6 thoughts on “Il Papa è uno solo!”

  1. Given that no cardinal objected to the efficacy of the putative “abdication”; moreover that all participated in an irregular/false conclave, one can but conclude that even those free from Saint Gallen contamination were deceived: what right had (has!) Benedict to perpetrate, deliberately, such a fraud upon the Church, especially when age & even death are ever more likely to remove from him the ability to render a dénouement of his intentions? Can this be counted a “strategy” endorsed by Him Who taught “Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ & your ‘no’ mean ‘no’ “?
    I pray that his current suffering purify His Eminence Burke, that emerging freed from it, he may denounce the imposter & lead the decent cardinals to renew communion with & obedience to Benedict. Apart from a heavenly intervention, how else my might we envision a healing of the Chair?

  2. Dear brother Bugnolo, I have read some of the articles on Pope Benedict’s resignation on this site. I have consulted them with fellow doctor of theology. Rev. dr admits, that text of BXVI abdication is unclear and using “munus” and “ministerium” interchangeably is confusing, but despite all of that we can’t prove invalidity of Benedict’s abdication, as long as he says his intention was to abdicate. Because intention is most important, and using both munus and ministerium can be explained, that he understands them as synonyms. To my objection, that can. 126 says that if act contains substantial error, the act is invalid, Rev. dr responds that no one can judge the text of Papal abdication except Pope or – during his absence – the College of bishops. So we really can’t prove Benedict’s abdication. Can I ask You for response to this arguments?

    1. Your Rev. Dr. of Theology is wrong, because Canonical Acts which regard the cessation of right are NOT judged by intention, but by signfiication and intention. Thus it is not sufficient to WANT to renounce, you have TO RENOUNCE the right thing. Otherwise, a comment over soup or in a daze of medicine might be taken for a renunciation. As for Canon 126, it applies for all those who think that a renunciation of ministerium fulfills canon 332.2 which says NOTHING of ministerium. And if the Rev. Dr. dismisses the text of Canon Law, then remind him of the words of Jesus Christ: said to St. John Paul II, when codifying Canon law in 1983: WHATSOEVER YOU BIND ON EARTH, SHALL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN.

      Finally, in admitting that the text is vague, he admits its signification is doubtful, and therefore, since a doubt resignation is no resignation he is admitting it is invalid. He cannot resurrect its validity by appealing to and intention, because God alone knows the heart, and HE THE REV. DR. has no authority to judge the intention.

      1. Dear brother Bugnolo, I would really like for Benedict XVI to be still Pope, but I don’t know how to respond to the objections that people far wiser than me have, for example bp Schneider: https://youtu.be/y6PLW9Hvxvw

  3. Sadly, it does not surprise that even a credentialed practitioner in the Code would balk @ the prospect of an antipope: the power of cognitive dissonance is great indeed. What is more disturbing, however, is that the superabundant evidence that a false shepherd has usurped is somehow allowed a pass. No matter how many of the Faithful may be convinced of this, it will take a prophetic voice in the hierarchy to accuse, so to speak, the nakedness of the dictator before a restorative course begins. Even then, it’ll take more strength, apparently, then a retired ordinary can muster.
    Oremus.

  4. Dear Szymon: If, in celebrating Holy Mass, I were to say, “This is Jesus’ Body.” would that consecrate the Eucharist? No, it would not. Why? Because those words are not the form of the Sacrament. The situation with the renunciation is quite similar: Pope Benedict was, as we might say in English, super-paraphrastic: he certainly SEEMED to be abdicating, but he did not do what the law required of him to do to effect the act. What his motives for this may have been, I cannot begin to imagine, nor do I attempt to do so. I simply go by what he did not do, and that was to follow the canon laid down by his predecessor, which canon he did not modify before his now notorious, 2013 consistory. The mountain of evidence indicating that the imposter is not a shepherd to the Faithful in any meaningful way only supports the conclusion. How our Lord intends to heal the situation is a mystery for whose dénoument we must pray with great earnest.

    Bishop Schneider is entitled to his opinion; but was he a witness to the “facts” upon which he relies? Even were that the case, he takes into no account the question of “substantial error” which must also be considered with respect to the efficacy (or, in this case non-) of the act.

    Boże, zmiłuj się nad nami!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.