Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The pro-Bergogliano traditionalist publication, Correspondenza Romana, founded by Dr. Roberto de Mattei, has launched out into the deep of modernism, with their novel heresy, that the Papal Office does not consist in the petrine munus, but in the ministerium.
Here is the heresy quote:
In conclusione: l’essenza del Papato non è nel munus, come nei vescovi, ma è nell’esercizio del governo, ovvero nel ministerium, che non è un sacramento indelebile, ma un potere di giurisdizione, che si può perdere o a cui si può rinunciare. Il Papato non è una condizione spirituale o sacramentale, ma un “ufficio”, o più precisamente un’istituzione. Chi rinuncia al ministerium, cioè al governo, perde il Papato.
My English translation:
In conclusion: the essence of the Papacy is not in the munus, as in bishops, but in the exercise of government, or rather in the ministerium, which is not an indelible sacrament, but a power of jurisdiction, which one can lose or which one can renounce. The Papacy is not a spiritual or sacramental condition but an “office”, or more precisely an institution. He who renounces the ministerium, that is the government, loses the Papacy.
Formal heresy consists in the explicit negation of a truth revealed by God, directly or mediately.
A heresy for which one can be punished canonically is one which denies a dogma of the Faith defined by the supreme magisterium (CIC 1983, canon 751). But the Supreme Magisterium has defined the Papacy as an office, not a ministry, at Vatican I, in Pastor Aeternus, Session IV, Chapter 3, n. 9:
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
And again, in the heart of the Dogmatic Definition of Papal Infalliblity itself, Vatican I teaches that the Papacy is an office:
We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Thus, if one were to publicly deny that the Papacy is constituted by an office, OR an office of any kind at all, then one would be a formal public heretic. And yet, in the code of 1983, canon 148, every office is defined as a munus:
145 §1 – An ecclesiastical office is any munus stably constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance, to be exercised for a spiritual end. — (My English translation from the authoritative Latin)
But a ministry is not something stable by its very nature, since it is the voluble exercise of authority. And the Code of Canon Law of 1983 recognizes a ministerium as such an unstable thing, that IT DOES NOT EVEN DEFINE IT! Moreover, it is clear that Vatican I, when speaking of the exercise of an office is speaking about the ministry of an office, and thus distinguishes between an office and a ministry.
Moreover, in Canons 331-334, the Code only uses “munus” to speak of or designate the Papal office!
Thus, the above statement by Emmanuele Barbieri in denying the Papacy is essentially a munus, explicitly denies that the Papacy is a stable institution or office. This denial is further emphasized as such by putting quotes around the word, “office”.
Thus, I do not see how this author has not incurred the Anathema of Vatican I.
(Andrea Cionci will soon publish his own rebuttal to the above article, which contains also a great number of sophistic arguments which merit exposition).
RADIO ROSA MISTICA COLOMBIA has published a Spanish language coverage of this story:
UPDATE: Andrea Cionci has responded to the above mentioned article in Correspondenza Romana, in his own way here: