Tag Archives: Antonio Socci

Antonio Socci: Bergoglio wants to gag Pope Benedict XVI

First published in Libero Feb. 10, 2020 and at Antonio Socci’s blog

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020

After seven years, Bergoglio’s “dismissal” of Archbishop Gänswein has made even the newspapers finally realize that there are two popes in the Catholic Church. Maybe it will take seven more to explain what it means.

On Sun., Feb. 9, Corriere Della Sera ran a headline on an article by Massimo Franco that read: “So Ends The Era Of The Two Popes.” The article gives Bergoglio’s spin on the latest events (just as was already done in the other newspapers). In it, the Argentinian “court” that speaks for Bergoglio tells us that Archbishop Gänswein was relieved of his post as Prefect of the Papal Household because as secretary to Benedict XVI he did not prevent the pope emeritus from being “slyly presented” as the co-author with Card. Sarah of the book defending priestly celibacy [From the Depths of Our Hearts].

And so the Bergoglians want to convey three ideas: 1) Benedict XVI let himself be used, implying that he is incapable of looking after himself and thus he must be isolated and silenced; 2) Card. Sarah has instrumentalized the pope emeritus for his personal agenda; 3) Archbishop Gänswein failed to be vigilant in preventing it.

In reality, the situation is just the opposite. Benedict XVI is perfectly lucid and aware, as everyone knows (he is still the best mind in the Catholic Church), and he intended to intervene in defense of priestly celibacy, which has been placed in discussion by the Amazon Synod.

In mid-January, when Le Figaro printed a preview of the book with Card. Sarah, Bergoglio had an outburst with Archbishop Gänswein and ordered him to “blow up” the editorial operation. Archbishop Gänswein attempted to question the presentation of the cover of the book with the double signature so that the Bergoglian drum could keep banging the news that Benedict XVI has withdrawn his signature and disassociated himself from the operation.

But this was not true. In fact, Card. Sarah revealed the letters exchanged between the two authors and Benedict XVI received him, confirming his writing and his approval. Beyond the question of the names on the cover, it is clear to everyone that the book was written by mutual agreement: Benedict XVI was not gagged.

The new book makes it clear to the Christian people that it has not been abandoned by Benedict XVI and that his paternity continues to watch over the path of the Church. His pronouncement carries with it the enormous strength of the entire Catholic tradition. His voice – quite clearly – is the voice of the Church of all time.

This is why the book had a disruptive effect. The argument made by the Bergoglian court now appears laughable: “It gave the impression,” writes Franco, “of a doctrinal contradiction between the ‘two Popes’ that irritated Pope Francis, who was accused of favoring the abolition of celibacy: although his advisors assure us that this is not so, as will be seen from his conclusions on the Synod on the Amazon.”

It’s quite easy to see how absurd this version of events is. If in fact Benedict XVI and Card. Sarah wrote things identical to what Bergoglio professes, then why was he so infuriated that he “threw” Archbishop Gänswein “out of office” over the book? In reality Bergoglio wanted to give a pick-axe blow to celibacy by permitting the ordination of “viri probati,” and for this reason he had requested that this innovation be placed into the concluding document of the Synod.

But now, after the authoritative pronouncement of Benedict XVI, Bergoglio probably will not have the courage to do so (according to what his “advisers” told Massimo Franco and what is being reported by Avvenire). Bergoglio has made Archbishop Gänswein pay for this, since he has an angry and vindictive character.  Yet even if Bergoglio does not strike a direct blow at celibacy in the post-synodal exhortation to be released in the coming hours, he can still do it through his intermediaries by means of the “revolutionary” synod of German bishops.

Bergoglio’s disappointment comes from his recognizing that everyone continues to hear the voice of Benedict XVI as the authoritative voice of the pope, while his own voice is seen as divisive and perceived as the voice of a partisan politician who does not behave like a pope.

Franco also notes the way Bergoglio and his court were annoyed by the April 2019 publication of Benedict’s essay on clergy sexual abuse, and “the enormous echo that it made.” Franco writes: “Benedict XVI’s essay proved to be a source of embarrassment for the papal circle. It was noted with disappointment how the analysis of the pope emeritus still carried so much weight and how it was used instrumentally by Bergoglio’s adversaries.”

In reality it is Bergoglio and his circle who have tried for the last seven years to exploit Benedict XVI in order to legitimize the Bergoglian ruptures (as various sensational incidents have demonstrated). But Papa Ratzinger has never allowed himself to be used by anyone. With his meekness and his wisdom he continues to exercise his ministry.

In a memorable conference given at the Gregorian University [in May 2016], Archbishop Gänswein himself explained: “Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he not at all abandoned this ministry….He has not abandoned the office of Peter – something that would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

Thus Benedict XVI’s closest collaborator explains to us that for Joseph Ratzinger “the acceptance of the office” of Peter is “irrevocable” and to abandon it is “entirely impossible.”

Whoever has ears, let him understand.

First published in Libero Feb. 10, 2020 and at Antonio Socci’s blog

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino @pellegrino2020

Dialogue with a Cardinal, who refused dialogue

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Christian charity requires that we not refuse to speak with our superiors or inferiors. The Crisis in the Church now is so grave that we should all be seeking to speak with our superiors about it and about how to remedy it. One thing we must discuss is the canonically erroneous declaration of Feb. 11, 2013 by the man who is Pope Benedict XVI.  Erroneous, manifestly, because no one had the respect for his Office or person to point out that the act needed to be redone, IF it was his intention to posit an act in conformity with Canon 332 §2.

For this reason I have written more than 50 Cardinals, I think — I am not sure I have lost count — to raise the issue. And recently one of them had the Christian charity to respond to me in writing. I cannot divulge the actual text, for the sake of my respect for his person and office, but I can divulge my text in reply, because I think it addresses a problem we all are having when we speak with out superiors about Pope Benedict’s Declaratio.

The Cardinal wrote to me that we must presume that Pope Francis is validly elected and holds the petrine munus, and therefore, he told me that he did not want to speak with me in person about the Renunciation.

Here is my reply to this prince of the Church:

Your Eminence,

If you ask any Doctor of Law, you will see that the reason you give, namely, “We must assume Pope Francis is a validly elected pope, who actually represents the petrine munus”, is a statement which compounds several errors:

1. First, that a man is the pope is not a presumption of fact, but the conclusion of law. For example, he is not the pope, whom the Cardinals say is the pope, rather, he is the pope who was elected according to the norm of Universi Dominici Gregis. To say the first, that is, that he whom the Cardinals says is the pope, is the pope, confuses the means whereby we know a canonical fact with the cause of the legitimacy of a canonical fact. They are two different things.

2. Second, in all law, whether Roman, Napoleonic or Common, the cessation of power is never presumed. This is an ancient principle, the ignoring of which would cause chaos in society. The corollary is that the cessation of right is never presumed. Now a Papal renunciation is the first moment in a petrine succession. And a succession of legal right is judged as a cessation of power. As Mons. Arrieta, of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, affirmed in my presence on Dec 11, 2019, such an act of renunciation must be clear in itself, it cannot be interpreted to be valid, because no one has the right to interpret it. This is because, interpretation of a law is the cause of its being understood other than what it is. And the Code of Canon Law does not grant that right, in papal renunciations, since they must be manifestly a renunciation of petrine munus.

3. Third, your affirmation that Pope Francis must be assumed to be validly elected, is the supposition of a conclusion as the first premise of your thought. In other words, you have taken what you should, in virtue of a series of illations based on facts and law, hold as a conclusion, and make it the first principle whereby your mind refuses to presuppose that from which it is illated. This is the logical error called petitio principii.

4. In truth, if you read Universi Dominici Gregis n. 37, Pope John Paul II required that a sede vacante be verified as a legal one. But Mons Arrieta assured me that no such verification was done in Feb. 2013. In fact, canon 40 invalidates everything done by a subject receiving an administrative act, before he verifies the integrity of the act itself. Yet the Vatican was publishing different versions of the Declaratio for many days, so an integral act was never had prior to the announcement minutes after the Consistory of Feb. 11, that the act meant a renunciation of the papacy. Indeed, as a Latinist who has published both a Grammar and translated over 9000 pages of Scholastic texts, I have found more thn 40 errors in the Latin text. There are moreover at least 6 canonical errors in the central act, which render it invalid, null or irritus. Furthermore, canon 41 gives each of us the duty to refuse an actus nullus and requires that we have recourse to the authority issuing the act. As Mons. Arrieta affirmed again to me, in the case of a papal resignation, if the act is null it must be redone, and if it is unclear the recourse to the superior must be to solicit another valid act, since he himself cannot make it valid by an interpretation. Thus, the mere fact that Pope Benedict said he renounced the ministerium, when Canon 332 §2 requries the renunciation of munus, means that the act is also irritus in virtue of canon 188, for substantial error, and irritus in virtue of canon 38 for not containing a derogation of the requirement to name the munus.

I can understand that as a Cardinal you would be disinclined to broach the issue of the legitimacy of the previous apparent Conclave, in which you never participated, but as Catholics we risk the penalty of eternal damnation, if we allow the Petrine Succession to falter for reasons so grave. Words have meaning, and if we reject that, then we will not find mercy before the terrible seat of Judgement of the Divine Word, who said of Pope John Paul II when he foresaw his Code of Canon Law in 1983: Whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven.

Finally, I have not demanded a meeting with Your Eminence, but I have pointed out the grave reasons why you should act, and at least do the due diligence required of you in Canon 41 and seek a private audience with Pope Benedict, before he loses his mental faculties. I assure you that he will tell you that it was never his intention to renounce the petrine munus, only to renounce the petrine ministerium and office. I say this based on a complete study of everything he said from Feb. 11, 2013 to today. And Antonio Socci agrees with me, as he said in his interview with Aldo Maria Valli just last week.

Sincerely in Saint Francis,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

_____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is my own photo of a bas-relief in the Basilica of the Most Holy Savior, here at Rome, showing a Pope kneeling in adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Truth Incarnate.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Antonio Socci warns of the collapse of Democracy in Italy

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

COMMENTARY ON SOCCI’S EDITORIAL

at TV.LiberoQuotidiano.It

IL “CASO SALVINI” E LA PERICOLOSA INVOLUZIONE DI UN PD TERRORIZATO DAL CROLLO E DI UN GOVERNO IN FUGA DAGLI ITALIANI

on January 19, 2020

Antonio Socci is not just a Vaticanista, or Controvesialist, he is a true Italian Patriot who is a strong and just critic of the Left wing madness in the Italian Republic.

For those who do not know how left, Italy is turning: The Ruling Coalition, who hs only 19% in the national polls, but 54% in Parliament, wants to put Matteo Salvini, who is getting 60% support in the national polls, on trial, for the “Crime” of protecting the borders from illegal immigration, WHILE HE WAS MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR!

Socci opens his Editorial, writing thus (This is our unofficial translation):

In Italy, is democracy itself at risk?  There is no need even to exaggerate, rather there are indeed indications of an about face that might lead to the collapse of the democratic system and which should worry everyone.

Not only because the ruling coalition is comprised of two political parties which are in the minority in the country (the one, which had the worse show at the polls in its entire history in 2018, the other which lost half of its support in the elections for the European Parliament in 2019).

Not only because they barricaded their offices against the Nation, and manifest intentions of never giving the sovereign people back the vote in any case whatsoever (not even if they lose in the regional elections in Emilia Romana, after having lost in Umbria), but also because this spring hundreds of nominations and cushy-chairs are up for grabs.

But the situation is worrisome, also, for the underhanded attempts to tie the hands of their opposition which holds the majority support in the Country. It is known that the health of a democracy is seen, above all, in the extent of liberty granted to the opposition. Yet, what is happening in Italy, today?

There is not only the massive constant attack by the media against the Center Right, the demonization of their leader with torrents of rancor and hostile words. “Cancel out Salvini” is something more than an infelicitous unpleasant headline in the daily, La Repubblica.

This seems to be the intention of the ruling parties and it does – in fact – mean that they want to tie the hands of the opposition, something which they even tried to do in Parliament by omitting the examination of the Budget in the Camera (and which they risked losing in a single month).

It is a situation which should worry everyone. Let us consider the case of “Gregoretti”: the ruling parties expressed their intention to put Salvini on trial, with the accusation of having “kidnapped persons”, by having delayed — in his capacity as Minister of the Interior — the disembarkation of a group of immigrants on the Ship “Gregoretti”, while he awaited certain knowledge of their final destination.

Salvini said: “They are putting me on trial for having defended our borders” (he risks a sentence of 15 years and also the lost of the right to participate actively in politics).

On the proposal to authorize the act, the constitutional expert, Ginevra Cerrina Feroni, said: “There seems to be very little legality in the entire affair, just as Carlo Nordio has argued.”

Then, at the end of his editorial, Socci remarks that Salvini is experiencing a Trump effect, that is, his support is growing daily, the more the Left controlled government attempts to suppress the will of the people:

No political leader in the history of the Republic has ever had such a popular response, let alone in two regions (Umbria and Emilia-Romagna) which should have belonged to the Left.

What is happening on a daily basis – and which Salvini is documenting on social media – finds no response in the Media, but it has literally annihilated the leading position of the Left. Which has decided to defend itself from Italians by barricading itself in its Palazzo.

(To Read the Original in Italian, click the link below)

IL “CASO SALVINI” E LA PERICOLOSA INVOLUZIONE DI UN PD TERRORIZATO DAL CROLLO E DI UN GOVERNO IN FUGA DAGLI ITALIANI

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

 

‘The Secret of Benedict XVI’ by Antonio Socci (Angelico Press, 2019) 

Is He Still the Pope?

Book Review by Giuseppe Pellegrino
@pellegrino2020

“Total darkness occurs when everyone closes their eyes.”

Antonio Socci opens his investigation into the mystery of Pope Benedict XVI by noting a paradox: “The present crisis has a cause that is searched for in every possible place, while the whole time it is sitting right in front of everyone’s eyes, in plain view.” The cause that no one wants to look at, says Socci, is “a crisis of the loss of faith, of modernism and apostasy that has spread even to the leadership of the Church.” If we are willing to look at what is right in front of us, says Socci, and meticulously analyze the facts and connect them – not as we might wish them to be but as they are, a Church that has “closed its eyes” will begin to see a way out of the crisis that engulfs her.  Socci, a veteran Italian journalist who has already delved into the mystery behind the story of the secrets of Fatima with The Fourth Secret of Fatima and the subterfuge surrounding the 2013 conclave with Non è Francesco, again delivers a highly-detailed investigation of a topic of extreme interest for the Church in the midst of the present unprecedented crisis, inviting his readers to a more deeply spiritual reflection on “the signs of the times.”

9781621384588_cov.inddThe most obvious “sign”, and the central focus of the book’s investigation, is the fact of the enduring presence of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the heart of the Vatican and the Church. Since his resignation on February 28, 2013, “Joseph Ratzinger has remained in the ‘enclosure of Peter’ [the Vatican], still signs his name Benedict XVI, still calls himself ‘pope emeritus,’ still uses the papal heraldic insignia and continues to dress as pope” (p. 62). In contrast to past popes who resigned, Benedict has not chosen to leave the Vatican or to return to the state of a cardinal or bishop. Rather, he has done something unexpected (above and beyond the extraordinarily unexpected act of resignation), resigning without fully resigning, what Socci calls a “relative” resignation: “It is evident that, although he made a relative resignation of the papacy (but of what sort?), he has intended to remain as pope, although in an enigmatic way and in an unprecedented form, which has not been explained – at least not yet” (p. 61).

Stating the above facts will generate myriad reactions in the present ecclesiastical climate, which has clearly entered a new phase of volatility since the announcement on Sunday, January 12, 2020 of the publication of a new book co-authored by Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah defending the wisdom of the Church’s tradition of priestly celibacy. Some observers are convinced that Benedict ought to remain silent, while others express frustration that Benedict has not chosen to say more about the apostasy and confusion that the Bergoglian revolution promotes and encourages in any number of ways. But Socci takes a step back from the cacophony and invites his readers to reflect and contemplate: there is something unprecedented and mysterious going on in the Church in which the Holy Spirit is at work, something which nobody yet fully understands, and which calls for silence, intercession, and prayer as a more effective response to the battle going on in the Church and the world rather than raised voices and critical judgment. The first one giving the example of such a prayerful response is Benedict XVI himself, who has freely chosen (perhaps directed to do so, Socci wonders, by God himself?) to respond to the crisis by offering himself in intercessory prayer for the Church and for the world.

The Origin of the Drama

In Part One of The Secret of Benedict XVI, “The Mystical, Economic, and Political Origin of the Drama,” Socci meticulously documents the facts of the present situation in the Church, in which he observes that, since 2005, there have de facto been two parties struggling for control, those favoring Ratzinger and those favoring Bergoglio. These two parties may be broadly defined as those favoring a revolution in the Church (the party of Bergoglio) and those who oppose such a revolution by calling for fidelity to the Tradition of the Church (the party of Ratzinger). Far from being limited to an intra-Church struggle, Socci observes that there is a movement of “neo-capitalist globalization which is ideologically anti-Catholic” seeking to dominate the entire world, and that it is this anti-Catholic ideological movement which has actively worked to undermine the Church from within by seeking and obtaining the ascendance of Jorge Bergoglio to the papal throne. This “politically correct” secularist ideology, says Socci, was imposed on the world at a new level under “the presidency of Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton”, seeking “the planetary hegemony of the United States and of financial globalization,” and one of the greatest obstacles to this world-wide agenda was the pontificate of Benedict XVI (p. 10). Benedict, who had worked for decades as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith resisting the advance of Modernism within the Catholic Church, became as pope “a huge sign of contradiction with respect to the cultural mainstream, the media, and the designs of worldly powers who were aiming at a true and proper ‘normalization’ of the Catholic Church by means of what they called an ‘opening to modernity,’ that is, a Protestantization, that would sweep away the Church’s fundamental distinguishing marks” (p. 12). Socci maintains that Benedict was aware of the enormity of this global and ecclesial struggle from the moment of his election, and he sought to help the Christian people become aware of it by placing these extraordinary and surprising words in the midst of his homily at his solemn enthronement as Pope on April 24, 2005: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves” (p. 14).

Socci advances the thesis that these wolves were and are far more than hostile elements within the Church, but also include geo-political elements seeking the political ascendance of Islam and also the marginalization of Russia. Benedict got in the way of both of these agendas because of his willingness to challenge Islam to embrace a dialogue based on reason that would cause it to renounce violence (recall his 2006 Regensburg speech) and also his ecumenical overtures to the Russian Orthodox Church. The “wolves” of globalization sought to stir up a revolution within the Church analogous to that of the “Arab spring” in the Muslim world. Just as the United States government actively sought regime change in other nations to advance its political agenda, so the Obama/Clinton alliance worked in coordination with financier George Soros to seek to “change the priorities of the Catholic Church.” Socci also documents other elements which sought the election of Bergoglio as pope, who upon his election as Pope Francis embraced an agenda fully in accord with the secularist agenda of Obama/United Nations globalization: “catastrophic environmentalism (with pollution and global warming replacing the notions of sin and original sin), ideological immigrationism (replacing the new commandment), the embrace of Islam and pro-Protestant ecumenism, the obscuring of doctrine and the attack on the sacraments, the abandonment of non-negotiable principles, and a ‘merciful’ opening to new sexual practices and new forms of ‘marital’ union” (p. 56). It would be difficult to find a more succinct summary and explanation of the agenda of the Francis pontificate than this list given by Socci, complete with geo-political context.

The Review continues below

unnamed1

The Mystery and Paradox of the “Pope Emeritus”

Part Two of Il Segreto is called “That Which Is Not Understood: Benedict Is Pope Forever.” Socci introduces the section with a quotation from the Italian author Gianni Baget Bozzo’s 2001 book L’Anticristo: “The history of the Church is full of states of exception” (p. 58), along with a quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Ephesians which Benedict XVI used in his preface to Cardinal Robert Sarah’s 2017 book The Power of Silence: “It is better to remain in silence and be, than to speak and not be” (p. 59). It is evident that Socci finds these words to correspond, respectively, to Benedict and Francis.

Socci analyzes in great detail Benedict’s various statements prior to his resignation in February 2013 and notes that Benedict clearly “with full liberty” intended that there would be “a conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff,” and yet simultaneously declared, “I wish also to serve devotedly the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer” (p. 68). He further specified on February 27, 2013, that his “yes” in accepting his election as pope was and is irrevocable: “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” Benedict also declared: “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty” (p. 79). What is this novelty? According to the canonist Stefano Violi, whom Socci cites, it is “the limited resignation of the active exercise of the munus” of the Roman Pontiff (p. 82). This entirely new action by Benedict – which makes his pontificate, in the controversial words of Archbishop Georg Gänswein, a “pontificate of exception” – was necessitated by the emergence of an entirely new situation in the life of the Church. The present crisis – unprecedented in all of Church history – has called for an unprecedented response. Benedict’s “choice to become ‘pope emeritus’ represents something enormous and contains a ‘secret’ of colossal importance for the Church” (p. 85). There is clearly, in Socci’s analysis, something which Pope Benedict is holding back and not saying, “a true and personal call from God,” “a mystery the pope is guarding – that cannot be revealed, at least for now (p. 101). Socci proposes that this “secret of Benedict XVI” is “exquisitely spiritual,” rooted in wisdom “according to God” which the present world – and also the present Church – cannot understand.

Socci observes the many ways that Benedict’s present life and witness is bearing great fruit for the Church during the “Bergoglian epoch.” First and foremost are the rich texts of his papal Magisterium, which remain a guiding light for the Church because they are in union with the unbroken Tradition of the perennial Magisterium (the appearance of the new book, From The Depths Of Our Hearts, only underscores Socci’s point). There is also of course his unceasing prayer for the Church offered within the “enclosure of Peter.” But Socci further avers that Benedict’s restrained silence has done far more to prevent the Bergoglian Revolution from doing all that it would like to than most people yet realize. Socci likens Benedict to the figure of Christ silent before Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, saying that “the same silent presence…has averted the most serious doctrinal rifts” from taking place within the Church, because as long as Benedict is alive the Bergoglian revolutionaries know that one word of condemnation from the Pope Emeritus could de-legitimize Francis in the eyes of much of the Church (p. 116). Benedict has chosen, not to abandon the flock to the wolves, but rather to resist the wolves with the logic of the Gospel, with “the weakness of God” that is “stronger than human strength” (1 Cor 1:25), aware that this is an historical moment when, as he observed at Fatima in 2010, “the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church” (p. 128).

The Connection to Fatima

Socci concludes his work with Part Three entitled “Fatima and the Last Pope.” He draws on his prior extensive study of the message of Fatima, seeing it as a key to understanding the present moment in the Church, and reminding his readers that the message of Fatima emphasized the strong link between the intercession of the Mother of God and the protection of the pope. At the center of the vision of Fatima there are two persons: “the ‘bishop dressed in white’ and an old pope,” and Socci ponders whether perhaps this vision could refer to the present situation, noting that on May 21, 2017, while visiting Fatima, Pope Francis called himself “the bishop dressed in white.” Socci sees in Benedict a figure similar to the pope in the children’s vision: “half trembling, with halting steps, afflicted with suffering and pain crossing a great city half in ruins” (p. 141). Socci undertakes a detailed examination of overlooked words of the children of Fatima, stating that the Blessed Virgin told them that if humanity did not do penance and convert, “the world will end” (p. 152). Sister Lucia declared in an interview in 1957 that “Russia will be the instrument chosen by God to punish the entire world, if we do not first obtain the conversion of that disgraced nation” (p. 155). Implicit in Socci’s analysis and reflection is the sense that the outcome of the present crisis is of the utmost importance for the fate, not only of the entire Church, but also of the entire world.

Socci’s final observation is that the medieval “Prophecy of Malachy,” which proposed to give a mysterious title to each future pope, ends with Benedict XVI.  After this pope it mysteriously says that there follows “the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church” and the figure of “Peter the Roman”. When asked in 2016 whether this prophecy could mean that he is “the last one to represent the figure of the pope as we have known him up until now,” Benedict mysteriously replied, “Everything is possible [Tutto puo’ essere].” Further asked if this would mean that he would be seen as the last pope of the old world or the first pope of the new world, Benedict replied, “I would say both. I don’t belong to the old world any more, but the new world isn’t really here yet” (p. 166). Socci understands these astonishing comments to mean that both the world and the Church is on the cusp of epochal upheavals, inviting his readers to further reflection on the various prophecies in Scripture of the destruction of the Temple and on paragraphs 675-677 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the final trial of the Church.

Socci writes with an engaging and dramatic style, inviting the reader to understand that something far greater than has yet been understood is at work in the life of the Church and in human history. He offers a thoughtful proposal, and an invitation to pray and reflect and ponder, not certainty or legal explanations. This book, with its meticulous journalistic analysis and spiritual reflection, offers hope to a discouraged Church and an invitation to prayerfully believe that perhaps more good is at work in a hidden way than the obvious evil which currently is so active within both the Church and on the global stage. Socci offers his work as a gift of love for the Church, broken and battered, to reflect upon and ponder. “It is not power which redeems,” said Pope Benedict in his inaugural address, ‘but love.” It is this same love which Socci says Benedict is daily offering to the Church by his unprecedented and heroic, albeit widely misunderstood witness: “He is the great sentinel of God of our time. It is he who has raised a great wall of defense for all of us in the time of the mysterium iniquitatis” (p. 147).

Lies and deception got us into this mess. The truth of the facts will get us out

May this book inspire many to pray ever more incessantly and fervently for and with our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still The Pope? (Angelico Press, 2019).

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Benedict-XVI-Still-Pope/dp/1621384586

(The title was changed from the original Italian “Why He Is Still Pope”)

Follow Giuseppe Pellegrino on Twitter @pellegrino2020

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Has Michael Voris joined the PPBXVI Movement?

FromRome.Info cannot refrain from printing this BREAKING News on Catholic Social Media: Michael Voris appears to have crossed the lines of the Bergoglian controlled narrative and indicated that it is legitimate to question the validity of Pope Benedict’s Renunciation!

Those Catholics who follow Canon Law and thus continue to hold Pope Benedict XVI as the only true pope — his resignation being canonically null and void — are members of what FromRome.Info calls the PPBXVI Movement, of which we are proud members ourselves.

Michael Voris crossed over no-man’s land on January 18, 2020, when Church Militant, his Flagship Video News Agency, published an English translation of an interview with the renowned Italian controversialist, Antonio Socci — without editing out his comments. That interview was entitled in English, Interview with Antonio Socci: ‘We are seeing the leaders of the Church work against Her.’

In that interview, which merits to be read in its entirety, Socci responds to Aldo Maria Valli’s question on Pope Benedict:

There is one question that is very close to your heart and that you have studied thoroughly: the resignation of Benedict XVI. Why did Ratzinger step aside? Is it possible that he did not have any idea what would happen next? Or did he know very well and desire that certain processes already underway would reach extreme consequences in order to better oppose them?

Also in this case, no one can pretend to know the personal thoughts of Benedict XVI. Certainly Pope Bergoglio was not elected by him, but by a College of Cardinals that clearly had no knowledge of the candidate during a conclave and pre-conclave of which there are many details that still need to be clarified.

But, as far as what concerns the resignation and his choice to be “Pope Emeritus,” I believe that, based on the documents in hand, it is now clear that Benedict XVI did not intend to resign — or totally resign — the Petrine munus.

As Archbishop Ganswein explained in his famous conference at the Gregorian University:

 

Both before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task to be a participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He left the papal throne, and yet, with the step taken on February 11, 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry at all.

 

There is another passage from Archbishop Ganswein that I would like to highlight:

He has not abandoned the office of Peter, a thing which would be completely impossible for him following his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.

 

To me, these seem to be explosive words (and they have never been denied by Pope Benedict). The closest collaborator of Benedict XVI explains to us that for Joseph Ratzinger “the acceptance of the office” of Peter is “irrevocable” and to abandon it is “totally impossible.” Although the Vatican continues to pretend that everything is clear, we the Christian people are allowed to ask questions about what really happened in February 2013 and what is the place of Benedict XVI in the Church today.

Significance of Socci’s remarks

If Benedict did not renounce the petrine munus, as canon 332 §2 says, then he is still the Pope, because that canon requires the renunciation of the munus for a papal resignation!

While this affirmation is not news for Antonio Socci — he has written several books on the Renunciation — it is news for Church Militant to allow such a view to be published on their website.

This remarkable step for Voris is even more newsworthy, when you recall that not so long ago Voris was rumored on social media to have said that Cardinal Burke was insisting that he not criticize Pope Francis. But the Cardinal said in October that those who doubt Francis is the pope are extremists. It seems then, that Voris has realized that Cardinal Burke is no longer an infallible authority on reality, and that common sense and fidelity to the truth require a re-assessment of the historical facts.

It also means that, in just 1 week, the Catholic world has seen two notable Catholic journalists move out of the camp of “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” and into or towards the Catholic Fold, which says, “A doubtfully resigned pope, is still the true pope, whether he thinks so or not.” By two, I mean Michael Voris and Diane Montagna. If you count Aldo Maria Valli, the confidant of Archbishop Viganò, the implications are even more newsworthy.

Viganò caused tongues to wag in Italy, when in his recent denunciation of Archbishop Gänswein, in the pages of La Verità, he called Benedict XVI both “pope” and “supreme pontiff”, titles which Bergoglians are fierce to insist belong to Bergoglio alone. That intervention of Viganò was published in full, in English translation, by FromRome.Info.

For everything on the PPBXVI Movement’s canonical position on the Renunciation, see ppbxvi.org.

_______

CREDITS: The featured image is a screenshot of the page from Church Militant which features the translation of Valli’s interview of Antonio Socci. The citations from the interview are take verbatim from the same page, as per fair use practice. FromRome.info, however, has corrected the lack of Bold Facing in Valli’s question to Socci.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Antonio Socci: The Furor of the Despot Against the Catholic Pope

 

by Antonio Socci

January 14, 2020

Authorized Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino
Italian Original on Facebook

Reliable sources from inside the Vatican reconstruct the whole affair in this way. The book “Des profondeurs de nos coeurs” is clearly written by Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah (as is indisputably demonstrated by the letters the two exchanged last fall made known by Sarah [on his Twitter account].) Everything was decided and agreed upon together from the beginning.

The other day – when the excerpt in defense of celibacy was issued [in Le Figaro] – the end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious. Such an authoritative pronouncement from Benedict XVI prevents him from smashing priestly celibacy, as had been his intention to do in the forthcoming Post-Synodal Exhortation.

And so BERGOGLIO PERSONALLY called Archbishop Gänswein, who is personal secretary to Benedict XVI but also Prefect of the Papal Household of Bergoglio and – furious – he ORDERED him take the name of Benedict XVI off the cover of the book (since he could not demand that the text of the book be changed).

Bergoglio demanded a complete and total disavowal. For this reason the first news that filtered through spoke of sources “close to Benedict XVI” saying that Benedict had not co-authored the book with Sarah, had not approved the cover (which said that he is the author of the work).

This however was not true and Benedict XVI could not accept saying something false, thereby implicitly accusing Cardinal Sarah of having involved him without his consent. Nor did Pope Benedict have any intention of taking back what he had written in defense of celibacy in the book.

Cardinal Sarah immediately revealed the letters the two had exchanged, which demonstrated that the book was planned by both of them, and certainly Sarah revealed these letters with the consent of Benedict XVI – in order to re-establish the truth.

On the other hand, Benedict also needed to shelter his secretary [Gänswein] from the South American “vendettas” since Gänswein had received a peremptory order from Bergoglio.

Thus a compromise solution was adopted: in the successive editions of the book the author of the book will be Cardinal Sarah “WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF BENEDICT XVI.” The text of the book in any case remains the same.

With this messy solution the Bergoglian courtiers can tell the media that “Benedict XVI has removed his signature from the book” (even though this is not true) and yet the book remains as it was, with the signature of Sarah and the name of Benedict XVI as the author of the parts written together.

A most ugly story of clerical bullying that in the end led to the gagging of Benedict XVI.

THERE IS STILL THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: IF BERGOGLIO, IN HIS EXHORTATION, STRIKES AT CELIBACY (BY PERMITTING THE ORDINATION OF “VIRI PROBATI”) HE PLACES HIMSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH RESTATED IN THESE DAYS BY POPE BENEDICT XVI. THUS HE ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SERIOUS RIFT OF THE CHURCH FRAUGHT WITH CONSEQUENCES.

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

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 encuentraBenedicto 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.

The Bergoglio Effect in Ireland: “The Mass has ended”

by Antonio Socci, unofficial English translation by the From Rome blog.

duomo-1000x600

That Ireland, ancient fortress of Catholicism, has gone over to the people of “gay” marriage (“and who am I to judge”, as the Bishop of Rome is want to say), is a historical event.  If this sounds like the profound rumble of an avalanche, as in the collapse of a mountain falling down, it is just to ask, “Is this an Bergoglio effect?”

Besides, in South America, the Church has already been crumbling for years (the statistics are horrible); now in Europe, the heart of Christendom.

That which renders secularism dominant — as Cardinal De Lubac used to say — is the propulsion and instrumentalization of “a Christianity ever more in the minority, reduced to a vague and impotent theism.”

Barack and his Puppets

Today, only such a theism is permitted.  Instead, the Catholic Church as She has been known upto now is threatened even as regards Her existence.

There is only place for a ridiculous laicized parody of Herself, as the humanitarian “courtesan” (as Andrea Emo would have it), as an “agency for religion” which on the great life issues submits herself to the dictates of Obama-like ideology, which renounces proselytism and the “Catholic God” (as Bergoglio says, “There exists no Catholic God”), which dissolves herself into an ecumenical freemasonry of so many religions, which busies herself with the climate and the recycling of garbage, teaching good manners (Good Morning! Good Evening! Thank you! and Pardon me!) and goofy-pleas for the help of the poor.  But for the true Catholic Church, there is no longer any seat at the table, as the drama of the last great pope, Benedict XVI shows, “fired”, self-incarcerated and silenced.

The True Church

The Church has illumined and conquered the darkness of the world of the gods and has rehabilitated the history of a pagan and anti-human age:  the Church of the Word of God made Flesh, who has the presumptuousness to announce the Truth, the Church of the great Saints, of the Martyrs, of the Missionaries, the Church of the Divine Liturgy and of the masterpieces of Art, the Church of Mother Teresa, of great ideas, of great popes, of Padre Pio, with Her outbursts of the supernatural, the Church which has held Herself firm head-to-head with the ferocity of the Mohammedan and the great genocidal totalitarianisms of the 20th Century: this Church, today, no longer has the rights of citizenship.

Yesterday, Msgr. Galantino (Secretary of the Italian Bishops’ Conference) — according to a tweet from Alberto Mingardi — seems to have said at a conference:  “When the  Church was Catholic and the Mass was in Latin …”.

A Freudian slip which is explosive and revealing.  In fact, today, we are in the midst of the last act of the “liquidation of the Catholic Church,” as Giuseppe Prezzolini foretold, a layman but concerned with the abyss to which the Catholic world was running, anxious as it was to be “modernized” and to surrender to all the ideological fashions of the moment.

But, to liquidate the Church, it is not the persecutions, nor the hatred of the secularist, but — as Paul VI said — it’s the “self-demolition” from within which is the cause.

The way to the abyss was undertaken not with the Council — as certain lefebrvians think — but at its end, exactly 50 years ago, with the “post-Conciliar” age.

In the days following, in the newspapers, one was reminded of the 5oth anniversary of the first Mass in Italian, and another layman like Elémire Zolla, in those days, came to underline the event in apocalyptic tones:  “The 7th of March, the Mass dies, Gregorian chant dies.  Heard for the last time.  Now, as a dry branch, the Church shall be burnt.”

In reality, the problem was not only the use of the vulgar language in the liturgy (a thing, which I think is  positive), but the successive “liturgical reform” of 1969 and above all the de facto, but illegal, banning of the Mass of the preceding millennia of Catholic liturgy.

Joseph Ratzinger made us understand, many years afterwards, the enormous error, even theological, which was committed at that time.  Which would have colossal consequences, even in the tragic loss of faith.

To Save the Cathedral

But, curiously, in those days, the ones to raise the alarm, in a dramatic manner, for this Church which in an instant has refused its own bimillenarian rite (that around which our Cathedrals were constructed), were above all the laymen-intellectuals.

Who protested with the same consternation with which we contemplate, today, the tragic devastation wrought by Isis in the ancient Middle-East.

On September 5, 1966, there was issued the first appeal to Paul VI to safe-guard the Latin-Gregorian liturgy (a few months before the devastating flood which struck the ancient, Catholic beauty of Florence).

That manifesto/appeal was signed by some 40 great intellectuals and it is impressive, today, to read some of their names: Jorge Luis Borges, Salvatore Quasimodo, Eugenio Montale, Giorgio De Chirico, Robert Bresson, Jacques Maritain, François Mauriac, Gabriel Marcel, Maria Zambrano, Cristina Campo, Elena Croce, Wystan Hugh Auden, Jorge Guillen, Elémire Zolla, Philip Toynbee, Evelyn Waugh, Salvador De Madariaga, Carl Theodor Dreyer, Julien Green, Elsa  Respighi, Francesco Gabrieli, José Bergamin, Fedele D’Amico, Luigi Dallapiccola, Victoria Ocampo, Wally Toscanini, Gertrud von Le Fort, Augusto Del Noce, Lanza Del Vasto.

The appeal made a great impression, even in the Vatican, but di not succeed in stopping the landslide.  Thus, in 1971, another was made, and the number of intellectuals who added their names was even more.

I remember some of their names: Agatha Christie, Graham Greene, Harold Acton, Mario Luzi, Andrés Segovia, William Rees-Mogg (the director of the Times), Joan Sutherland, Guido Piovene, Giorgio Bassani, Adolfo Bioy Casares, Ettore Paratore, Gianfranco Contini, Giacomo Devoto, Giovanni Macchia, Massimo Pallottino, Rivers Scott, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Colin Davis, Robert Graves, Yehudi Menuhin, Kenneth Clark, Malcolm Muggeridge.

Self-Demolition

It was for the most part, useless, but little by little the same Paul VI became aware of the tragedy which was in course:  the collapse of religious practice, the thousands of priests and religious who abandoned the habit, the catholic intellectuals who submitted to marxism, the great part of the youth seduced by the myths of the revolution (by Fidel Castro, by Mao, by the Vietcong, by Che Guevara, and last by Stalin), the spread of the Theology of liberation and of the modernist theologies which demolished Catholic Doctrine.

Paul VI, in his last years, spoke in ever increasing dramatic tones:  “We believed that after the Council there would have come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church.  There came, instead, a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness”, “from somewhere the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God”, “the opening to the world was a true invasion of worldly thought in the Church … We we have been, perhaps, too weak and imprudent.”

Paul VI denounced “those who try to knock the Church down from within” and he began to cite the books of Louis Bouyer, “The Decomposition of Catholicism” and “Religieux et Clercs contre Dieu.”

To his friend Jean Guitton, he confided:  “There is a great turmoil in this moment in the world and in the Church, and what is in question is the faith.  I find myself, now, repeating the obscure phrase of Jesus in the Gospel of Saint Luke:  “When the Son of man returns, shall He still find faith upon earth?”  What strikes me when I consider the catholic world,” the Pope continued, “is that inside Catholicism there seems to sometimes prevail a mentality of the non-catholic type, and it might happen that this non-catholic thought within Catholicism becomes stronger tomorrow.  But it shall never represent the thought of the Church.”

Then, thanks be to God, there arrived John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger.  The Barque of Peter was tirelessly repaired, the compass of the Faith found its way and a generation of young people experienced anew the beauty of Christianity.

But this was the spring which was bitten by some sort of powerful and obscure frost, which for the first time in the history of the Church, placed before us the drama of a “Pope emeritus” self-imprisoned in the Vatican and of a “bishop dressed in white” which was acclaimed by all the eternal enemies of the Catholic Faith, who has brought the Church into a submission with the worldly ideologies of the 70’s (having even re-exhumed the theology of liberation and its founder Gutierrez, which now pontificates from the Vatican).

We seem to have reached the final abyss.  Unless God….

(Published in the Libero, May 24, 2015:  this English translation is currently unapproved, but if the author gives us some corrections, it will be amended in the next few days.  — The translator, while not agreeing with all of the authors judgements, nevertheless believes that the article poses significant contributions to Catholic thought for the present hour).

 

Sandro Magister speaks about the invalidity of the 2013 Conclave

La traduzione italiana segue

First, an excerpt from our Chronology of reports regarding “Team Bergoglio”

January 5, 2015:  Espresso Online, publishes Sandro Magister’s, He is Pope. Elected by All the rules, which contains as an addendum citations from an study by a canonist Geraldina Boni, in which the thesis of Antonio Socci is rebutted, incompletely (full text of Boni in Italian is published simultaneously here); since, Socci says rightly that no more than 4 ballots can be made in 1 day, but Boni states that if 1 ballot was nullified on account of there being 1 extra blank vote-ballot (UDG 68), then no violation of the rules (UDG 63) took place, which is to merely counter’s Socci’s assertion with an assertion.  The article also makes passing comment regarding “Team Bergoglio” but ignores any substantive consideration of UDG 81.  That Sandro Magister considers the arguments regarding the invalidity of Cardinal Bergoglio’s election worthy of rebuttal is astounding of itself.

Our Critique

As for Sandro Magister’s argument, set forth in his article at Espresso Online, it is worth no more than Boni’s argument.

But, Geraldina Boni’s argument fails in this, that she builds her argument upon the assertion that the re-do of the votation on account of an extra-ballot is of itself not a violation of UDG 63, which specifies that 4 ballots a-day are alone permitted.  She fails to recognize that in the fulfillment of every section of UDG, no violation of UDG 63 can be made or excused.  It is preposterous to assert what she asserts, because on account of what is said in the text of UDG’s Promulgation, at its very end, there is declared null and void anything and everything done contrary to the terms set forth in the papal law.

The authentic dispute regards the meanding of the Latin text in UDG 68, in which the Latin text reads:

Quodsi schedularum numerus non respondet numero electorum, omnes comburendae sunt, et iterum, id est altera vice, ad suffragia ferenda procedatur; si vero schedularum numerus numero electorum respondet, subsequitur publicatio scrutinii, quae hoc modo fit.

Our unofficial English translation is as follows:

Wherefore, if the number of vote-ballots does not correspond to the number of electors, all are to be completely burnt, and one is to proceed to take, again, that is, another time, the ballots; but if the number of vote-ballots corresponds with the number of electors, there follows the publication of the count, which is to be done in this manner:

Because in Latin, the phrase means that there follows another vote, which is not made on the basis of the first one being considered as if it was never done, as Boni holds (tamquam non esset), but as the second of two, for in Latin “another” can be signified in 2 manners: with the word, alia, and then one means another without relation to the first; and altera, which is always said in relation to the first, in the sense of something to be counted as a second.  The Latin text, lacking the specification that Boni would have it contain (the “tamquam non esset”, i. e., as if the first never took place), must be read in the strict sense of a redo, and thus another scrutiny.

That Socci’s argument is more probable can be seen from the text of UGD 63, 64, and 65, where a scrutiny is defined precisely as the entire process of voting (suffragia ferenda), sorting, counting, publishing.  That there are only 4 of these suffragia, means that when it says in UDG 68 that one is to proceed to taking the suffragium again, that the suffragium is to be counted as one of the 4 allowed.  This argument of Socci is more probable; that of Boni appears based on the meaning of the Italian word, “altra”, which does not have the precision of the Latin, “altera”.

However, that the contrary of Socci’s argument seems probable, is from the plural used in the same phrase, ad suffragia ferenda (one proceeds take the ballots, suffragia), because the Latin could have said, ad alterum sive alium suffragium ferendum, that is, “to take a second or another ballot”, but it uses the plural, which at least in Cardinal Napier’s mind (see his Twitter feed), means the taking of the votes (suffragia), not an entire scrutiny (scrutinium).

The papal law itself, should, in our opinion, be corrected to read:  and within the same scrutiny, one is to proceed to another taking of the ballots, as if the erroneous balloting never was (et iterum infra idem scrutinium ad suffragia ferenda procedatur tanquam prima mendosa non illata sint).

===================================

La traduzione italiana, a cura di Antonio Marcantonio

===================================

Sandro Magister si esprime sulla nullità del conclave del 2013

Cominciamo con un estratto dalla nostra Cronologia dei reportage sul “Team Bergoglio”.

5 gennaio 2015: Espresso Online pubblica l’articolo di Sandro Magister È lui il Papa. Eletto in piena regola, che contiene in appendice la citazione di uno studio della canonista Geraldina Boni, in cui la tesi di Antonio Socci viene contestata in modo insoddisfacente (il testo completo della Boni in italiano è stato pubblicato contemporaneamente qui), dato che l’affermazione di Socci secondo la quale non si possono fare più di quattro scrutini al giorno è corretta. In realtà, affermando che – qualora uno scrutinio fosse stato annullato per via della presenza di una scheda bianca in sovrannumero (UDG 68) non si sarebbe verificata alcuna violazione delle regole (UDG 63) – la Boni non fa altro che contestare l’asserzione di Socci con un’altra asserzione. L’articolo fa anche dei vaghi riferimenti al “Team Bergoglio”, senza tuttavia dedicare una consistente attenzione al paragrafo 81 della UDG. Il fatto che Sandro Magister consideri degni di oppugnazione gli argomenti che sostengono la nullità dell’elezione del Cardinal Bergoglio è comunque in se stesso sorprendente.

La nostra critica

L’argomentazione espressa da Sandro Magister nel suo articolo su Espresso Online non è di maggior valore di quella della Boni.

L’argomentazione di Geraldina Boni non è valida perché si fonda sull’affermazione secondo la quale la ripetizione dello scrutinio dovuta a una scheda addizionale non sia in se stessa una violazione del paragrafo 63 della UDG, in cui si specifica che sono consentiti solo quattro scrutini al giorno. La canonista non ammette – come dovrebbe – che affinché si compia l’osservanza completa di tutte le sezioni della UDG, nessuna violazione della UDG 63 può essere fatta o giustificata. La sua affermazione non ha senso: in ragione di quanto è espresso nel testo della Promulgazione della UDG (nella parte finale del documento), si dichiara del tutto privo di valore tutto ciò che venga attentato contro i termini stabiliti dalla costituzione papale.

Il vero nucleo della disputa risiede nell’interpretazione del testo latino del paragrafo 68 della UDG, in cui si legge:

Quodsi schedularum numerus non respondet numero electorum, omnes comburendae sunt, et iterum, id est altera vice, ad suffragia ferenda procedatur; si vero schedularum numerus numero electorum respondet, subsequitur publicatio scrutinii, quae hoc modo fit.

La nostra traduzione non ufficiale è la seguente:

Pertanto, se il numero di schede non corrisponde al numero degli elettori, esse devono essere tutte bruciate, e bisogna procedere di nuovo, vale a dire, un’altra volta, alla raccolta dei voti: ma se il numero delle schede corrisponde al numero degli elettori, si procede alla pubblicazione del conteggio, che deve essere fatto in questa maniera.

Il significato della frase latina lascia ben intendere che la votazione che segue è una nuova votazione e non – come vorrebbe la Boni – una votazione fatta come se la precedente non fosse mai avvenuta (tamquam non esset). È evidente che si tratta della seconda di due votazioni, poiché in latino l’espressione “un’altra” si può esprimere in due modi: con il termine alia – che significa “un’altra” che non ha relazione con “la precedente” – o con altera, termine la cui accezione implica sempre una relazione con “la precedente” e che esprime l’idea di qualcosa che deve essere contato come secondo rispetto all’anteriore. Dato che nel testo latino manca la specificazione erroneamente menzionata dalla Boni (quel “tamquam non esset” che significherebbe “come se la prima non avesse avuto luogo”), esso deve essere letto nel suo significato corretto di una ripetizione, e pertanto di un’altra votazione.

Il fatto che l’argomentazione di Socci sia più cogente è dimostrato proprio dal testo dei paragrafi 63, 64 e 65 della UDG, in cui uno scrutinio viene definito con precisione come l’intero processo costituito da: voto (suffragia ferenda), mescolamento e conteggio delle schede, spoglio dei voti. Dato che solo quattro di questi suffragia sono consentiti, il dettame del paragrafo 68 della UDG secondo il quale bisogna procedere a una ripetizione del suffragium implica che il suffragium che viene ripetuto deve essere contato come uno dei quatto permessi. L’argomentazione di Socci è più attendibile; quella della Boni sembra basarsi sul significato della parola italiana “altra”, che non ha la stessa precisa accezione del latino “altera”.

L’apparente attendibilità della confutazione della tesi di Socci deriva dal plurale utilizzato nella stessa frase, ad suffragia ferenda (si procede alla raccolta dei voti, suffragia): il testo latino, infatti, avrebbe anche potuto dire ad alterum sive alium suffragium ferendum, vale a dire “fare una seconda o un’altra votazione”, ed usa invece il plurale, il che – per lo meno secondo l’interpretazione del Cardinal Napier (vedi il feed del suo profilo Twitter) – significherebbe solamente la raccolta dei voti (suffragia), non l’intero processo di scrutinio (scrutinium).

La norma papale in sé, a nostro avviso, dovrebbe essere corretta come segue: “e all’interno dello stesso scrutinio, si deve procedere a un’altra votazione, come se la votazione errata non si fosse mai svolta” (et iterum infra idem scrutinium ad suffragia ferenda procedatur tanquam prima mendosa non illata sint).[1]

____________

 [1] Con le ultime due frasi l’autore, da me consultato in proposito, non vuole di certo ritrattare quanto detto prima, bensì specificare che – qualora si vogliano in futuro evitare ulteriori dubbi sull’interpretazione – il testo in latino andrebbe a suo avviso formulato con più chiarezza. Eventuali perplessità in merito nascono dalla differenza tra la schiettezza dello stile discorsivo anglosassone e la ridondanza di quello italiano. – N.d.T.

 

==========================

In seguito, un’ anonima (Anna) ha pubblicato come commento al Blog, Chiesa e post Concilio, quest’analisi seguente

—————

La Boni scrive “Essendosi quindi applicato del tutto legittimamente il n. 68, tale quarta votazione dal punto di vista giuridico è incontestabilmente “tamquam non esset”, non andava quindi inclusa e computata fra quelle effettive, cioè giuridicamente valide e complete”.

Oltre alla obiezione fondata sul dato letterale del testo, che costituisce il primo criterio di interpretazione della norma (“..altera, termine la cui accezione implica sempre una relazione con “la precedente”….), potrebbe anche farsi riferimento alla ratio legis, cioè allo scopo che la norma intende raggiungere, l’interesse che tutela.

Se lo scopo del limite massimo di quattro votazioni al giorno è, come dice Socci (e non contestato dalla Boni), evitare un’elezione avventata, viziata da stress e stanchezza dei cardinali elettori, allora il numero da conteggiare per determinare il limite massimo giornaliero dovrebbe essere riferito alle votazioni, quali che siano, e non alle sole votazioni valide.

Le votazioni annullate, infatti, stressano allo stesso modo delle votazioni valide. La formula “tamquam non esset” certamente non è idonea a cancellare, con effetto retroattivo, la stanchezza degli elettori ed il tempo trascorso (cioè la votazione come fatto storico avvenuto), riferendosi piuttosto essa solo agli effetti giuridici e che un atto invalido è inidoneo a determinare.

Tra l’altro l’interpretazione proposta dalla Boni comporterebbe la improponibile conseguenza di consentire non solo cinque ma un numero indeterminato di votazioni nello stesso giorno, nel caso di ripetute violazioni delle norme elettorali, e dunque di ripetute votazioni” tamquam non esset”.

Va poi considerato che l’art. 63 prescrive un numero massimo di votazioni e non già di votazioni valide, quindi andrebbe ritenuta irrilevante la validità o meno della votazione al fine del conteggio del numero massimo di votazioni effettuabili in un giorno ( “Ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit).

Non mi pare convincente nemmeno la ritenuta applicabilità del n. 68 – che prevede che se durante il conteggio delle schede lo scrutatore incaricato verifica, prendendole in maniera visibile una ad una dall’urna, che il numero delle schede non corrisponde al numero degli elettori, bisogna bruciarle e procedere ad una seconda votazione – invece che il n. 69 – che sancisce che se nello spoglio dei voti gli scrutatori trovassero due schede piegate in modo da sembrare compilate da un solo elettore, se esse portano lo stesso nome vanno conteggiate per un solo voto, se invece portano due nomi diversi, nessuno dei due voti sarà valido, ma in nessuno dei due casi viene annullato lo scrutinio – al caso in questione, in cui “durante l’estrazione delle schede dall’urna per la conta, lo scrutatore che prende una scheda alla volta e la mostra a tutti, prima di deporla nell’altra urna si è accorto che una di queste ne conteneva un’altra, per errore un porporato aveva deposto due foglietti nell’urna, uno con il nome del suo prescelto e uno in bianco, che era rimasto attaccato al primo”. La Boni fonda infatti le sue conclusioni unicamente sul fatto che tale scheda doppia sarebbe stata rinvenuta nella fase di conteggio (disciplinata dall’art. 68) e non in quella dello spoglio (disciplinato dall’art. 69) e, benché il caso (due schede piegate) fosse identico a quello previsto in modo specifico dall’art. 69 quest’ultimo non sarebbe applicabile perché le norme andrebbero applicate come suonano e non interpretate.

Non convince perché quella che viene proposta come applicazione della norma è in realtà una interpretazione di essa, al pari di quella di Socci.

Il caso in questione infatti è anomalo e non risulta disciplinato da nessuna delle due norme.

L’art. 68 disciplina il caso in cui il numero delle schede al momento del conteggio siano di numero diverso dal numero degli elettori, cioè, poiché , le schede sono introdotte nell’urna ripiegate e non vengono aperte al momento del conteggio, riguarda il numero dei “pieghi” introdotti nell’urna , mentre la seconda norma riguarda l’ipotesi di “pieghi” di numero uguale agli elettori (e infatti solo in questo caso si procede allo spoglio), che, una volta aperti, in uno o più casi, presentino “due schede piegate in modo da sembrare compilate da un soloelettore” .

Nel caso in questione un piego invece che essere conteggiato come tale è stato aperto e conteggiato due volte perché contenete due schede attaccate. Si tratta dunque di una ipotesi a cavallo tra le due norme, le quali vanno pertanto interpretate per stabilire quale delle due applicare ed in particolare se sia prevalente l’elemento della fase (conteggio invece che spoglio) o l’elemento dell’oggetto (non già numero di pieghi diverso dal numero degli elettori bensì due schede piegate in modo da sembrare compilate da un solo elettore.

La Boni ritiene di che non ci sia nulla da interpretare e dunque non spiega per quale ragione prevarrebbe il dato della fase rispetto a quello dell’oggetto. Socci invece argomenta, prevedendo peraltro l’obiezione mossagli, e tali argomentazioni non sembrano infondate.

In sostanza Socci ritiene che gli artt. 68 e 69 assumano come criterio di giudizio non il “quando” si è trovata la scheda in più ma il “come”. Diversamente i due articoli darebbero due soluzioni opposte al medesimo problema (una scheda in più) e sarebbero in totale contraddizione.

Inoltre le due norme intenderebbero al contempo impedire che un elettore possa votare due volte e salvaguardare il più possibile la validità della votazione, impedendo eventuali azioni di sabotaggio.

L’annullamento della votazione in caso di pieghi in più sarebbe necessario perché non potrebbe risalirsi alla coppia di schede gemelle cioè al singolo cardinale che avrebbe votato due volte, mentre tale soluzione drastica non occorrerebbe ove si trovassero le due schede fossero trovate piegate insieme, nel modo anzidetto. In questo caso l’art. 69 prevede infatti che se il voto è identico si conteggia una sola volta mentre se è diverso si annulla il voto, ma mai si annulla la votazione.

Antonio Socci speaks on “Team Bergoglio” scandal

Antonio Socci
Antonio Socci

Rome — Dec. 21, 2014:  Antonio Socci, noted Italian journalist and author of the book, Non è Francesco (a best-seller in Italy, which details the events and facts which he believes invalidate the renunciation made by Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Cardinal Bergoglio), spoke about the “Team Bergoglio” scandal in an editorial published today in the Italian newspaper, Libero (republished on his FaceBook page; reprinted on his blog, Lo Straniero, i. e. The Outsider).

Here is our unofficial English translation of the first part of that blog-post, entitled, Abbattere tutti i muri? Va bene, Papa Bergoglio, cominciamo a spazzar via il “Muro di Silenzio” della Sistina, facendo emergere la verità sul Conclave….  A full translation in the German Language is available from Kirche & Realitat!

_ _ _

Tearing down walls? Ok, Pope Bergoglio: let’s begin to do away with the “Wall of Silence” in the Sistine Chapel, to reveal the truth of the Conclave

Dec. 21:  It was Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, thirty years ago, who proposed the abolition of the secrecy of the Conclave, by which the Cardinal-princes are obliged under oath regarding the election which takes place in the Sistine Chapel.  He proposed this because that norm — far from standing guard over the sacred — risked (and risks) becoming a cover for profane things (the Cardinal adjoined, then, in the ’80’s, that one should pray very much for the Conclaves of the future so that no external influence of any sect might intervene therein).

It is paradoxical that a proposal so innovative and democratic would be advanced by a prelate who was considered to be the leader of the “Conservatives”.  And that in the 30 years since no prelate, considered to be “progressive”, has taken it up and made it his own.

TRANSPARENCY

Today, if Pope Bergoglio were to take it up, that is, abolish the secrecy, he’d have the ability to demonstrate with deeds how much he is truly desirous of transparency and openness in the life of the Church, by liberating Her from obsolete prohibitions.

Will the Pope who has come to be hailed as “revolutionary”, be less an innovator than a “conservative” Cardinal? Will he wish to bolster the “wall of the Sistine Chapel”, after having asked the entire world to tear down all walls (in Cuba and elsewhere)?

Besides, Pope Bergoglio is sounding out every day against those modern “scribes and pharisees” who want to mummify all the old rules and old laws and prohibitions, by opposing change, transparency and openness to the world.

Let’s see if his words are followed with deeds, at least in regard to these norms which are entirely capable of modification, because they are ecclesiastical laws (while not even a Pope could modify the matters discussed in the recent Synod, because they pertain to the Word of God; though they were put into discussion by the Modernist faction).

One feels particularly the necessity of knocking down this “Sistine wall” — and this with urgency — above all in regard to the Conclave of 2013, concerning which rumors and questions grow daily instead of passing away.

THE MYSTERY OF 2013

As the case, which has broken out in England, shows — and from there it has leaped to America and Italy — in regard to the revelations of Austen Ivereigh in his book, “The Great Reformer”.

The book, a biography about Bergoglio, in an entirely positive light as regards the Argentine pope, contains some lines which skin him alive.  One has to remember that Ivereigh is not the last man to arrive at the party, he was the spokesman for Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and has held positions of trust in Catholic Media in England.

He, thus, speaks of the existence of a “Team Bergoglio”, made up, precisely, of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor, Kasper, Danneels and Lehmann to promote the Argentine prelate to the papacy.  The work, which is to have begun after the renunciation of Benedict XVI, would have had the consent of Bergoglio himself.  A canonical case arises from this, because there are those who have sustained that all of this might put into doubt the validity of the election on March 13th.  There have followed polemics, precisions and denials which have co-involved even Fr. Lombardi, the Pope’s spokesman.

In my opinion, the facts cited in the book by the Englishman do not put into discussion, per se, the legitimacy of the election.

Nevertheless, they cause to be revealed that there is something of a battle which was engaged in behind the 5 ballots in the 2013 Conclave (from the renunciation of Benedict to the election of Bergoglio) and who were the protagonists of that.

But it makes one recall a similar controversy which broke out.  Perhaps this is only the tip of an iceberg? Are there any other secrets? Among the various rumors and speculations, for example, remains the as-of-yet unexplained delay of Pope Bergoglio’s salute from the Loggia of St. Peter’s.

———————–

In the other half of the essay (not translated here), Socci speaks of other anomalies in the 2013 Conclave and the non-reaction to his book.

Socci’s entire piece was republished by Libero’s blog, on Dec. 22, 2014.

For a complete Chronology of reports and videos regarding the “Team Bergoglio” scandal, see click here. That the allegations of Ivereigh are substantial and have grave canonical consequences has been explained here, here and here and here.