Tag Archives: Renunciation

We need to re-examine the Renunciation minus Gänswein

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

So many lines of supposition, speculation, investigation, analysis and examination pursued theories and explanations of Pope Benedict’s actions in February 2013 and beyond, on the basis of what Georg Gänswein told us. We presumed he was telling the truth, that he was reliable, faithful, honest and expressed only what the Holy Father wanted him to say.

Now that the masque has been ripped off by multiple reports (Socci, Tosatti 1 2, Viganò, myself) the entire history of the Renunciation needs to be examined minus Gänswein, that is, without presuming he is telling the truth.

Here are some questions I propose for investigators as they reread the reports from 2005 to 2020, which talk about Pope Benedict, the opposition he faced, why he Renounced, what it all meant:

  • Was Gänswein co-opted into the St. Gallen Mafia as early as the Conclave of 2005? I move this question on the basis of the testimony of Marco Tosatti’s source in the Curia, that something profoundly changed Gänswein with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope.
  • Is it Gänswein who put into the head of Benedict the idea that he should, could, or must renounce?
  • Did Gänswein over several years psychologically condition Benedict to renounce?
  • Did Gänswein encourage or foster ideas of renunciation at the request of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
  • Did Gänswein allow Pope Benedict’s letters to be stolen from his desk during the Vatileaks as a part of a plot by the St. Gallen Mafia to psychologically isolate, reduce and destroy Pope Benedict, inducing him to resign?
  • Did Gänswein play a double role in the fall of 2012, so as to obtain from Benedict the elevation to Archbishop and Head of the Pontifical Household, precisely so he could serve the St Gallen Mafia as a prison warden after the Renunciation?
  • Did Gänswein write the text of the Renunciation?
  • Did Gänswein sign off on the concept of a renunciation of ministry, based on his recourse to the German translation of the code in canon 145 §1?
  • Is Gänswein bitterly defending the validity of the Renunciation because of his role in procuring it, forming it, directing it?
  • Is the presumption that the Renunciation means a renunciation of office something which Gänswein put into the head of Pope Benedict, in a weakened state, by means of gaslighting, as he tried to do with me via phone?
  • Is the presumption of the Cardinals that the Renunciation is valid or means a renunciation of the papacy, based on Gänswein’s claim that this is what Benedict means and meant and wants?
  • Is the refusal to clarify the questions after the Renunciation have everything to do with Gänswein and nothing to do with Benedict?
  • Is Benedict BEING KEPT A VIRTUAL PRISONER AND ABUSED on a daily basis to prevent him from communicating to the world that he never intended to renounce the munus petrinum?
  • Does Benedict know he is the pope and say he is the pope in private?
  • Are the public statements attributed to Pope Benedict XVI after Feb. 2013 the creations of Gänswein and not at all the faithful expressions of the mind of Pope Benedict?
  • Since we can now be morally certain that Benedict does NOT tell Gänswein everything, how can we be sure that Gänswein even understands or knows what Pope Benedict’s Intention was when he read out his Declaratio on Feb. 11, 2013?

These questions are devastating, but the Church and all historians who examine the Renunciation must NOW ask them and must find the answers.

 + + +

Support FromRome.Info

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

$10.00

Why Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori would say the Renunciation was invalid

59df1d354eaef6243f7823c2_version_719

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Saints who have been canonized are already in the glory of Paradise, and so, baring an extraordinary grace, do not speak to us anymore. But those Saints who have fully explained their opinions or teaching on any point, can be said to speak to us today. This is especially true of Saints who have taught on questions of law and the principles to be followed in controversies.  Of which kind is Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, Doctor of the Church on all questions of moral theology, and not a few questions of law.

No one has the right to interpret a Papal Resignation

As I reported in my notes for my meeting with Bishop Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts — who is the top Vatican official for questions of legal interpretation — he emphatically declared, that no one has the right to interpret a Papal Resignation. It must be clear in itself.

This statement by Bishop Arrieta clears up the entire controversy over the renunciation of Pope Benedict. Because, it ends it.  That is, since Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium, not anything else. No one has the right to say that he renounced the Papal Office or petrine Munus or even power of governance.  Because to say that something else, requires an interpretation. And no one, not even the man who is the pope, has the right to interpret the act of renunciation.

But the statement of Bishop Arrieta is not of his own making. It is the necessary conclusion of legal principles.  First, that a declaration made by the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, and not the pope, cannot be judged by anyone except according to the norm of law. And since a declaration by such man when regarding the renunciation of the Office regards the renouncing of the Office, one cannot appeal to the holder of the office to interpret it. Because if it was valid, then the holder is no longer the holder, and thus cannot receive appeals. If it was not valid, then appealing to the holder of the office is tantamount to declaring the renunciation in valid.

Any appeal to Pope Benedict XVI to clarify what he meant means that the Resignation is invalid

This is a very important point, which has been overlooked in this 7 year controversy. Anyone who appeals to anything which Pope Benedict said before or after Feb. 28, 2013, to explain that the Renunciation means the renunciation of the papacy, or of the petrine munus, or of the power of governance IS IMPLICITLY AFFIRMING THAT POPE BENEDICT IS STILL THE POPE AND THAT THE RENUNCIATION WAS INVALID, because they are trying to have recourse to an official interpretation. And if the act needs to be interpreted, then it is doubtful. And if the renunciation is doubtful, then in virtue of canon 332 §2, it is invalid for lack of due manifestation.

What Saint Alphonsus says about the interpretation of a law:

For those who have overdosed on the falsehood of universal acceptance, and quote Saint Alphonsus, let us see what the Saint would say about the games the authors of such sophisms play with the words “munus” and “ministerium,” to make the Resignation say what it does not say.  For this we must have recourse to the teaching of Saint Alphonsus, taken from his great work, Theologia Moralis, Bk. I, tract ii, p. 242, De interpretatio legis. I will first quote the Latin, for those who can read Latin, and then give an English translation:

DE INTERPRETATIO LEGIS

200. Interpretatio alia est Authentica, alia Usualis, alia Doctrinalis. Authentica fieri potest vel ab ipso legislatore, vel ab eius successore, aut a superiore. Usualis est illa, quae ita ab usu est recepta. Doctrinalis autem est declaratio quaedam mentis legislatoris, quase a quocumque doctore fieri potest.

Hic dubitur an delcarationes, quae fiunt a Pontifice, vel a principe alicuius legis, indigeant promulgatione, ut obligent. In hoc distinguere oportet declarationes pure tales ab aliis quae sunt non pure tales, sed potius sunt merae interpretationes. Declarationes pure tales sunt, cum ab illis explicatur aliquis sensus, qui usque ab initio iam erat clare imbibitus in lege: ex. gr. si dubium sit, an sub verbo filii intelligatur solus legitimus aut eitam spurius, et legislator declarat intelligi etiam spurium, tunc verum fit quod sensus in lege erat clare imbibitus. Interpretatio autem, sive declaratio non pure talis est illa, cuius sensus non est clare imbibitus in lege, sed circa ipsum variae sunt opiniones, et tantum deducitur ex argumentis, v. gr. quod sub nomine patris intelligatur eitam avus, aut quod sub nomine moartis intelligatur etiam mors civilis, prout est carcer perpetuus, aut simile, recurrendo ad quamdam impropriam significationem.

His positis, dicimus cum Suarez, Castropal. Vasques, Sals, Salm. Holzaman, La-Croix, Supplet Sporger etc. quod declaratio sensus clare imbibiti in lege non requirit promulagationem, sed etiam obliget eos omnes qui illum noverint, cum talis declaratio non sit nova lex. Interpretatio vero alicuius sensus non clare, sed tantum obscure, sive improprie imbibiti in lege, quae est declaratio non pure talis (ut diximus) haec, quia habetur tanquam nova lex, ut obliget, necessario promulgationem requirit, sicut omnes aliae leges juxta dicta. n. 95 et 96. Hinc infertur cum Suar. de Leg. 1. 6. c. 1. n. 3 et Castrop. tr. 3. eod. tit. d. 5. p. 3. §. 1. n. 5 (qui citat pro se Bon. Salas, et Lorca) quod declaratio, quae fit a legislatore alicuius sensus clare in lege imbibiti (juxta exemplum adductum filii legitimi, et spurii) non requirit promulgatioem, ut obliget. Contra vero declaratio sensus obscure imbibiti (juxta exemplus avi sub nomine patris, vel mortis civilils sub nomine mortis) indiget quidem promulgatione; tunc enim ipsa novam constituit obligationem, quae per se non erat prius clare in lege imbibita. Et idem dicunt Suar. loc. cit. et Castrop. n. 2 de illis declarationibus, quae fiunt non ab eodem legislatore, sed ab eius successore, aut superiore; quia legislatoris mens nequit his esse ita cognita, ut erat ipsi legislatori; unde tunc, ut declaretur sensus (quamvis imbibitus in lege) alicuius obligationis, semper opus est recurrere ad argumenta, et interpretationes, quae novam legam constituunt, reddendo certum quod erat dubium; et ideo promulgatio requiritur, alias declaratio nunquam authentica, sed tantum doctrinalis repubabitur.

My English translation:

On the Interpretation of Law

200. One interpretation is authentic, another customary, another academic.  An authentic (interpretation) can be made either by the legislator himself, and/or by his successor, or by a superior. A customary (interpretation) is that, which has been received thus by custom.  Moreover, an academic (interpretation) is a certain declaration of the mind of the legislator, which can be made by any professor.

Here, there is doubted whether declarations, which are made by the Pontiff, and/or by a prince for any law, are in need of promulgation, to oblige.  In this, it is necessary to distinguish those which are purely such from those which are not purely such, but rather mere interpretations.  Declarations are purely such, when by them there is explicated some sense, which was clearly incorporated in the law already from the beginning: e. g., if there be a doubt, whether under the term, “son” there be understood only a legitimate or even an illegitimate son, and the the legislator declares (the word “son” in the law”) is to be understood even as an illegitimate one, then indeed it becomes that (that) sense in the law was clearly incorporated in the law.  But an interpretation, or declaration which is not purely such, is that, the sense of which is not clearly incorporated in the law, but about which there are various opinions, and as much as is deduced through arguments, e. g., that under the term, “father”, there be understood also a grandfather, or that under the term, “death”, there be also understood a civil death, insofar as is perpetual incarceration, or the like, by recurring to a certain improper signification.

With these things posited, We say with Suarez, Castropal., Vasquez, Sals. Salimancans, Holzman, La-Croix, Supplet Sporget etc.., that the declaration of a sense clearly incorporated in the law does not require promulgation, but that it also obliges all those who know of it, though such a declaration is not a new law.  But an interpretation of some sense not clearly, but obscurely, or improperly incorporated in the law, which is not a declaration purely such (as we have said above), this (kind), because it is held to be a new law, to oblige, requires necessarily a promulgation, just as all other laws spoke of in nn. 95 and 96.  Hence, there is inferred with Suarez de Leg. 1. 6. c. 1. n. 3 and Castrop. tr. 3. eod. tit. d. 5. p. 3. §. 1. n. 5 (qui citat pro se Bon. Salas, et Lorca), that a declaration, which is made by the legislator of any sense clearly incorporated in the law (according to the example given above of the legitimate and illegitimate son) does not require a promulgation, to oblige. However, contrariwise, the declaration of a sense obscurely incorporated (according to the example given of a grandfather under the term of “father”, and/or of a civil death under the term of “death”) do indeed need a promulgation; for then it itself constitutes a new obligation, which per se was not beforehand clearly incorporated in the law. And the same is said by Suarez. loc. cit, and Castrop. n. 2, of those declarations, which are not made by the ssame legislator, but by his successor, or superior; because the mind of the legislator is never so known to other as it was to the legislator himself: on which account, then, to declare the sense (though incorporated in the law) of any obligation, it is always necessary to have recourse to arguments, and interpretations, which constitute a new law, by rendering certain what was doubtful; and for that reason a promulgation is required, otherwise the declaration is never an authentic one, but only is reputed to be a doctrinal one.

Thus, Saint Alphonsus.

What the teaching of Saint Alphonsus on Legal interpretation means in regard to the Renunciation

From this text, we can glean three truths.

  1. When the meaning is clearly incorporated into the law, that meaning is the authentic one, and its sense is binding upon all, as for example, when Benedict says he renounces the ministry, all are obliged to understand that as a renunciation of ministry.
  2. When the word which is subject to a possible interpretation is a noun which includes all possible interpretations according to its essential signification, such as “son” includes natural and legal sons, not just legal sons, then the interpretation is a customary one and is obliging upon all, once the legislator declares that his mind was to include all such possibilities.  But before such a declaration it is not binding.
  3. When the word which is subject to a possible interpretation is a noun, which DOES NOT include the possible wanted interpretation, such as “ministerium” in the text of Pope Benedict’s resignation is wanted to mean “munus” or “officium” which are entirely other words, then the interpretation is NOT AUTHENTIC and is not binding upon anyone, and only can become binding, when promulgated by the legislator or his successors.

And thus one can conclude, from the testimony of Bishop Arrieta and Saint Alphonsus, that the interpretation of the Cardinals and Bishops that Benedict’s renunciation of ministry is equivalent in law, or signification, or intention, to a resignation of the Papal Office or Petrine Munus, is not only an illegitimate interpretation, but is an interpretation which is not binding upon anyone!

Moreover, one can conclude, that even if hypothetically any successor of Pope Benedict XVI were to say that such a reading of the text (where ministerium = munus) is the one Benedict intended, then the act itself posited by Benedict was invalid as per canon 332 §2, since it was not duly manifest in itself, but required another promulgated interpretation to make it valid.

And this means that the very existence of the plot to solve the Pope Emeritus problem is not only evidence that the resignation was invalid from the start, but is DOOMED TO FAILURE since as an interpretation of the act, its very promulgation will publicly testify to and canonically establish the invalidity of the renunciation!

In other words, there is no way to fix the invalidity of the resignation by any subsequent act. And what the Cardinals and Bishops are doing is GRAVELY IMMORAL AND DISHONEST and, moreover, is a grave USURPATION OF RIGHT.

One can also honestly say, therefore, that the usurpation of the Papacy by Bergoglio is a moral consequence of the usurpation of the right of interpretation by the Cardinals, and that Bergoglio’s bizarre moral character and state of mind is the perfect fruit of and punishment for their sin.

Father Martin Santiago’s Prophetic Homily of March 3, 2013

This video is in Spanish, but has English subtitles, and the entire transcript in English can be found at the Wild Voice, which has been a prophetic leader on the web, warning the Church about the St Gallen Mafia from the beginning. — Father Martin seems to be a former worker at the Vatican during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Says he knows Joseph Ratzinger personally.

In this homily, Father Santiago reveals how widespread the hatred and opposition for Pope Benedict was among the clergy and how there was exuberant rejoicing at this resignation. All signs which point to the real motivations for refusing to recognize the Renunciation was invalid. (See, How Benedict has defeated ‘Francis’ and, How Cardinal Sodano robbed the papacy from Pope Benedict). This also explains why its no exaggeration to suppose that Benedict has been imprisoned, not in a jail, but by an entire faction which wants him forever silenced.

Father Santiago, just as importantly, explains that he knew of the goals of the St. Gallen Mafia to attack Church teaching and overthrow the faith, and he warns against them. A warning, alas, which went unheeded, because the revolutionaries were already in charge at the Vatican.

 

An Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation

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!

header

An Index to our Articles on Pope Benedict’s Renunciation

The Renunciation of Feb. 11, 2013

Latin Text of Non Solum propter

Vernacular Translations of Non solum propter

The History of the Claim that the Text means Benedict resigned the Papacy

Why Pope Benedict Renounced the Ministry which He had received from the Cardinals

What Pope Benedict says His resignation means and meant

  1. Pope Benedict XVI in Feb. 2013 said in every way possible that He had not resigned the Papacy
  2. Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 14, 2013 explained to the Clergy of Rome how to see that He had not resigned the Papacy
  3. How the Vatican’s attempt to get Benedict to call Bergoglio the Pope failed in June 2019

What in truth does the Act of Renouncing the Ministry mean or effect?

  1. Jesus Christ’s Point of view on this.
  2. Pope John Paul II admitted that a Papal renunciation could be invalid.
  3. The 6 Canonical Errors in the Act of Renunciation, which deprive it of all effect.
  4. The Canonical Argument that the Act does not cause the loss of the Papacy (ppbxvi.org)
  5. Video Explanation, prepared by Brian Murphy with input from Br. Bugnolo
  6. Ann Barnhardt’s authoritative Video on Substantial Error
  7. L’argomento canonico che dimostra che la Rinuncia non effettua la perdita del papato
  8. What Pope John Paul II taught about Munus and Ministerium, and how it binds the whole Church.
  9. The Magisterial Teaching of Pope Boniface VIII regarding the necessity of renouncing the Munus
  10. Why Saint Alponsus dei Liguori would say that the Renunciation, as written, is invalid.
  11. Why, on account of only resigning the Ministry, Pope Benedict made it dogmatically impossible that Bergoglio be the Pope
  12. Why, on account of only resigning the Ministry. Pope Benedict made it canonically impossible that Bergoglio’s election as pope was valid.

A Scholastic Investigation into the Canonical Meaning of the Resignation

Here Br. Bugnolo has gathered all the major arguments for and against and shows which side has the better argument.

The Dubious Arguments and outright Falsehoods used to defend that the renunciation caused Benedict to lose the Papacy

CONFIRMATIONS FROM ROME THAT BENEDICT IS STILL THE POPE

WHAT CATHOLICS SHOULD DO IN RESPONSE

Feb 14, 2013: Pope Benedict warned Roman Clergy that He had not resigned

The evidence is there for all who want to see it. But you can only see it if you pay attention and think about what you are looking at and hearing.

Thus it was that 3 days after His declaration of renouncing the Ministry, Pope Benedict calls together all the Clergy of Rome to give them an impromptu talk, nearly an hour long.

On what?  His renunciation of the Papacy?

NO NOT AT ALL!

On what then?

On the history of Vatican II and how what it intended to do was overcome by the Conspiracy of the Main Stream Media of that day to present the Council as advocating and teaching something entirely different.

Sound familiar?

Yes, because that is what exactly happened THREE DAYS BEFORE, when upon announcing His decision to renounce the petrine ministry, so as to dedicate himself to prayer, the Main Stream Media depicted what he did as a renunciation of the Papacy!

Thus, on Feb. 14, Pope Benedict to correct this error speaks to the entire Clergy of Rome and explains how Vatican II was misinterpreted and how the truth must come out by presenting the reality of what it did and said and not repeating what the Media claimed had happened.

During which discourse he says explicitly, “Now that I have decided to retire…”!

Note what he says.

He never says, “Now, that I have announced my renunciation of the Papacy”.

He is speaking for nearly an hour with eyes raised in the air, NOT reading from a script.

Does that sound like someone who has to resign because of frailty?

In short, Pope Benedict was giving the Roman Clergy all the information and principles of discernment to realize one day in the future, that He had not renounced the Papacy and was still their Bishop.

This is the brilliant mind of a man who can think 10 steps ahead of his enemies, and spill the beans in broad daylight without them realizing that he is undermining their coup d’etat.

This is a man who also profoundly realizes that he does not know, whether anyone around him can be trusted with the truth, so he speaks in parables. And it fits perfectly with all the other things he did that fateful month of February, 2011, as you can see from my report, “Benedict said in every way that He he did not resign“.

Finally, he indicates His trust in the Clergy of Rome that they will discover the truth one day, when, while referring to the preparations for the Second Vatican Council, he points out that the real fruitfulness of that ecclesial meeting lay in the fact that all the Bishops took the responsibility to join in prayer, action and small group meetings to discuss what was to be done, thereby indicating that the Clergy of Rome will be able to resolve this problem when they begin to do the same.

The original talk of Our Holy Father was in Italian, but an English translation is available:

__________

La Stampa, one of the leading Marxist papers of Italy, did not realize it at the time, but as of the Spring of 2019, when the proof that the Renunciation was invalid was widely publicized, they removed their entire report and left only the photo of the event.