Tag Archives: Roberto de Mattei

Estrema e Inutile Difesa del Pro-Bergogliano, il Dott. De Mattei

di Max Tex

E’ inevitabile ed umano schierarsi.

Mi riferisco all’articolo di Roberto De Mattei apparso il 1 luglio 2020 su Corrispondenza Romana (Le incognite della fine di un pontificato). Vediamo di chiarire definitivamente da che parte stia l’autore.

Riassumiamo qui brevemente le tesi principali dell’articolo.

L’ESORDIO

L’esordio è sullo stile catastrofista tipico del giornalismo di certa nobile ”intellighenzia” (che sembra schierarsi ma di fatto non lo fa mai):

 “Le dimissioni di Benedetto XVI saranno ricordate come uno degli eventi più catastrofici del nostro secolo …. ma soprattutto a una situazione di caos crescente nella Chiesa.

Poi continua accennando addirittura al “fumo di Satana”. Dice infatti:

il “fumo di Satana” rischia di avvolgere il Corpo Mistico di Cristo come forse mai è accaduto nella storia.”

Che significherebbero queste affermazioni e quali implicazioni potrebbero mai avere? Buio totale. Sembra si butti il sasso giusto per far rumore o per far saltare il sasso. Ma non vi è nessuna successiva analisi, spiegazione, chiarimento o discussione in merito e  meno che mai una disamina delle possibili implicazioni razionali! Niente, nada, zero!

AFFERMAZIONI “PROBLEMATICHE” SUL PONTIFICATO BERGOGLIANO

A questo punto l’estensore dell’articolo si lancia in una serie di affermazioni “problematiche”. Vediamo di che si tratta. Afferma infatti (distinguendo per chiarezza i vari punti):

-“Il pontificato bergogliano è arrivato alla fine ….dal punto di vista del suo impatto rivoluzionario.” 

-”Il Sinodo post-amazzonico è fallito”

-“Esortazione dello scorso 2 febbraio e’ stata la pietra tombale di tante speranze. 

La prima affermazione è chiaramente indimostrata e gratuita. Possiamo soltanto immaginare infatti, ma non conoscere in dettaglio, le prossime iniziative di Bergoglio in campo ecclesiale, teologico e politico. Soprattutto, non siamo affatto in grado di escludere che le sue prossime mosse possano avere una portata se possibile ancora più radicalmente distruttiva e catastrofica per la Chiesa Cattolica.

Riguardo al Sinodo Amazzonico in quale senso sarebbe, di grazia, fallito? Non nel senso di costituire i viri probati alcuni dei quali, infatti, sono già stati nominati. E nemmeno nel senso del diaconato delle donne, visto che lo stesso argomento è ora al centro del sinodo della Conferenza Episcopale tedesca (REFUTAZIONE RAZIONALE DEI MODERNISTI: IL NUOVO CASO DI GEORG BÄTZING).

Infine per quanto concerne l’esortazione Querida Amazonia, è del tutto evidente che questa non abbia affatto fallito gli obbiettivi (naturalmente quelli concepiti dalla mente astuta di Bergoglio). Tutt’altro! Infatti è una vera e propria esaltazione dell’ambientalismo ateo e idolatra stile pachamama inaugurato da Bergoglio (e di cui abbiamo presumibilmente visto finora solo l’inizio)! Infatti dopo aver illustrato i “sogni” dell’ambientalismo mondialista si conclude addirittura in modo trionfante con una preghiera idolatra alla stessa pachamama! E’ dunque una pura ingenuità pensare che abbia fallito! Si tratta nientemento di un pezzo del programma del Nuovo Ordine Mondiale (NWO).

LA QUESTIONE DEL MUNUS E DEL MINISTERIUM

L’unico punto parzialmente condivisibile è in riferimento a mons. Georg Gänswein che viene citato successivamente.

Precisamente riguarda la menzione del

“discorso di mons. Georg Gänswein del 20 maggio 2016 alla Pontificia Università Gregoriana, in cui egli affermava [del tutto correttamente] che papa Benedetto non aveva abbandonato il suo ufficio”, avendo [“argomento princeps”] rinunciato al ministerium e non al munus, e “rendendo [quindi il papato] un ministero quasi-condiviso” («als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst»).

La conclusione, che però significativamente manca nell’articolo di De Mattei, è che si conferma quanto à dovrebbe essere ben noto a tutte le persone raziocinanti (e cristiane). Ovvero che Papa Benedetto XVI non abbia affatto rinunciato al munus petrinus e pertanto – stando alle parole di Gesu Cristo in persona riportate nel vangelo di Matteo 16: 18-19: E io ti dico: Tu sei Pietro e su questa pietra edificherò la mia chiesa e le porte degli inferi non prevarranno contro di essa. A te darò le chiavi del regno dei cieli, e tutto ciò che legherai sulla terra sarà legato nei cieli, e tutto ciò che scioglierai sulla terra sarà sciolto nei cieli. — è ancora lui il Papa!

ATTACCO AI “CONSERVATORI CATTOLICI” E EXCUSATIO NON PETITA

Il “clou” dell’articolo però (non inaspettato peraltro) che chiarisce da che parte stia l’autore dell’articolo, giunge con l’accusa diretta ad una non meglio precisata

parte del mondo conservatore” [cattolico] che “avrebbe rivolto lo sguardo a Benedetto, considerandolo il “vero Papa”, contrapposto al “falso profeta”.  

Secondo lo stesso articolista, infatti, l’errore commesso da 

questi conservatori [sarebbe che ] non hanno voluto seguire la strada aperta dalla Correctio filialis consegnata a papa Francesco l’11 agosto 2016.”  

Come si sa lettera, come le successive, rimasta peraltro totalmente inascoltata.

Peraltro è interessante la “excusatio non petitache viene qui introdotta esplicitamente dal De Mattei a beneficio di Bergoglio. Si tratta nientepopodimeno di quanto segue. Frase che cito testualmente:

La vera ragione [è che] la radice delle deviazioni bergogliane risale ai pontificati di Benedetto XVI e di Giovanni Paolo II e, prima ancora, al Concilio Vaticano II. “

L’INNO A PAPA FRANCESCO

Per chiarire però definitivamente da che parte sia l’articolista (De Mattei) basta dare un’occhiata alla conclusione. Che e’ tutto un inno e un poema a Bergoglio. Infatti afferma che:

Papa Francesco non ha mai teorizzato l ‘ermeneutica della “discontinuità”, ma ha voluto realizzare il Vaticano II nella prassi”.  Questo compito JM Bergoglio l’avrebbe svolto in modo “vincente…nella realtà concreta dei fatti teologici, liturgici, canonici e morali, e non in uno sterile dibattito ermeneutico”.

Non si tratterebbe quindi di una colpa, bensì di un merito quasi eroico da parte di Jorge Mario Bergoglio!  

To attack Pope Benedict XVI, De Mattei becomes an anomian

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The knives are all out at Rome for Pope Benedict XVI.

And some of them reach far across the Atlantic.

The so-called trad movement, which loved Benedict XVI for giving them the Latin Mass, but promptly forgot Benedict in the Canon of the Latin Mass at the end of February 2013, because they could not read Latin well enough to understand what he did on February 11, 2013, has in more recent years beaten the drums for Pope Benedict XVI’s execution by guillotine.

That is, they are counting the days to his death.

They think that his disappearance will prove their cause, by some sort of twisted logic. They have become some of the most ardent zealots of the Bergoglio is certainly the pope clan.

The latest of these is a piece of bluster and puff from Dr. Roberto De Mattei here at Rome. I know that I should not give it the time of space, after his journal, the Corrispondenza Romana published a most shameful attack on Don Minutella last month, but as a devoted son of Our Lady Hammer of Heretics, I take delight in smashing errors and sophistic argumentation.

Dr. De Mattei’s essay was republished in English by Rorate Caeli, which often reprints in English articles which it considers important for distribution to Traditionalists, even if New Catholic, its founder, was a protestant political activist for a socialist in Canada and launched Rorate Caeli to forge a narrative among traditionalists for who knows what end.

Dr. De Mattei’s essay, in English, is entitled, The Unknowns at the End of a Pontificate.

I would characterize the article as poorly written, and from the pen of a man who is clearly troubled. His underhanded attack via Corrispondenza Romana on the character of Don Minutella sparked a fiery response by the Sicilian priest, who then went on the war path with the arms of truth, speaking in recent weeks repeatedly and at great length about the evidence and laws regarding a papal renunciation and how and why Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope.  I am honored to have been interviewed for more than 2 hours by Don Minutella in this campaign. Our challenge to the intellectuals of Italy, in Italian, has evoked no direct rebuttal on the merits — because that is a field of battle upon which they know they cannot win. But there have been indirect responses.

I covered the more public ones in my article of this morning, here.

Now, De Mattei’s deserve a response. His key argument, after pretending that the terms by which the Renunciation was never valid arose after the Renunciation, not in it, is this:

Furthermore, if Pope Benedict is the legitimate Pope, what would happen if from one day to the next he should die, or instead, before he died, Pope Francis should pass away? Given the fact that many current cardinals were created by Pope Francis and none of the cardinal electors consider him an Anti-Pope, the apostolic succession would be interrupted, jeopardizing the visibility of the Church. The paradox is that to prove the invalidity of Benedict’s renunciation juridical  sophisms are employed, but then to resolve the problem of Benedict’s or Francis’s succession, extra-canonical solutions ought to be used.

I would say the battle is nearly won, when De Mattei dares to write in public, if Pope Benedict is the legitimate Pope, what would happen…. because such a manner of argumentation presupposes a deep sense of desperation on the part of the one who employs it, even if it errs in casting the case in the terms of legitimacy, not canonicity or legality, or lawfulness.

His argument is a non-sequitur. Because regardless of who dies before whom, that fact alone does not cause the interruption of the Apostolic Succession. There have been dozens of antipopes in the past, and their death before or after the true Pope has never caused the true Pope to be without canonical or legal successors.

And here is a point that needs to be reviewed, though a historical of the caliber of De Mattei has no excuse in ignoring it: namely, that in times past the Apostolic Succession was at times conducted by Apostolic Right, by sacred canons, and by Papal laws.  But Dr. Mattei I think is reluctant to open up this discussion, because in such a case it becomes difficult to sustain, as his faction does, why they think that the Apostolic Succession can happen through the collective consensus of the Cardinals against the norms of both canon law and Papal Law and Apostolic Right.

In ancient times, before there were any sacred canons or papal laws, the Church of Rome elected Her own Bishop by common consensus. All the Faithful of the Church who wanted to participate could participate. The election being the right of both laity and clergy and religious. The only criteria were that the elector be a Catholic in good standing, in communion with the previous pope and a resident of the Diocese of Rome — which, however, it must be admitted, had different sizes throughout the history of its existence, even though it was roughly approximate to be that of the Metropolitan area of the Eternal City.  And since these criteria of communion, orthodoxy and residency are objective and verifiable criteria, in all ages, the Apostle Peter did well to leave the succession in the Petrine Munus under such a regime.

But in subsequent centuries, after the occasions of numerous civil strives between powerful families at Rome, Pope Nicholas II, on April 13, 1059, with the bull, In Nomine Domini, promulgated a papal law for the election of the Roman Pontiff, the substance of which was recapitulated in every subsequent papal law. I published the Latin text with an English translation on January 18th of this year.

Hence forth, the election of the Roman Pontiff is governed under a species of Apostolic Right, which now is manifested in a process which is not governed by the laws of tradition and universal suffrage, but of an election by Bishops chosen by the Popes with the consent of the better part of the clergy.  But even under this Papal Law it was never had that these Bishops or clergy could be those who adhered to an antipope.

So while this legal tradition grew and is now enshrined in the Papal Law of Pope John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, this law regards only the election of a true pope by Cardinals appointed by true popes, who are in communion with the previous occupant of the Holy See.  Thus, those like De Mattei who attempt to convince that the party of Pope Benedict are pharisaically scrupulous on Canon Law in the Renunciation, but will be required to dump Canon Law all together in the election of his successor — if it should happen to be that the Cardinals do not return to him before or after his death — is simply proposing a preposterous straw man, unworthy of his own intellectual abilities and duty, as a Catholic, to uphold and seek the truth.

Thus, if the Holy Father should die before Cardinals are reconciled to him, or if 20 days should pass after his death without any Cardinal Electors declaring he was the true pope unto the very day of his death, then the Papal Law on Conclaves no longer remains in force, because it regards the circumstances of a papal election when there are Cardinal Electors. In such a case, the Apostolic Right of the Roman Church returns, and the principal of universal suffrage revives. This is not only the only sane response to the objection, it is the canonical, legal, legitimate and lawful course of action.

And those who say otherwise are anomians, that is, they respect no law. Neither that which regards when and how to discern that a Pope has validly resigned, nor those which regard when and how to discern that a Pope has been validly elected.

+ + +

If you would like to support FromRome.Info, click the banner below.

cropped-from-rome-header-032520

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

 

RAI3 Report details Burke & De Mattei’s participation in Conservative Political Alliance

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

RAI3 is Channel 3 of the National Television Corporation run and financed by the Italian Republic, but populated by some of the most extreme left-wing minds. However, this does not discount the fact that they often report things of which the Catholic press world wide is silent.

Their recent report, on April, 20, 2020, exposed the very close collaboration that notable proponents of “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” here at Rome have with Conservative political interests who are heavily financed from the United States of America and which favor interreligious collaboration and the support of the Fratelli d’Italia, one of the leading Masonic political parties in Italy.

They name explicitly in the report, Cardinal Raymond Burke and Dr. Roberto dei Mattei.

Here is an English summary of the report, which FromRome.Info cannot confirm independently, even though it allegedly reports the contents of intercepted phone calls with Cardinal Burke and does cite the public addresses by Dr. De Mattei at the recent International Conference for Conservative politicians held at Rome, under the auspices of Steve Bannon and the Fratelli d’Italia.

The RAI3 report alleges that one billion dollars has been transferred to Europe from the United States by political and conservative organizations since the election of Bergoglio to support “opposition” to his agenda while insisting his claim to the papacy is legitimate.

Appearing in the report are John Henry Westen, of LifeSite News, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Church Militant, Catholic Family News, Alexander Tschugguel, Archbishop Viganò, Ralph Dollenger, Roberto Fiore (Leader of the Italian Party, Forza Nuova, which is a known Gladio organization), the Fondazione Giuseppe Sciacca of which Cardinal Burke is a supporter, Steve Bannon, Institute Dignitatis Humanae, Benjamin Harwell, Cardinal Burke, Matteo Salvini, Don Bruno Lima who is the president of the Fondazione Giuseppe Sciacca, which has ties to members in the Italian Military, Courts and Parliament.

Cardinal Burke is shown to have promised to intervene with his contacts in the USA to get political influence from the U.S. Government for the nomination of the undersecretary of the Ministry of the Interior, when Matteo Salvini was the Minister. This was shown by intercepted phone calls he had with a Lega Party member with Mafia ties. It also includes footage showing how the Cardinal attempts to avoid speaking with a journalist about the affair.

Dr. Roberto De Mattei is shown at the end of the report, speaking at the recent Conference for Conservatives, saying that Bergoglio and Trump have in a certain sense reversed roles, with Bergoglio becoming a politician for the left and Trump becoming an advocate of Christians values.

While the report is obviously pro-Bergoglian and pro-Marxist and pro-Globalist, it reveals important information about networking among political conservatives who insist Bergoglio is the pope, throughout the whole world. Gloria.TV’s in the English language reacted forcefully to the report, but omitted to rebut anything revealed in it, choosing rather to respond with ad hominem attacks.

The RAI3 report confirms FromRome.Info’s previous reports connecting the US Government to Trad Inc., which explains both their non-action against Bergoglio, their adoption of Masonic categories for “opposition”, and their seeming unending financial support from unknown sources.

+ + +

 

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

Dr. Roberto De Mattei: Strike! Two!

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I cannot remain silent, despite as much as I am loath to publicly correct someone with a Doctorate in History. I know I did it before, but it seems to have been of no help.

I speak of Dr. Roberto De Mattei, writing over at Correspondenza Romana (See original), here at Rome, in a piece which Rorate Caeli graciously published in English translation. (See Here), entitled, The Real Mess is the co-habitation of Two Popes.

And I quote,

This situation is the consequence of a grave theological error by Cardinal Ratzinger. By keeping the title Pope emeritus, as happens with bishops, he appears to believe that the rise to the Papacy imprints an indelible mark similar to that of the priesthood. In reality, the sacramental grades of the priesthood are three only: the diaconate, the priesthood and the episcopacy. The Papacy belongs to another hierarchy in the Church, the jurisdictional one, or the governmental one, wherein it is the apex. When a Pope is elected, he receives the office of supreme jurisdiction, not a sacrament with an indelible mark.

The priesthood can’t even be lost by death, because it subsists “in aternum” . The papacy, on the other hand, can be lost, not only by death, but also in the case of voluntary renunciation or of manifest, notorious heresy. If he renounces being pontiff, the Pope ceases to be such: he has no right to wear white nor impart the Apostolic Blessing. He, from a canonical point of view, is no longer even a cardinal, but goes back to being a simple bishop.* Unless his renunciation is invalid: but this, in the case of Benedict XVI, should be proven. Effectively, the title of Pope today is being given to both Francis and Benedict, but one is certainly abusive, as only one [man] can be Pope in the Church.  

Emphasis in Red added, Asterisk added

In a piece, entitled, It’s all happening. Rorate Caeli is coming onside. Benedict is Pope, Ann Barnhardt is elated that De Mattei and hence Rorate Caeli by informed consent, has admitted that it is a theological error. And she is correct, that is at least one little baby step in the right direction. But that is all it is.

Because it is reduced to  nothing, by the second thing worthy of note in De Mattei’s piece, that I highlighted in red.

And this regards something I just pointed out to Mr. Verrechio at Louie Verrechio’s AKA Catholic, a fortress of Sedevacantism, on his article entitled, Benedict XVI: Superhero,, Villain or Victim, where Louie fires an entire broadside at me personally. (That is O.K., though, since I have Ironsides)

Namely, as regards the correct legal presumption in acts of Renunciation, as in all legal acts which follow ius testimentarie as in Last Wills and Testiments and successions etc..

Lurking in the Comments, as Romanus sum, I wrote there:

Lou,

You got the legal presumption wrong.

A renunciation is presumed invalid unless it clearly renounces that which it is supposed to renounce.

Just like a last testament is invalid, unless it clearly says it is leaving something to someone.

For those who know Bellarmine, a doubtful pope is not a pope, it is the application of the same legal concept of interpretation to the opposite circumstances.

All this has to do with the concept of Cessation of power. In law, the cessation of power is not presumed. Thus, the cessation of right is not presumed. Contrariwise, in the election of a man to the papacy, we have the right and the Church is bound by law, not to regard it valid unless it meets all the necessary requirements of validity and or legitimacy.

Thus, a doubtfully resigned pope is still pope.

So, since I have corrected an Italian American in the USA, I guess there is no harm correcting an Italian at Rome, who spent years in Brazil.

So Dr. De Mattei, if I can be so bold — and I will be — though it is contrary to what a Franciscan should so in normal circumstances — but now is not normal. Since the Rule of Saint Francis obliges us to hold fast to Roman Pontiffs canonically elected, I would point out to you by a personal note, that THE INVALIDITY OF THE RENUNCIATION MADE BY POPE BENEDICT

DOES

NOT

NEED

TO

BE

PROVEN!

It does not need to be proven, because according to ius testimentarie, that is the genus of right which regards testaments, THE INVALIDLY IS PRESUMED unless it is proven otherwise by a clear and certain statement!

For the Record, Mr. Verrecchio holds that the Renunciation is invalid, as a conclusion. Dr. de Mattei holds that it is valid as a presumption. Each is a different error, and Verrecchio is a better thinker, in my judgement. But until everyone gets the legal principle right, the problem wont be solved.

As I replied again to Louie, in the same post,

Dear Mr. Verrechio,

I did read your comment, you said that you conclude that the resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.

I said, the legal presumption is that a resignation is invalid until proven otherwise.

The point seems to be a fine one, but it is not. A presumption of law is a principle, not a conclusion. It does not exist under certain circumstances and in certain minds or as derived from certain beliefs or not. It exists a priori to all of these on account of the very nature of the legal act.

You do not have to prove it (the invalidity). You do have to accept it (the legal principle), to be a sane rational person…

I could have more easily commented on Dr. de Mattei’s piece by simply saying:

THE INVALIDITY OF THE RESIGNATION HAS BEEN PROVEN!

13 MONTHS AGO!

If you would only read sources which are found outside of the clique of approved outlets you read! >>

VERICATHOLICI.WORDPRESS.COM

And you do not need to take me at my word. Ask any attorney-at-law who practices Estate Law or simply peruse my notes from my meetings with 2 top Canon Lawyers at  Rome:

_________

* Just a short note on what happens to a pope who validly resigns. If he was a Cardinal beforehand, he returns to being a Cardinal. This is shown by the statement drawn up by Pope Pius XII in the case of an invasion of the Vatican by Axis forces during World War II. In the case of Pope Celestine V, he returned to being a hermit, because that is what he was before he was the Pope, though he remained a bishop, having been consecrated such after his election (Not all popes were consecrated Bishops). Unless of course, before one resigns, he makes other dispositions, as certainly is within his power to do so. Thus, Pope Benedict, if he really wanted ever to resign validly, could have first established the canonical status he would adopt after resignation, declare his resignation would take place on a certain date, resign on that date, and then assume that status which as Pope he had granted himself as the man who would be soon NOT the pope.

THIS ARTICLE has been published simultaneously in Italian at ChiesaRomna.Info

CREDITS: The featured image is by the author of this article.

+ + +

Donate to support FromRome.Info

Make a donation to Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., a non profit which is supporting Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s Apostolates like FromRome.Info -- If you would like to donate more than $10.00 USD, simply increase the Quantity below from 1 to a higher number.

$10.00

Where Robert de Mattei is wrong

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.”