Tag Archives: law

News

A Feast to Exorcise all the Enemies of Truth

8 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Many Catholics forget what today is all about. We do not celebrate a New Year, on January 1st.  Rather, Today, in this year of Our Lord, 2020, we celebrate the 2020th anniversary of the Circumcision of the Lord, the naming of the Child Jesus, the ritual event according to the Mosaic Law which made the Child of Bethlehem a member of God’s Chosen people according to the Torah. For today is the 8th day after the Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and according to the Mosaic Law, the first born male child was to be circumcised and consecrated to the Lord on the 8th day after his birth (Exodus 13:2).

This Feast of today was named properly in the traditional Roman Calendar, as the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord. The revolutionaries after Vatican II, without any authorization of the Council, changed it to the Solemnity of the Mother of God, a thing that served to deny the truths which Catholics celebrated on this day for nearly 2000 years.

But the eternal truth is, that Today in the year 1 B.C.,* the Eternal God of Israel, now incarnate, was circumcised and given the Name revealed by the Archangel Gabriel, to Our Lady (Luke 1:31) and to Saint Joseph (Matthew 1:21): Yeshua, or “Jesus”, in English: a Name which in Hebrew means, “Yahweh saves!”.

This simple act has a profound signification both then and now.

Then, because by it there was fulfilled all the prophecies of the Old Testament, that God Himself would come to save His people (Isaiah 43:11), and that lo, the Angel of the Covenant, the Messiah, would come suddenly into His Temple (Malachi 3:1). This Feast also testifies to the the Virgin Birth of Our Lord from our Lady and thus also to the Virginity of Our Lady, since that Woman so young, so soon after birth, was able to accompany Joseph to the Temple for the ritual (Isaiah 7:14, quoted in Matthew 1:23). And finally, this event foreshadowed in the figure of circumcision, in which blood was shed, that the Messiah would save His people through a blood sacrifice, as foretold by the Prophet Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 42:1–4; Isaiah 49:1–6; Isaiah 50:4–7; and Isaiah 52:13–53:12).

And now, because this Feast shouts out that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah promised Israel and was and is a true Son of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And in this way this Feast contradicts all the lies of the Talmud which say He was not a Jew, but the bastard of a Roman Legionnaire and Mary of Nazareth.

Thus this is a feast for true Evangelization. It goes directly against all the false talk about religious dialogue and ecumenism, terms which now mean something very different from what they meant before the Council.

But the truth I want to emphasize today, is that this wonderful Feast testifies to another amazing historical fact, namely, that God, Who is the Omnipotent Lawgiver of all creation, humbled Himself, not only to become a little babe, but a little babe who observed the Law, and the laws of His age.

In this way, this Feast speaks to our age in a most eloquent way, because the culture being promoted by the enemies of humanity today is the culture of law-breaking. And a lot of Christians are eating it up.

Fake Christians

From the very beginning there have been fake Christians. The ones who were converts from Judaism wanted to keep the Mosaic Law and add Jesus’ teachings on as an appendix. And since the time Saint Paul preached the Gospel of Salvation to the people of Corinth, the Church has been plagued by another kind of fake Christian: the anomian.

These Pharasees and Anomians are two kinds of spiritual extremism and idolatry.

The former wants to put the Law which Moses wrote on the Altar and put God Incarnate on the side of the Sanctuary.

The latter wants God Incarnate merely as a license to do whatever they want. (Anomian comes from the Greek word, ἀνομίαν, meaning “lawless” or “without a law”.)

Both do not worship God, both worship their spiritual preferences.  Both are thus involved in idolatry.

Anomians

Anomianism which was first mentioned as an error among the Greek converts at Corinth, by Saint Paul, consists in holding that the salvation offered in Christ frees us from the need to follow the Mosaic Law and all other laws. Anomians, thus, might be called the first libertarians. They want to be free from any constraint and want to be able to do all the evil they want.

Recognizing how evil this error is, is important today. It is an error which the example of the Child Jesus speaks directly against.  Because God has the right to do whatever He wants. He is bound by no law.  Yet, God when He became a man, did not do whatever He wanted. He did only what God His Father had commanded and that included observing the Mosaic Law.

From the example of the Child Jesus, we can be sure Jesus wants us to observe the laws of His Church. Because, His Church is His immaculate Bride. Thus if He was willing to observe the lesser laws of Moses and the Roman Empire, how much more would He want us, whom He called to imitate Himself, to follow Church law.

All “Benedict is certainly not the pope” Folk are anomians

This is so, so evident. Because Canon Law says to resign the papacy, you need to resign the petrine munus (cf. Canon 332 §2). And Pope Benedict XVI never did any such thing. He never even said he intended to do such a thing. And his personal secretary in 2016 made it clear that he never did or intended to do such a thing.  But the BICNOTpope people do not care in the least what the laws of the Church require or say or mean. It is enough for them that journalists and Cardinals and Bishops, whom the Church teaches are NOT infallible in anything, let alone in knowing historical facts or in interpreting the laws of the Church, say something which is contrary to the Laws of the Church. They are true revolutionaries and Modernists. Truth is relative, it depends on opinion, not the law or Divine Revelation.

And yes, I mean all the BICNOTpope folk, whether they also say, “Pope Francis is leading a needed fundamental change” or whether they say, “Recognize him as Pope, but resist him as a revolutionary”.

That they deny Pope Benedict, the Vicar of Christ, does not mean that all of them are liberals, apostates or heretics. No, some want a Latin Liturgy, orthodoxy in faith and morals. They just think that it is childish to insist on keeping Canon Law; they think a mature Catholic should be above such pettiness.  They may present themselves as Traditionalists, but no Catholic before Vatican II would have even recognized them as faithful Catholics.

Before the Council, until Pope Pius XII changed the laws, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass could not be offered after noon, local time! Saints with great love for the Eucharist, and who were priests, had to forego offering the sacrifice of the Mass, when traveling at sea, when their ship did not stop at a port before noon of each day (Mass was not said on board ships on account of the rocking of the seas).

This shows us that pre-Vatican II Catholics were lovers of the laws of the Church. And they showed it even to the point of omitting the celebration of the Mass for the day, to keep the laws of the Church!

THEY UNDERSTOOD RIGHTLY THAT our OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS OF THE CHURCH IS MORE IMPORTANT to God THAN our CELEBRATING THE DIVINE SACRIFICE!

In this way they fulfilled what is said in Scripture, that God prefers obedience to ritual sacrifice (Hebrews 10:7 ff.), a scriptural doctrine which Saint Paul recalls to explain the very Incarnation of Our Lord.

The Feast of Circumcision of our Lord

… therefore is a feast which is eminently in need of celebrating. It is a feast for true Catholics and for all the enemies of Bergoglio. It is also a feast for all Catholics in communion with the true Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, because they rightly recognize that we must follow the laws of the Church, even if all others do not, and even if the Pope, as a man, might be confused about them.

May the Holy Name of Jesus be your blessing, your ensign and your glory!

And May the Child of Bethlehem, today, bless us all with the Salvation promised in His Most Holy Name!

__________

* For an explanation of why I say, 1 B.C., see the Article on the date of the Birth of Christ.

Canon Law, News

My Meeting with the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

23 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I write this post to publicly thank Mons. Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru, Titular Bishop of Civitate, who was appointed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI as Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

I met with him this morning at 9:45. The meeting lasted about 75 minutes. I did not record the meeting, but want to share with everyone what I remember of it, because of its great importance to the life of the Catholic Church.

I began by saying that I had come to discuss the interpretation of law (interpretatio iuris) or more specifically the right to interpret canonical acts (ius interpretandi). Bishop Arrieta is an expert on this matter, having served in the capacity of a Professor of Canon Law since 1984 at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce, and from 2003 to 2008 at the Preside of the “St Pius X” Institute of Canon Law at Venice, and as Canonist to the Apostolic Penitentiary. Since February of 2007, he has served in the Pontifical Council as its Secretary. This title does not mean he is a secretary, but rather, the Vice President as it were to the Council.

I want to remark on the gentleness and noble demeanor of the Bishop, who never used any hominems, never lost his patience and showed himself willing to discuss the most impolitic issues, from the point of view of canon law, in the Church.

I began my questions with a preface, and with the Bishop’s permission read to him my entire article, entitled, ¡Viva Guadalajara! which was published, here, at the From Rome Blog, this morning.

During the reading, the Bishop could not hide his amusement at the fictitious story, but as I moved to my comments on how this story applies not only to the first moments of a papacy but also to the last, that is, to a Papal renunciation, the amusement on his face disappeared instantly. — Nevertheless, he continued to be polite.

He confirmed for me the following facts:

  1. To his knowledge, there was no meeting of canonists in February of 2013 which discussed the validity of the Act of Renunciation, nor whether a renunciation of ministerium effected a renunciation of munus.
  2. To his knowledge, Pope Benedict XVI never explained himself to any Cardinal or canonists in private as to whether his act effected a renunciation of the petrine munus or office.
  3. To his knowledge, no act of interpretation of the Renunciation was ever promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI.
  4. Bishop Arrieta did admit that he was asked questions regarding the Renunciation, on Feb. 11, 2013, but no question regarded the use of the term ministerium instead of munus.

He also confirmed for me these points of law:

  1. If anyone heard Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013 explain or officially interpret his Act of Renunciation as an act of renouncing the munus, and left a sworn testimony to the fact, this would have no juridical value whatsoever. That is it would not make or alter the signification other than it is.
  2. An act of papal Renunciation is not subject to the interpretation of anyone in the Church. That is, no one has the right to interpret it.
  3. An act of papal Renunciation, therefore, must be certain in itself. If it is not certain, it is invalid.
  4. There is no Canon in the Code of Canon Law which predicates the term ministerium of an ecclesiastical office.
  5. What Ganswein said at the Gregorian University in 2016 A.D. — he admitted he had not read the text of Ganswein in full or in the original — is impossible, since the Papal Office is theologically incapable of being held by more than one man at a time.
  6. It is canonically impossible that two persons hold he Petrine Munus at the same time.
  7. The Roman Curia shares in the Petrine Ministerium, but not the Petrine Munus.
  8. There can only be one pope.
  9. The Pope is subject to Divine Law and cannot split the office.
  10. Canon 1331 §2, n. 4 does allow an excommunicated person to hold a ministry in the Church, but that there is a reform of the Penal Code in the works and that this is something that will be addressed.
  11. Canon 332 §2 requires a verbal renunciation, not a renunciation which is signified by gestures or after the fact statements.
  12. The supreme theological and legal principle for interpretation of canonical acts is the teaching of Jesus Christ, where He said, “Let your yes be Yes, and your no, No, anything else comes from the Devil” (Mt. 5:37)

Now Bishop Arrieta did not agree with me in everything. He made it clear to me that he holds the following positions:

  1. The Renunciation of Pope Benedict was certain and clear.
  2. The Renunciation clearly signified the renunciation of the office of the papacy.
  3. It is morally impossible in the judgement of Bishop Arrieta, based on his knowledge of the man, Ratzinger, that Pope Benedict intended to deceive anyone by pretending to resign one thing instead of the other.
  4. Canon 332 §2, as regards the requirements of liberty and due manifestation, is not talking about a renunciation of the petrine munus.
  5. The necessity in a papal renunciation is a renunciation of the papal office, not of the petrine munus, which is a canonical term which does not adequately reflect the theological reality.
  6. In the Code of Canon Law there is no clear distinction between munus and ministerium.

Regarding this 4th position of the Bishop, I must say I tried to get a word in edgewise to object to such a patently false statement, as if conditions for validity for an act of renunciation of munus only regard the act of renouncing and not the object which is to be renounced. I think the Bishop just said this out of desperation because it is logically absurd on the face of it, as you cannot read part of a sentence which regards conditions for validity and ignore what was said as the fundamental condition for the occurrence or discernment of the occurrence of the act in question!

Regarding the 5th position, I disagree, because Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ, by promulgating the Code imposed upon the whole Church the canonical obligation of understanding it in accord with Canon 17, not as defective in anything. Therefore, an interpretation of canon 332 §2 which implies a defect, cannot be authentic.

I won’t respond here to n. 6, since I have devastatingly refuted it in the recent Academic Conference at Rome, the excerpt of which I published on this very topic, here.

What left me unsatisfied about our conversation is that I asked a lot of questions, but Mons. Arrieta could not give me answers. Here are some of my question, not verbatim, but according to their sense, that the Bishop did not or could not answer:

  1. If it is clear that Pope Benedict resigned his office, can you explain to me canonically how he did that if he never mentioned the office or the Petrine Munus?
  2. If Canon 41 gives to every priest the discretion and right to evaluate the Papal Act of Renunciation before deciding to stop naming Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, as the Pope, why it is canonically wrong if he exercise this discretion, judge the act nullus and continue to name Benedict?
  3. If no one has the right to interpret the Papal Act, how can you explain why nearly everyone in the Hierarchy holds that it effected a renunciation of the Papal Office, if nowhere in the Act did Pope Benedict say I renounce the office or the munus? Is that not an interpretation?
  4. While I am willing to concede out of respect for Pope Benedict that he did not maliciously intend to deceive, is it not possible he was in substantial error when he resigned one thing and not the other?
  5. Does not our loyalty to Jesus Christ, Who bound Himself to observe Canon Law, require us to consider as possible that the Pope be in error in thinking he can resign part of the papal prerogatives and keep the rest? or was wrong in desiring to bifurcate the papacy?
  6. Does not the historical facts that 1) Pope Benedict XVI before his elevation to the Papacy knew of the desires of many German theologians to split the papal office along the lines of the petrine munus and the petrine ministry, and 2) the strange way of renouncing the ministry, but not the munus, coupled with 3) the testimony of Ganswein his personal secretary, who should know the mind of the Holy Father, produce the most sound forensic testimony that the Pope did intend to bifurcate the Papal Office and should be corrected by the Church, even if we personally hold that he had no such intention by way of supposition and respect for his person?

The Bishop closed by remarking that my approach to the reading of the Act of Renunciation was strange to him, that he has never considered this problem before, that he has never read about this controversy, but that I had given him “much to think about”.

CONCLUSION

The sum of what Mons. Arrieta told me leads me to conclude the following:

  1. The Act of Renunciation was presumed from the start to be a renunciation of the Papacy, without any consideration of the discrepancy of renouncing the ministerium instead of the munus, as if the Code of 1917 were operative, and not the Code of 1983.
  2. There has never been any canonical reflection on the canonical value of the Act of Renunciation by anyone known to Bishop Arrieta.
  3. There are no canonical arguments for the validity of the renunciation to effect a loss of the Papal Office, because the interpretation is simply a presumption based on an extrinsic method of reading the act (as I point out in my previous article), which is the most unauthentic and error-prone method of interpretation.
  4. The opinion of No Cardinal or Bishop or Priest on this matter constrains anyone in the Church to accept it, because no one has the right to say that the Papal Act means something other than it expressly says.
  5. Thus, the Renunciation of Pope Benedict DID NOT effect the loss of the Papal Office. He remains the Pope, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Pontiff with all rights and privileges, all prerogatives and powers, graces and carisms, BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT RENOUNCE THE PAPACY BY WORDS, YOU HAVE NOT RENOUNCED THE PAPACY!*

Finally, I do want to thank the Bishop for his patience. Several times in the 75 minutes we spent discussing this most important matter, he remarked he had other duties, but stayed anyhow when what I said was substantial and presented a line of argumentation which he felt necessary to respond to.

____________

* For those not familiar with the technical language, in this controversy, “papacy” here refers not to the Vatican, nor to the Papal State(s) or Territory,  nor to the government of the Vatican, but to the Office of the Roman Pontiff. And I use this term here in the linguistic sense, not in the sense of the thing, but of the thing as named. For example, a husband refers to his wife by either one of her proper names, first, middle, last, or improper names, such as honey, dear, sweetie, or by a pronoun standing alone or followed by a subordinate phrase, such as, “the one who does the dishes”. If he says, I am going to get rid of the dish-washing, the bathroom-cleaning, the meal-preparation and the warm bed, he has not referred logically nor verbally to his wife, because the actions which his wife does or the effects of which she is the cause are not her, they are effects or actions under her power, and by naming them, one does not name necessarily or determinatively the one who is his wife. — So likewise, when Pope Benedict renounced the ministry but not the Papal Office, he did not renounce the Office, because he did not name it, he only referred to that which might be construed as the ministry which flows from it. The intellectual incapacity or inability to recognize this common law of human language and signification is at the heart of the reason why so many think Benedict resigned the papacy, when in reality he did nothing of the kind. However, why he did what he did, is besides the point (praeter rem), because whatever his motives, the act remains invalid, null.