Br. Bugnolo’s Cordial Reply to Dr. Gordon on Precedence in the Renunciation of Benedict XVI

Editor’s Note:This video responds to the comment of Dr. Gordon regarding the concept of precedence in Church Law, which he refers to in this video interview of Mr. Patrick Coffin.

This same video is also available here on the server of FromRome.Info, where all can download it for free.

Please note, that in my video reply above, I mis-spoke when I referred to canon 148, the correct reference is to canon 145.

Here is my 7 part video series on the Renunciation, many of which principles Mr. Coffin has adopted:

For my comments on Mr. Coffin’s position on moral certitude, see the same video, here.

Here is a link to the documentary, A Message in a Bottle (click here).

13 thoughts on “Br. Bugnolo’s Cordial Reply to Dr. Gordon on Precedence in the Renunciation of Benedict XVI”

  1. Brother Bugnolo,
    As always, thank you for the logical explanation of why Benedict XVI is still the pope! And keep up the great work in defending Holy Mother the Church and the true Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict!

  2. When Pope Paul6th proclaimed Humanae Vitae in 1968 ,he stated, as reported in newspapers which I read, ” I beg people to obey ( Humanae Vitae). I recieved it in Revelation. Our Lord is testing the world..”…
    .I noticed in Bro Bugnolos talk, near the end , he refers to this “testing” by God .
    The testing is ongoing.

  3. See can. 331: plenitudo potestatis

    Can. 331 – Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum, Collegii
    Episcoporum est caput, Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor; qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria
    potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet.

  4. There is a famous photograph of the Vatican struck lightning when Pope Benedict resigned. See this link: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/lightning-bolt-hit-vatican-not-1705156 so you can see what I am talking about. I assumed, like many, that the lighting strike indicated that Almighty God was displeased by Pope Benedict’s resignation. What do you think? Was God displeased? Footnote: the report said the Vatican was hit twice in one day – very rare.

    1. I was just converting then. I had a distinct feeling the lightning signaled the beginning of a chastisement. It wasn’t just a freak natural event.

  5. Excellent. Excellent. I wish that instead of a Voris/Marshall debate, they would do a large get together of great Catholic minds and include you in the discussion to hash this all out!

  6. Great rebuttal. I kind of noticed that wasn’t exactly a Thomistic argument but more like an American one from Tim Gordon. My question would be if there is one Pope and one Anti Pope isn’t that defacto schismatic in being. And secondly who has the authority to address this error/s (I know it’s not the laity), even if the election was invalid if Pope Benedict has no administrative jurisdiction or does he? Is this something that would demand something like a ‘fraternal’ correction. And lastly did you say that common law and Roman law are different, that part was a little confusing.

    1. Antipopes are schismatic by definituon and those of their followers who know they have no legittimate claims are formally also such.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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