Tag Archives: Apostolic right

Canon Law, Editorials

5 Ways the next Papal Conclave may give us another AntiPope

4 Comments

A SUMMARY OF CANONICAL HORRORS AND MONSTROSITIES

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

With the news of Pope Francis’ health always declining further (see here, here, here, and here), with no less than the popular ex-FOX News host, Judge Napolitano, saying last spring that Pope Francis was moribund, the speculation and anxiety of Catholics the world-over is at an all time high, regarding the next Papal Conclave and its outcome.

The tradition of the Conclave arose in the 13th century, when Cardinals gathering to vote for the Pope, at Viterbo, refused to come to a mutual agreement and spent months on end in negotiations, to the dismay not only of the Catholic world, but of the Mayor of the City, who locked them up and put them on bread and water rations to hasten the outcome. But the rules limited the vote to Cardinals comes from the Papal Law, In Nomine Domini, of Pope Nicholas III, in 1059, when after generations of conflicts among the prominent noble families of central Italy and Rome, he chose to remove the right of election from the general assembly of all the Faithful of the Roman Church, and restrict it only to hand selected clergymen.

The anxiety of Catholics arises from the fact that of the more than 250 Cardinals, only 30 were nominated by Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI, and of those 30, there is strong evidence to show that 11 of them voted for Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the faux conclave of 2013, when they proceeded to elect a new pope even though the previous had not renounced the petrine munus. For more about that see, the Index to Pope Benedict XVI’s Renunciation and the Chronology of Reports on Team Bergoglio, which latter details the published evidence that a group of Cardinals conspired in violation of the papal law to canvass for votes. These two articles represent the most authoritative and complete collection of links and articles regarding the canonical debates on both topics; and they are read by nearly all the journalists writing on the topic, though they refuse to cite them as sources. So its worth your while to read them yourself, for 99% of the real news about the Catholic Church is never publicly reported.

Adding to this anxiety is that Pope Francis, having impeded the Apostolic See by a heretical profession when he signed ‘Fiducia supplicans’ in December of 2023, he has proceeded to name 21 new Cardinals, the majority of which have publicly professed the same heresy. These 21 Cardinals will be installed on December 8, 2024, at the Vatican in an official ceremony.

So there is frequent consternation and lamentation about the outcome of the next conclave, with many catholic writers throwing up their hands in despair, that the next Pope will even be a Catholic. For if he is not, then he cannot be the pope and will be an antipope.

The next Conclave is overshadowed by the gravest of doubts

While it is true that the laws of the Church allow any male celibate over the age of maturity to be elected the Roman Pontiff, it has been long time since a non-Cardinal was elected to the Apostolic Throne. In fact, it was Pope Urban VI in 1378, who was the last non-Cardinal so elected, and his election was shortly thereafter contested by the Frenchmen who were cardinals, who to the horror of the Catholic world proceeded to elect an antipope to rival him, and installed him at Avignon, thus beginning the Great Schism in the West, which would last until 1415 A. D..

So while it is still possible for the College of Cardinals to elect a non-Cardinal, it is scarcely likely.

Which means there is a 90% chance that the next Pope will be a man made a Cardinal by Pope Francis.

And that is the source of the anxiety. Because faithful Catholics who have been paying attention to the utterances of Jorge Mario Bergoglio are already convinced he is not a Catholic, even if they won’t openly call him a heretic.

And the heretical depravity of Pope Francis is so notorious, that clergy who publicly declare it are immediately punished with the most severe canonical procedures such as reduction to the lay-state or excommunication. There is no room for dissent in the heretical coven of Pope Francis.

Add to this the high level of doubt most Catholics have, that Pope Francis was never canonically elected, or even elected in a juridically valid manner — just to speak of those who still walk in opinions and have not examined the evidence and/or do not possess the intellectual formation necessary to discern any clear answer to such questions.

5 Ways the Next Conclave may give us another antipope

And for that reason, I would like to review in this article, the 5 ways the next Conclave may give us, not a successor of Saint Peter, but a destroyer of souls, a False Prophet, the Antichrist or simply an antipope.

1. What if the Conclave professes heresy before the election?

Conclaves never make public announcements before they elect a pope. Or at least that was the longstanding tradition until the faux conclave of 2013, where they interrupted their proceedings to issue a public condolence for the passing of the Marxist Dictator and murderous Tyrant of Venezuela, for no particular reason at all. Catholics upon hearing of this in March of 2013 shuddered, because the knew that it forebode the election of a corrupt marxist. And they were right.

So if the Conclave publicly endorse the acts of Pope Francis during his antipapacy or his heretical statements such as ‘Fiducia supplicans’ or his teaching in ‘Amoris laetitia’ which contradicted Apostolic Tradition, then Catholics will have the most sold canonical evidence that the Conclave has apostatized from the Catholic Faith and that the man they elect is an antipope and heretic himself, to be owned no obedience, submission or respect by the entire Catholic world — unless of course he immediately repudiates their public statement during the Conclave.

In the case of such a heretical profession by the College of Cardinals, Catholics from Rome, will have to again convene in general Assembly according to Apostolic Right and elect a true Successor of Saint Peter. I have explained this at length in numerous articles regarding the election of January 30, 2023. But in this case, they will have the right to do so, immediately with the heretical profession being publicized; that, is even while the Conclave remains in session and has no yet elected a candidate, since the public declaration by the College is sufficient canonical proof of apostasy, just as the one in 2013 was.

2. What if the Cardinals hold a conclave while Pope Francis is terminally incapacitated?

Next, since it is now a popular and current opinion among the supporters of Pope Francis, that a pope is impeded if he falls into a coma — so much so that they held a conference about the matter a few years ago — and that in such circumstances Vatican officials have the juridical capacity to judge that he has lost his office, it is highly likely that Pope Francis might still be alive when the next Conclave is convened.

In such a case, the election will be invalid, and the one elected another antipope. And the Catholics of Rome will have to await the death of Pope Francis, before they can exert their Apostolic Right to elect a valid successor.

3. What if the Cardinals hold a conclave after Pope Francis invalidly resigns?

Again, since those who support Pope Francis hold the erroneous opinion that a pope can abdicate by resigning the petrine ministerium, only, it could happen that they persuade Pope Francis to renounce like Pope Benedict XVI and thus fail to do so canonically, giving the appearance of a true abdication, but without any canonical validity to the act.

If they proceed into Conclave under such circumstances, the election will be invalid, and the one elected another antipope, just as happened in February-March 2013, with Pope Benedict XVI.

In such a case, again, the Catholics of Rome will have to await the death or valid resignation of Pope Francis, before they can exert their Apostolic Right to elect a valid successor.

4. What if the Cardinals hold a conclave to revolt against Pope Francis?

Again, since the obnoxiousness of Pope Francis is already at apocalyptic levels, it could happen that some, a majority or even all of the Cardinals eligible to vote, renounce Pope Francis and hold a conclave to elect a successor to Pope Benedict XVI or to Pope Francis.

In such a case, since Pope Francis was elected in a juridically valid manner by Apostolic Right on January 20, 2023 A. D., such a Conclave will result in another antipope being elected.

In such a case, again, the Catholics of Rome will have to await the death of Pope Francis, before they can exert their Apostolic Right to elect a valid successor, if no Cardinals convene at that time to elect one.

5. What if the Cardinals hold a conclave and elect someone ineligible to be the Pope?

Finally, to round out the possible nightmarish scenarios, what if the next Conclave, after Pope Francis’ death or valid abdication, would elect an hermaphrodite, or a transgendered or a woman or a trans-human, with AI implants? Or what if they elect an non-Catholic, such as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, or an Evangelical Preacher, or Bill Gates? or someone already canonically excommunicated? Or someone who is married to a woman or a man, civilly or not, or a siamese twin still connected to his twin brother etc..

In such a case the election would be invalid and the one elected another antipope, of the most monstrous kind. And the Catholics of Rome will have to exert their Apostolic Right to elect a valid successor, immediately upon knowing of the invalidity of the person elected.

+ + +

For more information about how the Faithful of Rome (all the baptized regardless of their station in life) have the right to elect a pope, when the College of Cardinals fails to do their duty, see here.

I have not considered the cases of unworthy men who could be elected, like a flagrant sodomite, pedophile, murderer, government agent, or even manifest but not-yet excommunicated Catholics who are manifest heretics etc.., because there is presently no law in the Church to prevent such men from being elected, strange to say and even more sadly to admit.

I have also not included the case, like that in 1378, in which part of the Cardinals after a valid election, enter into a second Conclave because they refuse the first. In addition, I have not included cases where there is such dissension among the Cardinals, that in the first Conclave they split into two groups and rush to announce the election of two popes nearly simultaneously or simultaneously, thus making it impossible to determine who is the valid pope or not.

Finally, I publish this now, so that, God Forbid!, if any one of these outcomes comes to pass, no one will be able to claim that I have invented rules to suit the circumstances; and so that all who side the the next antipope can be seen for what they really are.

News

Bishops who have shut down their Diocese have committed the crime of Schism, canon 1364

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I just watched Frank Walker’s News Commentary for March 18, 2020, and you should too: so I am embedding it in this article:

https://youtu.be/qs_Omn46FbM

Frank makes some superb theological comments about the treachery of the Bishops.

Canonical Consequences of shutting down churches and ending the Sacraments

Canon 1364 punishes with excommunication latae sententiae all Bishops who refuse communion with any part of the Church.

But the non-clerical members of the faithful in his diocese are part of the Church. Therefore, by denying the Sacraments to the faithful — during a non-existent plague and super-hyped influenza the mortality of which is far less than the normal winter flue —  the Bishops have committed the canonical crime of schism.

Therefore, they are excommunicated.  The priests who do the same thing, are also excommunicated.

I agree with the insight of Mr. Walker, which is so profound:  the Bishops who have shut down the church have shut down the Catholic Religion, and Why would they ever go back and undo what they did, since they never had a reason to do it in the first place?

Jules Gomes, writing at the Church Militant, in an article entitled, Starved of the Sacraments, makes an incisive observation about the Bishops’ treachery and Bergoglio’s promotion of it, when he writes:

… But the shutting down of churches and the televising of “virtual Masses” without access to the sacraments for the faithful lurks in a sinister manner as the precursor of a time “when there is no longer a community, with the atomized faithful closed in their homes or bent over their technological tools, with eucharistic adoration on YouTube and even confession via WhatsApp.”

Many will disagree with him. But I do not believe it is Christian to sit around waiting for them to restore the Sacraments. We should ask ourselves if such traitors to Christ and haters of the flock ever deserve to be taken back, if they do not repent.

Because the very name of the Church, as Church — ekklesia, in the Greek — means called together. If the Church can no longer come together to worship, the Church no longer exists. We are baptized into Christ as member of the Church. But if we can no longer get the sacraments, then we are the ones who have be ex-communicated.

I think you can see from how they handled the pedophile crisis, namely by ousting the true Pope who got rid of pedophiles and replacing him with a faker who promotes pedophiles and sodomites, that you should have enough evidence already to see that if the mythical plague is ever declared ended, that those who shut their churches will be promoted, not disciplined by these creeps.

Canon 1364 is the Magisterial Teaching of Pope John Paul II and the authentic perennial Magisterium of the Church: Schismatics are outside of the Church, they do not merit to be the pastors of the flock, nor to be take back without a public act of repentance.

And if you think they are going to repent, I think you have let your mind be kidnapped by the Big Lie.

Therefore, Catholics who are deprived of Catholic Clergy, now have the divine right to have recourse to Apostolic Right.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

 

Ecclesiology, Editorials, Faith, News

Divine and Apostolic Right takes precedence in a State of Emergency

12 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

REBLOGGED from DEC. 23, 2019 — For Spanish and German translation see below.

We live in a very bizarre age, when professional gossipers (aka journalists) are the puppet masters of the masses, because 95% of everyone allows them to dictate the boundaries of reality, history, morality and religion. And until some noted journalist uses the word, “Heresy”, “Schismatic” or “Apostate” in reference to someone who merits the term(s), then no rational person would ever accuse a fellow Catholic of such a horrible offense on his own judgement, because as they say, “everyone knows that it is schismatic to refuse communion with a fellow Catholic in good standing. And good standing means, he has not yet been officially condemned by the Church!”

This is gaslighting, of course.  Gas-lighting is a term which everyone should familiarize themselves with. It is the tactic of those practiced in psychological manipulation used to get clients, subjects, inferiors to deny the reality they see and know and accept that the reality is what the manipulator claims it to be.

As soon as Bergoglio was “elected” the gaslighting began.  You are seeing things, He is the pope, you cannot talk that way about the pope. Dissent is a mortal sin. If you do not accept him you are outside the Church. You are not Catholic!

Lately, as the heresies and malevolence of Bergoglio explode out of all proportions to any previous heretic in the history of the Church, some Catholics who were formerly famous for their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy are going into apoplectic fits in their attempts to stifle recognition of the reality. ‘Recognize and Resist’, is their mantra. They are hell bent, literally, on remaining in communion with Bergoglio and don’t you dare rain on their fantasies by showing them facts of Canon Law (canon 1364, 1329 etc.) which show that by Divine right, heretics are outside of the Church as soon as they profess heresy.

These apologists of the revolution are just as hell bent on denying the reality of the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict (cf. ppbxvi.org for complete information).  They become discombobulated and lash out. They show that their attachment to “Pope Francis” is neither rational or reasonable, it is visceral. How visceral depends, I suppose, on whether they observe the 6th or 9th Commandments.

This complete psychological and intellectual and spiritual breakdown is a result of what I call the Iscariot Conundrum. I use “Iscariot” here in the sense of the Aramaic word for a man from the same town as the false Apostle, Judas Iscariot. Since like him, they have sold the true Christ for the 30 pieces of silver of public recognition by the Cardinals as a “faithful Catholic”* and since they did it for purely selfish, sentimental, non-rational and non-legal or non-dogmatic reasons, they explode with emotion the more you point out to them that they have built their house upon a false premise. So they lash out more and more and lose all traces of the fine Character they once exhibited, becoming in the process, ironically, the very likeness of dialogue which Bergoglio is, a nasty, name-calling Troll.

A State of Emergency

No less that Archbishop Gänswein, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and the Head of the Pontifical Household (which has only one guest, HINT HINT) said that what Benedict did in February 2013 was on account of a state of emergency.

His words and opinions are debated as to what they mean, but it would be ludicrous to deny the reality which is visible to all the world, namely, that THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS IMPEDED.

To say the Apostolic See is impeded, means that the Pope cannot act as Pope for some reason, either external coercion, or there is no pope, or the pope refuses to act out of some irrational or rational conviction. This ‘being impeded’ causes a state of necessity, because the visible head of the visible Church is for all practical purposes non-functioning. The state of necessity is necessity of the kind which is required for continued functioning of the Church.  Since the normal order of governance is obstructed, the observance of merely positive laws upon which it are based, by necessity, must be omitted.

Our Lord teaches us this general principle on the small scale, when, on one occasion He and His Apostles crossed a wheat-field during a time in which they had had nothing to eat (Mark 2:23), and some of them ate the grains of wheat which were near to being harvested, some Pharasees complained they were violating the Sabbath Laws against doing work on the Sabbath. Our Lord pointed out that the necessity of their hunger allowed them to not observe the law on harvesting. He replied with a forceful Semitic way of speaking, saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!” (Mark 2:27)

The law against harvesting was instituted no less than by Moses (Exodus 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:12,14), who had a lot more authority in the Old Covenant (Moses basically wrote the entire thing, under God’s inspiration and direction) than the Pope has in the New Covenant (the pope cannot change the Bible, not even the Our Father — though a lot of clergy are confused on this point).

Also, it is clear, by the principles of logic (ex minore),** that if Our Lord says it is licit to appeal to a state of necessity, to suspend laws of the Old Covenant given by Moses, because men are hungry on a Saturday afternoon, then obviously it is licit to suspend laws of the Pope, in the New Covenant, WHEN THE SALVATION OF ALL SOULS ON EARTH UNTIL THE END OF TIME is put in grave and imminent danger. To deny this would be sheer insanity. This is poignantly true, when one faction in the Church wants to suspend the New Covenant and found a new religion, and the other faction must chose between observing certain man made laws and allowing the Covenant to be transgressed, or not observing them so as to prevent the transgression of the Covenant.

This principle of the abeyance of positive law in a state of necessity is sanctioned by no less than Pope Pius VI, in his Bull, Cum nos superiori anno, of Nov. 13, 1798, where he grants to the Cardinals the right to derogate from all non essential aspects of the papal laws on Conclaves, on account of the de facto suppression of the Church of Rome by the Roman Republic, led by French Revolutionaries.***

Extending this lesson to the affairs of the Church, it follows then, as good Christians, we ARE OBLIGED by divine faith to return to the general principle which Jesus laid down, namely, THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. For the Salvation of Souls the Eternal Father sacrificed His own Son, and His own Son accepted His ignominious death on a Cross. FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.

If there is anyone, therefore, in the Church, that holds that we must wait for the Pope (Benedict) to do something, or some future pope to do something, THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS and more correctly, THEY ARE PHARASEES who are raising up the positive laws established by the Church (which indicate what cannot be done without permission of superiors) to the level of rules which would require the Church to commit suicide waiting for some sort of divine intervention without human collaboration. A divine intervention without human collaboration, in the present case of the impeded See, HAS NEVER BEEN explicitly PROMISED. (I understand that there are some great promises from Our Lord and our Lady, but none of them refer explicitly to a promise to solve this problem.)

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum)

The concept of Divine Right (ius divinum) is a concept of classical late scholasticism, very popular in the time of the Council of Trent and thereafter. It refers to things which have been decreed by God. The office of Peter exists by divine right, for example.

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum) is not as well recognized. It refers to the decisions of the Apostles for the governance of the Church. It is of Apostolic right that the church in one city can be governed by several priests, for example.

Both Divine Right and Apostolic Right are superior to Canon Law. As an aside, what most Catholics do not know, is that for more than 1000 years, except for canons decreed in Councils, the Church had no canon law. Canon Law is not of Divine or Apostolic institution, though the First Council of Jerusalem c. 45 A.D. did hand down decisions and is the exemplar for all Councils and Synods in the Church.

Apostolic right also includes some things which are not observed in the normal course of affairs, because since the time of the Apostles the Sacred Hierarchy, for the good ordering of the Church in normal circumstances has laid down canons or established laws to conduct the affairs of the Church differently.

Take for example the election of Bishops. The Apostles appointed Bishops before they died. But when they had passed to eternal Glory, they left it to each diocese by Apostolic Right to chose their own bishop. And by “to each diocese”, I mean to the Catholics of each diocese, laity, religious and clergy. This is how the Church survived 10 Roman persecutions. No one was writing Rome to ask for an appointment, when their Bishop died.

Also, it is of Apostolic Right that every Bishop serves as ordinary of his diocese until death. There was no retirement. That is a novelty created by Paul VI to eliminate Catholics from the College of Bishops and replace them with sodomite revolutionaries. Canon Law implicitly recognizes that this concept of mandatory retirement is contrary to Apostolic Right, in that it does not require Bishops to resign, it says only that they should submit a letter of resignation upon reaching the age of 75.

It is also of Apostolic Right that the Bishops can convene in Synods and Councils. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that every Synod in Church History, which is regarded as a true hierarchical act, was approved of by the Pope. The current positive laws require that the Pope consent, but Apostolic Right does not require that.  Apostolic Right is more rational, because when there is no pope or when the pope is a prisoner, how can the Bishops get permission?

But the general reason for the revival of Apostolic Right has to do with the inherent principle of subsidiarity in a perfect society. This principle was recognized by Pope Leo XIII. It holds that when the higher authority in a perfect society fails, then the lower authority has the right to take up the duty of the higher authority and act inasmuch it is necessary to act to preserve or defend that society. Since the College of Bishops as a whole succeeds the Apostles, when the See of Peter is impeded, each and every Bishop has the moral and Apostolic Right to exercise in a certain sense the authority of the Apostles to put the Church back in proper working order. This is an awesome responsibility reserved to extreme cases of necessity, such as is happening today, with both a public heretic ruling the Vatican and a Pope (Benedict) who thinks it is no longer his duty to govern the Church or vindicate his own rights as Christ’s Vicar.

In a State of Emergency, Apostolic and Divine Right revive on points which are now, in the regular course of Church affairs, regulated by canon law, presupposing an Apostolic See which is not impeded. These positive laws of the Church, which if observed, would lead to the destruction of the Church or the loss of souls are suspended in force. That is, it is no longer a canonical crime or moral fault NOT to observe them with due reason.

If there are any Catholic Bishops or Cardinals on earth, then they need to recognize this before it is too late, or the woeful warning of Our Lady of Akita will come to pass, that the faithful become deprived of the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and Orders, because no Bishop had the sense to see that he had the Apostolic or Divine right to act to preserve the Sacred Hierarchy during an impeded Papacy.

This is because, with the Apostles no longer on Earth, and the See of Peter silent, each and every member of College of Bishops who remains Catholic can licitly assume the duties of the Apostles for the propagation and preservation of the Faith.

Some of the things any Bishop, with or without jurisdiction, can do, by Divine or Apostolic right, during an impeded Papacy are as follows:

  1. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the causes of the impeded See, and or condemn those who are perpetrating it. (Pope Julius II sanctions this in principle)****
  2. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council, to depose claimants to the papacy who do not hold valid canonical titles. (This was done at Sutri in 1046 and sanctioned by St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Gregory VII and Bl. Pope Victor III)
  3. Reprove a pope for resigning partially and neglecting his Apostolic Duties of Ministry. (This arguably is not as extreme as nn. 1 or 2, an thus ex maiore is also approved)
  4. Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
  5. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the heresies and perversities being spread by the Enemies of the Church, whether inside or outside the Church.
  6. Ordain Catholic Bishops for Dioceses which have been taken over by a heretical bishop or where the Catholic Bishop has declared for heresy or apostasy. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
  7. Ordain Catholic priests and deacons for the faithful of each Diocese who are deprived of the Sacraments due to heretical or schismatic clergy in their area. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)

In fact, during the first 1500 years of the Church, we see Bishops regularly doing many if not all of these things. They had the benefit of not being plagued in conscience by positive Church law, but the system worked. Now that the Apostolic See, nay the Vatican,  is completely impeded and taken over by heretics, the Bishops must act!

This is not the imaginary case of Sedevacantists who don’t like a pope nor the sounder case of Traditionalists don’t want to abandon liturgical traditions of their Rite: this is the case of a direct frontal attack on the the New Covenant: the Deposit of the Faith, Scripture and Tradition, through open denials of key dogmas and doctrines and disciplines which come from Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Prayer and Petitions

Please pray for the Bishops of the Church, for if they do not act, the entire wealth, power, prestige of the Church will be robbed by a sect of marxist sodomites and 100s of millions of souls will perish without right doctrine and sacraments.

Please also talk to your Bishop, if he appears to be somewhat Catholic. This is crucial. I know Catholics who have contacts and who are doing this right now. But more needs to be done.

The Catholic laity, on account of the inaction of the Bishops, are being forced to accept Sacraments from heretics and schismatics and perverse sodomites. They have the Divine right to be cared for pastorally by Catholic clergy who are in communion with the true Pope.  And this right is being DEMONICALLY AND UNIVERSALLY TRANSGRESSED in all dioceses throughout the Catholic world in the present Crisis.

We have the Divine and Apostolic right to act with insistence and with full approval of Christ’s teaching and example.

__________

GERMAN TRANSLATION: https://beatimundocorde.wordpress.com/2020/01/03/divine-and-apostolic-right-german/

SPANISH TRANSLATION: https://fromrome.info/2019/12/25/el-derecho-divino-y-apostolico-toma-precedencia-en-estado-de-emergencia/

__________

* I use quotes here, to point out how nonsensical this approach is, devoid of any reasonable assessment of historical events, because the Cardinals accepted an invalid resignation and then invalidly elected an Arch-Heretic Psychopath, so it is no exaggeration to doubt that the Cardinals are willing or able to recognize what a Faithful Catholic is!

** Ex minore is a technical term of medieval logic which refers to illations (arguments) which are based on appealing to something which is true in a lesser case, and argues from that, that it must be true in a greater case. Our Lord is doing this all the time, as for example in His parables of the King preparing for war, the architect preparing to build a tower etc., as examples of how if prudence is necessary in earthly things, it is all the more necessary in questions of eternal salvation.

*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Rome, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.

**** This Apostolic Right was incorporated into Pope Julius II’s, Si summus rerum Opifex of Feb. 16, 1513, Fifth Lateran Council, which provided that if this law on Papal Conclaves were violated as regards a simoniacal election, the Cardinals not involved in the simony could have recourse to a Synod or Council to dethrone the uncanonically elected antipope.  Bagliani & Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. This papal law was published previously as the Bull, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, January 14, 1505 (ibid., p. 39). This principle, acknowledged by Pope Julius II and the Fifth Lateran Council, is that which authorizes the calling of “imperfect” Synods in the time of necessity, such as ours.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Ecclesiology, Editorials, Faith, News

Divine and Apostolic Right takes precedence in a State of Emergency

14 Comments
Saint Athanasius, the first Bishop non-martyr venerated as a Saint, during the Arian Crisis, when neigh but 5 Bishops remained Catholic, employed Apostolic Right to defend the  Church against Apostasy.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We live in a very bizarre age, when professional gossipers (aka journalists) are the puppet masters of the masses, because 95% of everyone allows them to dictate the boundaries of reality, history, morality and religion. And until some noted journalist uses the word, “Heresy”, “Schismatic” or “Apostate” in reference to someone who merits the term(s), then no rational person would ever accuse a fellow Catholic of such a horrible offense on his own judgement, because as they say, “everyone knows that it is schismatic to refuse communion with a fellow Catholic in good standing. And good standing means, he has not yet been officially condemned by the Church!”

This is gaslighting, of course.  Gas-lighting is a term which everyone should familiarize themselves with. It is the tactic of those practiced in psychological manipulation used to get clients, subjects, inferiors to deny the reality they see and know and accept that the reality is what the manipulator claims it to be.

As soon as Bergoglio was “elected” the gaslighting began.  You are seeing things, He is the pope, you cannot talk that way about the pope. Dissent is a mortal sin. If you do not accept him you are outside the Church. You are not Catholic!

Lately, as the heresies and malevolence of Bergoglio explode out of all proportions to any previous heretic in the history of the Church, some Catholics who were formerly famous for their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy are going into apoplectic fits in their attempts to stifle recognition of the reality. ‘Recognize and Resist’, is their mantra. They are hell bent, literally, on remaining in communion with Bergoglio and don’t you dare rain on their fantasies by showing them facts of Canon Law (canon 1364, 1329 etc.) which show that by Divine right, heretics are outside of the Church as soon as they profess heresy.

These apologists of the revolution are just as hell bent on denying the reality of the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict (cf. ppbxvi.org for complete information).  They become discombobulated and lash out. They show that their attachment to “Pope Francis” is neither rational or reasonable, it is visceral. How visceral depends, I suppose, on whether they observe the 6th or 9th Commandments.

This complete psychological and intellectual and spiritual breakdown is a result of what I call the Iscariot Conundrum. I use “Iscariot” here in the sense of the Aramaic word for a man from the same town as the false Apostle, Judas Iscariot. Since like him, they have sold the true Christ for the 30 pieces of silver of public recognition by the Cardinals as a “faithful Catholic”* and since they did it for purely selfish, sentimental, non-rational and non-legal or non-dogmatic reasons, they explode with emotion the more you point out to them that they have built their house upon a false premise. So they lash out more and more and lose all traces of the fine Character they once exhibited, becoming in the process, ironically, the very likeness of dialogue which Bergoglio is, a nasty, name-calling Troll.

A State of Emergency

No less that Archbishop Gänswein, the personal secretary of Pope Benedict XVI and the Head of the Pontifical Household (which has only one guest, HINT HINT) said that what Benedict did in February 2013 was on account of a state of emergency.

His words and opinions are debated as to what they mean, but it would be ludicrous to deny the reality which is visible to all the world, namely, that THE APOSTOLIC SEE IS IMPEDED.

To say the Apostolic See is impeded, means that the Pope cannot act as Pope for some reason, either external coercion, or there is no pope, or the pope refuses to act out of some irrational or rational conviction. This ‘being impeded’ causes a state of necessity, because the visible head of the visible Church is for all practical purposes non-functioning. The state of necessity is necessity of the kind which is required for continued functioning of the Church.  Since the normal order of governance is obstructed, the observance of merely positive laws upon which it are based, by necessity, must be omitted.

Our Lord teaches us this general principle on the small scale, when, on one occasion He and His Apostles crossed a wheat-field during a time in which they had had nothing to eat (Mark 2:23), and some of them ate the grains of wheat which were near to being harvested, some Pharasees complained they were violating the Sabbath Laws against doing work on the Sabbath. Our Lord pointed out that the necessity of their hunger allowed them to not observe the law on harvesting. He replied with a forceful Semitic way of speaking, saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!” (Mark 2:27)

The law against harvesting was instituted no less than by Moses (Exodus 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:12,14), who had a lot more authority in the Old Covenant (Moses basically wrote the entire thing, under God’s inspiration and direction) than the Pope has in the New Covenant (the pope cannot change the Bible, not even the Our Father — though a lot of clergy are confused on this point).

Also, it is clear, by the principles of logic (ex minore),** that if Our Lord says it is licit to appeal to a state of necessity, to suspend laws of the Old Covenant given by Moses, because men are hungry on a Saturday afternoon, then obviously it is licit to suspend laws of the Pope, in the New Covenant, WHEN THE SALVATION OF ALL SOULS ON EARTH UNTIL THE END OF TIME is put in grave and imminent danger. To deny this would be sheer insanity. This is poignantly true, when one faction in the Church wants to suspend the New Covenant and found a new religion, and the other faction must chose between observing certain man made laws and allowing the Covenant to be transgressed, or not observing them so as to prevent the transgression of the Covenant.

This principle of the abeyance of positive law in a state of necessity is sanctioned by no less than Pope Pius VI, in his Bull, Cum nos superiori anno, of Nov. 13, 1798, where he grants to the Cardinals the right to derogate from all non essential aspects of the papal laws on Conclaves, on account of the de facto suppression of the Church of Rome by the Roman Republic, led by French Revolutionaries.***

Extending this lesson to the affairs of the Church, it follows then, as good Christians, we ARE OBLIGED by divine faith to return to the general principle which Jesus laid down, namely, THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. For the Salvation of Souls the Eternal Father sacrificed His own Son, and His own Son accepted His ignominious death on a Cross. FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS.

If there is anyone, therefore, in the Church, that holds that we must wait for the Pope (Benedict) to do something, or some future pope to do something, THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS and more correctly, THEY ARE PHARASEES who are raising up the positive laws established by the Church (which indicate what cannot be done without permission of superiors) to the level of rules which would require the Church to commit suicide waiting for some sort of divine intervention without human collaboration. A divine intervention without human collaboration, in the present case of the impeded See, HAS NEVER BEEN explicitly PROMISED. (I understand that there are some great promises from Our Lord and our Lady, but none of them refer explicitly to a promise to solve this problem.)

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum)

The concept of Divine Right (ius divinum) is a concept of classical late scholasticism, very popular in the time of the Council of Trent and thereafter. It refers to things which have been decreed by God. The office of Peter exists by divine right, for example.

Apostolic Right (ius apostolicum) is not as well recognized. It refers to the decisions of the Apostles for the governance of the Church. It is of Apostolic right that the church in one city can be governed by several priests, for example.

Both Divine Right and Apostolic Right are superior to Canon Law. As an aside, what most Catholics do not know, is that for more than 1000 years, except for canons decreed in Councils, the Church had no canon law. Canon Law is not of Divine or Apostolic institution, though the First Council of Jerusalem c. 45 A.D. did hand down decisions and is the exemplar for all Councils and Synods in the Church.

Apostolic right also includes some things which are not observed in the normal course of affairs, because since the time of the Apostles the Sacred Hierarchy, for the good ordering of the Church in normal circumstances has laid down canons or established laws to conduct the affairs of the Church differently.

Take for example the election of Bishops. The Apostles appointed Bishops before they died. But when they had passed to eternal Glory, they left it to each diocese by Apostolic Right to chose their own bishop. And by “to each diocese”, I mean to the Catholics of each diocese, laity, religious and clergy. This is how the Church survived 10 Roman persecutions. No one was writing Rome to ask for an appointment, when their Bishop died.

Also, it is of Apostolic Right that every Bishop serves as ordinary of his diocese until death. There was no retirement. That is a novelty created by Paul VI to eliminate Catholics from the College of Bishops and replace them with sodomite revolutionaries. Canon Law implicitly recognizes that this concept of mandatory retirement is contrary to Apostolic Right, in that it does not require Bishops to resign, it says only that they should submit a letter of resignation upon reaching the age of 75.

It is also of Apostolic Right that the Bishops can convene in Synods and Councils. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that every Synod in Church History, which is regarded as a true hierarchical act, was approved of by the Pope. The current positive laws require that the Pope consent, but Apostolic Right does not require that.  Apostolic Right is more rational, because when there is no pope or when the pope is a prisoner, how can the Bishops get permission?

But the general reason for the revival of Apostolic Right has to do with the inherent principle of subsidiarity in a perfect society. This principle was recognized by Pope Leo XIII. It holds that when the higher authority in a perfect society fails, then the lower authority has the right to take up the duty of the higher authority and act inasmuch it is necessary to act to preserve or defend that society. Since the College of Bishops as a whole succeeds the Apostles, when the See of Peter is impeded, each and every Bishop has the moral and Apostolic Right to exercise in a certain sense the authority of the Apostles to put the Church back in proper working order. This is an awesome responsibility reserved to extreme cases of necessity, such as is happening today, with both a public heretic ruling the Vatican and a Pope (Benedict) who thinks it is no longer his duty to govern the Church or vindicate his own rights as Christ’s Vicar.

In a State of Emergency, Apostolic and Divine Right revive on points which are now, in the regular course of Church affairs, regulated by canon law, presupposing an Apostolic See which is not impeded. These positive laws of the Church, which if observed, would lead to the destruction of the Church or the loss of souls are suspended in force. That is, it is no longer a canonical crime or moral fault NOT to observe them with due reason.

If there are any Catholic Bishops or Cardinals on earth, then they need to recognize this before it is too late, or the woeful warning of Our Lady of Akita will come to pass, that the faithful become deprived of the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and Orders, because no Bishop had the sense to see that he had the Apostolic or Divine right to act to preserve the Sacred Hierarchy during an impeded Papacy.

This is because, with the Apostles no longer on Earth, and the See of Peter silent, each and every member of College of Bishops who remains Catholic can licitly assume the duties of the Apostles for the propagation and preservation of the Faith.

Some of the things any Bishop, with or without jurisdiction, can do, by Divine or Apostolic right, during an impeded Papacy are as follows:

  1. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the causes of the impeded See, and or condemn those who are perpetrating it. (Pope Julius II sanctions this in principle)****
  2. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council, to depose claimants to the papacy who do not hold valid canonical titles. (This was done at Sutri in 1046 and sanctioned by St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Gregory VII and Bl. Pope Victor III)
  3. Reprove a pope for resigning partially and neglecting his Apostolic Duties of Ministry. (This arguably is not as extreme as nn. 1 or 2, an thus ex maiore is also approved)
  4. Condemn heretics by name, condemn heresies. (All bishops have this duty and right by Divine and Apostolic right)
  5. Call for and Convene a Synod or Council to condemn the heresies and perversities being spread by the Enemies of the Church, whether inside or outside the Church.
  6. Ordain Catholic Bishops for Dioceses which have been taken over by a heretical bishop or where the Catholic Bishop has declared for heresy or apostasy. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)
  7. Ordain Catholic priests and deacons for the faithful of each Diocese who are deprived of the Sacraments due to heretical or schismatic clergy in their area. (Saint Athanasius of Alexandria did this on many occasions during the Arian Crisis)

In fact, during the first 1500 years of the Church, we see Bishops regularly doing many if not all of these things. They had the benefit of not being plagued in conscience by positive Church law, but the system worked. Now that the Apostolic See, nay the Vatican,  is completely impeded and taken over by heretics, the Bishops must act!

This is not the imaginary case of Sedevacantists who don’t like a pope nor the sounder case of Traditionalists don’t want to abandon liturgical traditions of their Rite: this is the case of a direct frontal attack on the the New Covenant: the Deposit of the Faith, Scripture and Tradition, through open denials of key dogmas and doctrines and disciplines which come from Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Prayer and Petitions

Please pray for the Bishops of the Church, for if they do not act, the entire wealth, power, prestige of the Church will be robbed by a sect of marxist sodomites and 100s of millions of souls will perish without right doctrine and sacraments.

Please also talk to your Bishop, if he appears to be somewhat Catholic. This is crucial. I know Catholics who have contacts and who are doing this right now. But more needs to be done.

The Catholic laity, on account of the inaction of the Bishops, are being forced to accept Sacraments from heretics and schismatics and perverse sodomites. They have the Divine right to be cared for pastorally by Catholic clergy who are in communion with the true Pope.  And this right is being DEMONICALLY AND UNIVERSALLY TRANSGRESSED in all dioceses throughout the Catholic world in the present Crisis.

We have the Divine and Apostolic right to act with insistence and with full approval of Christ’s teaching and example.

__________

GERMAN TRANSLATION: https://beatimundocorde.wordpress.com/2020/01/03/divine-and-apostolic-right-german/

SPANISH TRANSLATION: https://fromrome.info/2019/12/25/el-derecho-divino-y-apostolico-toma-precedencia-en-estado-de-emergencia/

__________

* I use quotes here, to point out how nonsensical this approach is, devoid of any reasonable assessment of historical events, because the Cardinals accepted an invalid resignation and then invalidly elected an Arch-Heretic Psychopath, so it is no exaggeration to doubt that the Cardinals are willing or able to recognize what a Faithful Catholic is!

** Ex minore is a technical term of medieval logic which refers to illations (arguments) which are based on appealing to something which is true in a lesser case, and argues from that, that it must be true in a greater case. Our Lord is doing this all the time, as for example in His parables of the King preparing for war, the architect preparing to build a tower etc., as examples of how if prudence is necessary in earthly things, it is all the more necessary in questions of eternal salvation.

*** Agostino Paravincii Bagliani & Maria Antonietta Visceglia’s, Il Conclave: continutità e mutamenti dal Medioevo a oggi, Viella Editrice, Rome, 2018, pp. 60-61 and p. 62 in fn. 75.

**** This Apostolic Right was incorporated into Pope Julius II’s, Si summus rerum Opifex of Feb. 16, 1513, Fifth Lateran Council, which provided that if this law on Papal Conclaves were violated as regards a simoniacal election, the Cardinals not involved in the simony could have recourse to a Synod or Council to dethrone the uncanonically elected antipope.  Bagliani & Visceglia, op. cit, p. 40. This papal law was published previously as the Bull, Cum tam divino quam humano iure, January 14, 1505 (ibid., p. 39). This principle, acknowledged by Pope Julius II and the Fifth Lateran Council, is that which authorizes the calling of “imperfect” Synods in the time of necessity, such as ours.