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.
+ + +
[simple-payment id=”5295″]