by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Catholics have been lulled into accepting the revolution, which drove Benedict XVI from power and installed the globalist pseudo-savant from Argentina in the Vatican, by many specious arguments.
Chief of which is that promoted by Cardinal Raymond Burke, that, namely, there is no canonical procedure to address an invalid or contested papal resignation.
However, thanks to the genius of Pope Benedict XVI, a canonical way to restore him to the Apostolic Governance of the Church of Rome is available. And it is provided for in the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by his predecessor, John Paul II, which he himself, when still a Cardinal of the Roman Church, advised upon.
This solution enshrines the example of the Synod of Sutri (See here, here, here and here), which in 1046 met at Sutri, in the Metropolitan Province of Rome to discern which of the three papal claimants was legitimate or not. It found that none were, and deposed all three.
As Andrea Cionci has established with the input of the leading canonical scholars who are collaborating with him, Pope Benedict XVI did what he did on Feb. 11, 2013 to give notice to the whole Church that the Apostolic See was impeded by a conspiracy of Cardinals who were preventing him from governing the Church of Rome and the universal Church, as Christ’s Vicar on Earth.
This conspiracy to obstruct his apostolic mission was impeding the Apostolic See. And in the case of an impeded see there are specific canons which govern what can be done and what is to be done.
Now in the case of an impeded see which is subsequently usurped by an invalid uncanonical election, there does exist in the Code of Canon Law a solution and a remedy, contrary to what Cardinal Burke has publicly declared.
Let’s examine it closely.
First, the dispute as to whether or not Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation of ministry effects his loss of munus cannot be resolved by private judgment or opinion. The solution must be based on canonical norms and principles, read authentically according to the mind of the Church as expressed in Canon 17.
That canonical argument has been made already.
But the argument is distinct from the canonical judgement which would canonically oblige all Bishops everywhere to accept Benedict and not Bergoglio the Pope.
Here we are face to face with two realities. The truth, and the judgement of the truth in a forensic forum. A judge does not make a man a murderer, but a murdered when apprended and judged as such, is publicly known in a forensic manner to be a murderer.
A forensic judgement does not make a thing true or false, but it does proclaim in an authoritative manner what that truth or falsity is.
This is why, in addition to there being only one sound canonical determination of the truth that Benedict XVI is the pope, there also needs to be a forensic judgment of that.
Such a judgement is under the competence of the Provincial Council of the Roman Ecclesiastical Province. This province is the territory which comprises the Diocese or Rome and the suburbican Bishoprics which over time were separted from it and which still are included under Apostolic right, inasmuch as they are ruled by Cardinal Bishops who are reckoned members of the Roman Curia.
I speak of the Dioceses of Ostia, Velletri-Segni, Porto-Santa Rufina, Frascati, Palestrina, Albano, and Sabina-Poggio Mirtelo.
The metropolitan see is the Apostolic See, in this case, since it is the chief see in the Roman Province.
A provincial council is described in canons 440-446. And how Cardinal Burke does not know of this is beyond me.
Canon 440 § 1 specifies that a provincial council can be called anytime there arises a need which the Bishops of the Province deem suitable. This is an extremely liberal grant of discretion. Certainly doubt as to whom is the true Pope is sufficient need.
Now in Canon 440 §2, it is said that in a sede vacante in the Metropolitan See, a provincial synod is not to be called, yet in canon 442 §2, it says, that when that See is impeded, the Bishops of the province can elect one of themselves and preside over such a Council. This implies that a provincial council can be called when the Metropolitan See is impeded. Which is the exact case in law.
Accordingly in accord with canon 442 §2, the elected suffragan can determine the time and place of such a Council and the questions to be discussed, the length of the discussion and whether to move it from one place to another as may seem opportune or necessary. He can also dissolve it or extend its sessions.
Now in accord with Canon 443, §1, all the Bishops, Bishop co-adjutors and auxiliaries must be convoked, if a Provincial Council is called. Also all other Bishops who hold a munus in the province. Bishops emeriti can also be called, as well as all other Bishops incardinated in the Province. This includes all the Bishops and Archbishops incardinated at the Vatican, such as Archbishop Viganò, and all the Cardinals of the Roman Church.
In addition all the major superiors of religious communities in the Province must be invited, as well as all Rectors of Pontifical institutes in the Province, and all Rectors of Major Seminaries. Vicar generals and Episcopal Vicars must also be called.
All these have the right to vote.
In addition, all the clergy and laity of the province can be called, but they do not get but a consultative voice, but no more than half the number of those who must be invited who can vote. In addition two members of each priestly diocesan council of each dicese in the province and of each Cathedral Chapter are to be invited with consultative voice.
Finally, others can also be invited by the presiding Bishop with the consent of the other bishops of the province who are ordinaries.
The power of the Provincial Council of the Roman Province is affirmed in canon 445, which says it can act “to defend common ecclesiastical discipline”, and surely, who is the true Pope is the keystone to all ecclesiastical discipline in the Province.
In the case of two rival popes, I would gather that not only the Bishops and clergy and superiors which an antipope appointed but also those which the true pope appointed, even though they were thrust from their sees could attend. And clearly those appointed by the true Pope do not need permission from those appointed by the Antipope.
Thus, with such Council called, a synod like that of Sutri in 1046 can resolve canonically who is the true Metropolitan of the Roman Province and order deposed the one who has not a shred of canonical right to call himself the Pope.
15 thoughts on “How to Canonically solve the problem of 2 Popes”
Deo gratias! È sbalorditivo constatare come la Provvidenza avesse già dotato Santa Romana Chiesa di tutti gli strumenti giuridici adatti per risolvere canonicamente, senza necessità di nuove e soggettive estrapolazioni procedurali dalla Legge Divina, perfino l’inedita attuale scandalosa confusione dei “due papi”.
Lo stato di “Sede impedita”, al quale pare che per 8 anni nessuno (a parte Benedetto XVI e forse qualche suo fidatissimo consulente legale) sulla Terra aveva pensato, fa la differenza!
Complimenti frà Alexis per questa brillante proposta!
Questa è la una proposta che l’arcivescovo Viganò dovrebbe immediatamente fare sua per fare chiarezza con urgenza sullo stato attuale del Papato.
Cardinal Burke is no dumb person. He was the former prefect of the apostolic signatura. I believe they just do not have the will to take any meaningful action against this heretic Pope. Only Heaven knows what will happen next. For me I continue to pray for the church. We are going to a place where we have never gone before, but our Lord Jesus will not allow his church to go into the pit of hell.
I agree with you Acchiappaladri.
Below are the current bishops of the dioceses in question. We could write directly to them and ask to help or start a Provincial Council to settle the question. Of course there are also others mention by Brother Alexis that have the canonical authority to also convene such a council. The list starts here:
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re – Diocese of Ostia
Mons. Vincenzo Apicella – Diocese of VELLETRI -SEGNI
Beniamino Cardinal Stella – Diocese of Porto-Santa Rufina
Bishop Raffaello Martinelli – Diocese of Frascati
Bishop Mauro Parmeggiani – Diocese of Palestrina
Bishop Vincenzo Viva- Diocese of Albano
Bishop Ernesto Mandara – Diocese of Sabina-Poggio Mirtelo
Some of these were appointed by Bergoglio, and hence you need to list their predecessors who were named by Benedict or John Paul II.
Cardinal Agostino Vallini (81) * – Diocese of Ostia
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re – Diocese of Ostia
Bishop Mons. Vincenzo Apicella * – Diocese of VELLETRI -SEGNI
Bishop Gino Reali (73) * – Diocese of Porto-Santa Rufina
Bishop Raffaello Martinelli (73) * – Diocese of Frascati
Bishop Mauro Parmeggiani – Diocese of Palestrina
Bishop Domenico Sigalini (79) * – Diocese of Palestrina
Cardinal Marcello Semeraro (73) * – Diocese of Albano
Bishop Ernesto Mandara * – Diocese of Sabina-Poggio Mirtelo
* = appointed bishop prior to 2013. Might be retired / emeritus because of age.
I love the solution. However, if not Cardinal Burke, WHO will step forward and initiate the process?
Will 54 people join me in storming Heaven with The Rosary Novena to Our Lady beginning today..1 Rosary today times 54 Rosaries today by others, and the Novena is done..
These forces are so entrenched, and so secretive that we dont even know the half of it . Wed and Fri are also must fast days … and fast food is not found at McDs…but its plain bread.. and true fast drink is not Coke but water
Count me as #2…..!
Count mine in
Traduction française :
COMMENT RÉSOUDRE CANONIQUEMENT LE PROBLÈME DE 2 PAPES ?
… and a belated blessed feast of your Seraphic Father !
If those bishops appointed by JB have from law the right to participate & vote in such a council, would this not raise the spectre of self-interest (theirs/his) as likely to compromise proceedings?
Are you saying that among the personnel authorized by law in the scenario you recommend, any could indict the See as impeded, thereby to summon a provincial council, elect a leader & then conduct a trial for said indictment?
To invoke a whiskered and hackneyed line about a “war”; suppose a council were called (by ONE heroic mitre) and nobody came? The question isn’t meant to be ridiculous: fear runs rampantly — understandably so.
Am still trying to recognize what it is you are labeling as an outlet of Benedict’s”genius” in this. What precisely has been his hand in identifying the See as “impeded”? If anything, it would appear he has contributed mightily to the confusion.
The ecclesiological problem with a Provincial Council is that there is a de facto schism between those who are in obedience to Benedict XVI and those who are in obedience to Bergoglio. But of the latter, many are simply confused and mislead and misinformed and chained by systems of psychological and emotional control. Ideally one would want all sides to come together and hear the facts, but that will require grace and the right historical circumstances. I think it would be easier after Bergoglio dies or resigns, and before a Conclave be called. But it depends, as the law details, upon the Bishops of the Province, whether those appointed by Benedict, who are still in office or still alive, and those who were nominated by Bergoglio. I wrote the article to convince all, though I admit that if there were only 1 Bishop who was willing to call it, and all the others were in obedience to Bergoglio, that the Council would be still validly called and could validly make determinations. But Councils are more called to bring about reconciliation in such questions, than advance the right of one party only. In the past regional councils were called by both parties during papal schisms, so perhaps I am a bit too idealistic to hope that both sides come together. I still think, because of my decades of work along side clergy, that most of them know Bergoglio is wacked and would welcome the opportunity of a Provincial Council to consider the canonical question of who really is or was the pope.
Comments are closed.