el Ministerio Petrino. Esta es una evidencia incontrovertible de que el acto de renuncia es ambiguo. Para cualquiera de los dos significa que ha renunciado a la Sede o que no ha renunciado a la Sede, que ha renunciado al ministerio o que no ha renunciado al ministerio. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
De la neumetología, es decir, de la teología del Espíritu Santo. Después de febrero de 2013, toda la Iglesia aún reconoce y acepta al Papa Benedicto XVI con el título de papa y con prerrogativas papales. Todos lo llaman Benedicto, no Ratzinger o Joseph. Pero toda la Iglesia no puede ser engañada. Sin embargo, según la institución divina, el papado no puede ser ocupado por más de una persona a la vez. Y el que lo sostiene primero, tiene el reclamo válido al oficio. Por lo tanto, la Iglesia no entiende el acto como uno que renuncia al oficio. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
Por insuficiencia de intención: si un Papa renuncia a comer plátanos, no ha renunciado al cargo de Obispado de Roma. Por lo tanto, si él dice: “He renunciado a comer plátanos para desocupar la Sede de Roma“, está en un error sustancial en cuanto al efecto de su acto. Pero en su texto de renuncia, dice que ha renunciado al ministerio para desocupar la sede de San Pedro [ut sedes Sancti Petri vacet]. Pero ese es un error sustancial, ya que el ministerio es solo un accidente propio del Obispado de Roma, porque ser el Obispo de Roma es el primer acto de su existencia. [esse primum], Ejercer los ministerios del Obispado de Roma es el segundo acto de su ser. [esse secundum]. Por lo tanto, dado que el segundo acto de ser es en potencia al primer acto, y la potencia se divide de acto en accidente a sustancia, renunciar a uno o todos los ministerios de un oficio es un acto relacionado con los accidentes, no la sustancia del oficio. Por lo tanto, uno podría igualmente renunciar a cualquiera o todos sus ministerios y retener el oficio. Por lo tanto, al renunciar a uno o al ministerio, no renuncia al cargo. De hecho, en declaraciones públicas, explícitamente afirma haber renunciado al ministerio. Por lo tanto, su insuficiencia de la intención expresada no salva el acto de un error sustancial. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
El Papa no es más poderoso que Dios Hijo. Pero Dios Hijo, al convertirse en el Santísimo Sacramento del Altar, en el momento de la Consagración, renuncia a todos los accidentes y acciones de Su Sagrada Humanidad, sin embargo, sigue siendo Dios y Hombre. Por lo tanto, incluso si un Papa renunciara a todas sus acciones y ministerios como Papa, él sigue siendo el Papa. Pero el Papa Benedicto XVI, en su declaración del 11 de febrero de 2013, solo renuncia al ministerio de su oficio, no al oficio. Por lo tanto, sigue siendo el Papa.
Si usted se levanta de su silla, pero no le concede la silla a otro, la silla queda vacante pero sigue siendo su propiedad. Ahora el oficio del Sucesor de San Pedro es para el Sucesor de San Pedro, mientras que el trono es para el que está entronizado. Entonces, si un Papa renuncia al ministerio de su oficio, pero no al oficio, aunque tenga la intención de renunciar al Trono de San Pedro, no cede su derecho y la posesión del oficio. Entonces, cuando el Papa Benedicto escribe declaro me ministerio … renuntiare ita ut Sedes Petri vacet deja claro que, si bien renuncia a servir como Papa, no renuncia al Papado.
Si algún presidente, primer ministro o padre de familia renuncia a cumplir con los deberes de su cargo, no obstante, no ha dejado de ser presidente, primer ministro o padre. Del mismo modo, con el Papa, si solo renuncia textualmente al ministerio de su cargo, no ha perdido su cargo.
Dios, que es Ser como instituidor de la Oficina de Pedro, no puede considerar como dimitido de la oficina del Sucesor de San Pedro, cualquier Romano Pontífice, elegido válidamente, que solo renuncia a los accidentes o los segundos actos del ser de esa oficina. Pero el Papa Benedicto XVI renunció solo al ministerium, o ejercicio del oficio, el cual había recibido, más no el munus, que es el oficio mismo [cf. canones 332 §2 and 749 §1]. Por lo tanto, ya que el ejercicio del cargo es el segundo acto del ser del cargo, Dios no puede reconocer tal renuncia como válida. Y si Dios no la reconoce como válida, tampoco lo puede hacer la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia, etc..
La esencia de ‘ser el Papa’ es la dignidad de la oficina que ocupa. La esencia de un ministerio es el servicio prestado. Por lo tanto, así como la renuncia a un servicio no causa la pérdida de dignidad, de igual manera la renuncia al Ministerio Petrino no causa la pérdida del cargo papal. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia, etc.
En derecho canónico, ministerium no es el lugar de derecho (ius) que es encontrado solo en los sacramentos (sacramenta) y oficios (munera). Por lo tanto, aquel que renuncia ministerium, no renuncia a ningún derecho. Pero el Papa Benedicto XVI en su renuncia, Non solum propter, renuncia el ministerium que recibió de las manos de los cardenales. Por lo tanto, el no renuncia a ningún derecho. Si se objetara que el renunció al ministerio para desocupar la sede de San Pedro (ita ut Sedes S Petri vacet), Se debe responder que, dado que vacare, en latín tiene dos sentidos: el de conceder el derecho y el de simplemente irse, como en vacaciones, la afirmación de renuncia al ministerium como para vacet a la Sede romana no implica la necesidad de significar una renuncia a ningún derecho. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
Como argumenta el sabio canonista, Juan Juárez Falcó: el Canon 332, que es el único canon con respecto a las renuncias papales, habla de la renuncia del munus, no del ministerium. Pero Benedicto XVI habla solo de renunciar al ministerio, no al munus. Ergo mediante el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida para efectuar una renuncia de munus. Pero según el canon 145, el munus es la oficina. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia, etc..
Para los argumentos, al contrario, y sus refutaciones, ver parte II
En suma:
Como el eminente abogado canónico, el p. Juan Ignacio Arrieta, dice al comentar sobre el Canon 126: Cuando la ignorancia o el error se refieren al objeto esencial del acto, … el acto debe considerarse como nunca habiendo sido presentado, inválido. (Codice di Diritto Canonico, e Leggi Complementari: Commentato, Coletti a San Pietro, 2004, comentario sobre el canon 126).
Por lo tanto, parece que si un Papa tuviera la intención de retirarse del ministerio activo, pero conservara la Oficina Papal en toda su plenitud, podría leer en voz alta la declaración hecha por el Papa Benedicto XVI, Non solum propter, ya que el vis verborum de ese texto es que renunció al ministerio del oficio de Obispo de Roma, pero no al oficio. Aquí se encuentra el error sustancial y, por lo tanto, ese acto de Benedicto XVI el 11 de febrero de 2013 debe considerarse inválido, según el canon 188, si se afirma que es un acto de renuncia del cargo de obispo de Roma. Sin embargo, si uno afirmara que es solo el acto de renunciar al ministerio activo, no al cargo, entonces sí, debería decirse que es un acto válido, que no contiene ningún error sustancial.
En conclusión, razón filosófica
Si bien puede haber muchos tipos de errores sustanciales en un acto de renuncia, NO hay NINGUNA MÁS SUSTANCIAL que la que implica confundir los accidentes de la oficina con la resignación como términos suficientes para indicar la sustancia de la oficina en sí. Ahora, según el canon 188, donde un error sustancial está presente en tal acto, el acto es inválido en su efecto “por la ley misma”. Por lo tanto, el texto de Non solum propter, de Benedicto XVI, no efectúa válidamente su renuncia al cargo de obispado de Roma.
En conclusión, razón canónica
Esto es corroborado por hechos legales indiscutibles, a saber, que el único Canon en el Código de Derecho Canónico, Canon 32 §2, que habla expresamente de una renuncia papal, requiere que el hombre que es Papa renuncie al munus y de hacerlo de manera rite (es decir, adecuadamente de acuerdo con las normas de la ley). Pero el texto de la renuncia de Benedicto habla solo de una renuncia al ministerio. Por lo tanto, dado que se trata de un acto totalmente fuera del significado del Canon 332 §2, el acto no es válido para efectuar una renuncia papal. Así también es inválido efectuar un acto de renuncia que contiene error sustancial, según el Canon 188, y el Canon 126.
De hecho, la separabilidad inherente de ministerium de munus en la historia eclesiástica y la tradición canónica es la razón fundamental por la cual ninguna renuncia a ministerium puede equipararse en la ley como una manifestación debida de la renuncia de un oficio. Por esa razón, la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI hecha mediante el acto, Non solum propter, del 11 de febrero de 2013 a. C., no tiene un efecto canónico válido con respecto a la oficina del Papado. Sigue siendo el Papa, por tanto, con todos los derechos y privilegios.
Por lo cual, como ciudadano católico bautizado, ciudadano italiano y residente legal de la ciudad de Roma, pido al Gobierno italiano que invoque su derecho, como parte del Pacto de Letrán y sus acuerdos posteriores, a convocar a todo el clero de la Diócesis de Roma, para juzgar en el tribunal, tal como lo hicieron en AD 1046 en Sutri, al mando del rey Enrique III de Alemania, la validez de la reclamación al cargo de los Papas Benedicto y Francisco, a saber, si el acto de renuncia de Benedicto XVI fue válido en cuanto a una renuncia al oficio, y si no, a declarar el Cónclave de 2013 canónicamente inválido ex radicibus.
In High Scholasticism, the Catholic Theologians, Saints and Doctors of the Church often considered many questions which were speculative, either in regard to what was true but unknowable by man (being hid in the mystery of God) or what could be in a special circumstance which may or may not ever come to be. As founder of The Scholasticum, an Italian non profit dedicated to the revival of the Scholastic Method, I believe that the Scholastic Method can greatly assist the Church even in Her most pressing needs and extraordinary crises. For that reason, I present here a Disputed Question, the import of which may arise, if His Holiness Benedict XVI pass to the Lord before Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and then only if, at such a time, the Cardinals holding fast to the faulty notion that Benedict’s resignation was valid, fail to convene within 20 days to elect his successor. For in accord with the current law on Papal Elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, n.37 Cardinals who do not attend a Conclave with that period no longer have their votes counted. (All references are to the new Code of Canon Law, Latin text; and the papal law on electing the Pope, Latin text.)
Whether, with all Cardinal electors defecting, the Roman Church has the right to elect the Pope?
And it seems that she does not:
1. For only the Cardinals of the Roman Church have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff, according to what is stated in Canon 349, where it says cui competit ut electioni Romani Pontificis provideat ad normam iuris peculiaris. Therefore, since the Roman Church includes those Cardinals, Bishops and Clergy who are not Cardinal Electors, they have no such right. Therefore, the Church of Rome has no right to elect a Pope, even if all the Cardinal Electors fail to elect one.
2. Likewise, since the College of Cardinals has no authority during a Sede Vacante to act other than what is provided for in special law, namely, in the Law for Papal Elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, and this according to Canon 359, which reads: Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur; It follows that neither does the Roman Church, because what is denied a superior, is denied also to the inferior. But the College of Cardinals is denied license to act in any other way that what is proscribed in law, therefore also the entire Church of Rome which is inferior to the College.
3. Likewise, since the papal law, Universi Dominici Gregis, n.4, expressly forbids any variation or alteration in law during a Sede Vacante, when it says: Sede Apostolica vacante, leges a Romanis Pontificibus latas non licet ullo modo corrigi vel immutari, neque quidquam detrahi iis sive addi vel dispensari circa partes earum, maxime eas, quae ad ordinandum negotium electionis Summi Pontificis pertinent. Si quid contra hoc praescriptum fieri vel attentari contigerit, id suprema Nostra auctoritate nullum et irritum declaramus; there is nothing which the Roman Church can do, even if all the Cardinals defect, since there is no provision in Canon Law for such action.
4. Likewise, the ancient right of the Roman Church to elect the Roman Pontiff was abrogated when that right was restricted to the Roman Clergy, and again, when that right was further restricted to the Cardinals of the Roman Church. Therefore, no such right exists.
5. Likewise, the ancient right of the Roman Church to elect the Pope was no more than a custom of the Roman Church. But laws of custom have no force if they have not been observed for 1300 years (cf. Canon 26). Therefore, the Roman Church has no such right.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It seems that she does:
1. By Apostolic Institution of the Apostle Saint Peter, the Roman Church undubitably enjoyed the right to elect the Roman Pontiff. This right was restricted by special degree in the 7th century to the Roman Clergy, and in 11th century to the Cardinals of the Roman Church. Yet such a restriction which was prudential and a benefice cannot extinguish the apostolic right, in accord with the principle of law, which states that general prescriptions take precedence to special benefices: Generale praescriptum beneficio speciali anteferendum est (Theodosian Code: DEM AAA. VICTORIO P(RO)C(ONSULI) ASIAE). Therefore, in the case that there are no Cardinal Electors, whether in fact or by defection to an Anti-Pope, or to a Heretical or Schismatic Church, the apostolic right of the Roman Church revives. Therefore, the Roman Church has such a right in their absence.
2. Likewise, by the Code of Canon Law, which declares that all rights which have never been revoked remain in force, according to canon 4, which reads: Iura quaesita, itemque privilegia quae, ab Apostolica Sede ad haec usque tempora personis sive physicis sive iuridicis concessa, in usu sunt nec revocata, integra manent, nisi huius Codicis canonibus expresse revocentur; but the right to elect the Roman Pontiff was indubitably granted by the Apostle Saint Peter to the Roman Church, and that right has never been revoked. Nay, it is the very justification and inherent principle maintained when the Roman Synod in the 7th century restricted the exercise of that right to the Clergy, and when the Pope in the 11th century restricted it further to the College of Cardinals. This is confirmed by canon 6 §4, which restricts the abrogation of previous laws and rights to those things which are integrally expressed in the New Code. But such case, of having no Cardinal Electors, is not provided for. Therefore, it is not integrally included. Therefore, the rights to be referred to in such a case are NOT obrogated. Therefore, that right remains in force always to be revived.
3. Likewise, the ancient right of the Roman Church to elect the Roman Pontiff was ever held to have the force of law. This is self evident from history. But as canon 25, teaches: Nulla consuetudo vim legis obtinet, nisi a communitate legis saltem recipiendae capaci cum animo iuris inducendi servata fuerit. But, such is the case with the ancient right of the Roman Church, especially since when this right was restricted, the ancient reason for it was never denied or explicitly abrogated. This is proven by the fact that the Cardinals are still called Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. Therefore, in the absence of all Cardinals, whether by bad will or substantial error, the right returns to the Roman Church.
4. Likewise, custom is the best interpreter of law (Canon 27). But, when Pope John Paul II was near death, the Cardinals and Bishops in his presence presumed his consent to use his signet ring to appoint Bishops which he had already considered for nomination. And no one in the Church objected to this. Therefore, it is right to presume the consent of a lawgiver, in cases in which he never foresaw. But such is the case of a substantial error in a papal resignation, when all the Cardinals fail to notice that substantial error and are consequently led not to convene in Conclave to elect a successor, but cleave instead to an Anti-Pope which they elected uncanonically during the lifetime of the Pope. Therefore, in such an unforseen and extraordinary case, the Roman Church has a right to have recourse to the ancient law.
5. Likewise, from the principle of subsidiarity, that, namely, when a higher or more dignified part of the body politic fail, the right to act passes to the subordinate authority. This is based on the teaching of Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. It is also supported by Pope John Paul II’s Papal Law on Elections, Universi Domini Gregis, where in the Prologue, the Holy Father says expressly that the College of Cardinals is “not necessary” as an institution “for a valid papal election”. — Thus, with all the Cardinals failing, it would be wrong to deny what the lesser and subordinate organization, the Roman Church, can do. Therefore, if all the Cardinal Electors fail to act on account of an obstruction which they themselves cannot or fail to remove, the Roman Church, as the entity to which they belong by incardination, receives license to resort to the Apostolic right which it has ever enjoyed, in part or whole, of electing the Roman Pontiff.
6. Likewise, from the Code of Canon Law itself, in canon 28: nisi expressam de iis mentionem faciat, lex non revocat consuetudines centenarias aut immemorabiles; hence, since the Apostolic right of the Roman Church is of time immemorial, and since that right is not expressly revoked in the present Code, it remains in force, in due circumstances. But the absence of all Cardinals Electors is not only a due circumstance, but one which puts the very constitution of the Church in the gravest danger, since the Office of Saint Peter is not only useful but necessary for the salvation of souls. Therefore, such a right cannot be considered abrogated by the new Code nor by the papal law on the Election of the Roman Pontiff, even if it seems to be expressly abrogated. Therefore, the Roman Church has such a right, in such circumstances.
RESPONDEO:
I RESPOND: It must be said, that whether by good will or bad, the act of electing a Roman Pontiff during the life time of a validly elected Roman Pontiff is both a crime against God and against the unity of the Church. It is a crime against God, since Christ has ordained only one man to be pope at any given time. Its a crime against the unity of the Church, since it causes a de facto schism between those who adhere to the true Pope and those who adhere to usurper and false pretender. Now, even if the Cardinals who do this, do so without malice, but operate under substantial error, nevertheless before the law they must be held to be guilty of the sin and crime of schism, whereby they lose every office and privilege in the Church.
Now the Roman Church, which has ever held the right by apostolic privilege of electing the Roman Pontiff, enjoys in a special way the promise and right granted by Our Lord when He declares that “the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against My Church.” But the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Roman Church if she were deprived of a validly elected Pope and forced to submit to a pertinacious public heretic, apostate or Freemason. Therefore, the Church of Rome has the right to elect the Roman Pontiff, in the special case wherein all the Cardinal Electors fail to exercise their right to do so. But in accord with the papal law, Universi Dominici Gregis, this right must be exercised within 20 days after the death of the Roman Pontiff.
Therefore, if Pope Benedict XVI dies before Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and after 20 days no Cardinal Elector convenes in Conclave to elect his successor, the Roman Church, composed of all the Cardinals, Bishops and Clergy, incardinated in the Diocese of Rome, excluding those who adhere to the de facto schism, have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff.
For this reason, the arguments to the contrary are to be accepted, which sufficiently refute the arguments which contradict them.
UPDATE – January 28, 2024: The above Scholastic Question was published on January 19, 2019. It is republished here for record, against those critics who said that Br. Bugnolo changed his opinions after he came to Rome.
But since those who malign the holy and righteous work of January 30, 2023, use arguments from this Question without informing their readers of their rebuttal, and since they refuse or cannot understand an argument from principles, as is had above, Br. Bugnolo adds here a direct refutation of the arguments for the negative from first side of the Question,
Ad. 1. That one group has a right, according to a papal law, does not mean that another group does not have a right from some other font of law. Furthermore, the Roman Church has the right to elect the Roman Pontiff by Apostolic Law which is superior to Papal Law, for Apostolic Law is part of Divine Law and Sacred Tradition, which the Roman Pontiff can never abrogate.
Ad. 2. While it is true that all orders of clergy in the Roman Church are inferior to the College of Cardinals, it is not true that that College is superior to the Roman Church. Therefore, what is denied to an inferior, is not necessarily denied to a superior. Nay, the Papal power has denied the right of elections to inferiors, but has not denied the right to elect to the superior. Thus, ex silentio no argument can be made.
Ad. 3. While it is true that the Papal Law Universi Dominici Gregis denies to anyone but Cardinals to elect the Pope, it conditions this and all its provisions to elections during Conclaves. It says nothing about how to conduct an election by Apostolic right, though it does refer to such an election as valid in its introduction, as is clear.
Ad. 4. Right in one order of law is not abrogated when that right is applied by a lesser law in application. Thus when the circumstances of the application no longer hold, then that right revives. And such is the case when all the members of the College of Cardinals defect, or fail to convene within the time specified by the Papal Law.
Ad. 5. The ancient right of the Roman Church is no mere law of custom, since all Catholic theologians hold that it is of Apostolic ordinance. Thus when the custom of positive law could abolish customary law, it cannot abolish this right, which is no mere custom of men.
Many thanks to all who have distributed the articles of the From Rome blog round the world. In particular, to those of who who have purchased one of my English translations, published by the Franciscan Archive (see side bar).
But I owe most thanks of all, to all of you who hate me so much that you denigrate my name and reputation. Because, whereas others do what will help others or themselves, you help me merit a crown of glory in Heaven!
As a Franciscan, I have consecrated myself to the Truth, Jesus Christ, to walk with him the path to Calvary. I welcome all the attacks of those who hate me. God willing they will martyr me one day for my love of Eternal Truth!
I assure all of you of my prayers: those who hate me, most of all. God bless!
Here is a citation of Scripture, for the edification and consolation of all.
The Hatred of the World: Gospel of Saint John, Chapter 15
18 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. 19 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him who sent me. 22 If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They hated me without cause. (Douay Rheims Bible)
In controversies, we often forget the higher principles and end up disputing only in regard to the minutiae. This is dangerous, because the chief motives, especially in controversies in the Church, should depend upon Eternal and Divine principles.
For this reason, it is important for us to remember that Christ Jesus founded the Catholic Church and is the Author and Grantor of all ecclesiastical offices: offices, which are of supernatural origin and to which He has affixed a gift of grace (munus) which cannot be alienated except by explicit renunciation.
We know this by Divine Revelation. For when He asked Simon bar Johan what men thought of Himself, Peter responded: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
To which Our Lord, Messiah and Redeemer responded: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Gospel of Saint Matthew, Chapter 16)
We often fail to recognize, that by a Divine Promise God, who cannot be bound and obligated to man, has nevertheless bound and obligated Himself to man in what He has promised. In regard to the Petrine Office (munus petrinum), Christ has actually bound HIMSELF to the official acts of the Roman Pontiff and to the words thereof. He has thus WILLED as GOD not to act, if the Roman Pontiff does not allow Him to act, and to act when the Roman Pontiff allows Him to act.
While this binding of God to Peter is not universal, it nevertheless does regards Papal Acts, where the man who is Pope acts as pope. It also regards the man who is pope, inasmuch as he is a man, in the matter of accepting and renouncing the Papal Office (munus petrinum). For when a man accepts his election or acclamation as Pope, Christ bestows on the man the office and gift of grace (munus) which he gave Saint Peter to be passed on to the Bishops of Rome until the end of time. The Church in Her wisdom has signified this office and gift of grace with the only Latin word which means both office and gift, “munus”.
No other Latin word having such a meaning, Pope John Paul II, as legislator of the New Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, added munus to Canon 322 §2, as the fundamental condition to spark, as it were, the recognition of a papal resignation.
While men can ignore that word in canon 332 §2, Christ cannot.
This is no exaggeration, no mere human opinion. Because since it is of Divine Faith that Christ promised to bind and loose according to the word of His Vicar. His vicar in adding that word to the canon regarding papal resignation, did bind Christ Himself not to withdraw the office and gift of grace (munus), if the munus were NOT renounced.
The Sacred Hierarchy, and especially the College of Cardinals, need to recognize this fundamental theological truth of Christology and Ecclesiology, and return to a correct recognition of the facts of the case. They must ignore what men say about what happened on February 11, 2013 on the basis of what a pool reporter, with little knowledge of Latin thought Benedict signified. They must ignore what all who think what that act signified. They must attend solely to Canon 332 §2 according to what that canon says in its Latin official text. They must read it in accord with canon 17 and the text Non solum propter.
They must recognize, that when the Vicar of Christ does not renounce the office and gift of grace which Christ gave to him alone, Christ cannot transfer it to another, even if the whole Church wants Him to transfer it. He cannot act, until His Vicar acts. And even if His vicar is confused due to old age, He cannot act.
Thus, it’s indubitably true that Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and that Christ Himself regards Benedict alone as His Vicar on Earth. God Himself can do no other. He cannot break His promise to Peter.
The clear, precise, and sound reading of the Code of Canon Law leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pope Francis is an “antipope” in every sense of the word, and that the law itself declares it.
As has been demonstrated in the article, “How and Why Pope Benedict’s resignation is invalid”, there is no other authentic reading of Canon 332 §2 other than that the renunciation of munus is the necessary sine qua non condition of a papal resignation.
This canonical argument is supported by 35 reasons, debated in Scholastic form, in the article, “The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation must be questioned“, Parts I and II”, why a renunciation of ministerium, in the form had in the papal declarations of Feb. 11, 2013, cannot signify a renunciation of munus as per Canon 332 §2, Canon 188 etc..
Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church with all the powers and prerogatives of that office.
As I pointed out in my rebuttal of Roberto de Mattei, canon 359 guarantees that the College of Cardinals has no authority to convene to elect a pope, when there has been an invalid papal resignation.
Therefore, the Conclave of 2013 is without any right in Canon Law to elect a successor to Pope Benedict. Therefore, the one it claimed to elect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no authority whatsoever conferred upon him by accepting that election. He is in truth a usurper of the papal office, and must be punished in accord with Canon 1381 §1 for that crime (if he knowingly has done this, otherwise upon demonstration of the delict, he must publicly disavow his claim to the office).
Since Bergoglio never had any canonical authority as Pope, all his nominations to the Roman Curia are null and void. Therefore, all actions taken by the Congregation of Religious against religious communities, or by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against anyone, or the Secretary of State vis-a-vis treaties with nations, such as China, or appointments of Bishops, etc. etc. are NULL AND VOID.
Since the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid, among other reasons, in virtue of containing a substantial error (canon 188) regarding what words must be expressed to conform to canon 322 §2, that resignation is invalid by the law itself (lege ipso). That invalidation spreads to the Conclave and all acts of Bergoglio as Francis, which are canonical, because they too are founded upon the same substantial error, though compounded.
Therefore, since the invalidity of Bergoglio’s papacy depends upon the law of the Church itself (canon 188), there is no need for a judgement of any ecclesiastical office to intervene to establish that it is so. And thus, Catholics may and indeed are obliged BY DIVINE FAITH and OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See and to Canon Law to hold Bergoglio to be an Anti-Pope and to insist to Cardinals and Bishops and civil authorities that he be driven from the Vatican as a usurper.
Let all Catholics who love Christ, who are obedient to the Code of Canon Law and who seek the salvation of souls act now and today. Write your Bishop and the Cardinals. Write the Italian Government, which is bound to uphold only the canonically elected governments of the Vatican. Insist with all that the fact of Bergoglio’s invalidity be publicly affirmed and his usurpation denounced.
Its either that, or the end of the Vatican as we know it, as being part of the Catholic Church.
As Saint Thomas Aquinas says, when the errors of our prelates are public and grave and constitute an imminent danger to the Church, we are obliged to break deferential silence and publicly correct them.
For that reason, I will take this occasion to publicly call upon fellow Catholics to ask Cardinal Brandmüller a simple question: Have you ever read Canon 332 §2?
I understand, that the general public might consider such a question proposed in public on a blog to be unseemly and insulting, and so let me explain why asking that question is germane for the Cardinal and for every other Cardinal in the Church.
In that article, the Cardinal discusses principally whether Papal resignations can be done and under what conditions. The article is a fine piece of scholarship, and I do not contest any other point of it, here. Rather, I wish to draw the reader’s attention to 3 glaring omissions in the text, which cause me to ask the Cardinal a public question.
The Cardinal cites Canon 332 §2 no less than 4 times in his Historico-Canonical Study, on pages 6, 7, 10 and 11. In the first case, in reference to a papal resignation being an extraordinary event; in the second, in reference to the conditions for a valid resignation,; in the third, that a papal resignation is morally licit; and in the fourth, again the conditions for a valid resignation.
In both cases, on page 7 and 11, the Cardinal declares that the only conditions for a valid resignation are, libere fiat et rite manifestetur, citing the Latin of the main clause of that canon, which Latin means: “be done freely and manifested according to the norm of law“.
Its not that he does not mention the introductory clause of both Canon 221 in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, and contextual affirms that the same introduction is had in Canon 332 §2. Nay, its rather that he misses the striking difference in the Canon of the New Code in comparison with the canon of the old code. Namely, that in the New Code, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, during the time (1983) with the future Pope Benedict XVi was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) added words which is not found in the old canon: suo muneri.
How, anyone can read a Canon speaking about when a papal resignation occurs and is valid, and miss the key word of the introductory and fundamental conditional clause, is beyond me. But it seems that if a man so learned as this Cardinal can do it, perhaps all the other Cardinals have also done it. Maybe even Cardinal Burke, too?
And this is why my request that Catholics ask Cardinal Brandmuller a question is not disrespectful nor impertinent. Because has has been demonstrated by many others, and myself, the word munus takes on the condition of a sine non qua, that is, of a requirement for validity which cannot be obviated under any condition. Thus its manifestly wrong to speak of only 2 conditions for a papal resignation, since in the New Code, papal resignations only occur when the Pope resigns the Petrine Munus.
This is important, because in regard to Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, the Latin text renounced only the or a ministerium received, NOT the papal munus. This is important, because if Pope Benedict never resigned his office, the conclave of 2013 was uncanonical and Bergoglio is an Anti-Pope in every canonical sense of the word.
____________
For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.” For a scholastic argument demonstrating that the text of the resignation does not effect a resignation of office, see my disputed question, here at From Rome, linked under the words “many others” just above here.
For the text of the resignation, translations, other articles, etc., see the same link under the words, “many others”, where I recite the history of the controversy.
PHOTO Credits: The New York Times, retrieved via Google Images.
This week, Catholic Family News, the traditional private Catholic Newspaper founded by the late John Vennari, publishes an article entitled, “Socci’s Thesis Falls Short: Review of the Secret of Benedict XVI“, an English translation of an article which was published on Jan 8, 2019 online at Cooperatores Veritatis. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino. (Socci’s book details facts and canonical arguments why Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and Bergoglio an Anti-Pope, that is uncanonically elected). I will comment on the English version of the article.
The author, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, I have long admired, and have had the occasion to meet in person. His foundation, the Lepanto Foundation does much good work, and thus I bear him no animus. Nay, if the author of that article was someone unknown or not influential at Rome, I would probably have paid it no attention at all.
Moreover, the purpose of this present article is not to defend Socci’s book. Rather it is to address the grave errors contained in De Mattei’s article, which on account of his personal reputation are magnified in the minds of many, and thus represent a danger to souls.
Here, then, I will discuss the errors briefly in the order they appear in that English translation by Signor Pellegrino.
The first error of which is that De Mattei sustains that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid, because there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
I will put aside the fact that several recent polls (not scientific) have shown that as much as 70% of Catholics reject Bergoglio as pope, because there is a more serious error to address, than disputing whether there is in fact a peaceful and universal acceptance of Bergoglio’s election.
Signor De Mattei is learned enough to own a copy of the Code of Canon Law. So I humbly suggest he read Canon 359 and consider publicly withdrawing his assertion that a peaceful and universal acceptance of an apparent papal election establishes it to be held as valid by Catholics. For, that canon reads in Latin:
Can. 359 — Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur.
When translated into English — here I give my own translation — that canon says:
Canon 359 — When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals only enjoys that power in the Church, which is granted to it in particular law.
This is the reference to the power of the College to elect the Pope. So, according to Canon 359, when there is no pope, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a pope.
Now, if the resignation of a pope is in doubt, then obviously, there is a doubt whether the Apostolic See is vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have doubtful authority. And when a resignation of a pope has not taken place, or a pope is not dead, the Apostolic See is not vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have NO power to elect another.
So, it should be obvious then, that “the peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of a pope by a College of Cardinals” which HAS NO POWER to elect a pope, because the See is NOT vacant, DOES NOT MAKE THE ELECTION VALID.
Second, De Mattei claims this principal regarding the acceptance of the election of a pope on the basis of commonly held opinion. But if he has studied Canon Law, he should know that Canon 17 does not permit common theological or canonical opinions to be interpretative guides to reading any canon, when the text of the canon expressly forbids an act to take place by denying the body which acts the power to act. For in such a case the mind of the Legislator takes precedence.
Third, what is worse, De Mattei then cites the Vatican translation of Canon 332 §2, where he admits that it denies that a papal resignation is valid on the grounds that anyone accepts it (in its final condition)! How that squares with the theory of peaceful and universal acceptance is impossible to imagine, since it undermines the validity of its application to the case of a disputed resignation. It does so, because obviously a Conclave called during the life of a pope who has not resigned, is called either because that College knows he has not and does intend to elect an Anti-Pope, and then it does not matter who accepts him, his election is invalid; or in the case the College opines that a resignation is valid, and they proceed to act as if there is no pope. But as canon 332 §2 declares, that they think it is valid, does not make it valid. Therefore, even if they think it is valid, when it is not valid, they cannot appeal to Canon 332 §2 to claim the authority in Canon 359 to lawfully elect another. Rather, they must follow Canon 17 and apply it. And so, whether the subsequent election be accepted or not, in the case of elections which follow papal resignations, the principal cited by De Mattei is improperly cited at best because it pertains to another case.
Finally, De Mattei is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest, when he says that Violi’s canonical study of Pope Benedict’s act of Feb 11, 2013 contributes to the confusion. Because that study, which is cited in the preface of the Disputed Question, published here in November, is a very scholarly well thought out and precise study without any animus or polemic, which gives great clarity to the canonical signification of that papal act. To say that it causes confusion therefore is not based on Violi’s work, but rather seemingly on a desire to advance his own opinion by insulting a scholar who shows greater knowledge of Canon Law than himself.
As for Archbishop Ganswein’s discourse at the Gregorian University, at first glance it does seem to be confusing. But when you research, as Ann Barnhardt has done, what opinions regarding the mutability of the Papacy were being discussed at Tubingen, when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of Theology there, then you would rather say its revealing, not confusing at all.
For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.”
In the previous article, entitled, The Validity of Pope Benedict’s Resignation must be Questioned, I recited the history of the controversy over the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI on the topic of substantial error in the resignation and then proceeded to explicate 20+ arguments against the validity.
Here, I will list the arguments for the validity, inasmuch as I find and understand them. If you know of more, let me know in the comments section below. After each argument pro-Validity, I will post, for the reader’s convenience the argument against it — deviating in this small manner from proper Scholastic form. There is no particular order among the arguments, but the strongest ones are at the end.
Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?
Ad contrarium:
And it seems that he did:
1. Because, Pope Benedict XVI as pope is above Canon Law. Therefore, he does not need to resign according to the form of Canon 332 §2. Therefore, he resigned validly.
Ad obj. 1: To argue that the Pope is above Canon Law, and therefore the resignation is valid, is a sophism, which when examined is equivalent to 2 other erroneous propositions, namely: “The Pope as pope is above canon law, ergo etc.”, and “The Pope as the man who is the pope is above the Law, ergo etc.”To the first, I say: In the first case it is true that the Pope as pope is above canon law. However, the Pope when renouncing his office, does not renounce as Pope, but as the man who is the pope. Therefore the argument is praeter rem. To the second, I say: It is false to say the Pope as the man who is pope is above Canon Law, because the mind of the Legislator of the Code of Canon law, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, expressly declares when a papal resignation is such and is to be regarded as valid. Therefore, if a pope resigned in a way which was valid, but which the Faithful had to regard as invalid according to the norm of that Canon, there would be chaos in the Church. However, in interpreting the mind of a legislator, one cannot presume any thesis which would make the law defective. Therefore, Pope John Paul II did intend to bind the man who is pope, in a papal resignation. Therefore, the second is false also.
2. Because it is clear that Pope Benedict wanted to resign. Therefore, he did resign. Therefore, his resignation is valid.
Ad obj. 2.: To argue that the Pope wanted to resign, therefore he did resign, is to employ a sophism which conceals an undistributed middle term. For if the pope wanted to resign the ministerium of the office, then he did resign the ministerium. But such a resignation is not conform with Canon 332 §2, since it does not resign the munus. Therefore, it is invalid. Likewise, if the pope wanted to resign the munus, then he did NOT resign the munus if he said ministerium. And then even if he thought he did, its invalid, per canon 332 §2 according to the act, and according to canon 188 on account of substantial error.
3. Because Pope Benedict, after his resignation, publicly declared that he validly resigned. Therefore, he validly resigned.
Ad obj. 3.: To argue that the Pope resigned validly because after his resignation he publicly declared that he resigned validly, is to employ a subterfuge. Because in that public declaration he declares that he resigned the Petrine ministry validly. That he resigned the Petrine ministry validly, is not disputed. But if that is what he resigned, then he did not resign the munus. Therefore, that act did not effect a resignation of the office. Therefore if it be asserted to be a valid papal resignation, the assertion is false according to canon 332 §2.
4. Because, Pope Benedict, after his resignation, publicly declared that he freely resigned, therefore he resigned.
Ad obj. 4.: It is true that liberty in a resignation is one of the necessary conditions of a papal resignation according to Canon 332 §2, but it is not true that it is the only condition. The first condition is that it be a resignation of munus. It was not. Therefore, this argument is praeter rem.
5. Because, Cardinal Sodano, as Dean of the College of Cardinals, in convoking the College, acted as if it were valid, therefore it is valid.
Ad obj. 5: There is no Canon of the Church or special delegation by the Roman Pontiff which makes the decision of the Cardinal Deacon to call a conclave efficacious of the validity of an invalid resignation, or authoritatively determinative of the validity of a resignation. Therefore, that he did so, proves nothing. Nay, canon 332 §2 expressly denies this.
6. Because the College of Cardinals convened to elect a Successor of Pope Benedict, therefore by that act declared or made the resignation valid.
Ad obj. 6.: There is no Canon of the Church or special delegation by the Roman Pontiff which makes the decision of the College of Cardinals to conclave or elect a Pope, efficacious of the validity of an invalid resignation, or authoritatively determinative of the validity of a resignation. Therefore, that they did so, proves nothing. Nay, canon 332 §2 expressly denies this.
7. Because the whole College of Cardinals after the resignation and after the Conclave of 2013 acts and holds that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the true and valid pope.
Ad obj. 7: I reply the same as for obj. 6.
8. Because the whole world accepts that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Pope Francis.
Ad obj. 8: Canon 332 §2 in saying, “and not whether it be accepted or not by anyone whomsoever” in its final phrase, expressly denies this. Therefore, it is false.
9. Because, a Catholic must hold as Pope, whomsoever the Cardinals, or the Bishops, or the Clergy of Rome, hold to be the Pope.
Ad obj. 9.: I reply the same, as to obj. 8.
10. Because the election of a Pope by the Cardinals is a dogmatic fact, which all Catholics must accept.
Ad obj. 10.: While it be true that the valid election of a Pope by the Cardinals is a dogmatic fact which all Catholics must accept, it is not true if the election were invalid. But an election is invalid if the previous pope is still living and has not yet validly resigned. Therefore, this objection is invalid, inasmuch as the resignation be invalid. Therefore, of its self it is insufficient to prove the point argued.
11. Because the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is a papal act, which cannot be questioned, according to the addage: prima sedes a nemini iudicatur.
Ad obj. 11.: While it is true that the acts of the Roman Pontiff are juridical acts which cannot be questioned, it is not true that declarations made in the first person by the man who is pope, which are the matter of such acts or declarations, cannot be judged. That such an act can be judged is proven by Canon 332 §2 which judges such acts. That such matter of the papal act is not an act of the pope as pope, has already been proven above. — If you say, that the act of declaration (“I declare”) is a papal act, not the act of the man, therefore it must be held to be valid, since the Pope is the supreme legislator and arbiter of the meaning of canonical acts, it must be responded that the declaration is made in the first person singular, not the first person plural, so the supreme legislator has already explicitly renounced his role in the declaration of the resignation.
12. Because, a Catholic in good conscience must presume, that if the resignation were not valid on account of the use of the word ministerium not munus in the key phrase of the act, that the Cardinals, in accord with canon 17, either demonstrated to themselves that he sufficiently resigned the papacy, or held private council with the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, to know his mind and meaning, at which time he privately signified that he had resigned the papacy in resigning the ministry of the Papacy.
Ad obj. 12.: While it is true that a Catholic should be disposed to presume such, such presumption does not make an invalid resignation valid. Nay, in accord with Canon 332 §2, one must note that the final cause of an invalid resignation is that it not be manifested according to the norm of law (rite manifestastur). Which norm requires a public act, that is, an act witnessed by at least 2 witnesses and made verbally. Such an act has never been published. So even if it were made, its a secret act, and it would not make an invalid resignation, valid.
13. Because Pope Benedict said, “I declare that I renounce the ministry which I had received from the hands of the Cardinals, … so that the See of St. Peter be vacant on …”, he clearly indicated that his renunciation was to effect a loss of office (munus), therefore his resignation was in accord with Canon 332 §2, despite not explicitly using the word munus, as that Canon requires for validity. Therefore, the resignation was valid.
Ad obj. 13.: This objection was refuted in the arguments of the First Part, but its complexity deserves a fuller answer for those minds which cannot understand how it is invalid. First, as demonstrated in the First Part of this Disputed Question, a resignation is valid if it includes a resignation of munus; it is not valid if it does not. And according to Canon 17, if there is any doubt as to whether munus is included in canon 332 §2 as a sine non qua condition or according to its signification in a broader sense, one must have recourse to other parts of the Law, the canonical tradition, and to the mind of the Legislator (John Paul II) of the Code. As has been shown elsewhere, there is no basis for an argument from canon 17 that ministerium can mean munus. However, since ministerium is followed by 2 subordinate clauses, the argument that it is invalid, must respond to that condition. For in Latin, some subordinate clauses can alter the signification of the main clause. And it is true that there is a poetical form, in which part of a thing can substitute for the whole, as when at Mass in the Latin Rite we say, “Come under my roof” to mean “come into my soul”. However, as regards the Latin of the text of the renunciation, to say, “which I received from the hands of the Cardinals” imposes no necessity of reference to the Petrine Ministry per se, because Ratzinger also at that time received the Episcopal and Pastoral Ministry for the Diocese of Rome. The second clause, “so that the See of St Peter be vacant”, has been shown in Part I to necessitate no necessity. For those who do not understand Latin grammar, this needs to be explained. Because, in a subordinate clause such as “so that … be vacant”, the clause is a clause of purpose of the kind which begins with the particle “ut”, and thus is a pure clause of purpose which indicates only a goal. If the subordinate clause of purpose had begun with “in the kind of way which” (quomodo) or “in such a way as to” (in tali modo quod) it would have been a purpose clause of characteristic which has the power to alter the manner of signification in the main clause, and allow the use of metynomic signification, that is, when a part refers to the whole. Since Pope Benedict did not say anything of that kind, this way of reading the subordinate clause is not possible. Hence it remains invalid. However, even if a metonymic signification was had, it remains invalid per canon 332 §2, since it would not be duly manifested. Because just as if one were to pronounce marriage vows by saying, “I take you to be my Viennese strudel” instead of saying “I take you to be my wife”, an interpretation would be necessary to be resorted to, to make the phrase signify taking a wife, so in an act of resignation a metonymic manner of signification renders the act invalid because it publicly does not duly manifest the intention.
14. In his act of resignation Pope Benedict XVI declared two things. The First regarding his resignation, the second regarding the convocation of a Conclave “that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is”. He would not have said this, if his intention was not to resign the office of the Papacy. Therefore, he did resign the office of the papacy.
Ad obj. 14.: This argument is a conflation of two arguments, one of which has previously been refuted, viz. that one which regards his intention, which was refuted in Ad obj. 2. Here I will respond to the other, that which regards the papal command to convene a Conclave. That the Pope declared that a conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff forms the second independent clause of his verb, “I declare”. Thus, it is logically independent and bears no necessity in the alteration of the signification of the first clause, which regards the resignation. Thus, if the resignation not be duly manifested in accord with Canon 332 §2, that the Pope declares a Conclave be called is a papal declaration which is totally vitiated by the substantial error in his first declaration. Thus canon 188 invalidates the execution of this command. This is especially true, because in the declaration of convocation he does not require the convocation to take place before or after he ceases to be pope, or on a specific date or even during his life time. To see this more clearly, recall the example from the arguments against the validity, wherein a hypothetical pope declares, “I renounce bananas so that on Feb. 28, at 8 PM, Roman Time, the see be vacant” and simply add, “and that a Conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff”. As can be seen in this hypothetical, the second declaration does not make the first valid, it just continues the substantial error: a substantial error which also makes the Conclave of 2013 and all the acts of Bergoglio as pope invalid.
15. Canon 332 §2 does require the resignation of office. But ministerium also means office. Therefore, when Pope Benedict renounced the ministerium, he renounced the munus.
Ad obj. 15.: Canon 332 §2 reads as follows: If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, there is required for its validity alone that it be freely made and manifested rite, and not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever. As can be seen from this Canon — which is the only one dealing with papal resignations — the fundamental condition is that the Pope resign his “munus”. Now while some modern translations translate that as office (English), others as charge (Spanish), others as function (Italian), its clear from the Code of Canon Law that its primary canonical meaning is office. This can be seen from its use in the headings of the New Code for chapters on ecclesiastical offices. This is confirmed by a direct citation of canon 145 §1, where every ecclesiastical office is called a “munus”, not a “ministerium”. An examination of the Code also reveals that a ministerium is never called an “office”. Now since the Code of Canon Law requires in Canon 17, that the Code itself be read in accord with the tradition of canonical texts, the sources of canon law and the mind of its legislator (Pope John Paul II), these facts should be sufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that “ministerium” can be read as munus. This is confirmed by the comparison of Canon 332 §2 with the corresponding canon in the Code of Canon Law promulgated under Pope Benedict XV, where it speaks of a Pope renouncing, but does not say what he renounces. Its evident and significant that Pope John Paul II in the 1983 code added the word “munus” to specify what must be renounced to effect a papal resignation. Its also evident that in that Code of Canon Law “ministerium” refers to the exercise of an office. Furthermore, if one examines all previous papal resignations for which there is textual evidence of the formula of resignation, the words which signify office are always found: onus, munus. Ministerium is not found. Proper names for the office are found, such as episcopatus or papatus. Or the dignity resulting from the office is named with the words honor or dignitas. Thus, in accord with Canon 17, all the sources of authoritative interpretation conclude upon 1 result: that a Pope only resigns when he resigns the munus, the office, not the execution of the office, ministerium. Therefore, even if Pope Benedict intended, and in private afterwards asserted or asserts or will assert, that he intended to use “ministerium” for munus, his act of renunciation is invalid on account of that substantial error, in virtue of canon 188, and it cannot be made valid by any subsequent act. It would have to be redone with the word, “munus”. So the argument is invalid by a sophistry, of reading “munus” in its major according to its Latin signification, but reading “ministerium” in the minor according to its vernacular usage. Thus, its conclusion is reached through an undistributed middle term, and thus is invalid also.
16. There is no petrine ministerium without a petrine office, for the two are inseparable according to right and being [secundum ius et esse]. Therefore, although Canon 332 §2 does require that a Pope renounce his munus to validly resign, nevertheless, a renunciation of ministerium is sufficient to effect this, because though “munus” names the papal office in relation to God’s gift of grace and duty, “ministerium” names the same office according to its relation to the Church. Therefore, to renounce the petrine ministerium, is to renounce the petrine munus.
Ad. obj. 16.: It must be said, that this argument must be responded to by interemption, for it is false in both its major and minor propositions. In its minor, it is false in being founded upon an error of interpreting the obligations of Canon 332 §2 according to the general custom of the science of theology, and not according to the norm of law. In its major, or premise, it is furthermore false in asserting that ministerium is not separable from office according to right and being [secundum ius et esse]. — In regard to the first, one must respond thus: For in the science of theology, words can have differing significations in respect of the same or dissimilar things. But all this is praeter rem in regard to a discussion of the canonical signification of an act of resignation of ecclesiastical office, even more so, in regard to an office established by the Incarnate Word of God. For in such a matter, the argument must turn upon the office according to its being in the Divine Will and Intention, not upon the office as it is understood according to the personal theology of the man who is Roman pontiff. This is also true in regard to the Roman Church, whose Bridegroom is not the Roman Pontiff, but Christ Jesus Himself, now reigning in Glory. For that reason, not only is She bound to give the consent of Her will to the Redeemer, but also the assent of Her mind. Therefore, one would propose a manner of observing canon law which would be tantamount to adultery, if one held that it was licit for the Roman Church to regard the signification of a canonical act after the manner of the world, the flesh, or even private interpretation. Thus, not only is Christ by His promise to Saint Peter bound by canon 332 §2, promulgated by His Vicar, Pope John Paul II, to not withdraw the grace and office [munus] unless it be explicitly renounced, so also the Roman Church, which is His most faithful virgin Bride and virgin Spouse. Therefore, the Church must regard the obligations of canon 332 §2 as requiring a renunciation of munus, inasmuch as canon 17 requires that term to be understood in canon 145 §1. Nowhere in the Code of Canon law is a ministerium regarded as the office itself. So even if it was the intention of the author of Non Solum Propter, inasmuch as he was man, to signify the Papal Office in its relation to the service it renders, it does not by that fact alone become an act which the Church can accept as rite manifestatum, for an interpretation would have to be resorted to, and a reading of the text, outside the rules of signification of the Code of Canon law would have to be employed. And as such, it would not be canonically valid, even if one could sustain that it was theologically sufficient. Nevertheless, even if one were to grant that the words ministerium …. commissum spoke of the munus petrinum in its relation to the Church, since nothing is renounced but what is explicitly renounced, the act would effect nothing more canonically speaking than a renunciation of the office inasmuch as it is in such a relation, not of the office itself. And thus it would not be efficacious to renounce nor sufficient to signify the renunciation of the office in its relation to God and His gift of grace. But since this very relation refers to it according to its principle of being [secundum essendi principium] – for it is a gift immediately from Christ and established by an act of His will – such a renunciation does not effect what is essential to it. The act remains, therefore, vitiated by substantial error in its manner of signification, and thus is invalid ipso iure, by canon 188. — Finally, in regard to the premise of the argument, namely, that ministerium is not separable from office secundum ius et esse, it must be said that this is falsified by liturgical and canonical law. For since the suppression of minor orders, the state of the acolyte and lector are termed “ministries” [Canon 230 §1], yet such ministries confer no right to exercise such service at any time, but only the suitability to do so at the request of the celebrant of a liturgical act. Therefore, ministeria are separable in right and being from munus. — Thus, in conclusion, it appears obvious that the entire argument is false, since a conclusion which is drawn from a false premise and a false minor is entirely falsified.
17. The peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope is caused by and is the effect of a valid papal election. Therefore, since 6 years have passed, even if the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI were invalid, his de facto silence at the usurpation of the Papal Office by Bergoglio is tantamount to a resignation. Therefore, whether the resignation was invalid or not, it now must be regarded as valid.
Ad obj. 17.: Though, in common law, possession is nine tenths of right, and thus, usurpation can lead to acquisition of right; and though in Roman Law usucapione can obtain legal right to property after a long time, such a principle is not valid for two reasons. First, it is not valid theologically in regard to an ecclesiastical office which was established by Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, by an immediate personal act. Of which kind is the office of Pope. The theological reason is this: that no one can snatch anything out of the Hand of the Living God (John 10:28). And thus, no usurpation of the papal office can constrain the Godhead, Who is Infinite Justice and Omnipotence Himself, to transfer the grace of the Papal munus to another. To hold otherwise, would be a theological impossibility and absurdity. — Second, it is not valid canonically, on account of Canon 359, which specifies that the College of Cardinals has authority to elect a Roman Pontiff only during a sede vacante. Therefore, if the resignation of Pope Benedict XVi was invalid, there was no sede vacante, and therefore the College had no authority to elect a successor. — As for tacit acquiescence: it is clear from Church History, that against the claims of an Anti-Pope no rightful claimant of the Apostolic See was considered to have relented merely for not prosecuting his right. Moreover, the argument of tacit acquiescence, however, has no application in the case under dispute, because that one acts on substantial error does not constitute tacit acquiescence, since tacit acquiescence requires the capacity of consent, a thing which is impossible through invincible ignorance in the case of substantial error. — Finally, as regards the universal and peaceful acceptance of a papal election: while this principle is certainly a valid reflex principle for troubled consciences in the case of a valid election, there is no possibility of a valid election when the College had no right to act, for it is contrary not only to Canon Law but to Divine Law to elect another Roman Pontiff while the Pope still lives and has not validly resigned. It is also not valid, as regards its implicit minor: namely, that there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the Papal resignation. There has not, as the preface to this disputed question demonstrates. Hence, the application of this reflex principle to the present case is at best praeter rem, and worse a subterfuge.
18. Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium validly effects a resignation of office, because, on account of Canon 10, which expressly says only those conditions of invalidity cause an act to be invalid, since canon 332 §2 speaks of invalidity only regard to liberty from coercion and due manifestation, not the naming of the office, since it was Benedict’s intention to name the papal office, as is evident from his accepting the title of Pope Emeritus, the naming of the ministerium instead of munus does not make the act of renunciation invalid. Furthermore, Benedict as pope is the supreme legislator, therefore he officially interprets the law (cf. Canon 16 §1), therefore he is able to resign the Petrine munus by resigning the Petrine miniserium.
Ad obj. 18.: While it is true that canon 332 §2 speaks of invalidity only in regard to the conditions of the act, nevertheless canon 188 speaks expressly of invalidity of resignations which are vitiated by a substantial error. Now, there is no more substantial of an error in resigning an ecclesiastical office, than to resign an accident of it or its second act of being (ministerium) and believe that in doing so one sufficiency signifies the office (munus). Furthermore, Canon 18 requires that the terms of canon 332 §2 be understood strictly, since the latter canon restricts the one who is renouncing. Therefore, the renunciation must explicitly regard the munus of the papal office, which in that canon and in canon 749 §1, like all episcopal offices (cf. Paul VI, Christus Dominus) in the entire Code, is referred to exclusively as a munus, because it is not merely an ecclesiastical office (officium) or service (ministerium) established by custom or the Church, but is a gift of graceand office (munus) established by the Living God by an immediate Personal Act (cf. Matthew 16:18 ff). That each such office (munus) can exercise one or more ministeria is not only NOT an argument for the validity of Benedict’s resignation, but nay rather an argument against the validity, on account of canon 188, canon 17 and canon 41 (in the Latin), the latter of which expressly associates ministerium with the mere execution of an ecclesiastical office; and this, because the execution of an office or its services can be renounced by the infirm, who still wishes to retain the dignity of the office, as the history of the Church demonstrates. Thus, in virtue of canon 17, which explicitly requires that the texts of each Canon be understood according to the proper meaning of the words they contain as the context of the Code of Canon Law uses them, the argument drawn from canon 10, here, is invalid because it is praeter rem, that is, applicable only to the conditions of invalidity in canon 332 §2, not canon 188. — If you say, yes, Canon 10 applies only to the terms of validity expressed in Canon 332 §2 and thus allows a broad interpretation of the conditional clause which speaks of a resignation of the petrine munus: then it must be responded, that such a reading of canon 10 would nullify the requirements of canon 17, that terms must be understood properly, or at least fails from insufficiency, since the broad meaning of munus in the Code of Canon Law is officium not ministerium; which sense of officium refers to office, not execution of a ministry. — Regarding Canon 16 §1, it must be said, that yes, Pope Benedict as Pope is the supreme legislator and interpreter of canon law. But he is only legislator, when he legislates; whereas Canon 332 §2 was legislated by Pope John Paul II. Furthermore, though any Pope can officially interpret Canon Law, he must do so by a papal act, not by a substantial error. Thus, canon 16 does not apply in such a case. Nay, rather, Canon 38 expressly rules in this case, when it says: An administrative act, even if it be enacted by a rescript given Motu Proprio, lacks effect to the extent that it harms the rights of another or is contrary to the law or proven custom, unless the competent authority expressly has added a derogating clause. — Finally, as regards the Pope’s manifest intention to resign the papal munus, I have responded to this above in the reply to objections 2, 3 and 4.
19. As Dr. Taylor Marshall sustains on his video, “The Resignation of Pope Benedict: an Analysis”, “ministerium” and “munus” name the same thing: the papal office, therefore to renounce the one is to renounce the other. Therefore, the resignation is valid.
Ad obj. 19.: To a gratuitous assertion, no reply need be made, because it is not an argument. However, against this assertion, one must respond, since it attacks the very nature of reality itself. For words have meaning, otherwise they would not be signs of communication. And different words can have different meaning, or there would be no reason to use them. Thus human language of necessity sustains the assertion that ministerium and munus can have different significations. Any dictionary of Latin also sustains this, as anyone can demonstrate who has one. But that ministerium and munus in Canon Law mean the same thing, is entirely false, as has been demonstrated above by referring, in accord with the requirements of canon 17, to the Code itself which in canon 41 associates “ministerium” with the mere exercise of office, and canon 145 §1 which defines an ecclesiastical office as a “munus,” not a ministerium. Thus, the Code of Canon Law itself uses the terms in different senses, and do not equate their significations as referring to an ecclesiastical office, in the sense that “bishopric” or “papacy” refer to an office. — This is a sufficient refutation according to the norm of Canon Law. But since the assertion conceals a grave error of the kind of Nominalism promoted at Tübingen, it merits to be refuted according to the science of philosophy. For just as there are 10 categories of being according to the Philosopher in his Praedicamenta, so words can be said in reference to one or more category of being. Now in canon 145 §1, the Supreme Legislator predicates munus of every ecclesiastical office. But no where in the Code does he predicate ministerium of any ecclesiastical office, only of roles or services rendered by one who holds an office or in his stead. Therefore it is clear from canon 17 that this represents in the mind of the Legislator that munus signifies the being of something real, namely an office, but ministerium signifies the action or service rendered by one who holds such an office. Therefore, munus is said to be a substance itself, and ministerium is said of a substance in act. But this is the distinction of being and act, of substance and accident, according to the Praedicamenta. Therefore, there is a real distinction between munus and ministerium, in the senses used in Canon 332 §2, 145 §1 and canon 41, just as there is a real distinction between any agent and the actions of the agent, though the latter inheres in the former. If this be denied, then the walking of Peter, which in Peter is Peter, when imitated perfectly by Paul would be just as much Peter in Paul as Peter in Peter, which is absurd. Therefore, the walking of Peter in Peter is not a substance but an accident, like the color of Peter’s skin or the accent of his voice, which can be duplicated in other things, without making them Peter. Likewise, the Petrine ministry, which is the action or service which the one who holds the Petrine Office should and can render, can be perfectly imitated in another, without making that other the Pope. This is the entire basis for the Roman Curia’s collaboration with every true Pope, when He delegates the execution of some part of his Petrine Munus to Cardinals and Bishops and priests at the Vatican or elsewhere. Therefore, to name the Petrine munus it does not suffice to name the Petrine Ministry (even if it be conceded that Benedict did this, which I have shown is not the case in the arguments of the first part), because just as when Peter renounces his walking, he remains Peter, so when the Pope renounces his ministry, he remains the pope. The semiotic rationale or ratio significandi for this is, that just as substance and accident are separable, so their unity is not necessary; therefore, the signification of the one which is the accident in the other signs no necessary or determinative reference to the one which is the substance. Therefore, in accord with canon 332 §2, which requires a manifestation of liberty and intention which is accord with the norm of law, such a manner of signification is invalid, because it requires an interpretation which the Law does not sustain as possible in accord with canon 17.
December 18, 2018 — A silent secret Coup d’Etat occured at the Vatican nearly 6 years ago, the facts of which case have only recently come to light. The leading figures in the takeover were Cardinals Sodano and Bergoglio. Sodano, the former, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, charged with calling a Conclave in the event of the death or valid resignation of the Roman Pontiff; the Latter, the head of the Saint Gallen Mafia, which had plotted since 2004 to take over the Church and transform the Catholic Religion into a hollow mockery of the Gospel.
The coup d’etat was put in motion by the decision by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to resign from active ministry on February, 11th, which he announced to the world in the Latin text, “Non solum propter”. (For the original text and English translation, see here). The carefully worded text, based on the distinction put forward by Karl Rahner in 1974, in his work, Vorfragen zu einem okumenischen Amtsverstandnis, that one could retain the munus petrinum and share the ministerium petrinum, renounced the latter and explicitly affirmed the holding of the former.
This very obscure distinction in the Latin text allowed a coup d’etat, that is an unlawful take over of the Vatican. Because, according to the norm of Canon Law, the Cardinal Deacon was NOT empowered by the act of resignation to call a Conclave. Nay, he was obliged to confer with his Holiness as to the nature of the Vicar he wanted to appoint to govern the Vatican in his retirement, and ask direction on how the institution of the College of Cardinals could accomplish this, since the rules of a Conclave only regard the election of a successor not a Vicar sharing the active ministry.
No sooner had Pope Benedict XVI read his text, that Cardinal Sodano began to play up the event, by saying out-loud in Italian: “‘Holiness, this news catches us like a lightning bolt in a clear blue sky.’” (source)
Then the Italian journalist, Giovanna Chirri, a pool reporter for the Italian News Cooperative, ANSA, after attempting to speak with Cardinal Sodano by phone, following the consistory, and receiving the go ahead from Fr. Lombardi, ran the fake news story that the Pope had resigned his office. She went to far in later reports to claim that she understands Latin perfectly, and that the renunciation was unequivocal!
Amazingly, Chirri announced this “news” via Twitter! Here is the historic tweet, upon which the entire Catholic world bases its idea that Benedict resigned the papacy!
B16 si e' dimesso. Lascia pontificato dal 28 febbraio
However, the full responsibility and liability for the decision to call a Conclave to elect another Pope — during the lifetime of a Pope who only retired from active ministry, but did not resign his office — must be laid at the feet of Cardinal Sodano. That he was urged to this by the Saint Gallen Mafia may be supposed, but the evidence from the Law of the Church is indisputable. As Canon 332 §2 reads in its official form, which in Latin — a Latin in which Cardinal Sodano is fluent, says:
CANON 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
The law of the Church is clear: a pope resigns when he resigns his Munus (muneri suo renuntiet). And the validity of such a resignation arises from the act itself when it is conform with the norm of law (rite manifestetur) and is free.
The crime of Sodano consists in the pretense he made, based on the common translations of that Canon into modern languages, that you could renounce the office of the papacy without renouncing the petrine munus.
Obviously, canonically speaking, its impossible to demonstrate that a renunciation of ministerium is a due and proper manifestation of a renunciation of munus according to the norm of law, when the law itself says that papal resignations regard only the munus.*
Cardinal Sodano was of an age in which he could not vote in any further Conclaves, but by summoning a Conclave to elect another pope AND omitting a conference with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, he set in motion a revolution which resulted in Jorge Mario Bergoglio seizing control of the Vatican government and presenting himself to the world as the Vicar of Christ.
How many of the Cardinals who attended the Conclave of 2013 raised questions about this is not yet publicly known. However, its not a question of any form of secrecy to which they were or are bound, since if any of them noticed the sleight of hand of Sodano, he would have spoken about it before the Conclave began.
Today it is evident to the whole Catholic world that Bergoglio is an Anti-Pope in the sense that he has not the Faith of the Church and daily attacks the Faith. May God grant that Catholics everywhere read the Latin text of Canon 332 §2 to see that a renunciation of active ministry does not renounce the papal office, and that therefore the Conclave of 2013 was illicity convened and uncanonical, and that Bergoglio was never the Pope, never the Bishop of Rome, never the Successor of Saint Peter.
* Can. 17 — Leges ecclesiasticae intellegendae sunt secundum propriam verborum significationem in textu et contextu consideratam; quae si dubia et obscura manserit, ad locos parallelos, si qui sint, ad legis finem ac circumstantias et ad mentem legislatoris est recurrendum.
Cardinal Sodano was obliged, by this canon, in the matter of any doubt concerning whether the act of Benedict XVI was valid per canon 322 §2, to look in the Code itself for the usage of ministerium and munus. However, in the Code there is no equation of these two terms. Not finding one, he would be obliged to look at the canonical history of the term munus in papal resignations, in which in previous resignations the word munus, not ministerium, has always been used. So he had no grounds to call a Conclave. (cf. Dos graves razones, by Juan Suárez Falcó, and Fr. Stefano Violi, The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience)
Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI, Feb. 11, 2013 A. D.
Not only for the three canonizations have I called you to this Consistory, but also so that I may communicate to you a decision of great moment for the life of the Church. Having explored my conscience again and again before the Lord, I have arrived at certain recognition that with my advancing age my strengths are no longer apt for equitably administering the Petrine Office [munus Petrinum].
I am well aware that this office [munus], according to its spiritual essence, ought to be exercised not only by acting and speaking, but no less than by suffering and praying. Moreover, in the world of our time, subjected to rapid changes and perturbed by questions of great weight for the life of faith, there is more necessary to steer the Barque of Saint Peter and to announce the Gospel a certain vigor, which in recent months has lessened in me in such a manner, that I should acknowledge my incapacity to administer well the ministry [ministerium] committed to me. On which account, well aware of the weightiness of this act, I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on April 19, 2005, so that on February 28, 2013, at 20:00 Roman Time [Sedes Romae], the see of Saint Peter be vacant, and that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is [ab quibus competit].
Dearest brothers, I thank you with my whole heart for every love and work, by which you bore with me the weight of my ministry [ministerii], and I ask pardon for all my failings. Moreover, now We confide God’s Holy Church to the care of Her Most High Shepherd, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and We implore His Mother, Mary, to assist with Her maternal goodness the Cardinal fathers in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. In my own regard, I wish to serve in the future by a life of prayer dedicated to the Holy Church with my whole heart.
[From the halls of the Vatican, Feb. 10, 2013]
Translator’s Commentary
As can be seen from Ganswein’s talk at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May of 2016, and from the other comments made by Benedict XVI afterwards, this text regards the resignation of ministry, not office. If one were to say it effects the resignation of office, he would be in substantial error, as I have demonstrated elsewhere.
Unlike Archbishop Ganswein, when he spoke at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May of 2016, I translate munus as office, following not only all the Latin Dictionaries which I have at my disposal, but the Latin text of Canon 145, which defines every office in the Church as a munus. See also, Pope Paul VI’s decree, Christus Dominus, which uses the same term for office.
I translate vacet as the main verb of a subordinate subjunctive clause of purpose, introduced by ita ut, “so that”. Those who opine that such a form of vaco, vacare can be translated as could be vacant know nothing about Latin and how as a Classical tongue it lacks the conditional mood. (Cf. my Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar, for an explanation on how to translate the subjunctive mood in Latin, into English).
Having spoken with one of the most eminent Latinists who has worked at the Vatican, I note that the Sedes Romae refers to the time Zone, and is not an appositive to Sedes Sancti Petri. Note there are 2 things declared: that I renounce... and that a Conclave be convoked…. Note also, that in the original text the commisso in the phrase, “committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals” was erroneously written and spoken as commissum. (Cfr. Pope Gregory XIII’s 1582 edition of the Decretales Gregorii IX. Book. I, Tittle III, de Rescriptis, c. XI.)
Finally, if you find any typographical errors, let me know. as I understand there are some out there who hate the truth so much, that if they find one, they believe the rest of a text by a translator is of no value.
Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Buxpublicly opined that the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI should be studied in regard to the question of what appears to be substantial error in the formula of resignation. (For a correct English translation of the formula, see here).
Msgr. Bux was not the first to raise this issue. In fact, doubts as to the validity of the act of resignation were raised immediately upon the news being made known. Flavien Blanchon, a French journalist working at Rome, writing only 2 days afterwards, cited an eminent Latin scholar who pointed out errors in the text of abdication, and who noted that the presence of any error, according to canonical tradition, was held to be a sign of lack of deliberation, rendering the act null and void. These errors in the Latin were also reported by Luciano Canfora, Corriere della Serra, Feb. 12, 2013, p. 17.
More importantly, the famous Italian Philosopher, Prof. Enrico Radaelli wrote a supplication to Pope Benedict XVI, on Feb. 18, begging him to withdraw the resignation, because, inasmuch as it was done in a secular fashion, it would result in the consequent election of an Anti-Pope. His article was entitled: Perché Papa Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI dovrebbe ritirare le sue dimissioni: non è ancora tempo per un nuovo papa, perché sarebbe quello di un Anti-Papa. (Link to text with commentary, here). Which warning, alas, was ignored, even by myself at the time, for frivolous reasons.
Then a year later, the famous Italian controversialist, Antonio Socciopenly speculated that the resignation might be invalid on account of the lack of interior will given by Benedict. In the same year, a very noteworthy study published by a Professor in canon law at the Theological Institute of Legano, Switzerland, in 2014 by Fr. Stefano Violi, which discussed canonically the renunciation: The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience, without, however, raising the question of its invalidity. (Its a must read on account of its rich citation to the canonical history of papal resignations, despite its glaring error of affirming that a novel way of resigning was fulling in accord with Tradition!) — However, the study by the professor of Canon Law at the Faculty of Theology, Lugano, Switzerland, by identifying the matter of the renunciation to regard the active ministry, not the munus, made it clear that the question of substantial error invalidating the resignation was a real question, founded upon the text of the act itself.
On Nov. 14, 2014, in a public conference, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, “the Fatima Priest” of Canada, affirmed of Pope Benedict, on Feb 11, 2013, that “whatever he was doing, he was not resigning the papacy”.
However, on June 19, 2016, the USA citizen Ann Barnhardt raised specifically the question of a doubt arising from canon 188, which cites substantial error as sufficient grounds to establish the grounds for a canonical determination of invalidity in any resignation. She did this following the remarkable comments by Pope Benedict’s personal Secretary on May 20th earlier, in which he claimed that Benedict still occupied the Papal Office (Full Text, English Translation).
Barnhard was not the first to make such an observation. Dr. Cathy Caridi, JCL, a canonist, openly speculated in January of 2013, more than a month before Pope Benedict XVI acted, that a substantial error in a papal renunciation could in fact invalidate it in virtue of Canon 188.
Msgr. Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, in the United States, and a former member of Opus Dei, has also sustained this same doubt and others regarding the validity of the resignation. I understand that the Bishop has written many members of the Sacred Hierarchy and Curia about these matters urging action be taken (He suggests a public declaration by 12 pre-Bergoglian Cardinals).
According to Ann Barnhart, in the following year, the Americans, Attorney Chris Ferrara and Mrs. Anne Kreitzer also sustained this same doubt. The Italian historian Richard Cowden Guido opined the same on May 11, 2017. And, the famous Italian controversialist, Antonio Socci quoted Violi at length on May 31, 2017 and sustained the same thesis.
On August 11, 2017, the popular Catholic TV program from Colombia, founded by Dr. Galat and know as Cafe con Galat, in an English edition, discussed why Pope Benedict XVI is still the true pope. While this program emphasizes the lack of freedom in the act, it does include the matter regarding the lack of conformity to Canon 332 §2 and canon 188.
Sometime before March of this year, Fr. Paul Kramer, a priest from the United States of America sustained also that canon 188 nullified the resignation, on account of the lack of the resignations conformity to canon 332 §2 in mentioning ministerium rather than munus.
In May of this year, at the latest, the Spaniard Fr. Juan Juarez Falcon expounded the canonical reason for the invalidity of the resignation, on the basis of substantial error, in an article entitled, “Dos Graves Razones”. Dr. José Alberto Villasana Munguía followed from Mexico on June 27th, concurring with his opinion.
Finally, Pope Benedict XVI in his private letters to Cardinal Brandmueller, published in the summer of 2018, openly asks for suggestions for a better way to resign, if he did not do it correctly.
There being a number of notable Catholics sustaining this doubt, and since Msgr. Bux called for an investigation of this matter, I will add here in Scholastic Form, some arguments in favor of sustaining it, in course of which I will refute all substantial arguments against it. In the course of time, as I find other arguments, or think of new ones, I will add them to this list.
All the arguments for and against should be understood in context of canon 124 §1, which reads: For the validity of a juridic act it is required that the act is placed by a qualified person and includes those things which essentially constitute the act itself as well as the formalities and requirements imposed by law for the validity of the act.
Can. 188, A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
And Canon 322 §2: If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his munus, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and be properly manifested (rite manifestatur), but not that it be accepted by anyone at all.
Its also important to note, for native speakers of German, that the German translation of the Code of Canon Law gives the erroneous translation of munus as Dienst in canon 145 §1, where munus if it be translated at all, should be rendered Verantwortung, which is a proper synonym of the Latin munus, as an onus. Moreover, the correct sense of munus in canon 332 §2 is “office, charge and gift of grace” (Amt, Verantwortung, Geschenk der Gnade), not ministry or service (dienst), for only this full sense of munus, as an officium, onus, donum reflects the magisterial teaching of Pope Boniface VIII in his rescript, Quoniam.
Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?
And it seems that he did not:
1. First, because substantial error, in an act of resignation, regards the vis verborum, or signification of the words, as they regard the form and matter of the act. But the act of renouncing a ministry regards one of the proper accidents of the office [cf. canon 41] by which that ministry can be rightfully exercised. Therefore, if one renounces a ministry, he does not renounce the office. And if he believes to have renounced the office, by renouncing one of the ministries, he is in substantial error as to the signification of the words he has used. But in the text, Non Solum Propter, Benedict XVI renounces the ministerium which he received as Bishop of Rome, when he was elected. Therefore, to understand that act as a renunciation of the office is to be in substantial error as to the effect of the act. Therefore as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.
2. Saint Peter the Apostle exercised many ministries in many places. But no one is the real successor of Saint Peter except the Bishop of Rome (canon 331). If one renounces a petrine ministry, therefore, he does not renounce the office of Bishopric of Rome (cf. canons 331 & 332), who has other ministries in virtue of his office. Therefore, if one believes he has renounced the Bishopric of Rome by renouncing a petrine ministry, he is in substantial error, and thus as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.
3. According to Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 12) there are diverse graces, ministries and offices in the Church, inasmuch as the Church is the Body of Christ. Therefore, since the Bishop of Rome can exercise several of these ministries, it follows that one does not renounce the Bishopric of Rome if one renounces one of these ministries, since no one ministry is coextensive with the Bishopric of Rome. Ergo in such a renunciation, if one believes he has sufficiently signified the renunciation of the Bishopric of Rome, he is in substantial error. Therefore, as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.
4. According to Seneca (Moral Essays, vol. 3, John W. Basore, Heineman, 1935), one must distinguish between benefices, offices and ministries. Benefices are that which are given by an alien, offices by sons, mothers and others with necessary relationships, and ministries by servants who do what superiors do not do. The Petrine ministry is a service to the Church. But the office of the Bishop of Rome is a duty to Christ. If one renounces the ministry of a servant, he does not renounce the office of a son. Ergo in such a renunciation etc…
5. The validity of an act of resignation cannot be founded upon the subjective definition of words, or the mere intention of the one renouncing. If that were the case, the interpretation would make the act an act of resignation. The act itself would not declare it. But the Church is a public society founded by the Incarnate Living God. Therefore, the renunciation of offices must be not only intentional but public, to give witness to the fact that the office was established by the Living and Incarnate God. But the office of the Bishop of Rome is such an office. Ergo in such a renunciation etc..
6. As Msgr. Henry Gracida argues on his blog, abyssum.org: If Christ did not accept the resignation of Benedict as valid, because the act itself was not canonically valid per canon 188, then Christ would be obliged in justice to deprive Bergoglio of grace, so that his lack of being pope be MOST EVIDENT to all with Faith, Hope and Charity. But it is MOST EVIDENT to everyone, even non Catholics, that he has NOT the grace of God in him or in his actions. Ergo, either Christ is unjust, or Christ is just. He cannot be unjust. Ergo, Bergoglio is not pope! But the Cardinals hold that his election was in accord with the procedures required by the Papal Law on Elections. Therefore, if he is not the pope, it can only be because someone else is still the Pope. Therefore, Benedict is still the pope, because in a resignation of this kind, the substantial error of renouncing the ministry, rather than the munus, renders it invalid.
7. Likewise, Christ prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail, and so that he could confirm his brethren in the Apostolic College. Now this prayer of Christ must be efficacious, since Christ is God and the Beloved Son of the Eternal Father, and because of the office of Saint Peter is not something merely useful to the Body of Christ, but necessary in matters of faith and unity. Therefore, Christ’s prayer for the Successors of Saint Peter must be efficacious in some manner as regards the faith and unity of the Church. But Bergoglio manifestly attacks both the faith and unity of the Church. Far be it, therefore, to judge that in this one man Christ’s prayer was not intended to be effective. Ergo, Bergoglio is not a valid successor of Saint Peter! But the Cardinals hold that his election was in accord with the procedures required by the Papal Law on Elections. Therefore, if he is not the pope, it can only be because someone else is still the Pope. Therefore, Benedict is still the pope, because in a resignation of this kind, the substantial error of renouncing the ministry, rather than the munus, renders it invalid.
8. From the text of the act of resignation. Pope Benedict admits in the first sentence that he holds the munus petrinum. But further down, he says he renounces the ministerium which he had received as Bishop of Rome. Therefore, he has not renounced the munus. But munus means office and gift of grace (cf. Canon 145 §1 and Paul VI, Christus Dominus). Therefore, he has not stated that he has renounced the office and gift of grace. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..
9.From the sense of the Latin tongue, which lacks the definite and indefinite article. When you say: Renuntio ministerio, you do not say whether you have renounced the ministry or a ministry. Therefore, you leave unsaid what ministry you have renounced. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..
10.From the papal law Universi Dominici Gregis, on Papal elections: One is not elected to the Petrine Ministry, but to be the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, unless one renounce the Bishopric of Rome one has not vacated the See of Saint Peter. But in public statements Pope Benedict XVI after March 2013 says only that he has renounced the ministerium. Therefore, he is in substantial habitual error as regards what is required in an act of resignation of the office of the Bishopric of Rome. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..
11. From the Code of Canon Law: Canonical resignations are valid if 3 things are valid: liberty from coercion, right intention, unambiguous signification. This is confirmed in canon 332, § 2 which expressly denies that the acceptance of a resignation affects is validity or non-validity. But Pope Benedict admits in his letters to Cardinal Brandmueller that his intent was to retain something of the Pontifical Dignity. His private secretary also publicly has affirmed that he occupies the See of Peter but shares the Petrine Ministry still. This is incontrovertible evidence that the act of resignation is ambiguous. For either it means he has renounced the See or has not renounced the See, that he has renounced the ministry, or has not renounced the ministry. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..
12. From Pneumetology, that is, from the theology of the Holy Spirit. After Feb 2013 the whole Church still recognizes and accepts Pope Benedict with the title of pope and with papal prerogatives. All call him Benedict, not Ratzinger or Joseph (even Bergoglio, during his visit to Panama in January 2019, exhorted the crowds to wave to “Pope Benedict XVI”.) But the whole Church cannot be deceived. Nevertheless, according to Divine Institution, the Papacy cannot be held by more than one person at one time. And he who holds it first, has the valid claim to the office. Therefore, the Church does not understand the act as one which renounces the office. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..
13. From insufficiency of intention: If a Pope renounces eating bananas, he has not renounced the office of Bishopric of Rome. Therefore, if he says, “I have renounced eating bananas, to vacate the See of Rome”, he is in substantial error as to the effect of his act. But in his text of renunciation he says he has renounced the ministry so as to vacate the see of Saint Peter [ut sedes Sancti Petri vacet]. But that is a substantial error, since the ministry is only a proper accident of the Bishopric of Rome, for to be the Bishop of Rome is the first act of its being [esse primum], to exercise the ministries of the Bishopric of Rome is the second act of its being [esse secundum]. Therefore, since the second act of being is in potency to the first act, and potency is divided from act as accident to substance, to renounce a or all ministries of an office is an act regarding the accidents not the substance of the office. Therefore, one could just as well renounce any or all of its ministries and retain the office. Therefore, by renouncing a or the ministry he does not renounce the office. Indeed, in public statements, he explicitly affirms only to have renounced the ministry. Therefore, his insufficiency of expressed intention does not save the act from substantial error. Therefore, in such a renunciation etc..
14. The Pope is not more powerful than God the Son. But God the Son in becoming the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, at the moment of Consecration, renounces all the accidents and action of His Sacred Humanity, yet remains still God and Man. Hence, even if a Pope were to renounce all his actions and ministries as Pope, he remains the Pope. But Pope Benedict XVI in his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, renounces only the ministerium of his office, not the office. Therefore, he remains the Pope.
15. If you get up from your chair, but to not give the chair to another, the chair becomes vacant but remains your property. Now the office of St. Peter’s Successor is to Saint Peter’s Successor as a throne is to the one enthroned. So if a Pope renounces the ministry of his office, but not the office, even if he intends by such a renunciation that the Throne of St. Peter be vacant, he does not cede his right and holding of the office. So when Pope Benedict writes declaro me ministerio … renuntiare ita ut Sedes Petri vacet its clear that while he renounces serving as Pope, he does not renounce the Papacy.
16. If any President, Prime Minister or father of a family renounces fulfilling the duties of his office, he nevertheless has not ceased to be President, Prime Minister or father. Likewise with the Pope, if he textually renounces only the ministry of his office, he has not lost his office.
17. God, who is Being, as the institutor of the Office of Peter, cannot regard as resigned from the office of the Successor of Saint Peter, any Roman Pontiff, validly elected, who only renounces accidents or second acts of the being of that office. But Pope Benedict XVI renounced only the ministerium, or exercise of the office, which he had received, not the munus, which is the office itself [cf. Canons 332 §2 and 749 §1]. Therefore, since the exercise of office is the second act of the being of the office, God cannot acknowledge such a resignation as valid. And if God does not recognize it as valid, neither can the Church. Therefore, in such a resignation, etc..
18. The essence of ‘being the Pope’ is the dignity of the office held. The essence of a ministry is the service rendered. Therefore, just as renunciation of a service does not cause the loss of dignity, so the renunciation of the Petrine Ministry does not cause the loss of Papal office. Therefore, in such a resignation, etc..
19. In Canon Law ministerium is not the locus of right (ius), that is found only in sacraments (sacramenta) and offices (munera). Therefore, he who renounces ministerium, renounces no right. But Pope Benedict XVI in his renunciation, Non solum propter, renounces the ministerium he received from the hands of the Cardinals. Therefore, he does not renounce any right. And if he renounces no right, he retains all rights, and thus remains the Pope. If it be objected, that he renounced the ministerium so as to vacate the See of St. Peter (ita ut Sedes S Petri vacet), it must be responded that, since vacare, in Latin has 2 senses: that of conceding right and that of simply going away, as on a vacation, the assertion of renouncing ministerium so as to vacet the Roman See implies no necessity of signifying a renunciation of right. Therefore, in such a resignation etc..
20. As the learned canonists Juan Juárez Falcó argues: Canon 332 which is the only canon regarding Papal renunciations speaks of the renunciation of the munus, not of the ministerium. But Benedict XVI speaks only of renouncing the ministerium, not the munus. Ergo per canon 188, the renunciation is invalid to effect a renunciation of munus. But as per canon 145, the munus is the office. Therefore, in such a resignation, etc..
For the arguments, to the Contrary, and their refutations, seepart II.
In summation:
As the eminent Canon Lawyer, Fr. Juan Ignacio Arrieta, says, commenting on Canon 126: When the ignorance or error regards the essential object of the act, … then the act must be considered as never having been posited, invalid. (Codice di Diritto Canonico, e Leggi Complementari: Commentato, Coletti a San Pietro, 2004, commentary on canon 126).
Hence, it appears, that if a Pope were to intend to retire from active ministry, but retain the Papal Office in all its fullness, that he could just as well read out loud the statement made by Pope Benedict XVI, Non solum propter, since the vis verborum of that text is that he renounced the ministry of the office of the Bishop of Rome, but not the office. Herein lies the substantial error, and thus that act of Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013 must be judged to be invalid, as per canon 188, if it be asserted to be an act of resignation of the office of Bishop of Rome. However, if one were to assert that it is only the act of renunciation of active ministry, not of office, then yes, it should be said to be a valid act, containing no substantial error.
In Conclusion, Philosophical Reason
Though there can be many kinds of substantial error in an act of resignation, there is NONE more SUBSTANTIAL than the one which involves confusing the accidents of the office to be resigned as sufficient terms to signify the substance of the office itself. Now, according to canon 188, where substantial error is present in such an act, the act is invalid in its effect “by the law itself”. Therefore, the text of Non solum propter, of Benedict XVI does not effect validly his resignation from the office of the Bishopric of Rome.
In Conclusion, Canonical Reason
This is corroborated by undisputed facts of law, namely that the only Canon in the Code of Canon Law, Canon 322 §2, which speaks expressly of a papal resignation, requires that the man who is pope resign the munus and do so rite (i.e. properly according to the norms of law). But the text of Benedict’s resignation speaks only of a renunciation of ministerium. Therefore, since it regards an act wholly outside the meaning of Canon 332 §2, the act is invalid to effect a Papal resignation. It is also thus invalid to effect the same by the law itself, according to Canon 188, and by canon 126.
Indeed, the inherent separability of ministerium from munus in Ecclesiastical history and canonical tradition is the fundamental reason why no renunciation of ministerium can be equated in law as a due manifestation of the resignation of an office. For that reason, the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI made through the act, Non solum propter, of February 11, 2013 A.D., has no valid canonical effect regarding the office of the Papacy. He remains the Pope, therefore, with all rights and privileges.
On which account, as a baptized Roman Catholic, Italian Citizen and legal resident of the City of Rome, I call upon the Italian Government to invoke its right, as a party to the Lateran Pact and its subsequent agreements, to convene the entire Clergy of the Diocese of Rome, to judge in tribunal, just as they did in A. D. 1046 at Sutri, at the command of the Germany King Henry III, the validity of the claim to office of Popes Benedict and Francis, namely, whether the act of renunciation of Benedict XVI was valid as to a renunciation of office, and if not, to declare the Conclave of 2013 canonically invalid ex radicibus.
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
