Recently, I had the opportunity to have as a guest a fellow Franciscan hermit. And in the course of our discussions, we came to the topic of who is the Pope. He gave me his reasons, mostly drawn from a canonist whom he respects.
Since our discussion would be helpful if it be known by the entire Catholic world, I share it here:
That canonist replied to me in this vein — this is not a direct quote: If Br. Alexis Bugnolo is correct about the meaning of the term, “munus” then Benedict is still the Pope. But until the Church comes to an agreement about this, we should not risk schism by breaking from Bergoglio. We must be very careful not to presume to say one word means this or that, especially when by error in this matter we could separate ourselves form the true Church.
Having received this reply, I explained to my guest, how wrong this answer is, and this for several reasons:
This argument is guilty of a petitio principii, that is, of presuming that that which it attempts to prove is true and arguing back to that truth, without ever putting it into question. For it presumes that Bergoglio is the vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, and then argues that since he is, we would be risking our eternal salvation by breaking from him on our own judgement of whether munus means or does not mean the papal office. And it concludes by saying we should stick with Bergoglio unless the Church decides otherwise.
This argument pretends that what “munus” means is merely a question of opinions, and that since there is no authority which has declared it, we should refrain from making a judgement and follow the consensus of our ecclesiastical superiors.
This argument also errs in ignoring the proper canonical procedure in resolving the doubt of a juridical question.
This argument should conclude with the call for a Council to declare one way or another who is the Pope, but by resting in indecision shows that it pretends to honesty while, rather resting in dishonest indecision, which is in fact a form of intellectual and moral sloth, and this, in a matter which touches upon the salvation of the entire Church and of billions of souls now and in the future.
Here is my response to the comment by the canonist:
It is not a matter of opinion as to the meaning of munus, as if it were possible to sustain both that meaning by which munus means the papal office in a formal or substantive sense and that meaning by which munus can be named through the term ministerium.
Nay, rather, since no one has the right to interpret a papal act, and since Monsignor Ignacio Arrieta, President of the Pontifical Council on Legal Texts says, that no one has the right to interpret a renunciation — since if it is to be interpreted it is dubious and not manifest — the only way to understand the meaning of an act of renunciation is to have recourse to the obligation of the Code of Law, canon 17, which obliges us to understand the words of a juridical act as the Code of Law uses them. For in understanding a papal renunciation according to the obligation of law, we remove our method from every opinion of men and submit our own personal judgement to the declared authority of the Church:
Thus,
Given that in canon 145 every ecclesiastical office is a munus
Given that in canons 331, 332, 333, 334, the only word for the office of the Roman Pontiff is munus
Given that in canon 1331, n. 2, iv, an excommunicated person cannot attain any dignity, office or munus but can obtain a ministerium
Given that the members of the Roman Curia assist the Roman Pontiff in the execution of his office, that is, his ministerium, but do not share in his office, that is, his munus,
And given that in renouncing X one separates himself from X, whereas, if X be that which can be had by one who is not the pope or not in communion with the Church, then its renunciation by the Pope cannot have the consequence of causing him to lose that which he shares with no other man, namely, that which makes him the pope,
That Canon 12 declares that ALL are bound by the canons of the Church, when a canon has been promulgated for them, and thus in renouncing the man who is the pope is not above Canon Law
Canon 332 §2 declares, that a pope renounces when he renounces his munus as pope, not his ministerium
That to fulfill canon 332 §2, the man who is pope is obliged by canon 124 §1, which requires him to make an act of renunciation which regards the same essence of act specified in canon 332 §2, and that if he does NOT, then canon 124 §2 says that there is no presumption as to its validity, nay rather, in accord with canon 188, if the act contains a substantial error, it is irritus by the law itself (ipso iure), that is, it must be considered to have never been posited.
If the act of renunciation of ministerium is not a juridical but only an administrative act, it must be understood in accord with canon 36, which reaffirms the same principles as canon 17.
Hence it results that in renouncing the ministerium and not the munus, the man who is Roman Pontiff cannot be understood to have meant to have renounced the munus withoutimposing an interpretation upon his words.
And therefore we must assume that the Renunciation made by Pope Benedict as Ratzinger on 11 Feb. 2013 does not mean a renunciation of the papacy, the office, nor the dignity or munus of the Roman Pontiff.
And therefore it does not appear that such renunciation produces a sede vacante.
Hence, We are obliged to hold that such renunciation is dubious and therefore invalid to produce the effect of the loss of office
Therefore by virtue of the words declared by the lips of the Living Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, Head of the Church, and sole Teacher of all, given to Simon Peter: “What you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven,” which directly refer to the Code of Canon Law, we must ALL hold that Jesus did not transfer the grace and office to another, since He Himself has bound Himself to the Code of Canon Law promulgated by His Vicar, John Paul II.
And that therefore, Benedict XVI remains the pope.
End of the canonical argument.
By the way, IF YOU HAVE NOT NOTICED, Pope Benedict XVI still
Wears the white of a pope
Signs with his papal name
Adds the abbreviation, P. P, to his name, which only a pope can do.
Gives the Papal Blessing, which only a pope can do.
Lives in the Vatican.
Which is all consistent with the above canonical argument. Hence, it is not even credible to counter argue, by saying, “But until Benedict says otherwise, we must presume Bergoglio is the pope.”
Hence it is entirely without any foundation in reality, that those, who say Bergoglio is the pope, continue to do such. They have been hoodwinked, if they are innocent and without bad will. But God is counting the years and soon His Wrath will fall upon all the slothful and bad-willed, for as it is says in the Book of the Apocalypse, the first to be cast into the eternal pit of Hell are the slothful: those who know there is a problem or something that needs to be done for the salvation of themselves or others, but dismiss taking any action on it.
The correct response from all honest Catholics would simply be to call a council and have all the Cardinals and Bishops of the World expert in theology, philosophy, and canon law to discuss the matter. To fail in that, is to risk the damnation of most of the faithful and the destruction of the Church. And that is the treachery of Judas Iscariot.
February 14, 2019 A. D. — Today Diane Montagna’s article, entitled, “Did Benedict really resign? Gänswein, Burke and Brandmüller weigh in,” was published at Life Site News.
First, let me say a big thank you to Diane Montagna for bringing the controversy to the greater attention of the general public. In this way, all Catholics, who have a right to know of its existence, can at last be informed.
However, I do not praise the article’s author for the article itself, which in all frankness, I must say is full of sophistic arguments: that is false manners of argumentation, and even false assertions, all marshaled in an attempt to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign, and that everything His Holiness and his private secretary have said about this, is to be ignored!
I find it shocking that two Cardinals, to defend the validity of the resignation, have resorted to telling the whole world not to pay attention to what the Pope has said about the meaning and effect of his own act! This is tantamount to rebellion against the papacy, in my mind!
I also wish to contradict the attempt by the article to smear Catholics who hold that the resignation is invalid as persons who are NOT knowledgeable about Church Law, the text of the papal resignation, or who are excessively scandalized by Bergoglio. As I pointed out in my previous article on How Usurpation of the Papacy leads to Excommunication, all those involved in asserting an invalid resignation is valid are risking excommunication for schism and positing acts which only a pope can do. So they have a lot of reasons to ignore a serious and just consideration of the facts, especially if they just went along to get along.
But enough of preamble. let’s examine the sophisms in Montagna’s Article, in order of their appearance.
Archbishop Gänswein dismisses the argument as making no sense. So since he confesses not to understand it, there is really nothing proved by quoting him. I will observe that in German, which is the Bishop’s ancestral tongue, there is no equivalent of ministerium, munus and officium except by one word. So its easy for a German thinker to miss the problem of saying ministerium instead of munus. What the Archbishop says previously contradicts what he says now, so he probably was thinking in German then or is now. But surely he can understand the controversy, seeing that I sent him last month, with proof of delivery, a printed copy of my entire Disputed Question on the topic. But then again, maybe he cannot read English?
Later on in the article, after quoting Archbishop Gänswein as saying openly that Benedict did NOT resign the PAPAL OFFICE, Montagna quotes an anonymous theologian as sustaining,
supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities.
Ugh, what can one respond to such ignorance? Other than that Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 §2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 §1 and canon 41, which reading amply demonstrates that the Supreme Legislator Himself, Pope John Paul II, in promulgating the new Code of Canon Law requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things. — Those who are faithful Catholics, therefore, already know they refer to two different things, because the Pope orders us to do so!
Then the same anonymous theologian quotes canon 15 §1 (actually he quotes §2, but I think that is an error), as saying that the resignation must be presumed valid. But that canon says that a law, which expressly invalidates an act, invalidates even if the one positing the act is ignorant of the law. Thus this canon argues against the validity of the resignation, not for it!
Then the same anonymous theologian confuses the annulment process with this controversy, saying that Catholics who think the resignation is or may be invalid, must wait for the judgement of the Church! Actually, canon 188 says that resignations made in substantial error are invalid by the law itself. That means, they are invalid before any sentence of any court determines the facts: they are null, void and never had any legal effect.
Then, the article quotes Dr. Roberto de Mattei, who cites Canon 124 §2. — As an aside, I would ask that Dr. de Mattei respond to my criticism of his previous error of attempting to raise an opinion of late scholasticism to the level of an interpretative principle of canon law, in contradiction to the obligation of canon 17 — But that canon also contradicts Dr. de Mattei, because it regards only acts which are manifestly conform to the obligations of the law, when in the present controversy one deals with a prima facie non conformity! That is, with the fact that at first glance at the Latin of Non solum propter (Text of apparent resignation) and canon 332 §2, they are not speaking of the same things! For the former renounces the ministerium, but the latter refers to resignations of munus.
Then Dr. de Mattei attempts again to flip a canon. This time its canon 1526 §1, the burden of proof is upon him who asserts. Seeing that it is the Cardinals and Dr. de Mattei who long ago asserted first of all that the resignation is valid, the burden of proof is rather on them! That is why, the mere fact that the Cardinals and the entire Vatican have never published a canonical affirmation of the validity is a strong argument they have NEVER examined if it was. But in the case of a resignation, a Cardinal Elector is gravely bound to personally verify that the resignation is valid, because otherwise he will participate in an illicit Conclave and elect and Anti-Pope!
Then, Cardinal Brandmuller attempts to flip two sound dicta: de internis non iudicat praetor(a praetor does not judge of things internal) and quod non est in actis, non est in mundo (what is not in the act does not exist in the world). I say this, because he cites these to argue that those who doubt the validity of the resignation are in error. However, since those who doubt the validity, as I do, do not base our arguments on interior intentions, nor on suppositions, but on the text of the act of renunciation itself, we are acting in perfect harmony with those dicta. Nay, rather, its Cardinal Brandmuller and Burke and Gänswein who violate these, because they say the Pope intended to resign the munus, therefore he did resign the munus, and that ministerium means the munus which is not renounced in the text, because the Pope intended to resign the munus, they judge the Pope’s intention not the act itself!
Then, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.” This, I will admit — for those who have not read the Code of Canon Law and studied this question of substantial error on account of not saying munus nor referring to the office — might be difficult to prove, because many are ignorant of the Canon Law and its obligations. But for those who do, or should know it, it is not! — Just see my disputed question on it. You can find it in Spanish translation here. In that Question, I carefully examine and refute the 19 reasons alleged for the validity and marshal 39 arguments, drawn from Canon Law, Theology, Philosophy, etc. against the validity.
Finally, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “It seems clear to me that Benedict had his full mind and that he intended to resign the Petrine office.” — Having given no argument but his speculation about the intention of what Pope Benedict XVI intended to say, other than to deny what he expressly has said on other occasions, the opinion of this eminent Canonist must be disregarded as any gratuitous unproven declaration which runs counter to the facts is disregarded.
In conclusion, I would ask these three eminent prelates to read Canon 17. Therein, Pope John Paul II obliges all Catholics to understand canon 332 §2 in a specific manner. In that manner, it can be seen that there is no question at all that the renunciation of Benedict is invalid by reason of substantial error (canon 188) in thinking that a renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of the papacy.
I believe that the Cardinals in particular, perhaps out of their familiarity with the Annulment process which focuses on the intention as the formal principle of the validity of the bond of Matrimony, are missing the point of the teaching of Pope Boniface VIII (Decree of Boniface VIII (6th vol), 1.1, T.7, Chap. 1: De Renunciatione:) that papal renunciations deal formally with the verbal signification of the act, not on the intention of the one renouncing. Also, they differ significantly in this, that the power to tie the bond of marriage consists in the ones who take marriage vows. But the power to remove the munus of the papacy is held exclusively by Christ the Lord in glory, who has promised Peter to uphold the letter of Canon Law promulgated by his successor, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, and Who cannot act unless the renunciation expressly conform itself to that canon.
Today is the seventh anniversary of a day that will live in infamy.
A day of wickedness and flippancy.
A day wherein the Cardinals of the Catholic Church showed their utter contempt for:
Pope Benedict XVI
The Catholic Faith in the Papacy
The Canons of the Catholic Church
The Papal Law on Conclaves
Common sense
Let me explain why I say this, point by point, in reverse order.
The Cardinals betrayed common sense 7 years ago today
It is obvious by now, that if anyone on the planet ,who had common sense, sat down and talked to Bergoglio for 15 minutes, he would realize that he is not a fit candidate to be Roman Pontiff.
But the College of Cardinals had been housed together with him for two weeks prior to March 13, 2013.
Therefore, the last 7 years proves that God certainly did not approve of their judgement in selecting such a man. Indeed, it was an epic failure of the College of Cardinals, as I wrote, in 2015.
The Cardinals betrayed John Paul II’s law on Conclaves
The Cardinal Electors violated the papal law on conclaves, in several ways.
First of all, they violated the Law, Universi dominici gregis, as regards the requirement in n. 37, of that law, when they held a Conclave without verifying whether there was a legal sede vacante.
A legal sede vacante means that either the previous pope is dead, and they confirm that with a funeral, or the previous pope resigned according to the norm of Canon 332 §2.
I have it from no less than the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts, Mons. Arrieta, whose commentary on the Code of Canon Law I keep at by desk, that there never was any meeting of canon law experts to verify if the Declaratio of Pope Benedict, of Feb. 11, 2013 — commonly called Pope Benedict’s Renunciation — was in conformity with the norm of canon 332 §2.
Second, the Cardinals violated n. 81, of the same papal law, by entering into agreements and promises to vote for Bergoglio, as Cardinal Daneels of Beglium admitted in his Biography composed of interviews he gave. But the College has never acted on the self admission, which in Canon Law tradition is an indisputable act of self imputation of a canonical crime. I have covered this issue in an extensive Chronology of Events, which still remains the most authoritative collection of facts on the matter, on the net.
Thrid, the Cardinals rushed to elect Bergoglio by violating the same Papal Law on the number of ballots permitted on each day: four, as is specified in n. 63, of the same papal law, regarding limit on the number of ballots to be taken on the 2nd day of balloting and all subsequent days. Because, as has been confirmed by several testimonies in the last 7 years, Bergoglio was elected on the 5th ballot. And this has never been denied.
Fourth, while there has been much controversy over whether the Cardinals could proceed to a fifth ballot in the case of a 4th balloting which contained 1 more vote paper than the number of Electors present, there remains 2 legal questions which have never been addressed about this:
The Cardinals could not lawfully proceed to a 5th Ballot unless they paused the election and held a discussion on the interpretation of the papal law, using the right conceded to them in that same law, in n. 5, for this purpose. If they proceeded to a 5th ballot without such a discussion and vote, then even if they interpreted it as valid, that omission made their interpretation illicit, and hence the entire election invalid.
Whether the Auditors of the Papal Conclave, as specified in n. 70 of the same papal law, held any meeting or discussion in accord with the norm, there specified, regarding the auditing of the final vote. Because in the case that there was no meeting in accord with n. 5 of the same papal law, in regard to whether to proceed to a 5th ballot when only 4 ballots were permitted, then likewise if the Auditors did not meet, the election was canonically invalid. And if they did meet, they had to declare in the case of the lack of a vote in accord with n. 5, that the election was invalid.
Since the multiple reports about a 5th balloting are all silent about what should have happened as regards nn. 1 and 2, here above, it can be rightfully doubted the election was valid. Because a doubtful pope is no pope.
The Cardinals Betrayed the Canons of the Catholic Church
Seven years ago today, the Cardinals consummated their betrayal of the Canons of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II, in 1983, in the text known as the Codex iuris canonicis, or the Code of Canon Law.
First, the Cardinals violated canon 40, which required them not to take any decision in regard to Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, until they had the Latin text in hand in its final corrected version. Since the Vatican Press office in the days following February 11 published at least 3 versions of the text, there is sound canonical evidence that Cardinal Sodano, through Father Lombardi, violated canon 40 in instructing Giovanna Chirri at 11:58 AM, on that morning, to announce to the world that Pope Benedict has announced his resignation from the Pontificate on Feb. 28. Canon 40 declares invalid any act taken by a subordinate, before he has in hand the integral text of the act of his superior.
Second, the Cardinals violated canon 41, which required them to examine if the legal act contained in the Declaratio was an act specified by the Code of Canon Law and was in all its particulars a command to do something opportune. But since in the entire Code of Canon Law there is no mention of an act of renunciation of ministerium, the act posited by Pope Benedict XVI was clearly an an actus nullus, and thus canon 41 required them not to act upon it. Also since a renunciation of ministerium does not effect the loss of the papal office, the fact that the Declaratio speaks of calling a Conclave is an inopportune detail or provision. Canon 41 requires that those with mere ministry of execution, in such a case, have recourse to the superior to correct these issues. Once again, according to Mons. Arrieta, nothing of the kind happened.
Third, the Cardinals violated canon 38, which required them not to interpret the Declaratio of Pope Benedict as being in conformity to Canon 332 §2, on the grounds that by naming the ministerium instead of the canonically required munus, the act would gravely injure the rights of the Faithful to know if the pope had validly resigned or not, would cause doubt and risk schism in the Church. For in such a case, Pope Benedict XVI would have had to granted a derogation of canon 332 §2 in his Declaratio, in conformity with canon 38, otherwise the act would have been irritus. He did not, so the act was irritus — a technical canonical term which means having not effect in law, void, on account of having not followed due procedure (ritus).
Fourth, the Cardinals violated canon 36 §1, which requires them to interpret strictly any papal act which violates the norm of any canon, let alone Canon 332 §2. To interpret strictly means that they had to read ministerium as exclusive of any signification of munus, and thus hold that the Declaratio was prima facie incapable of causing Pope Benedict to validly resign the papal munus, the papal office and the papal dignity.
Fifth, the Cardinals violated canons 126 and 188, which require that a juridical act of renunciation of office contain the proper or essential act specified in the law. As is clear from the Code of Canon Law, which speaks of the Papal Office in canons 331, 332, 332, and 749, the proper term for the papal office is the petrine munus, not the petrine ministerium. Hence, they were required in accord with canon 188 to judge the renunication irritus on the grounds of substantial error.
Sixth, the Cardinals violated canons 17 and 145 §1, which require respectively that the terms of all canons be understood in their proper sense, that ministerium and munus, when mentioned in any canon be understood thus, and to undertake a study of the entire Code of Canon Law and canonical tradition, in the case of the doubt as to whether ministerium can suppose for munus. They did no such thing in February of 2013, as Mons. Arrieta affirmed to me.
Seventh, the Cardinals violated canon 332 §2, which requires them to recognize a papal renunication only if the Pope renounces his munus, and does so freely and manifests this duly. But since a good number of the Cardinal Electors were present in the Consistory of Feb. 11, 2013, they heard with their own ears that he made errors in Latin and that he said ministerium not munus, in the crucial core section of the Declaratio. They also heard him say munus twice before that. So they had indisputable canonical evidence that the Pope knew what he was doing, knew how to distinguish munus from ministerium, and did NOT intend to renounce his munus.
The Cardinals violated the Catholic Faith in the Papacy
Seven years ago, today, the College of Cardinals violated the Catholic Faith in the papacy. First, in the strict sense of the Faith, namely, that there can only be one pope. Because, it was clear already by March 3, 2013, that Pope Benedict XVI by his own decision was going to retain the papal dignity by using the title “Pope Emeritus”. There was at least one scholarly refutation of the validity of this published on March 3, 2013 by Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S. J., former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome. So they could not be ignorant of the fact. The same canonical scholar that week affirmed that a heretical pope loses office immediately. So in choosing an obvious heretic as Pope they also violated the Catholic Faith.
The Cardinals showed their utter contempt for Pope Benedict XVI
Seven years ago, today, the Cardinals consummated their utter contempt for Pope Benedict XVI, in that they responded with glee at his renunciation, and not with consternation and respectful attempt to dissuade him from it.
As reported in the press, in February of 2013, only one Cardinal, Cardinal Pell went on record as saying that the resignation should not happen. He said this before Feb. 28, 2013. He was also the first Cardinal the Vatican allowed to be prosecuted after February of 2013. Hmm.
Respect and reverence for the Holy Father, especially when frail and aged, requires first of all that the Cardinals assist him in executing his will, not obstructing it nor allowing it to be executed in an invalid manner.
Yet it also requires, out of gratitude, that they attempt to convince a good man not to resign. If they omit that, they are basically saying he is not a good man or that they despise him.
And they showed their contempt, not only in sentiment, but by positive canonical ommissions, in seemingly in several ways, because in February of 2013 none of them were under a pontifical secret, yet in 7 years they never have confirmed — to my knowledge — in any interview that they did not do the following:
They did not ask Pope Benedict to explain to them why he made his decision or what it meant, to make sure he was resigning freely.
They did not ask Pope Benedict to correct the 40 errors in the Latin text which he read, before it was published, so as to prevent the shame of such a thing staining the last act of his papacy and the Apostolic See.
They did not investigate or question Archbishop Gänswein and those around the pope as to the circumstance of the act to be certain that he was not manipulated or coerced.
They did not ask one another what they knew about the matter. If so, they would have discovered that Pope Benedict did not seek the counsel of others (according to Archbishop Gänswein) or refused the counsel of his better advisers (according to Archbishop Gänswein and Cardinal Brandmuller). If they had done this, they would have been altered to the necessity to examine the act further.
The consummated their disrespect through all these things and for not treating the Holy Father with that due respect for an aged man, in which one presumes frailty and therefore double checks everything to make sure it is done rightly.
Conclusion
For all these reasons, I think it can be said, objectively, that today marks the 7th anniversary of a day which will live in infamy in the history of the Church until the end of time and for all eternity. The Cardinals gravely failed in their duty as Cardinals and as Electors and as Bishops and Catholics. They failed also deliberately and by omission. Their failure also was canonically imputable, since the Code of Canon Law holds as presumptive, the responsibility of men with such high office to know the law and follow it.
Hence, it is objectively and canonically certain, that Bergoglio is not the pope. Because a man whose claim to the papacy is vitiated by so many canonical doubts, is not the pope, according to the ancient maxim of St. Robert Bellarmine, S. J.: a doubtful pope is not the pope.
_________
CREDITS: The Featured Image is a detail of the photograph by Tenan, which is used here in accord with the Creative Commons Atribution-Share Alike 3.0 unported license explained here.
Originally Published Nov. 26, 2019 A. D., but updated regularly.
So much has been written about Pope Benedict’s renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013, that it is easy to forget or miss important articles. Since a lot of visitors who come to The From Rome Blog want to read about Benedict’s renunciation, it is helpful to have in one post, a list of all the Articles published here.
This is a topical, not chronological list: that is, it lists articles according to what aspect of the controversy they principally deal with, not according to the date they were published.
Before reading any of the Articles, see this public notice about FACTS VS CONJECTURE
And make sure to read the last section, which is the MOST important: What we must now do!
An Index to our Articles on Pope Benedict’s Renunciation
Br. Bugnolo’s Third Translation, attempting to reveal the authentic meaning by ignoring the narrative about what it is supposed to say, and rendering the text into English solely according to the grammatical sense.
A Fictitious Canonical Case to explain why an extrinsic method of interpreting a Papal Resignation is the worse possible way and most error prone method to understand what it means.
Andrea Cionci:The Renunciation that was written to break the bank, English translation of the article which appeared in the Italian Daily, the Libero, June 11, 2020, and which shook the Church in Italy. The Bishop’s Daily responded only by personal attacks.
Andrea Cionci’s “Possible Reconstruction of Benedict’s Plan B”, published here in English as, “Benedict XVI’s Masterstroke against Globalism and Freemasonry” (PDF and Online Version), which is the MOST complete reconstruction according to the words and statements of Pope Benedict XVI. — A MUST READ, DROP EVERYTHING NOW!
What Pope Benedict says His resignation means and meant
Or How one Eminent Canonist at Rome
Just Admitted that Bergoglio is a Usurper
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The salvation of souls is the most important thing. That is why in the time of perfidy and falsehood it is a grave moral obligation to warn the faithful of the imminent danger to their souls, from whatever quarter that threat comes.
I too, personally, cannot comprehend or contemplate the prudence that would keep silent while letting wolves gobble up sheep and ship them off in boat-loads to Hell.
That is why, I think every catholic who is struggling with the question of whether Berogoglio is the Pope or whether Benedict did not really resign, needs to read the report I file here below.
I say this because I have just had the occasion to talk with one of the most eminent and respected canonists in the Church and show him my Disputed Question on the Renunciation. He holds a doctorate in Canon Law and a very important position in the Academic world here at Rome. I met with him this morning, as he graciously granted me an audience despite knowing something about my writing on the subject. I respect that.
And for that reason, since I am interested in truth, and not in damaging reputations, I won’t mention his name. But since what he said is important and needs to be heard by everyone in the Church, I will summarize as best I can remember. (I did not record the conversation, and what follows is not a transcript.)
I explained my academic background and preparation. Then I mentioned the comment of Mons. Nicola Bux, last year in October, about the possibility that in the Renunciation of Pope Benedict there was a substantial error which made it invalid to cause him to lose the office of the Papacy, then we discussed the problem according to canonical principles.
This eminent canonist in the course of our 20 minute conversation, agreed with me on the following points of law:
A papal resignation falls under the category of legal acts which pertain to the cessation of power.
The cessation of power is never presumed, it must be manifest in the legal act.
The Roman Curia assists the Pope in the exercise of the Petrine Ministry, but no one in the Curia, not even the Secretary of State shares in the Petrine Munus.
During a sedevacante there can be no innovation in the law.
If Ratzinger did validly resign, then from the moment he did, there was a sede vacante.
During a sede vacante the entire Church is obliged to judge who is not pope and who is pope based on the norm of the law, not on the hearsay or claims of anyone, let alone journalists.
Canon 145 §1 does define every ecclesiastic office as a munus.
Canon 332 §2 does require the Church to recognize that a papal renunciation takes place when there is a free and manifest renunciation of the Petrine Munus.
Canon 1331 §2, n. 4, does not forbid an excommunicate to exercise or hold a ministry in the Church, and does not equate ministerium with dignity, office or munus.
Christ’s promise and prayer for the Successor of Saint Peter is infinitely more important of a support for the Pope than all the prayers and good works of the Church for the Pope.
It is necessary that the entire Church take care that a Petrine Succession, that is, the passing of the office of the papacy from one man to another, takes place in the way canon law and the will of Christ intend it.
Our concern for the solution of this problem should be based on the highest charity and justice for both Benedict and Francis.
There is no canon in the Code of Canon Law which says that ministerium = munus.
So much for what we agreed on. It was very substantial, and I much appreciated the occasion to speak with such a brilliant mind on the law.
However, we had fundamental disagreements. Here I will list those which I remember. These are positions which I do not hold, but represent substantially those of the canonist:
Any questioning of the legitimacy of Pope Francis for the purpose of taking from him a legal claim to the Papacy is the greatest evil in the Church.
Any canonical study or investigation which so questions Pope Francis’s claim if it is motivated by such a motive, is to be entirely refused before even being heard.
Scholastic theology is not the mind of the Church and it does not determine reality.
Canon Law does not determine reality.
Munus is contained in ministerium, so he who exercises ministerium holds a munus.
Canon 17, which establishes the legal norm for the interpretation of every canon, is not operative in any discussion of Pope Francis’ legitimacy or Benedict’s resignation.
Catholics investigating either issue should read and accept the scholarly works of only those authors who sustain that Bergoglio’s claim is valid and the Benedict’s resignation is valid.
Discussion
The usurpation of power is an act whereby someone who does not have claim to a right, claims that right. We live in an age of usurpation, as can be seen from the daily news. But when you encounter a canonist who takes the position that the holding of power makes legitimate the claim to power, you are face-to-face with proof that there is no reason or legal obligation to support their revolution.
So, though we did not discuss the opinions of Cardinal Burke, when I consider that Cardinal Burke called all who question the legitimacy of Pope Francis’ claim to the papacy, “extremists”, I wonder what he would say on these same points. Because what is extremism, in the bad sense of the word, anyhow? Is it claiming that 2+2 must = 4, and that those who say it does not are wrong? Or is it saying that anyone who questions a legal claim, because it lacks a foundation in law and right, is nuts?
The most egregious affirmations made by this canonist are contained in nn. 5 and 6. To reject the norm of canon 17 in the reading of the Code is basically to throw in the dust bin any obligation to hold that the Code means what Pope John Paul II said it meant and what it itself or canonical tradition says it means.
To claim that munus is contained in ministerium is pretty much to reject the entire Incarnation, because that is the doctrine of those Christians who claim that the doing of a ministry gives you authority. It’s the protestant principle of office, as a very eminent historian of the comparison of ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation recently affirmed to me in a private chat.
So, basically, if munus is contained in ministerium, then if anyone starts dressing like the Pope and acting like the pope, nominating bishops and consecrating them, THEN HE IS THE POPE! Because, after all the papal office is contained in the papal ministry, do the ministry and you have the office!
Finally, for a canonist to say that Canon Law does not determine reality in a discussion on the question of the canonical validity of the Renunciation is basically to concede that the Renunciation is clearly and manifestly NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE NORM OF CANON 332 §2.
So the next time anyone tells you that you must accept Pope Francis as the pope BECAUSE OTHERWISE you are a sinner or a heretic or a schismatic, maybe you should reply,
“In the Catholic Church only he is pope who has been canonically elected after the death or canonical resignation of the previous man. If one of the most eminent canonists of Rome, who supports Pope Francis, admitted to Br. Bugnolo on Nov. 19, that the Renunciation is not in conformity with the canonical requirements of the law, then I think I have an UNSHAKEABLE RIGHT by baptism to refuse Bergoglio as a usurper, for clearly, Bergoglio’s own supporters after nearly 7 years should have a canonical argument which proves his claim! And if they do not, there is none! And if there is none, why in Heaven or Earth, to I have to accept him without such a claim?”
POSTSCRIPT: It is VERY noteworthy that this eminent Canonist did not use certain arguments. He did Not:
Cite the maxim referenced in Canon 1404, the First See is judged by no one (Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur), because he recognizes that an act of renunciation is of the man who holds the office, in as much as he is the man who accepted the office, not inasmuch as he is the man who holds the office.
Appeal to universal acceptance: a crazed notion invented by some English speaking laymen, who having selectively quoted from John of Saint Thomas, want to apply a reflex principle, developed in an age before there was a Code of Canon Law, for troubled consciences in the time of a valid election, to silence honest inquiries into an invalid election which the principles of the Code of Canon Law clearly put it in doubt.
Employ any ad hominems. That is, he did not insult me or question my motivation.
Appeal to any meeting held in the Vatican after Feb 11, 2013 12 pm, noon, and before Feb. 28, 8 pm, when Benedict left the Vatican, in which there was an official determination or discussion of the canonical validity of the act to determine it was valid. Being an expert canonist at Rome, he would have heard of any, after nearly 7 years.
And most importantly, perhaps, he made NO appeal to anything said by Benedict after Feb. 28, 2013, evidently because as a sane canonist, he recognizes that no testimony after the fact, regarding liberty or intention, has any bearing on the validity of a past act. Both need to be manifest in the act itself at the time of the act.
________
CREDITS: My photograph of the Holy Water fount at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. The sculpture beneath it shows a cherub inviting the faithful to bless themselves with the Holy Water, while a demon cringes that anyone do something so extremist.
THANKS TO MY READERS: I wish to take this moment to thank all my Readers at this blog for encouraging me in my work and study to study the Renunciation. I would not have been prepared to debate the Renunciation with this eminent canonist, if I had not already learned a great deal from trying to answer your many questions and concerns during the last year.
Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to.
However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized.
For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.
First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect.
Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.
For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.
This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.
This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus….
The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2. It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.
For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law. I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.
This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.
According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.
Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law
This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com. In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.
For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found: Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium. Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code.
Let us take a look at each, briefly.
Ministeria:
The Nominative and Accusative Plural: Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233, 237, 385, 611 and 1035. Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..
Ministerii:
The Genitive. Occurs 13 times. In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548. These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:
In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:
Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
Canon 519: The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.
Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.
And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:
756 § 2. Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.
Which in English is:
756 §2In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.
Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.
Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.
In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:
Can. 1389 – § 1. Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.
2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.
Which in English is:
Canon 1389 §1 Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.
2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.
Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.
This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.
Ministeriis
The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.
And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:
Can. 1331 – § 1. Excommunicatus vetatur:
1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;
2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;
3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.
The English is:
Canon 1331 §1. An excommunicate is forbidden:
from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.
Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.
Ministerio
The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.
Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.
This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.
Ministeriorum
The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.
And finally the Nominative Singular form.
MINISTERIUM
Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.
First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.
The Latin reads:
Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.
The English reads:
Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.
Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.
Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.
Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.
Which in English is:
Canon 1384 Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.
The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.
To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.
This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.
In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.
Munus in the Code of Canon Law
Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.
The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).
While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.
I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.
But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:
First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.
This occurs only once in canon 145, §1
Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.
Which in English is:
Canon 145 § 1.An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end.
Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:
Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.
In English:
Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.
Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction:
Can. 1484 – § 1. Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.
Which in English is:
Canon 1484 §1. The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.
Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.
Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:
4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia
Which in English reads:
He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.
If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!
Note well, ministerium is not included in that list! thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!
This study of Munus and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.
The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.
Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus. thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.
——
(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)
Se Papa Bendetto XVI mediante l’atto espresso nella sua dichiarazione, « Non solum propter », ha rinunciato o meno all’ufficio del Vescovo di Roma?
UNA QUESTIONE DISPUTATA
di Frà Alexis Bugnolo
Lo Stato Attuale della Questione
L’eminente teologo vaticano ed ex membro della Congregazione per la Fede, Monsignor Nicola Bux, ha pubblicamente affermato che la questione della validità delle dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI andrebbe studiata, e precisamente per ciò che sembra essere un errore sostanziale, contenuto nell formula di rinuncia usata da Papa Benedetto XVI l’ 11 Febbraio 2013.
Il Mons. Bux non è stato l’unico a sollevare questo problema. In effetti, i dubbi sulla validità dell’atto di dimissioni sono stati evidenziati immediatamente dopo la notizia. Flavien Blanchon, un giornalista francese che lavora a Roma, ne scriveva appena 2 giorni dopo, citando un eminente studioso latino che aveva notato la presenza di errori contenuti nel testo della rinuncia, osservando che la presenza di qualsiasi errore, secondo la tradizione canonica, fosse da considerarsi causa di mancata deliberazione, con conseguente nullità dell’atto.
Un anno dopo Antonio Socci ha posto apertamente la questione. Le dimissioni potrebbero non essere valide, per mancanza di voglia, cioè della volontà interiore della quale poteva disporre Benedetto. Nello stesso anno abbiamo il notevole studio di Padre Stefano Violi, Professore di diritto canonico presso l’Istituto teologico di Lugano, in Svizzera: ”La rinuncia di Papa Benedetto XVI tra storia , legge e consapevolezza” , 2014, un esame approfondito dell’argomento dal punto di vista del diritto canonico. Leggere questo contributo è obbligatorio per la ricca citazione tratta dalla storia canonica delle dimissioni papali e tuttavia, pur senza sollevare il problema dell’invalidità canonica dell’atto. Ma, questo studio di Padre Violi, nell’inquadrare la questione delle dimissioni sotto il profilo del ministero attivo, e non riguardo al munus, ha chiarito che la questione dell’Errore Sostanziale è un problema vero, presente nel testo, che riguarda dunque l’atto stesso.
Tuttavia 19 giugno 2016 Ann Barnhardt, dagli Stati Uniti, ha sollevato specificamente la questione del dubbio derivante dal canone 188 , che sottolinea come l’errore sostanziale, in qualsiasi caso, sia base idonea e sufficiente a sostanziare i motivi per una determinazione canonica nel senso dell’invalidità dell’atto. Intervento, questo, successivo ai notevoli commenti del segretario personale di Papa Benedetto, del 20 maggio, ove si affermava che Benedetto occupasse ancora l’ufficio papale. Ancora: Il blogger Sarmaticus, in Inghilterra, ha discusso la questione sollevata dalle parole di Ganswein il 5 agosto 2016, sottolineando il significato di ciò che l’arcivescovo aveva detto all’ Università Gregoriana, in un post intitolato: Il rasoio di Occam trovare : Benedetto ancora papa , Francisco è un papa falso , la Chiesa universale versa in un stato di necessità sin dal 24 aprile 2005.
Anche il Vescovo emerito del Corpus Domini, in Texas, negli Stati Uniti, ed ex membro dell’Opus Dei, Monsignore René Enri Gracida ha sollevato lo stesso dubbio, ed anche altri, sulla validità delle dimissioni. Sono a conoscenza che il Vescovo abbia scritto a molti membri della Sacra Gerarchia e della Curia su queste questioni per sollecitare l’azione da intraprendere. (cf. abyssum.org : Suggerisci una dichiarazione pubblica di 12 cardinali prima di Bergoglio).
Secondo quanto riferito da Ann Barnhart, l’anno successivo, anche l’avvocato Chris Ferrara e la signora Anne Kreitzer nutrivano lo stesso dubbio. Lo storico Richard Cowden Guido ha detto la stessa cosa l’11 maggio 2017. Il famoso scrittore italiano Antonio Socci , ha citato attentamente il Violi il 31 maggio 2017, ed anche lui ha condiviso e sostenuto la stessa tesi. 11 agosto 2017, in Sud America: lo spettacolo televisivo cattolico Café con Galat in un’edizione in lingua inglese ha discusso i motivi per i quali Papa Benedetto XVI rimane il vero papa. E’ stata sottolineata tanto la mancanza di libertà nell’atto quanto la questione relativa alla mancanza di conformità ex Canone 332 §2 in combinato disposto con Canone 188.
Un po’ prima del marzo 2018 padre Paul Kramer negli Stati Uniti ha ugualmente sostenuto la nullità delle dimissioni ex canone 188, per mancanza di conformità ex al canone 332 §2 , ove viene detto ministerium invece di munus. Ancora: nel Maggio dell’anno scorso al più tardi, il Padre Juan Juárez Falcón in Spagna ha presentato la motivazione canonica dell’invalidità delle dimissioni sulla base dell’errore stanziale, in un articolo intitolato ” Due motivi gravi “. In coincidenza temporale anche Il Dr. José Alberto Villasana Munguía ha svolto le stesse considerazioni il 27 giugno, dal Messico.
Ed infine abbiamo Papa Benedetto XVI che ci offre un indici offre un indizio di interpretazione autentica, anzi zio di interpretazione autentica, anzi qualcosa di più, nelle sue lettere private al cardinale tedesco Brandmüller, pubblicate nell’estate del qualcosa di più, nelle sue lettere private al cardinale tedesco Brandmüller, pubblicate nell’estate del 2018, ove chiede 2018, ove chiede apertamenteapertamente suggerimenti riguardo alla maniera migliore di dimettersi, nel caso suggerimenti riguardo alla maniera migliore di dimettersi, nel caso ciò non fosse giciò non fosse già avvenuto nella maniera corretta.à avvenuto nella maniera corretta.
Dunque sono tanti i cattolici di spicco a sostenere questo dubbio, e poiché il teologo Nicola Bux ha richiesto un’indagine su questo argomento, aggiungerò qui in forma scolastica qualche ragione in favore della nullità, in corso dei quali rifiuterò tutti gli argomenti sostanziali contrari ad esso.
Tutti gli argomenti pro e contro devono intedersi nel constesto di canoni,
124 §1, che legge: “Per la validità di un atto giuridio si richiede che sia postao da una persona abilpersona abile, e che in esso ci sia ciò che costituisce essenzialmente l’atto stesso, come pure le formalità e i requisiti imposti dal diritto per la validità dell’atto.
188, che legge: La rinuncia fatta per timore grave, ingiustamente indotto, per dolo o per errore errore sostanziale, oppure con simonia, è irritus per il diritto stesso.
332 §2, che legge: Se capita che il Romano Pontefici rincunci al suo munus si richiede per la validità che la rinuncia sia fatta liberamente e che venga debitamente manifestata e al contrario non si richiede che qualcuno la accetti.
È importante anche notare, per le persone di madre lingua tedesca che il Codice di Diritto fornisce una traduzione erronea per munus, come Dienst, in canone 145 §1, dove se la parola latina venisse tradotta si dovrebbe renderla come Verantwortung che è la traduzione del sinonimo giusto per munus in latino, come in latino, come onus (onere).
The International Association « Veri Catholici » has published this open Letter to the Cardinals, on their twitter feed at @VeriCatholici. I post it here (in its unrolled format) for the sake of those who do not have a Twitter Account.
Here beings the Introduction, with the first paragraph of the Letter subordinated to it:
The rest of the text of the open Letter continues here:
“It’s also evident that canon 124.1 and canon 188 require that the proper object of canon 332.2 be posited, namely the renunciation of the munus, otherwise, in virtue of canon 188, the substantial error of doing otherwise invalidate the act ipso iure!
“Now if a pope should act in violation of Canon 332.2, since in doing so he would injure the rights of the whole Church to know who is and who is not the true Pope, he would have to apply canon 38 derogating from the discrepancy. But Benedict did not do anything of the kind!
“Therefore, he is still the pope, and canon 359 invalidated the Conclave of 2013. Also, on this account, all the Cardinals and Bishops ARE WRONG to reason from their presumption that Francis is the pope toward any conclusion. As he never was. He is an antipope, a usurper.
“Nor can one argue that the Pope, being above canon law, is above Canon 332.2, because that canon enshrines merely the principles of the Natural Law, which are superior to the Pope and from which he CANNOT dispense!
“One aspect of which is the semiotic law, whereby the being of a thing cannot in a forensic act be rite manifestatur by a term which signifies an accident of it.
“Take this example. A pope has the habit of calling the burden of his work, Bananas. And one day while shaving says, I am renouncing Bananas. Can the Cardinals lawfully proceed to elect another, if the Pope says nothing more? No, because Bananas is not a due term for a legal act.
“Even if he said, I am renouncing bananas, during a solemn Consistory of the Cardinals, they could not proceed to elect another. Not even if he commanded them or allowed them explicitly to do so, because until he says I renounce the Papacy, Christ does not remove the office!
“These Cardinals also need to recognize that the criteria employed to determine validity in contractual law is not the same in beneficiary law. For in contractual law, as is used in Annulments evidence regards whether there was a right intention, this is principal.
“But in beneficiary law, which regards bequests, the intention has no force, what matters is only the verbal signification of the act of bequest. Renunciations fall under beneficiary law, not contractual law. This is the fundamental legal error of the Cardinals and bishops.
“For just as it is impossible for anyone to be the Pope unless he succeeds to the Chair of Peter, the office, so it is impossible for anyone to renounce the Papal Office unless in a forensic act there is an explicit renunciation of that office.
“The case is analogous to property law, wherein no one is the rightful owner of the same single property, until the one who holds the property rights renounces them in a legal act. Renouncing only the usufruct (ministerium) does not grant the title to the successor in law.
February 14, 2019 A. D. — Today Diane Montagna’s article, entitled, “Did Benedict really resign? Gänswein, Burke and Brandmüller weigh in,” was published at Life Site News.
First, let me say a big thank you to Diane Montagna for bringing the controversy to the greater attention of the general public. In this way, all Catholics, who have a right to know of its existence, can at last be informed.
However, I do not praise the article’s author for the article itself, which in all frankness, I must say is full of sophistic arguments: that is false manners of argumentation, and even false assertions, all marshaled in an attempt to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign, and that everything His Holiness and his private secretary have said about this, is to be ignored!
I find it shocking that two Cardinals, to defend the validity of the resignation, have resorted to telling the whole world not to pay attention to what the Pope has said about the meaning and effect of his own act! This is tantamount to rebellion against the papacy, in my mind!
I also wish to contradict the attempt by the article to smear Catholics who hold that the resignation is invalid as persons who are NOT knowledgeable about Church Law, the text of the papal resignation, or who are excessively scandalized by Bergoglio. As I pointed out in my previous article on How Usurpation of the Papacy leads to Excommunication, all those involved in asserting an invalid resignation is valid are risking excommunication for schism and positing acts which only a pope can do. So they have a lot of reasons to ignore a serious and just consideration of the facts, especially if they just went along to get along.
But enough of preamble. let’s examine the sophisms in Montagna’s Article, in order of their appearance.
Archbishop Gänswein dismisses the argument as making no sense. So since he confesses not to understand it, there is really nothing proved by quoting him. I will observe that in German, which is the Bishop’s ancestral tongue, there is no equivalent of ministerium, munus and officium except by one word. So its easy for a German thinker to miss the problem of saying ministerium instead of munus. What the Archbishop says previously contradicts what he says now, so he probably was thinking in German then or is now. But surely he can understand the controversy, seeing that I sent him last month, with proof of delivery, a printed copy of my entire Disputed Question on the topic. But then again, maybe he cannot read English?
Later on in the article, after quoting Archbishop Gänswein as saying openly that Benedict did NOT resign the PAPAL OFFICE, Montagna quotes an anonymous theologian as sustaining,
supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities.
Ugh, what can one respond to such ignorance? Other than that Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 §2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 §1 and canon 41, which reading amply demonstrates that the Supreme Legislator Himself, Pope John Paul II, in promulgating the new Code of Canon Law requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things. — Those who are faithful Catholics, therefore, already know they refer to two different things, because the Pope orders us to do so!
Then the same anonymous theologian quotes canon 15 §1 (actually he quotes §2, but I think that is an error), as saying that the resignation must be presumed valid. But that canon says that a law, which expressly invalidates an act, invalidates even if the one positing the act is ignorant of the law. Thus this canon argues against the validity of the resignation, not for it!
Then the same anonymous theologian confuses the annulment process with this controversy, saying that Catholics who think the resignation is or may be invalid, must wait for the judgement of the Church! Actually, canon 188 says that resignations made in substantial error are invalid by the law itself. That means, they are invalid before any sentence of any court determines the facts: they are null, void and never had any legal effect.
Then, the article quotes Dr. Roberto de Mattei, who cites Canon 124 §2. — As an aside, I would ask that Dr. de Mattei respond to my criticism of his previous error of attempting to raise an opinion of late scholasticism to the level of an interpretative principle of canon law, in contradiction to the obligation of canon 17 — But that canon also contradicts Dr. de Mattei, because it regards only acts which are manifestly conform to the obligations of the law, when in the present controversy one deals with a prima facie non conformity! That is, with the fact that at first glance at the Latin of Non solum propter (Text of apparent resignation) and canon 332 §2, they are not speaking of the same things! For the former renounces the ministerium, but the latter refers to resignations of munus.
Then Dr. de Mattei attempts again to flip a canon. This time its canon 1526 §1, the burden of proof is upon him who asserts. Seeing that it is the Cardinals and Dr. de Mattei who long ago asserted first of all that the resignation is valid, the burden of proof is rather on them! That is why, the mere fact that the Cardinals and the entire Vatican have never published a canonical affirmation of the validity is a strong argument they have NEVER examined if it was. But in the case of a resignation, a Cardinal Elector is gravely bound to personally verify that the resignation is valid, because otherwise he will participate in an illicit Conclave and elect and Anti-Pope!
Then, Cardinal Brandmuller attempts to flip two sound dicta: de internis non iudicat praetor(a praetor does not judge of things internal) and quod non est in actis, non est in mundo (what is not in the act does not exist in the world). I say this, because he cites these to argue that those who doubt the validity of the resignation are in error. However, since those who doubt the validity, as I do, do not base our arguments on interior intentions, nor on suppositions, but on the text of the act of renunciation itself, we are acting in perfect harmony with those dicta. Nay, rather, its Cardinal Brandmuller and Burke and Gänswein who violate these, because they say the Pope intended to resign the munus, therefore he did resign the munus, and that ministerium means the munus which is not renounced in the text, because the Pope intended to resign the munus, they judge the Pope’s intention not the act itself!
Then, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.” This, I will admit — for those who have not read the Code of Canon Law and studied this question of substantial error on account of not saying munus nor referring to the office — might be difficult to prove, because many are ignorant of the Canon Law and its obligations. But for those who do, or should know it, it is not! — Just see my disputed question on it. You can find it in Spanish translation here. In that Question, I carefully examine and refute the 19 reasons alleged for the validity and marshal 39 arguments, drawn from Canon Law, Theology, Philosophy, etc. against the validity.
Finally, Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying: “It seems clear to me that Benedict had his full mind and that he intended to resign the Petrine office.” — Having given no argument but his speculation about the intention of what Pope Benedict XVI intended to say, other than to deny what he expressly has said on other occasions, the opinion of this eminent Canonist must be disregarded as any gratuitous unproven declaration which runs counter to the facts is disregarded.
In conclusion, I would ask these three eminent prelates to read Canon 17. Therein, Pope John Paul II obliges all Catholics to understand canon 332 §2 in a specific manner. In that manner, it can be seen that there is no question at all that the renunciation of Benedict is invalid by reason of substantial error (canon 188) in thinking that a renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of the papacy.
I believe that the Cardinals in particular, perhaps out of their familiarity with the Annulment process which focuses on the intention as the formal principle of the validity of the bond of Matrimony, are missing the point of the teaching of Pope Boniface VIII (Decree of Boniface VIII (6th vol), 1.1, T.7, Chap. 1: De Renunciatione:) that papal renunciations deal formally with the verbal signification of the act, not on the intention of the one renouncing. Also, they differ significantly in this, that the power to tie the bond of marriage consists in the ones who take marriage vows. But the power to remove the munus of the papacy is held exclusively by Christ the Lord in glory, who has promised Peter to uphold the letter of Canon Law promulgated by his successor, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, and Who cannot act unless the renunciation expressly conform itself to that canon.
En el artículo anterior titulado LavalidezdelarenunciadeBenedictodebesercuestionada, ParteI, recité la historia de la controversia sobre la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI sobre el tema del error sustancial en la renuncia y luego procedí a explicar más de 20 argumentos en contra de validez.
Aquí, enumeraré los argumentos para la validez, en la medida en que los encuentre y los entienda. Si usted conoce sobre más argumentos, favor de avisarme en la sección de comentarios a continuación. Después de cada argumento a favor de la Validez, publicaré, para conveniencia del lector, el argumento en contra, que se desvía de esta pequeña manera de la forma escolástica adecuada. No hay un orden particular entre los argumentos, pero los más fuertes están al final.
¿Ya sea que el Papa Benedicto XVI, mediante el acto expresado en su discurso “Non solum propter”, renunció a la oficina del Obispo de Roma?
Ad contrarium:
Y parece que lo hizo:
Porque, el Papa Benedicto XVI como Papa está por encima del Derecho Canónico. Por lo tanto, no necesita renunciar según la forma del Canon 332 §2. Por lo tanto, renunció válidamente.
Ad obj. 1: Argumentar que el Papa está por encima de la Ley Canónica, y por lo tanto la renuncia es válida, es un sofismo, que cuando se examina es equivalente a otras 2 proposiciones erróneas, a saber: “El Papa como Papa está por encima de la ley canónica, ergo etc.” y “El Papa como el hombre que está por encima de la ley, ergo etc.” A la primera, le diré: En primer caso, es verdad que el Papa está por encima del Derecho Canónico. Sin embargo, el Papa, al renunciar a su cargo, no renuncia como Papa, sino como el hombre que es el Papa. Por lo tanto el argumento es praeter rem. Al segundo, digo: es falso decir que el Papa como el hombre que es papa está por encima de la Ley Canónica, porque la mente del Legislador del Código de Derecho Canónico, el Papa Juan Pablo II, en el canon 332 §2, expresamente declara cuándo una renuncia papal es tal y debe considerarse válida. Por lo tanto, si un Papa renunciara de una manera que fuera válida, pero que los Fieles tuvieran que considerar como inválida según la norma de ese Canon, habría caos en la Iglesia. Sin embargo, al interpretar la mente de un legislador, no se puede suponer ninguna tesis que haga que la ley sea defectuosa. Por lo tanto, el Papa Juan Pablo II tuvo la intención de atar al hombre que es papa, en una resignación papal. Por lo tanto, el segundo es falso también.
Porque está claro que el papa Benedicto quiso renunciar. Por lo tanto, él renunció. Por lo tanto, su renuncia es válida.
Ad obj. 2: Argumentar que el Papa quiso renunciar, por lo tanto renunció, es emplear un sofismo que oculta un término medio no distribuido. Porque si el Papa quería renunciar al ministerio del oficio, entonces renunció al ministerium. Pero tal renuncia no se conforma con el Canon 332 §2, ya que el canon no renuncia al munus. Por lo tanto, no es válida. Del mismo modo, si el Papa quería renunciar al munus, entonces NO renunció al munus si es que dijo ministerium. E incluso aunque él creyó haberlo hecho, es inválido, según el canon 332 §2 de acuerdo con el acto, y de acuerdo con el canon 188 debido a un error sustancial.
Debido a que el Papa Benedicto, después de su renuncia, declaró públicamente que renunció válidamente, entonces renunció válidamente.
Ad obj 3: Argumentar que el Papa renunció válidamente porque después de su renuncia declaró públicamente que renunció válidamente, es emplear un subterfugio. Porque en esa declaración pública declara que renunció válidamente al ministerio petrino. Que renunció válidamente al ministerio petrino, no se disputa. Pero si eso es lo que él renunció, entonces no renunció al munus. Por lo tanto, ese acto no efectuó una renuncia al oficio. Por lo tanto, si se afirma que es una renuncia papal válida, la afirmación es falsa según el canon 332 §2.
Porque, el Papa Benedicto, después de su renuncia, declaró públicamente que renunció libremente, por lo tanto renunció.
Ad obj. 4: Es cierto que la libertad en una renuncia es una de las condiciones necesarias para una renuncia papal según el Canon 332 §2, pero no es cierto que sea la única condición. La primera condición es que sea una renuncia de munus. No era. Por lo tanto, este argumento es praeter rem.
Porque el Cardenal Sodano, como Decano del Colegio de Cardenales, al convocar al Colegio, actuó como si fuera válido, por lo tanto, es válido.
Ad obj. 5: No hay un Canon de la Iglesia o una delegación especial del Romano Pontífice que tome la decisión del Cardenal Diácono de llamar a un cónclave eficaz de la validez de una renuncia inválida, o autoritativamente determinante de la validez de una renuncia. Por lo tanto, que lo haya hecho, no prueba nada. No, el canon 332 §2 lo niega expresamente.
Debido a que el Colegio de Cardenales se reunió para elegir un Sucesor del Papa Benedicto, por lo tanto, mediante ese acto declarado o hecho, la renuncia fue válida.
Ad obj. 6: No existe un Canon de la Iglesia o una delegación especial del Romano Pontífice que tome la decisión del Colegio de Cardenales de conciliar o elegir a un Papa, eficaz de la validez de una renuncia inválida, o autoritativamente determinante de la validez de una renuncia. Por lo tanto, que lo hayan hecho, no prueba nada. No, el canon 332 §2 lo niega expresamente.
Porque todo el Colegio de Cardenales después de la renuncia y después del Cónclave de 2013 actúa y sostiene que Jorge Mario Bergoglio es el verdadero y válido Papa.
Ad obj. 7: Respondo lo mismo que para obj. 7.
Porque todo el mundo acepta que Jorge Mario Bergoglio es el Papa Francisco.
Ad obj. 8: El canon 332 §2 al decir, “y no que sea aceptado o no por nadie” en su frase final, lo niega expresamente. Por lo tanto, es falso.
Porque, un católico debe sostener como papa, a quienquiera que los cardenales, o los obispos, o el clero de Roma, sean el papa.
Ad obj. 9: Respondo lo mismo que para obj. 8.
Porque la elección de un Papa por los Cardenales es un hecho dogmático, que todos los católicos deben aceptar.
Ad obj. 10: Si bien es cierto que la elección válida de un Papa por parte de los Cardenales es un hecho dogmático que todos los católicos deben aceptar, no es cierto si la elección no fue válida. Pero una elección no es válida si el Papa anterior aún vive y aún no ha renunciado válidamente. Por lo tanto, esta objeción no es válida, en la medida en que la renuncia sea inválida. Por lo tanto, de su propio ser es insuficiente para probar el punto argumentado.
Debido a que la renuncia del papa Benedicto XVI es un acto papal, que no puede ser cuestionado, según el anexo: prima sedes a nemini iudicatur.
Ad obj. 11: Si bien es cierto que los actos del Romano Pontífice son actos jurídicos que no pueden ser cuestionados, no es verdad que las declaraciones hechas en primera persona por el hombre que es Papa, que son la materia de tales actos o declaraciones, no pueden ser juzgadas. El canon 332 §2 demuestra que tal acto puede ser juzgado ya que el canon juzga tales actos. Que tal materia del acto papal no es un acto del papa como papa, ya se ha demostrado anteriormente. — Si dice que el acto de declaración es un acto papal, no el acto del hombre, por lo tanto, debe considerarse válido, ya que el Papa es el legislador supremo y el árbitro del significado de los actos canónicos, debe responderse que la declaración (“Yo declaro”) se hace en la primera persona del singular, no en la primera persona del plural, por lo que el legislador supremo ya ha renunciado explícitamente a su papel en la declaración de renuncia.
Porque, un católico con buena conciencia debe suponer que si la renuncia no era válida debido al uso de la palabra ministerium no munus en la frase clave del acto, los Cardenales, de acuerdo con el canon 17, se demostraron a sí mismos que el Santo Padre, El Papa Benedicto renunció lo suficiente al papado, o que celebraron un consejo privado con el para conocer su sentido y significado, momento en el que significó en privado que había renunciado al papado al renunciar al ministerio del papado.
Ad obj. 12: Si bien es cierto que un católico debe estar dispuesto a presumir tal cosa, tal presunción no hace válida una renuncia inválida. No, de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, se debe tener en cuenta que la causa final de una renuncia inválida es que no se manifiesta de acuerdo con la norma de la ley (rite manifestatur). Cuya norma requiere un acto público que es un acto presenciado por lo menos con 2 testigos y hecho verbalmente. Tal acto nunca ha sido publicado. Entonces, incluso si se hiciera, es un acto secreto y no haría una renuncia inválida, válida.
Debido a que el Papa Benedicto dijo: “declaro que renuncio al ministerio, …que me fue confiado por medio de los Cardenales, … , asi que la Sede de San Pedro quedará vacante en”, indicó claramente que su renuncia era para efectuar una perdida al oficio (munus). Por lo tanto, su renuncia estuvo de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, a pesar de no usar explícitamente la palabra munus, ya que ese Canon requiere su validez. Por los tanto, la renuncia fue válida.
Ad obj. 13: Esta objeción fue refutada en los argumentos de la Primera Parte, pero su complejidad merece una respuesta más completa para aquellas mentes que no pueden entender cómo es inválida. Primero, como se demuestra en la Primera Parte de este Artículo, una renuncia es válida si incluye una renuncia de munus, no es válida si no lo hace. Y de acuerdo con Canon 17, si hay alguna duda sobre si munus está incluido en el Canon 332 §2 como una condición sine qua non o de acuerdo a su significado en un sentido más amplio, uno debe tener recurso a otras partes de del Derecho, la tradición canónica, y a la mente del Legislador (Juan Pablo II) del Código. Como se ha mostrado en otraparte, no hay base para un argumento del canon 17 de que ministerium puede significar munus. Sin embargo, como ministerium es seguido por 2 cláusulas subordinadas, el argumento de que no es válido, debe responder a esa condición. En latín, algunas cláusulas subordinadas pueden alterar el significado de la cláusula principal. Y es cierto que hay una forma poética, en la que parte de una cosa puede sustituir al todo, como cuando en la Misa en el Rito Latino decimos: “Entres a mi casa” para que signifique “Vengas a mi alma”. Sin embargo, con respecto al latín del texto de la renuncia, decir, “que recibí de las manos de los Cardenales” no impone ninguna necesidad de referencia al Ministerio Petrino per se, porque Ratzinger también en ese momento recibió el ministerio Episcopal y Pastoral de la Diócesis de Roma. La segunda cláusula, “asi que la Sede de San Pedro quedará vacante”, se ha demostrado en la Parte I que no requiere ninguna necesidad. Para aquellos que no entienden la gramática latina, esto necesita ser explicado. Porque, en una cláusula subordinada como “asi que … quedará vacante”, la cláusula es una cláusula de propósito del tipo que comienza con la partícula “ut“, y por lo tanto es una cláusula pura de propósito que indica solo una meta. Si la clausula subordinada de propósito hubiera comenzado “de tal manera que” (quomodo) o “de tal manera como para” (in tali modo quod) hubiera sido una cláusula de propósito de tal característica que tuviera el poder de alterar la manera de significado en la clausula primaria, y permitir el uso de significado metonímico, eso es, cuando una parte refiere al todo. Como el Papa Benedicto no dijo nada de ese tipo, esta forma de leer la cláusula subordinada no es posible. Por lo tanto, sigue siendo inválido. Sin embargo, incluso si se tuviera un significado metonímico, sigue siendo inválido según el Canon 332 §2, ya que no se manifestaría debidamente. Porque como si alguien pronunciara los votos matrimoniales diciendo: “Te tomo como mi empanada vienesa”en lugar de decir “Te tomo como mi esposa”, sería necesario recurrir a una interpretación para hacer que la frase signifique tomar una esposa, por lo que en un acto de renuncia, cualquier forma de significado metonímico rendiría inválido el acto porque públicamente no manifiesta la intención debidamente.
En su acto de renuncia, el Papa Benedicto XVI declaró dos cosas. El primero con respecto a su renuncia, el segundo con respecto a la convocación de un cónclave “que un cónclave para elegir a un nuevo Sumo Pontífice sea convocado por aquellos cuyo deber es”. No habría dicho esto si su intención no fuera renunciar a la oficina del papado. Por lo tanto, renunció a la oficina del papado.
Ad obj. 14: Este argumento es una combinación de dos argumentos, uno de los cuales se ha refutado previamente, a saber, aquel que se refiere a su intención, que fue refutado en Ad obj. 2. Aquí responderé al otro que se refiere al comando papal de convocar un cónclave. Dado que el Papa declaró que se convocaría un cónclave para elegir a un nuevo Romano Pontífice constituye la segunda cláusula independiente de su verbo, “Yo declaro”. Por lo tanto, es lógicamente independiente y no tiene ninguna necesidad en la alteración del significado de la primera cláusula, que se refiere a la renuncia. Por lo tanto, si la renuncia no se manifiesta debidamente de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, que el Papa declara que se debe llamar cónclave es una declaración papal que está totalmente viciada por el error sustancial en su primera declaración. Así, el canon 188 invalida la ejecución de este mando. Esto es especialmente cierto, ya que en la declaración de convocatoria, no requiere que la convocatoria se realice antes o después de que el Papa deje de ser, ni en una fecha específica o incluso durante su vida. Para ver esto más claramente, recuerde el ejemplo de los argumentos en contra de la validez, en donde un papa hipotético declara: “Renuncio a los plátanos para que el 28 de febrero, a las 8 p. M., Hora romana, La Sede esté vacía” y simplemente agregue “y que se convoque un cónclave para elegir un nuevo pontífice romano”. Como se puede ver en esta hipotética, la segunda declaración no hace válida la primera, simplemente continúa con el error sustancial: un error sustancial que también hace que el Cónclave de 2013 y todos los actos de Bergoglio como Papa sean inválidos.
Canon 332 §2 requiere la renuncia del oficio. Pero ministerium también significa oficio. Por lo tanto, cuando el Papa Benedicto renunció al ministerium, renunció al munus.
Ad obj. 15 : Canon 332 §2 lee de la siguiente manera: “Si el Romano Pontífice renunciase a su munus, se requiere para la validez que la renuncia sea libre y se manifieste rite, pero no que sea aceptada por nadie.” Como se puede ver en este Canon, que es el único que se ocupa de las renuncias papales, la condición fundamental es que el Papa renuncie a su “munus“. Ahora, mientras que algunas traducciones modernas lo traducen como oficina (inglés), otras como cargo (español), otras como función (italiano), está claro en el Código de Derecho Canónico que su significado canónico principal es oficio. Esto se puede ver en su uso en los Encabezados del Nuevo Código para los capítulos sobre las Oficinas eclesiásticas.Esto se confirma mediante una cita directa del canon 145 §1, donde cada oficio eclesiástico es llamado un “munus“, no un “ministerium”. Un examen del Código también revela que un ministerium nunca se llama una “oficio”. Ahora, como el Código de Derecho Canónico requiere en el Canon 17, que el Código mismo se lea de acuerdo con la tradición de los textos canónicos, las fuentes del derecho canónico y la mente de su legislador (el Papa Juan Pablo II), estos hechos deberían ser suficientes pruebas para excluir la posibilidad de que “ministerium” se pueda leer como munus. Esto se confirma mediante la comparación del Canon 332 §2 con el canon correspondiente en el Código de Derecho Canónico promulgado bajo el Papa Benedicto XV, donde se habla de un Papa que renuncia, pero no dice a qué renuncia. Es evidente y significativo que el Papa Juan Pablo II en el código de 1983 agregó la palabra “munus” para especificar a qué se debe renunciar para efectuar una renuncia papal. También es evidente que en ese Código de Derecho Canónico “ministerium” se refiere al ejercicio de una oficio. Además, si uno examina todas las renuncias papales anteriores para las cuales hay evidencia textual de la fórmula de renuncia, siempre se encuentran las palabras que significan oficio:onus, munus. No se encuentra ministerium. Los nombres propios para los oficios se encuentran como epicopatus y papatus. O la dignidad que resulta de la oficina se nombra con las palabras honor o dignitas. Así, de acuerdo con el Canon 17, todas las fuentes de interpretación autorizada concluyen sobre 1 resultado: que un Papa solo renuncia cuando renuncia al munus, al oficio, no a la ejecución del oficio, ministerium. Por lo tanto, incluso si el Papa Benedicto pretendía, y en privado después afirmó, afirmaba o afirmaría, que pretendía usar “ministerium” para munus, su acto de renuncia no es válido debido a ese error sustancial, en virtud del canon 188, y no puede hacerse válido por ningún acto posterior. Tendría que ser rehecho con la palabra, “munus“. Entonces, el argumento es inválido por un sofismo, de leer “munus” en su mayor según su significado en latín, pero leer “ministerium” en el menor de acuerdo con su uso vernáculo. Por lo tanto, su conclusión se alcanza a través de un término medio no distribuido, y por lo tanto también es inválida.
No hay ministerium petrino sin un oficio petrino, ya que los dos son inseparables en cuanto a su derecho y ser [secundum ius et esse], según el Derecho Canónico. Por lo tanto, aunque el Canon 332 §2 requiere que un Papa renuncie a su munus para que renuncie válidamente, sin embargo, una renuncia a su ministerium es suficiente para efectuar esto porque aunque “munus” nombra el oficio papal en relación al don de Dios de gracia y deber, “ministerium” nombra el mismo oficio de acuerdo a su relación con la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, renunciar al ministerium petrino, es renunciar al munus petrino.
Ad obj. 16 : Debe decirse que este argumento debe ser respondido mediante un interemptio (eso es una refutación completa de las premisas en un silogismo), ya que es falso en sus proposiciones principales y secundarias. En su versión menor, es falso al estar basado en un error de interpretación de las obligaciones del Canon 332 §2 de acuerdo con la costumbre general de la ciencia de la teología, y no de acuerdo con la norma de ley. En su principal, o premisa, es además falso afirmar que el ministerium no es separable de su oficio de acuerdo con el derecho en cuanto a derecho y el hecho de ser [secundum ius et esse]. Con respecto a lo primero, uno debe responder así: Porque en la ciencia de la teología, las palabras pueden tener significados diferentes con respecto a cosas iguales o disímiles. Pero todo esto es praeter rem (irrelevante) en cuanto a una discusión del significado canónico de un acto de renuncia de un oficio eclesiástico, aún más, en cuanto a un oficio establecido por el Verbo Encarnado de Dios. En tal asunto, el argumento debe centrarse en el oficio según su ser en la Divina Voluntad e intención, no como oficio según se entienda de acuerdo a la teología personal del hombre que es romano pontífice. Esto también es cierto con respecto a la Iglesia Romana, cuyo Novio no es el Romano Pontífice, sino el mismo Cristo Jesús, que ahora reina en la Gloria. Por esa razón, no solo está obligada a dar el consentimiento de Su voluntad al Redentor, sino también a la aprobación de Su mente. Por lo tanto, uno propondría una manera de observar la ley canónica que sería equivalente al adulterio, si uno sostuviera que era lícito que la Iglesia Romana considerara el significado de un acto canónico según la manera del mundo, la carne o incluso interpretación privada. Por lo tanto, no solo Cristo, por Su promesa a San Pedro, está obligado por el canon 332 §2, promulgado por Su Vicario, el Papa Juan Pablo II, a no retirar la gracia y el oficio [munus] a menos que se renuncie explícitamente, así también a la Iglesia Romana, que es su novia virgen más fiel y su esposa virgen. Por lo tanto, la Iglesia debe considerar que las obligaciones del canon 332 §2 requieren una renuncia al munus, en tanto que el Canon 17 requiere que ese término se entienda en el canon 145 §1. En ninguna parte del Código de Derecho Canónico se encuentra que un ministerium considerado como el oficio en sí. Entonces, si bien fue la intención del autor de Non Solum Propter, en tanto que era hombre, significar la Oficina Papal en su relación con el servicio que presta, no por ese solo hecho se convierte en un acto que la Iglesia pueda aceptar como rite manifestatum, pues se tendría que recurrir a una interpretación y a una lectura del texto fuera del marco de reglas de significado del Código de Derecho Canónico que tendrían que ser empleadas. Y como tal, no sería canónicamente válido, incluso si uno pudiera sostener que era teológicamente suficiente. Sin embargo, incluso si uno fuera a conceder que las palabras ministerium …. commissum habló del munus petrinum en su relación con la Iglesia, ya que no se renuncia a nada más que a lo que se renuncia explícitamente, el acto no haría nada más canónicamente que una renuncia al ministerio en la medida en que se encuentra en tal relación, mas no del oficio en sí mismo. Y, por lo tanto, no sería eficaz renunciar, ni suficiente el dar a entender la renuncia al oficio en su relación a Dios y Su don de la gracia. Pero dado que esta misma relación se refiere a ello según su principio de ser [secundum essendi principium] – ya que es un regalo inmediato de Cristo y se establece mediante un acto de Su voluntad, tal renuncia no afecta lo que es esencial para ello. — El acto permanece, por lo tanto, viciado por un error sustancial en su forma de significación, y por lo tanto no es válido ipso iure, por el canon 188. — Finalmente, con respecto a la premisa del argumento, a saber, que el ministerium no se puede separar de la oficina secundum ius et esse, debe decirse que esto está falsificado por el derecho litúrgico y canónico. Porque desde la supresión de las órdenes menores, el estado del acólito y el lector se denominan “ministerios” [Canon 230 §1], sin embargo, tales ministerios no confieren el derecho de ejercer dicho servicio en ningún momento, sino solo la idoneidad de hacerlo a petición del celebrante de un acto litúrgico. Por lo tanto, ministeria son separables en cuanto a derecho y el hecho de ser, del munus. – Por tanto en conclusión, parece ser obvio que el argumento entero es falso, ya que una conclusión que es deducida de una premisa falsa y un menor falso es enteramente falsificada.
17. La aceptación pacífica y universal de un Papa es causada por y es el efecto de una elección papal válida. Por lo tanto, después de 6 años, incluso si la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI fuera inválida, su silencio de facto en la usurpación de la Oficina Papal por parte de Bergoglio es equivalente a una renuncia. Por lo tanto, ya sea que la renuncia sea inválida o no, ahora debe considerarse válida.
Ad obj. 17: Aunque, en el derecho común, la posesión es nueve décimas de derecho, y por lo tanto, la usurpación puede llevar a la adquisición del derecho y en la Ley Romana usucapióne puede obtener el derecho legal a la propiedad después de un largo tiempo, tal principio no es válido por dos razones. Primero, no es válido teológicamente con respecto a un oficio eclesiástico que fue establecido por Jesucristo, el Verbo Encarnado, por un acto personal inmediato. Del cual tipo es el oficio de Papa. La razón teológica es esta: que nadie puede arrebatar nada de la Mano del Dios viviente (Juan 10:28). Y, por lo tanto, ninguna usurpación del oficio papal puede restringir a la Deidad, que es la justicia infinita y la omnipotencia misma, para transferir la gracia del munus papal a otro.Sostener lo contrario, sería una imposibilidad teológica y absurda. Segundo, no es válido canónicamente, debido al Canon 359, que especifica que el Colegio Cardenalicio tiene autoridad para elegir un Pontífice Romano solo durante una sede vacante. — Por lo tanto, si la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI no fue válida, no había una sede vacante y, por lo tanto, el Colegio no tenía autoridad para elegir un sucesor. — En cuanto a la aquiescencia tácita: de la Historia de la Iglesia se desprende claramente que, en contra de las afirmaciones de un antipapa, no se consideró que ningún legítimo reclamante de la Sede apostólica cediera simplemente por no perseguir su derecho. Sin embargo, el argumento de la aquiescencia tácita, sin embargo, no aplica en el caso en disputa, porque el hecho de que uno actué en error sustancial no constituye una aquiescencia tácita, ya que la aquiescencia tácita requiere la capacidad de consentimiento, cosa que es imposible por ignorancia invencible en el caso de error sustancial. — Finalmente, con respecto a la aceptación universal y pacífica de una elección papal: mientras que este principio es ciertamente un principio reflejo válido para las conciencias preocupadas en el caso de una elección válida, no hay posibilidad de una elección válida cuando el Colegio no tiene derecho a actuar, ya que es contrario no solo a la Ley Canónica sino a la Ley Divina para elegir a otro Romano Pontífice mientras el Papa aún vive y no ha renunciado válidamente. Tampoco es válido, en cuanto a su menor implícito: a saber, que ha habido una aceptación pacífica y universal de la renuncia papal. No ha habido, como demuestra el prefacio a esta pregunta en disputa. Por lo tanto, la aplicación de este principio reflejo en el presente caso es, en el mejor de los casos, praeter rem (irrelevante), peor aún, un subterfugio
18. La renuncia de Benedicto a ministerium efectúa válidamente una renuncia al oficio porque, debido al Canon 10, que dice expresamente que solo las condiciones de invalidez hacen que un acto sea inválido, ya que el Canon 332 §2 habla de invalidez solo en relación con la libertad de coerción y manifestación debida, no del nombramiento del oficio, ya que Benedicto tenía la intención de nombrar el oficio papal, como se desprende de su aceptación del título de Papa Emérito, el nombramiento del ministerium en lugar del munus no invalida el acto de renuncia. Además, Benedicto como papa es el legislador supremo, por lo tanto, interpreta oficialmente la ley (cf. Canon 16 §1), por lo que puede renunciar al munus petrino renunciando al ministerium petrino.
Adj. obj. 18: Si bien es cierto que el canon 332 §2 habla de invalidez pero solo en relación con las condiciones del acto, no obstante, el canon 188 habla expresamente de invalidez de renuncias que están viciadas por un error sustancial. Ahora, no hay un error más sustancial en renunciar a un oficio eclesiástico, que renunciar a un accidente del mismo o su segundo acto de ser (ministerium) y creer que al hacerlo, una suficiencia significa el oficio (munus). Además, el canon 18 requiere que los términos del canon 332 §2 se entiendan estrictamente, ya que el último canon restringen al que renuncia. Por lo tanto, la renuncia debe considerar explícitamente el munus del oficio papal, que en ese canon y en el canon 749 §1, como todas los oficios episcopales (cf. Paul VI, Christus Dominus) en todo el Código, se refiere exclusivamente como munus, porque no es meramente un cargo u oficio eclesiástico (officium) o servicio (ministerium) establecido por costumbre o la Iglesia, sino que es un don de gracia y oficio (munus) establecido por el Dios vivo por un acto personal e inmediato (cf. Mateo 16:18). Que cada oficio (munus) pueda ejercer uno o más ministeria (ministerios) no soloNOes un argumento para la validez de la renuncia de Benedicto sino más bien un argumento en contra de la validez, a causa del canon 188, canon 17 y canon 41 (en latín), el último de los cuales asocia expresamente ministerium con la mera ejecución de un oficio eclesiástico y esto, porque el enfermo puede renunciar a la ejecución de un oficio o sus servicios, quien todavía desea conservar la dignidad del oficio, como lo demuestra la historia de la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, en virtud del canon 17, que requiere explícitamente que los textos de cada Canon se entiendan de acuerdo con el significado apropiado de las palabras que contienen, ya que el contexto del Código de Derecho Canónico los usa, el argumento extraído del Canon 10, aquí, no es válido porque es praeter rem, es decir, aplicable solo a las condiciones de invalidez en el Canon 332 §2, no del canon 188. — Si dice, si, el Canon 10 se aplica solo a los términos expresados en el Canon 332 §2 y así permite una interpretación amplia de la cláusula condicional que habla de una renuncia del munus petrino, entonces debe responderse, que tal lectura del canon 10 anularía los requisitos del canon 17, que los términos deben ser entendidos correctamente, o al menos fallan por insuficiencia, ya que el significado amplio de munus en el Código de Derecho Canónico es officium no ministerium; qué sentido de officium se refiere a oficio, no a la ejecución de un ministerio. — Respecto al Canon 16 § 1, hay que decir, que sí, el Papa Benedicto como Papa es el legislador supremo e intérprete del derecho canónico. Pero él es sólo legislador, cuando legisla; mientras que el canon 332 §2 fue legislado por el papa Juan Pablo II. Además, aunque cualquier Papa puede interpretar oficialmente el derecho canónico, debe hacerlo por un acto papal, no por un error sustancial.Por lo tanto, el canon 16 no se aplica en tal caso. Más bien, más bien, el Canon 38 gobierna expresamente en este caso, cuando dice: Un acto administrativo, incluso si es promulgado por un rescripto dado Motu Proprio, carece de efecto en la medida en que perjudica los derechos de otro o es contrario a la ley o costumbre comprobada, a menos que la autoridad competente haya agregado expresamente una cláusula de derogación. — Finalmente, con respecto a la intención manifiesta del Papa de renunciar al munus papal, he respondido a esto arriba en la respuesta a las objeciones 2, 3 y 4.
19. Como sostiene el Dr. Taylor Marshall en su video, “La renuncia del Papa Benedicto: un análisis”, “ministerium” y “munus” nombran lo mismo: el oficio papal. Por lo tanto, renunciar a uno es renunciar al otro. Por lo tanto, la renuncia es válida.
Ad obj. 19: A una afirmación gratuita, no es necesario responder, porque no es un argumento. Sin embargo, contra esta afirmación, uno debe responder, ya que ataca la naturaleza de la realidad misma. Porque las palabras tienen significado, de lo contrario no serían signos de comunicación. Y diferentes palabras pueden tener un significado diferente, o no habría ninguna razón para usarlas. Así, el lenguaje humano por necesidad sostiene la afirmación de que ministerium y munus pueden tener diferentes significados. Cualquier diccionario de latín también lo sostiene, como cualquiera que tenga uno puede demostrar. Pero que ministerium y munus en el derecho canónico significan lo mismo, es totalmente falso, como se ha demostrado anteriormente al referirse, de acuerdo con los requisitos del canon 17, al Código mismo que en el canon 41 asocia “ministerium” con el mero ejercicio de oficio, y canon 145 §1 que define un oficio eclesiástico como un “munus”, no un ministerium. Por lo tanto, el propio Código de Ley Canónica utiliza los términos en diferentes sentidos, y no equipara sus significados como refiriéndose a un oficio eclesiástico, en el sentido de que “obispado” o “papado” se refieren a un oficio. — Esta es una refutación suficiente de acuerdo con la norma del derecho canónico. Pero como la afirmación oculta un grave error del tipo de Nominalismo promovido en Tübingen, merece ser refutado de acuerdo con la ciencia de la filosofía. Porque así como hay 10 categorías de ser de acuerdo con el Filósofo en su Praedicamenta, las palabras se pueden decir en referencia a una o más categorías de ser. Ahora, en el canon 145 §1, el Legislador Supremo predice munus de cada oficio eclesiástico. Pero en ninguna parte del Código predica el ministerium de cualquier oficio eclesiástico, solo de los roles o servicios prestados por alguien que ocupa un oficio o en su lugar. Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el canon 17, queda claro que esto representa en la mente del Legislador que munus significa el ser de algo real, a saber, un oficio, pero ministerium significa la acción o el servicio prestado por alguien que tiene dicho oficio. Por lo tanto, se dice que munus es una sustancia en sí misma, y se dice ministerium de una sustancia en acto. Pero esta es la distinción de ser y acto, de sustancia y accidente, según la Praedicamenta. Por lo tanto, existe una distinción real entre munus y ministerium, en los sentidos utilizados en Canon 332 §2, 145 §1 y canon 41, así como existe una distinción real entre cualquier agente y las acciones del agente, aunque este último es inherente al anterior. Si esto se niega, entonces el andar de Pedro, que en Pedro es Pedro, cuando Pablo lo imita perfectamente sería tanto Pedro en Pablo como Pedro en Pedro, lo cual es absurdo. Por lo tanto, el andar de Pedro en Pedro no es una sustancia sino un accidente, como el color de la piel de Pedro o el acento de su voz, que se puede duplicar en otras cosas, sin tener que hacerlos Pedro. Del mismo modo, el ministerio petrino, que es la acción o servicio que el que tiene el oficio petrino debe y puede prestar, puede ser perfectamente imitado en otro, sin que ese otro sea el Papa. Esta es la base completa de la colaboración de la Curia romana con cada verdadero Papa, cuando Él delega la ejecución de una parte de su Munus Petrino a cardenales y obispos y sacerdotes en el Vaticano o en cualquier otro lugar. Por lo tanto, para nombrar al Munus Petrino no basta con nombrar al Ministerio Petrino (incluso si se reconoce que Benedict hizo esto, lo cual he demostrado no es el caso en los argumentos de la primera parte), porque al igual que cuando Pedro renuncia a su andar, sigue siendo Pedro, así que cuando el Papa renuncia a su ministerio, sigue siendo el Papa. La racionalidad semiótica o ratio significandi para esto es que, al igual que la sustancia y el accidente son separables, su unidad no es necesaria; por lo tanto, el significado del que es el accidente en el otro no muestra una referencia necesaria o determinante al que es la sustancia. Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el canon 332 §2, que requiere una manifestación de libertad e intención que esté de acuerdo con la norma de la ley, tal forma de significado no es válido, porque requiere una interpretación que la Ley no sostiene como algo posible de acuerdo con canon 17.
This week, Catholic Family News, the traditional private Catholic Newspaper founded by the late John Vennari, publishes an article entitled, “Socci’s Thesis Falls Short: Review of the Secret of Benedict XVI“, an English translation of an article which was published on Jan 8, 2019 online at Cooperatores Veritatis. The translator is a Giuseppe Pelligrino. (Socci’s book details facts and canonical arguments why Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and Bergoglio an Anti-Pope, that is uncanonically elected). I will comment on the English version of the article.
The author, Dr. Roberto de Mattei, I have long admired, and have had the occasion to meet in person. His foundation, the Lepanto Foundation does much good work, and thus I bear him no animus. Nay, if the author of that article was someone unknown or not influential at Rome, I would probably have paid it no attention at all.
Moreover, the purpose of this present article is not to defend Socci’s book. Rather it is to address the grave errors contained in De Mattei’s article, which on account of his personal reputation are magnified in the minds of many, and thus represent a danger to souls.
Here, then, I will discuss the errors briefly in the order they appear in that English translation by Signor Pellegrino.
The first error of which is that De Mattei sustains that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid, because there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
I will put aside the fact that several recent polls (not scientific) have shown that as much as 70% of Catholics reject Bergoglio as pope, because there is a more serious error to address, than disputing whether there is in fact a peaceful and universal acceptance of Bergoglio’s election.
Signor De Mattei is learned enough to own a copy of the Code of Canon Law. So I humbly suggest he read Canon 359 and consider publicly withdrawing his assertion that a peaceful and universal acceptance of an apparent papal election establishes it to be held as valid by Catholics. For, that canon reads in Latin:
Can. 359 — Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur.
When translated into English — here I give my own translation — that canon says:
Canon 359 — When the Apostolic See is vacant, the College of Cardinals only enjoys that power in the Church, which is granted to it in particular law.
This is the reference to the power of the College to elect the Pope. So, according to Canon 359, when there is no pope, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a pope.
Now, if the resignation of a pope is in doubt, then obviously, there is a doubt whether the Apostolic See is vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have doubtful authority. And when a resignation of a pope has not taken place, or a pope is not dead, the Apostolic See is not vacant, and therefore the Cardinals have NO power to elect another.
So, it should be obvious then, that “the peaceful and universal acceptance of the election of a pope by a College of Cardinals” which HAS NO POWER to elect a pope, because the See is NOT vacant, DOES NOT MAKE THE ELECTION VALID.
Second, De Mattei claims this principal regarding the acceptance of the election of a pope on the basis of commonly held opinion. But if he has studied Canon Law, he should know that Canon 17 does not permit common theological or canonical opinions to be interpretative guides to reading any canon, when the text of the canon expressly forbids an act to take place by denying the body which acts the power to act. For in such a case the mind of the Legislator takes precedence.
Third, what is worse, De Mattei then cites the Vatican translation of Canon 332 §2, where he admits that it denies that a papal resignation is valid on the grounds that anyone accepts it (in its final condition)! How that squares with the theory of peaceful and universal acceptance is impossible to imagine, since it undermines the validity of its application to the case of a disputed resignation. It does so, because obviously a Conclave called during the life of a pope who has not resigned, is called either because that College knows he has not and does intend to elect an Anti-Pope, and then it does not matter who accepts him, his election is invalid; or in the case the College opines that a resignation is valid, and they proceed to act as if there is no pope. But as canon 332 §2 declares, that they think it is valid, does not make it valid. Therefore, even if they think it is valid, when it is not valid, they cannot appeal to Canon 332 §2 to claim the authority in Canon 359 to lawfully elect another. Rather, they must follow Canon 17 and apply it. And so, whether the subsequent election be accepted or not, in the case of elections which follow papal resignations, the principal cited by De Mattei is improperly cited at best because it pertains to another case.
Finally, De Mattei is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest, when he says that Violi’s canonical study of Pope Benedict’s act of Feb 11, 2013 contributes to the confusion. Because that study, which is cited in the preface of the Disputed Question, published here in November, is a very scholarly well thought out and precise study without any animus or polemic, which gives great clarity to the canonical signification of that papal act. To say that it causes confusion therefore is not based on Violi’s work, but rather seemingly on a desire to advance his own opinion by insulting a scholar who shows greater knowledge of Canon Law than himself.
As for Archbishop Ganswein’s discourse at the Gregorian University, at first glance it does seem to be confusing. But when you research, as Ann Barnhardt has done, what opinions regarding the mutability of the Papacy were being discussed at Tubingen, when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of Theology there, then you would rather say its revealing, not confusing at all.
For those who want to understand the correct canonical argument, why Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope and why Bergoglio was never pope, supported by Canon Law and all the evidence, and put in simple terms, see “How and Why Pope Benedict’s Resignation is invalid by the law itself.”
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
