Tag Archives: Ann Barnhardt

Call to Action, News

‘The Pillar’ endorses Sodomy by its silence on Episcopal Appointments in Poland

8 Comments

A Call to Action by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The History of Pope Francis’ Heretical Profession on ‘Gay Blessings’

Back in October, on the 14th, to be precise, I warned that the silence of Pope Francis in response to reproaches to his position on “gay blessings” could not go on forever without the imputation of the crime of heresy. I pointed out the day before, that the CIA was going to urge through all its controlled agencies that the declaration of Pope Francis as a heretic over this controversy was wrong. That is because even run-of-the-mill opposition sites as Mundabor on October 6th were insisint that a council be called to depose Pope Francis as a heretic.

The responses of Pope Francis to the July Dubia of the Cardinals were written by Cardinal Fernandez, then an Archbishop, a man who is a known serial cover-upper of sexual abuse, as I reported here on October 4th, 2023. So his motivation was obvious. Indeed, in the days before this same Cardinal made clear that Pope Francis’s intention in ‘Amoris Laetitia’, was to contradict the Gospel and the Council of Trent.

That response of Pope Francis to the July Dubia made it clear by October 3, 2023, that it was his intention to sacriligeously and blasphemously permit the blessing of sodomitic unions.

You can read the entire coverage of FromRome.info about ‘Fiducia supplicans’ and the reaction of Catholics around to the world to it, here. You can read my editorials and initiatives against it, here.

A Catholic Response

Cognizant of all these things, though I had called for a provincial council to rebuke Pope Francis and/or depose him many times before, by which I was prepared to urge the matter with greater clarity, I launched the Sutri Initiative for this purpose on October 20, 2023, after spending several days at Sutri Italy, considering carefully what could be done to save Holy Mother Church from these perverse heretics.

The unCatholic Response

Since that time, following the declared intention of Steve O’Reilly, the CIA agent, most online Catholic outlets in the English speaking have remained scandalously silent at the gross heresy expressed in the replies of Pope Francis to the questions of the Cardinals expressed in the Dubia of July: scandalously, because it is intolerable to hold that a public manifest heretic can be the Roman Pontiff, or that Pope Francis does not need to recant his pro-sodomy position.

And not only have many outlets remained silent, but some have openly embraced this homo-heresy, as FromRome.info has documented: Church Militant did so on October 20, LifeSite News did so on the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, 2024 , etc..

And as I detailed on October 15, 2023, this silence is all part of the 9 ways to make the Catholic Church implode, which is the goal of the U.S. Government plan for the destruction of our holy faith.

The Agenda of ‘The Pillar’

Now, “The Pillar”,  an electronic journal of recent foundation, which I have often criticized for the errors it pushes, has continued its trajectory of gaslighting the Catholic world by pretending that it is tolerable for a manifest pertinacious heretic to nominate Bishops, as they do in their article above, about recent and future episcopal nominations in Poland.

They say nothing in the open, but the silence is designed to make you think nothing has changed, all is well, with the apostasy of ‘Fiducia supplicans’, as their 3 editorials have attempted to proclaim since it was published on Dec. 18, 2023.

I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would counsel a bet that “The Pillar” is a CIA front, would win.

The Grave Danger to the Catholic Church in Poland

But this sin is not only imputable to ‘The Pillar’. The Bishops of Poland are united in this same sin, because despite the strong objection of many of them to ‘Fiducia supplicans’ and their united public declaration that they would not permit the blessing of sodomitic unions in Poland, they are allowing Pope Francis, the public manifest and now pertinacious heretic appoint their bishops, a thing which is a diabolically reckless thing to do, for it puts the entire Church of Poland into the most grave danger of perversion, heresy and schism  from Christ.

If you are a Catholic from Poland, as I know many of my readers are, make it your Lenten sacrifice this year to make known to your bishop the grave sin of such a way of acting. Rather, instead, they should regard the Apostolic see impeded by Pope Francis on account of his refusal to speak to the Church as a Catholic and on account of the impossibility that a rightly formed Catholic conscience permit one to continue to regard him as to be obeyed and capable of executing the office of Pope in a manner conducive to the salvation of souls, as I have detailed in two articles, on the right Catholics have to refuse him obedience, now, and the state of impedition into which he has put the See of Rome.

The Kind of Spiritual Warfare being used against the Church

As we can see, then, a very clever and devious tactic is being used against the Faithful. It is based on sloth, ignorance and calculates on the cowardice and/or inexperience in conflict of the average Catholic. It urges non-action to error, so that by being compromised by silence, individuals and local churches, one by one, can be suborned to the same evil and erroneous agenda.

This was the tactic used to get the Catholic world to accept that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated on Feb. 28, 2013. And it is the same tactic today.

Because everyone who refuses to see that the position of Pope Francis on ‘Gay Blessings’ is heretical, blasphemous, sacrilegious and directly opposed to the 2nd Commandment and the Our Father, will by his ignoring of the problem, be seduced into going along to get alone. And silent toleration of any kind, which consists in not requesting he be solemnly rebuked and/or removed from office, will lead to this.

Thus Don Minutella, Andrea Cionci, Marco Tosatti, Edward Pentin, Diana Montagna, Ann Barnhardt, Mark Dockerty, Michael Matt, Eric Sammons, and any other Catholic influencer who fails to call for the removal of Pope Francis from office is in fact committing this same sin. — I mention these names only as an example, since to my knowledge, none of them has urged Pope Francis be removed from office by the only means which is juridically and canonically valid, in provincial council. Nor can those who hold that he is not or never was the Pope fail to call for this, for ideological reasons, because any sane and faithful Catholic wants and will always prefer the solution which will be accepted by the whole Church, and will always put his personal opinions, views and reputation in the service of that end.

If you are a craven coward, a disgraceful servant, or the like, you will risk nothing to defend Holy Mother Church and our immaculate Catholic Faith, from this heresy. And thus by silence be led to offer your children and grandchildren on the altar of Sodom, because as this error is more and more accepted — as we can see in the daily news — the LGBTQ ideology will take hold of parishes and dioceses and religious orders to the utter moral and doctrinal corruption of the whole Mystical Body, the damnation of more than 1 billions souls.

We all must act against this, or we each shall individually be responsible.

My Personal Invitation to all Catholics & to Translators

Participate in the Sutri Initiative. Learn about the history of the provincial council of Sutri in 1046, here. Study the Canonical and Juridical way a heretical pope can be deposed, here.

And if you can translate these 3 documents into Polish or any language, please do so for the sake of the salvation of the Church in your native lands.

So far these documents have been translated into French and Italian, from their English originals.

There is still a need for Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and all the other languages spoken daily by Catholics such as Arabic, Romanian, Hungarian, Slovak, Czech, Hindu etc..

In addition to the Sutri Initiative you can do ….

In addition, I encourage all to form a Committee against Apostasy in their own diocese and promote knowledge of how important it is to hold fast to the Catholic Faith against the homo heresy. It is indeed disappointing to me, that in the last 2 months, only 1 Catholic responded to that holy and zealous initiative.

Moreover, urge your Bishops to convene a Provincial Council in their own ecclesiastical Province, to solemnly condemn ‘Fiducia supplicans’ as a scandalous document contrary to the Catholic Faith, promoting the homo-heresy, inducing priests to use the Name of God in vain and transgressing the duty of all Christians to keep that Name hallowed. Anything your Bishops declare outside of a provincial council has little or no CANONICAL authority. Furthermore, if in a provincial council anywhere in the world, Catholic Bishops call upon the Bishops of the Roman Province to do the same thing and rebuke Pope Francis to the face, it will be greatly conducive to convincing these Roman Bishops to act.

News

Ann Barnhardt Misfires after Fiducia Supplicans

3 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

This is a follow up report to Prepare Yourself for Grifter Misfires, which I published last month following the publication of the declaration, “Fiducia supplicans” by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the Vatican.

In that document, Cardinal Fernandez and Pope Francis attempted to undermine the entire Christian religion by exhorting Catholic clergy to bless sin. And in it they employed a complex layered cake of lies, misinformation, disinformation, ideological shell games, word games, and crocodile-tear like rationales.

At that time I pointed out that those on social media whose interest is NOT in removing the Globalist, Pope Francis, from power, will attempt to divert attention away from that necessity, by yelling out on social media something else, which makes them appear to be opposed to the project in ‘Fiducia supplicans’ but is psycholgically the opposite: that is, to get you wound up about doing something that won’t solve the solution.

And this is exactly what Barnhardt does in her latest essay. For, in her latest piece, she writes as follows:

So long as this full truth of the situation, all the way down to the foundation, the fact that Pope Benedict never validly resigned, is ignored, nothing will get better. St. Peter’s basilica will become THE global faggot wedding destination, and the Church Militant will be reduced to a few people in hiding.

Daniel chapter 9 is current events. The abomination of desolation in the temple is probably the open blessing of sodomy in the Petrine Basilica.

All because NO ONE will simply acknowledge what has been completely visible all along, and at this point, it is utterly incomprehensible why there is this ubiquitous paralysis and pathological refusal to even ask the question: did anything WEIRD, ODD, or UNPRECEDENTED happen in February ARSH 2013 that might have resulted in an Antipope?

Obviously, to say that no one recognizes that the election of Pope Francis in 2013 was invalid, is simply false. There are dozens of scholars and 10 years of debate, which FromRome.Info has documented.

But to say that “no one recognizes” is to psychologicaly instill despair into those who consider themselves opponents of Pope Francis, while SIMULTANEOUSLY urging you to a solution which won’t obviously work.

Ann Barnhardt’s solution is “to recognize”. But just as to recognize that Biden did not lawfully win his election to the presidency in 2020 produces no result of itself, so with Barnhardt’s call to recognize.

But at least, in the USA, no one other than some CNN commentator says, “No one recognizes that the election of 2020 was fraudulent”.

This is what I call a “misfire”. It may even be controlled opposition.

Ann Barnhardt became famous years ago for burning a Koran on Video. This was the year after the investigation into her constructive fraudulent activity resulted in an arbitration decision finding her responsible for $100,000 damages with at least one client began — though it concluded afterwards. She was in a desperate situation and had to reinvent herself. She is now hiding, ostensibly because of her public campaign promoting tax evasion against the claims the IRS made on her person. — Ann Barnhardt became and is more famous among Catholics for having been the first to logically demonstrate the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013 was canonically invalid. Her videos on this remain an excellent introduction to the controversy.

News

Coronavirus epidemic at the Vatican

2 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

It was reported by Vatican news, on Saturday, that the Coronavirus epidemic has come to the Vatican. Swab tests have been given to 170 individuals, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

These massive tests followed the diagnosis that at least two individuals with Coronavirus infection visited the Vatican in recent weeks: a Monsignor from Bergamo, Italy, the epicenter for infection in the Italian Peninsula, and arguably in all of Europe, and a French Bishop, who shook Bergoglio’s hand on an official visit.

Needless to say, Bergoglio himself submitted himself to swab test on a second occasion this last week.

And, in fact, there are now at least 6 confirmed cases of Coronavirus at the Vatican. I say, at least, because, that is what is being admitted. But the infections might even be more prevalent, if one judges by the bizzare Facebook post on the official FB page of the Swiss Guard, which ended by asking Catholics, to avoid infection, not to go to church!

Screenshot_2020-03-30 guardia-svizzera-2 jpg (WEBP Image, 640 × 1136 pixels) - Scaled (60%)

Marco Tosatti, the renowed Vaticanista, discusses in Italian this bizarre post on his website, and provides Spanish and German translations. The final phrase of the post, in English, would be:  During this period do not go to church, but invite God into your homes! — The FB page of the Swiss guard was subsequently shut down by someone. Evidently the post caused an uproar in the Vatican. The language of the final exhortation is clearly echoing Bergoglio.

But more importantly, the recent bizarre ceremony at the Vatican on Friday, which was presided over by Bergoglio, all alone, in an entirely vacant Piazza S. Pietro, is a sign of how great a fear of coronavirus is reigning over the Vatican right now. See photo:

desolation

Ann Barnhardt wrote a very thought-provoking article about this on her blog (see here).

But more importantly, during the ceremony, Our Lady appeared in the clouds over Rome, in the only part of the sky where TV cameras were pointing that day, since journalists have entirely fled the public places as a result of the Health Decrees requiring everyone to work from home.

I had previously commented on how the Coronavirus might effect Vatican politics and the next conclave, in my editorial, entitled:  Trad inc. might soon wake up as Sedevacantists, which at the time I wrote it, was half-jest, but now might even seem prescient.

Oh, and by placing the miraculous Crucifix from the Church of San Marcellino in the rain, it was damaged and now needs restoration, according to Il Messagero, one of the leading daily newspapers of the Eternal City. So Bergoglio sealed his Friday evening ritual with profanation of one of the most sacred relics of Rome. Meanwhile, those burning pots with plants beneath each one, has Social Media abuzz as to the possible Pachamama significance of them.

vatican

+ + +

 

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Canon Law, News

A Host of Canons declares the Renunciation invalid

1 Comment

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Ann Barnhardt is right when she says you do not need to be a canon law expert to read the Code of Canon Law: the very nature of what a Code of Law is intended to be, is to be a public instrument which all can access and understand. Understanding it, therefore, is not a gnostic art for the elite few initiates.

Over at Catholic Monitor, Fred Martinez calls me a Canon law expert. I do not hold a degree in Canon Law, so I dispute the attribution. But he does this, because I simply read the law and say what it says, how it says it. I do not have any vested interest in saying it means something else, because I am not a priest and I am not the member of a religious order in communion with Bergoglio. I am a hermit, and that means I have no superior but my Bishop, who is Pope Benedict XVI. I also did not sell my soul for $1,000,000 to stab anyone’s memory in the back who held that Pope Benedict XVI is the pope.

This is why in this controversy, it is those who have no vested interest who are the truth tellers. Mark Docherty is one of them. I have never met him personally, but I know he is a truth teller because he simple lays out exactly what the Code of Canon Law says.

He blogs at Non Veni Pacem.

In his latest post,  The Retention of Office even when all powers have been delegated, according to Canon 131.1, he shows that there are a number of Canons which all concur that the Renunciation is invalid. You often hear Ann Barnhardt talk about canon 188. She breached the defenses of the Big Lie about the Renunciation using that Canon (no pun intended, but it is a nice pun!).* And you will often hear me talk about canon 17. Canon 332 §2 is the key canon, of course.

But Mark Docherty shows how canons 36 §1, 38, and 131 §1 also come into play.

I highly recommend reading Marks post. As one who has actually studied Canon Law at at a Pontifical University here at Rome, I can say that it merits a 10 out of 10, and you would not find its like in any Doctoral Thesis in the entire Eternal City, after Feb. 11, 2013, because they would boot you out of the program — because IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

+ + +

POSTSCRIPT: I hope all my readers get on board with the February 28, 2020 Initiative. It’s not about me, its about saving the Church. I do not propose it so as to go forward. I see it as a way of handing the baton on to my betters, so that they do their part. So please try to get everyone to join in the effort.

____________

FOOTNOTE:  If anyone of my readers is a talented graphic artist, I would suggest you do a graphic showing a walled city with Bergoglio on top, Benedict imprisoned, and Ann outside with a Big Canon, labeled 188, the wall of the city named the Big Lie: a Valid Renunciation. And defenders of the Big Lie, on the top of the wall with Bergoglio on his left and right, some with money bags in their hands. It would immortalize the current crisis for posterity, and be remembered until the end of time.

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Debates, Editorials

Barnhardt has more sense than Burke

6 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I am continually amazed at how many of the same arguments used to promote despair among us who are faithful to the Church and Canon Law are the same over many blogs. It is almost as if there is some campaign or pysop targeting us. Unfortunately for whomsoever is behind it, they err greatly by attempting to tangle with Ann Barnhardt.

Barnhardt has an excellent post entitled, Q & A: Ann, even if Pope Benedict were to re-submit a valid resignation, he will never publicly act as pope again, so isn’t this all an exercise in futility?

In her reply she exercises a prudence of a Cardinal, far beyond that of even Cardinal Burke because:

  1. She recognizes the problem
  2. She recognizes how deep the problem is
  3. She recognizes how to solve the problem radically
  4. She has the integrity and moral courage to say what it is in public
  5. She has the honesty to advocate it be done

I agree 100% with Ann Barnhardt’s analysis and solution and I undersign her proposal. But I want to add that one of the biggest problems in the 7 year Crisis in the Church has been the vain hopes we have all put in the Cardinals to act like men, to act like men of God, and to act like apostles of Jesus Christ. None of them has shown the capacity or competence to do this. At most, like Cardinal Burke, they limit themselves to commenting on the problem, as if, like Barnhardt and myself, who are not members of the clergy, he could do nothing about it.

Psyoptics

But here I would point out, something which Ann does not, that her questioner has proposed a question which is quintessentially characteristic of the psysop, of the individual trained to control your mind and manipulate your emotions. So let me unpack that question, in an critique which I will call “psyoptic analysis”, that is how to see pysops for what they are.

  • Ann, even if Pope Benedict were to re-submit a valid resignation

First, the questioner poses a question using Barnhardt’s first name: make it familiar, insinuate friendship.

Second, propose a possibility within the context of the affirmation of an impossibility, use “even if”.

Third, insinuate that Benedict already submitted a valid resignation by saying “resubmit”.

  • he will never publicly act as pope again

Fourth, affirm that which your want to come about as if it were a divine certitude: he will  never.

Fifth, deny that the Pope will every be allowed access to the public again:  publicly act.

Sixth, deny that the Pope, even if he is the pope, will ever be allowed to use his power again: as pope again.

  • so isn’t this all an exercise in futility?

Seventh, imply despair by affirming no solution.

I get comments like this from a operative in Minnesota/Wisconsin using a polish name. He leaves positive comments, but when it counts he leaves statements like this question above. Statements like this might be repeated by simple catholics who see them in comment boxes and do not think about them. But in themselves they are excellent examples of now nefarious a pysop can include so many lies and falsehoods and deceits and present them in a psychologically appealing way.

There is a lot of evil behind Bergoglio’s claim to be pope and behind the denial of all of those who say Benedict is not the pope. A lot more evil that we can imagine.

Beware, then of the pysop, and learn to crush it as Our Lady crushes the head of the serpent with a cogent response like that given by Ann Barnhardt in the post cited above.

___________

CREDITS: The Featured Image above is a screenshot of the webpage of Ann Barnhardt cited in this article, used here according to fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Editorials

Does Chris Ferrara think he is a judge on the Roman Rota?

7 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In recent months, the traditional Catholic Attorney, Chris Ferrara, has come out strongly against those who judge that Bergoglio is a heretic or that Pope Benedict is the pope, basing his position that private individuals have no authority to make determinate judgements on the matter.

His arguments are vague, in my opinion, so I will simply rebut here the general errors which it appears he seems to appealing to.

First, it strikes me as completely absurd that an Attorney-at-law should demand that everyone who knows of a notorious public crime and about which crime the evidence is manifest, public and equally notorious, should shut up and stop making pronouncements about guilt or innocence.

I can understand how the defense counsel for the alleged criminal(s) could take such a position, certainly. And I can understand how a judge of the case has to take such a position, because the juridical process of adjudication requires impartiality.

But none of us are the defense counsel. And none of us are the judges.

Even Chris, I think, has not been retained as counsel for the defense by any party involved. And as far as I know he has not been appointed a judge on the Roman Rota or the Apostolic Signatura — the highest courts in the Catholic Church, which however, do not have the competence to judge cases of failed papal renunciations or papal heresy.

So where does Chris get the idea that we or he should be impartial and await judgement from such future tribunal? Does he think Bergoglio is not a heretic? If so, why not say so.

And since such matters can only be judged canonically in a Synod or Council of Bishops, Cardinals or the clergy of Rome, where does he get the idea that all who might attend such a Council or Synod have to be impartial beforehand? Or that those of us who want such a meeting to take place have to be impartial?

Does being impartial now mean being honest and just in Attorney Ferrara’s mind? Or is Chris letting his habit of mind, as a defense counsel, inhibit his exercise of the virtues of faith and justice in regard to the solution of the Church Crisis?

I agree, Chris, that we are not the final arbiters of the canonical settlement which will put the Church back in working order. But I have to ask you, why you are acting like a Judge on the Roman Rota? Are you merely parroting the arguments of some former occupant of such a position

Please explain to the rest of us then, since you have taken such a position, why you take it!

Second, I would like to publicly ask Attorney Ferrara what purpose or effectiveness does he see in lamenting the problems on a weekly basis in his published editorials, but NOT seek a canonical solution to them? And why is it that he writes article after article about the problems in the Church if he seems so adamant about telling those who want corruption removed — like Ann Barnhardt — to shut up? Simply because she does not lament to lament, she decries and demands justice be done?

He is renowned for seeking justice for Catholics in U.S. Courts. As a Catholic, Chris, do you not feel the slightest tinge of obligation as an attorney with such a reputation, to demand, call and advocate for all Catholics to have a real solution to the problem? — Yes I have seen your public comment that you think Catholics have a right to call for such a solution. BUT why is it that YOU are not calling for it?

Third, as a Catholic and a citizen journalist, I want to ask, you, Chris, a public question? Are you acting under counsel or orders from Cardinal Burke to stifle any move by Catholics to call for the intervention of the College of Bishops and, or, the College of Cardinals to investigate the problems with the Renunciation or with Bergoglio being a heretic? And if so, what reasons does he give for such counsel or order?

If you think Chris should answer these questions, you can hear him speak and perhaps get a question in at the Keep the Faith Conference on Feb. 22, in Monterey, California, USA. For more information see: https://keepthefaith.org/conferences/

________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a partial screen shot of an Appeal by Attorney Ferrara for his Catholic Lawyers Association which provides free legal counsel to Catholics who are being persecuted for their religious expression in the USA. As such Attorney Ferrara has done some marvelous work defending the Faithful against injustice. Image used here in accord with fair use practice for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Editorials, News

Alinski’s Rules for Radicals, used against the Church

6 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Saul Alinsky was a radical Marxist Jew from Chicago, USA, who before his death, compiled 13 demonic rules for how to overthrow social groups, based on his experience in organizing collective action against established political, social and religious structures. He published these in a book entitled, Rules for Radicals. — Here, the word, “radical” means a Marxist of the Gramescian kind who seeks to undermine a non-Marxist society from within so as to bring down the system, rather than organizing the proletariat for open armed revolution.

Alinsky’s 10 Rules for Radicals are a sort of luciferian way of practicing deceit in the most concealed and vicious manner. They are the classical reflection of an distorted passive aggressive psychopathy which recognized no objective moral norm to respect, uphold or promote the common good, and contrariwise inverts the approach the individual should have to that common good by advocating what is directly opposed to it. These rules are, thus, truly demonic:

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
  8. “Keep the pressure on.”
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
  11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Since the Bergoglian revolution is being run by Marxists — that is undeniable — it should not surprise us that those fellow Catholics who recognize Bergoglio as their leader should either openly advocate Marxism or use the tactics of Alinsky to counter Bergoglio’s enemies — the chief of which are those Catholics who recognize the teaching of the Church regarding when a Pope duly resigns and when he does not. Since Pope Benedict XVI never duly resigned, he is still the pope. And profession of that historical fact is the chief and most destructive assault against the Big Lie, used by the Bergoglian Church, to present itself as the Church of Jesus Christ and deceive the Elect.

Errors of the “Recognize and Resist” Movement

Catholics are increasingly aware that these tactics are being used now by Trad Inc. to sustain their ridiculous position of “recognize and resist” — This position holds that a Catholic is morally, doctrinally and canonically obliged to hold that Bergoglio is the Pope, but that he is also morally and doctrinally obliged to oppose his errors. — In practice, the “Recognize and Resist” Movement is one which denies that Bergoglio has ever uttered a formal heresy or that if he has he is never pertinacious in adhesion to it. Furthermore, they hold that canon 1364 can never apply to him, because he is the pope, even though Canon Law makes for no such provision or privilege. They deny the entire teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that formal, manifest pertinacity in heresy causes a man to lose all membership, office and dignity in the Church. And they especially deny that the words of Canon Law or of the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI have any precise meaning or use if it contradicts their position.

Thus the “Recognize and Resist” Movement is more about recognizing and very little about resisting. And thus its effect is totally about causing Catholics to submit to the Bergoglian Church and practice non-think about the abominations, heresies and scandals which are going on, not to mention, about the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI. Indeed, the “Recognize and Resist” Movement seems to be a position slightly to the right of Opus Dei, which is all about Recognizing and nothing about Resisting in public — they in fact tell their members to shut up and stop thinking about the problems and stop being active on social media.

Therefore, it should not surprise anyone, that the “Recognize and Resist” Movement has begun to employ Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, because in the defense of a lie there is no better tool that to employ the demonic.

Recent Attacks on Ann Barnhardt et alia

Ann Barnhardt is a pubic figure in the United States of America, who is famous for her commentary on current issues which cuts to the heart of the problem. Since the spring of 2016, she has rightly and sanely argued and demonstrated that the Renunciation of Pope Benedict did not separate him from the Papal Office and that the claims that he is no longer the Pope are the Big Lie of the present crisis of the Church. Countless Catholics today recognize Pope Benedict XVI because of the work of Barnhardt and those who came to know the truth of Church teaching and Canon Law about papal resignations through her. This is why the enemies of Pope Benedict seek to attack her more than anyone else. She blogs at Barnhardt.biz.

The recent attacks on Ann Barnhardt, chief of all, seem to be employing the Rules for Radicals. In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, we have, for example, Rule 13, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  This means, in regard to persons, to dissuade the public from consideration of the truths professed by an individual by attacking that individual on personal issues.

Then there is Rule 5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” which has been honed into a fine art by Steve Skojec, editor and publisher of OnePeterFive.com — apparently a commercial site, because of its *.com, but in reality organized in US Law as a non-profit, where it appears from its tax filings 100% of funds raised, after expenses, go to Skojec or family members.*

Here is an example of that, in regard to Ann Barnhardt.

https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1225259735525388289

Then there is Alinsky’s Rule 6, “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy,” which seems to be the case with Skojec, because he would not revel so much in insulting others, if he did not enjoy it. It also seems to be enjoyable to the rest of Trad Inc. because NONE of them — to my knowledge — reprehend Skojec and others for doing this.

Catholics, however, know that to insult others in public is the mortal sin of contumely, and so disdain it. Yes, insult an error or falsehood or behavior, but not a person.

Then there is Rule 11, “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside,” by which Alinsky appears to mean that you keep disparaging and misrepresenting your opponent until the opponent thinks he has a problem, or at least the general public does. Here is an example of that, in action:

https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1226178290529947649

The truth is quite the opposite. As anyone and everyone knows, who reads Ann’s arguments, she always cites reality or Church documents. She never say that anyone should listen to her because she is the source of authority. She is always saying that everyone needs to confront and accept reality, and overcome their inhibitions to live by the teachings and faith of the Church. — Whereas, it is Steve Skojec who is constantly insisting that Catholics ignore Canon Law and the teachings of the Church and Saints as regards the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and the indefectibility of his person, because some late Scholastic Theologian said something with the word “canonical” in it, but he, Steve Skojec, cancels out that word, and uses the statement as a new rule for discernment against which no teaching of the Church or canon law can be cited, without showing madness or insanity or a schismatic or heretical spirit.

The general attack, used most of all, however, even by pro-Bergoglian apologists, of the kind which Skojec is certainly not, is Rule 3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.” However, this rule did them in, because little did they know, that there are Catholics out there who are far more capable of understanding Church teaching than they themselves are capable of crafting arguments against it. — Praise be to God!

Reflections

As Catholics we should reject all the methods and lies of Satan. We should likewise reject the methods and lies of all false ideologies, especially Marxism.  When we see any individual or group doing things of this kind in the Church, then we have found a true cancer in the Church, because it does not live by the teachings of Jesus and the examples He has given us, or His Holy Spirit has given in the Saints.

Such individuals objectively are not in communion with the Church, nay, they work against it by striving to kill souls and deceive them. Perhaps they do not know what they are doing, because sin can blind the mind so much as to make it barely capable of discerning its own culpability. But we cannot ignore the fact that by such behavior, whatever persons or groups do such things, they are not in communion with the Church, morally or spiritually speaking, because being in grave mortal sin and working against Her, they have not the life of God in them.

Aiding and abetting such individuals and groups would be a sin of collaboration in the evil they propose. But helping them see their error is a great work of mercy, because it respects them as creatures of God, even if at times they might act like individuals unworthy of the pearls thrown at them.

Nevertheless, a sustained and constant attack by officers of corporations and media outlets against the teaching of the Church on any point must be seen for what it is. Catholics can no longer ignore that the “Recognize and Resist” Movement is at the service of evil in itself, and of even greater evil, inasmuch as it gives power to Bergoglio in sustaining his false claims to be the Pope and to not be a formal, pertinacious heretic.

COMICAL POSTSCRIPT

https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1226632515936407558

+ + +

_________

* In U.S. tax law such an approach is not fraud, if the monies are disbursed as salary for work done on behalf of the non-profit. But Mr. Skojec’s supporters are able to get a tax write-off — if they qualify according to IRS rules for being able to take itemized  deductions — for effectively paying him a salary to write articles for One Peter Five. Unlike, Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., the non-profit which publishes Br. Bugnolo’s books, which has never paid a salary to anyone. And unlike, Ordo Miltiaris Inc., a for-profit, which has never paid a salary to anyone. — Steve does quite well, according to the tax filings for One Peter Five, which show that in 3 recent years alone, his combined earnings in salary were near $500,000 USD. So someone is paying him to do what he does, clearly.

_________

CREDITS:  The Featured Image is a screen shot of Steve Skojec’s public Twitter Page, which is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary. The embeded tweets from his Twitter timeline are likewise employed.

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Editorials, News

Where Chris Ferrara goes bonkers

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Frank Walker just published Chris Ferrara’s response to Ann Barnhardt’s claim, that he once told her that he thinks she may be right about substantial error causing the resignation to be invalid. If you do not know who Ferrara is, there is a long Wikipedia article about him, which I presume is mostly accurate, because otherwise Attorney Ferrara would have rectified that.

But what Mr. Ferrara says is such a cartload of natural fertilizer, that I have to respond and put the man in his place. — I admit though, that as regards the man, I am reluctant, because I have been edified by many a thing he has written over the last 3 decades.

Moreover, I will leave aside the argument over the fact of whether he said what she quoted him to say. My experience, inclines me to believe Ann, because she has been a truth teller from the beginging. As for Chris, he is an attorney I think.

In a note to Canon212, Ferrara responds to Ann:

I don’t know who “Chris Ferrera” is, but I, Chris Ferrara, never said anything of the kind.  If I said anything it would be something like “You can certainly make that argument, but we have no competence to judge the matter.”  As I said on Taylor Marshall’s show, a future Pope or Council might determine that the last conclave was invalid, but that is a matter for the Church, not any Tom, Dick or Ann to determine.

Furthermore, the only time I have ever spoken face-to-face with Ann Barnhardt, at least that I can remember, was at Lake Garda, and the entire conversation involved my objection to her claim that the “data set” shows Bergoglio is not the Pope.  We have no competence to assemble “data sets” and declare that the Chair of Peter is vacant.

First, the mention of a typographical error is quite inappropriate, because Mrs. Barnhardt gave her testimony on a Podcast, verbally, here. And, being an Italian, I know that non Italians easily mis-spell or mis-pronounce Italian surnames. You have to get over that in your youth, if you grew up in the United States of America, because it would not be polite to keep harping on it.

So I will respond to what Christ Ferrara does say in his statement to Canon212.com.

If I said anything it would be something like “You can certainly make that argument, but we have no competence to judge the matter.”

Chris may be a fine Attorney of U.S. Law, but he shows here that he has never read Canon 41, or at least, never under stood it. So, he is patently wrong in what he says, here, when he say, we have no competence to judge the matter.

If you listened to Barnhardt’s podcast to understand the context of her testimony, it was in regard to whether there was substantial error in the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI. It did not regard the legitimacy of the event, called a Conclave, in 2013, out of which poped Jorge the wrecker. — So I will presume Chris is an accurate and intelligent man, who went to the source, listened to the podcast, and then responded to the matter: which is the Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013.

And thus, reading Ferrara’s comment, I say he is dead wrong. Because in Canon 41, everyone with a merely executive ministerium in the Church, upon receiving the administrative act of his superior — the Pope is the immediate superior of us all — has the right, not just the competence, to refuse an act which is juridically nullus, and the right to have recourse to the superior before executing the act, if the act appears to be inopportune, that is include matters which if executed would harm the rights of others or disturb the common good or order of the Church.

So Chris, that is strike one. If you are going to publicly disavow something, disavow it, but if you add a legal reasoning, and you have not checked the law first, you make your disavowal look dubious, because as a lawyer you should not speak unless you first read the law. A lot of Catholics, therefore, especially women, who tend by nature to have excellent auditory memories for when men say shocking or insulting things, are going to conclude that Ann has a better memory than you.

Next,

As I said on Taylor Marshall’s show, a future Pope or Council might determine that the last conclave was invalid, but that is a matter for the Church, not any Tom, Dick or Ann to determine.

I am not impressed by the reference to Marshall. Marshal went so far into absurdity that he said that ministerium and munus name the same thing, and that therefore the Renunciation was valid. Marshall pontificated. He did not even read the law, he could not have, because it never says such a thing. He could not have been answering as a Catholic, because Catholics know that you found what you say on the teaching of the Church, not on your own magisterium. So, Ferrara is in bad company.

Ferrara is also way off in left field. Because Barnhardt’s podcast was not about the Conclave. Strike two, for Ferrara getting his facts right.

As a matter of law, Canon 359 says a conclave is invalid if it is called during the lifetime of the reigning pontiff. It should be obvious to anyone who is sane — I exclude gaslighting apologists — that you do not need a Council to determine if the Pope is still alive, or if he is dead. And the Church does not teach in Canon 332 §2, that you need a council to make a determination. As a matter of law, it expressly denies that in its final clause.

That means, you can only know if a Pope has resigned from objective reality, the facts of the statement, witnessed duly. And how do we know if the statement is of the right genus and species so that it be recognized as a papal renunciation?  Once again, because the law declares that, when in the same canon it says, If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus … .

Did Benedict renounce his munus? No. He said, I declare that I renounce the ministry which was confided to me through the hands of the Cardinals…

Oops. That means he did not resign. AND no one has the right to say otherwise, because to say otherwise you have to make what Benedict said mean something other than the words which he said. And you need the authority to do that. And Chris, you do not have that authority! So that means that Canon 359 was violated in March 2013 by the convening of a Conclave in the lifetime of a pope who had not resigned and was still alive — two objective facts of the real world which do not need a Council or any authority to verify, as they are visible to the naked eyes of all, who have eyes to see.

I will call this one as a foul ball, for mercy sake.

Next,

and the entire conversation involved my objection to her claim that the “data set” shows Bergoglio is not the Pope.  We have no competence to assemble “data sets” and declare that the Chair of Peter is vacant.

Here, I, in charity, have to assume that Chris, being Italian, has got himself into a fluster and simply exaggerated. Because obviously, if I have a “data set” — do we really have to gaslight at this point and stop using the words, “facts” or “evidence”? — that tells me the Pope is dead: namely I see his funeral on EWTN broadcast live from the Vatican; then I think I can conclude that the see is vacant, and that I have the right to conclude the see is vacant.

I must presume he exaggerated, or otherwise I might start connecting the dots in his entire statement and conclude that he has a problem with admitting reality as a basis for evidence in a legal proceeding. But he is a lawyer, and a lawyer would never do such a thing!

____________

CREDITS:  The Featured Image is of Lago di Garda, the shores of which are the annual destination of traditional Catholic conferences. This photo is used according to Creative Commons License 3.0, and more information about its author can be found here.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

News

Pope Benedict is not only a prisoner, his guards have been carefully selected

14 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In a truly great piece of investigative journalism, Ann Barnhardt has just published a devastating exposé of what kind of staff have been placed in the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery to monitor, watch and guard Pope Benedict during the last neigh 7 years. As I reported last year, it is clear that Pope Benedict has been imprisoned, in a certain sort of way. Information control is the principal objective. Even George Neumayr admitted this in a piece in The American Spectator, this Sunday past, entitled, The Prisoner of the Vatican.

Barnhardt’s report is astounding. You cannot make this up. Members of a corruption riddled organization with ties to all the money and the power to protect the worst of their own members.

This report is truly troubling. To think of what the Holy Father must have had to endure for nearly 7 years, surrounded by those loyal to his captors, betrayed by all, and not only by his former secretary!

In a post entitled, Memo to Pope Benedict’s Prison Guards: Increased Sequestration and Total Silence, Barnhardt explains the networking behind Memores Domini, the group of women who assist Pope Benedict in all the necessities of the day.

Her report opens, thus:

Pope Benedict is surrounded by “minders” from the “Communion and Liberation” organization. His household staff consists of lay women who swear creepy oaths of obedience to Communion and Liberation and its head, Father Julián Carrón. These women are called “Memores Domini”.

C&L is similar to the Legionaries of Christ in that it seeks first financial power, and is massively financially corrupt. It is also riddled with horrific sexual corruption. It would not be unreasonable to describe C&L as the Italian analogue to the Legionaries of Christ. Both market themselves as “soft-right”, “moderate-conservative” groups in order to maximize their grift, targeting the wealthy “elite” and those with political power. C&L brags that through its top members, it has connection to over €100 billion in assets.

She also quotes an ominous suggestion by a leading member of the same umbrella organization, Communione e Liberazione, who is insisting that Benedict shut up and be put under tighter control.  And I think Barnhardt is correct in her interpretation.

Ann Barnhardt’s personal website, Barnhardt.biz, is a treasure trove of information on the corruption in the Church, and is a highly recommended read. If you want to comment on her article, here below, you are welcome to do so, because her site does not have comments.

________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the article at Barnhard’s website. The quotes above are from the original article, and comply with fair use.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Canon Law

Barnhardt’s 2nd Video and the other Meaning of Benedict’s Tacit Consent

2 Comments

Yesterday, Ann Barhnhardt posted her second Magisterial Study of Pope Benedict’s Invalid Resignation and the theological currents behind it. See here. You have to listen to this entire video to understand anything about what is going on in the Vatican today.*

_______________

*There is only one small factual error in what Mrs. Barnhardt says in this video, namely, when she says that all the vernacular translations of Benedict’s Act of Renunciation were made from the Italian translation, that is not true, the German is unique, as I have shown previously.

Considerations

It’s rationally impossible to exclude, after Barnhardt’s marshalling of evidence, that Pope Benedict did not have a vicious and malign intention in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry, and not simply a substantial error of saying ministerium instead of munus.

This being the case, I can now offer a reasonable explanation of Why the Pope did NOT contest ANY of the 39 arguments I sent him?, which argue his resignation of ministerium did not effect a resignation of munus:  The surprising answer is that Benedict acknowledges that it was NEVER his intention to resign the petrine munus, and was in fact his intention to resign only the petrine ministerium.  — If you recall, in my Scholastic Question, which I sent him, I openly stated that I did not dispute the act effected a renunciation of ministerium.

There are 2 conclusions from this inference, which I say has sound probability on the basis of the 55 year history of Joseph Ratzinger in the speculations regarding transforming the papacy.

The first is that, if asked, Pope Benedict will admit openly and candidly before witnesses that he retains the Petrine Munus.  He will however, on account of his error, say he does not hold the Petrine Office or the Papacy.  This will seem to be an illogical self-contradiction, since it does not accord with the Latin text of Canon 145 §1: but in the Germanic School of theology to which Ratzinger belongs, the office of the Papacy is conceived as pertaining to the Petrine Ministry, that is, the active exercise of grace and vocation.

The second conclusion is, that every Catholic who accepts the teaching of Vatican I, will see that there are now 2 reasons for the renunciation of Benedict being null and void:*  namely, not only substantial error, but malign intention.  The malign intention (dolus) being to split the Papal Office.  Both causes are causes of  the act being null and void in canon 188.*

If these 2 considerations are true, then it will be difficult to understand from speaking with Benedict at any time, for a direct answer which indicates the renunciation was invalid to effect his no longer being the Pope.

The solution of the problem, therefore, must come solely from a canonical analysis, because neither as a private theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, nor as the Pope, does he have any authority to split the Papal Office from the Papal Ministry, nor to ascribe the office of the Papacy to the one who has the Papal Ministry, but not the Papal Munus.

Finally, I wish to praise Mrs. Barnhardt for her correct theological and moral characterization of those who have contested that the renunciation was invalid, arguing instead with a faulty notion of “universal acceptance”, as “demonic”, “satanic” and “free-masonic”.

For the Good of the Church, I will close by calling on all the Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, Religious and Laity, especially of the Roman Church, to return to the norm of Canon 332 §2 and recognize that

  1. Pope Benedict is still the Pope, Bergoglio was never the Pope.
  2. His renunciation of ministry effects nothing in Canon Law.
  3. He is theologically confused as regards holding that the Papal Office is constituted by the one who exercises the Petrine Ministry, not the One who holds the Petrine Munus.
  4. His deliberate intention to renounce only the Petrine Ministry was morally reprehensible and should be reprehended.
  5. Anyone who speaks with Pope Benedict must resort to correcting him, because he not only committed a juridical error, but also a moral error, in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry.

_____________________________

* Barnhardt and myself, as well as nearly all the other commentators on this controversy, have been saying that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. The correct Canonical phrase, however, is that Benedict never renounced the Papal Office. Because, Benedict resigned nothing, in that he never used the verb resign.  (The English translation of Canon 332 §2 has “resign” in the place of the Latin “renounce”.)  Also, Canon 188 does not declare acts of renunciation invalid, it declares them “irrita“, that is, not properly done, or in other words, never done at all.

Can. 188 — Renuntiatio ex metu gravi, iniuste incusso, dolo vel errore substantiali aut simoniace facta, ipso iure irrita est.

The importance of the distinction in Canon Law regarding juridical acts which are invalid and juridical acts which are irrita is that, if a juridical act of the pope be in question, since one cannot dispute the legitimacy of papal acts, you cannot judge them valid or invalid. But if they were never done, never existed, that is, if they were irriti, then they never happened. And it’s no sin or crime, but true justice to say that they are such.

 

 

Ecclesiology, News

La validez de la renuncia de Benedicto debe ser cuestionada, Parte I

4 Comments

Resignation

por el Hno. Alexis Bugnolo

Recientemente, el destacado teólogo del vaticano y ex miembro de la Congregación para la fe, Mons. Nicola Bux opinó públicamente 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 fórmula de renuncia.

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, citó a un eminente erudito latino 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: La Renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI entre historia, ley y conciencia, 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. (Texto completo traducido al inglés)

Luego el Blogger Sarmaticus discutió el tema planteado por las palabras de Ganswein el 5 de agosto de 2016, con un post en el que destacaba lo significativo de lo que el Arzobispo había dicho en la Universidad Gregoriana, en una post titulado: La navaja de ockham encuentra:  Benedicto todavía papa, Francisco es falso papa, Iglesia universal en estado de necesidad desde el abril 24 de 2005

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)

Según Ann Barnhart, en el año siguiente, el abogado Chris Ferrara y la señora Anne Kreitzer también sostuvieron esta misma duda. El historiador Richard Cowden Guido opinó lo mismo el 11 de mayo de 2017. Y, el famoso controversialita italiano, Antonio Socci, citó a Violi detenidamente el 31 de mayo de 2017 y sostuvo la misma tesis.

El 11 de agosto de 2017, el popular programa de televisión católica, Café con Galat, 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 marzo de este año, 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 “Dos Graves Razones”. El Dr. José Alberto Villasana Munguía lo siguió el 27 de junio, coincidiendo con su opinión.

Finalmente, el Papa Benedicto XVI en sus cartas privadas al cardenal Brandmüller, 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:

  1. 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, Non Solum Propter, 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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..
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. 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!
  8. Del texto del acto de renuncia. 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, Christus Dominus). Por lo tanto, no ha declarado que ha renunciado al cargo y al don de la gracia. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
  9. 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..
  10. De la ley papal Universi Dominici Gregis, 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 declaraciones públicas, 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..
  11. 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 Papa Benedicto admite en sus cartas al Cardenal Brandmüller 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..
  12. 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..
  13. 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..
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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..
  18. 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.
  19. 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..
  20. 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.