Tag Archives: Chris Ferrara

Editorials

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

7 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________

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

+ + +

Canon Law, Editorials, News

Major Italian Newspaper: Benedict still signs P.P., he retains the Papal power

6 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Chirs Ferrara poo-poohed Ann Barnhardt’s collection of evidence, the other day, by calling it a “data set”, in the pure style of every gaslighting Bergoglian apologist. But the truth is the exact opposite — just as with every Marxist apologist — because projecting your own errors on your opponents is one of Salinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

But the only “data set” on Chris’ side is the consistent and constant claim by the Cardinals that Benedict resigned the Papacy. A claim made without citing any evidence which is supported by the Law or reality.

Even major Italian newspapers admitted that Benedict had clearly retained the papal dignity and power, back in 2014. — But perhaps Chris does not read Italian.

Here is my translation of the opening of an article, entitled, Bergoglio 0.0, Papa nullo. E Ratzinger ancora lo è, which appeared in Il Foglio on Sept. 23, 2014 at 6:26 A.M., Rome time. The title translates:  Bergoglio 0 for 0, a null Pope. And Ratzinger still is the one.

Rome.  He continues to sign himself as, Benedict XVI, even with the P. P., to indicate the power of the pope, a thing, however, which Francis has never done from the day of his enthronement on the Chair of Peter.  He used to dress in white and he continues to dress in white, even if he has laid aside the mantle and the cincture. There was not enough time to find a black soutaine in all the Vatican, is the reluctant justification which came from beyond the Tiber. He used to be the Pope and he remains the pope, though emeritus.  Even the coat of arms has been retained with the crossed Keys, which a few zealous Cardinals, expert in heraldry, tried to remove, so as to remove all reference to the Petrine Ministry. But, now, of what value was the renunciation made by Joseph Ratzinger, sitting on the red throne in the Sala Clementine, on Feb. 11, a year ago, to the surprise of the crimson clad prelates, who were present, a few of whom — not being so good in Latin — did not understand the meaning of what was happening: “a unique case in 2000 years of Church History”.

Tell me again, Chris, that there are no data sets out there, that say Benedict is still the pope, and consequently, that Bergoglio never was. Tell us that no one has the right to use data sets to say the see is vacant? Does that mean that no one has the right to think? Or that you do not not recognize as somebody, anyone who does look a the facts and think?

I know my Church history. The only unique thing in 2000 years, is not a valid papal resignation, it is an invalid papal resignation, that is ignored, yet taken as valid by a conspiracy of all the Cardinals. — The Cardinals, remember, are the reason for most of the Antipopes of history, let us not forget. Antipopes do not pop-up into being from “data sets” of a laywomen reading Canon Law.

NOTE: The Latin abbreviation, P. P., means Pastor Pastorum, that is Shepherd of Shepherds, and has been used exclusively by the Successors of Saint Peter for centuries.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the page of the Italian Newspaper where the article still appears to this day. Used in accord with fair use standard for editorial commentary.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Editorials, News

Where Chris Ferrara goes bonkers

10 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

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

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

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

In a note to Canon212, Ferrara responds to Ann:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next,

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

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

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

____________

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

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]