Those who say Munus = Ministerium are the Enemies of the Living God

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

President of the Scholasticum,
Translator of Saint Bonaventure’s Commentaria in Quator Libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi,
Translator of Critical Edition of St. Francis’s Collected Works

Munus and Ministerium, in all major western languages are NEVER translated correctly with the same terms. Those who might think so are neither linguists, nor do they understand etymologies. — Heed them at the peril of saying something stupid as they do.

Munus, for example, is not translated as function, because function is a verbal noun, but munus is a substance. A substance is a thing, but a verbal noun names properly an action.

This can also be seen through connotation and denotation. Denotation is the inherent or primary signification of a thing. But connotation its what it signifies secondarily or consequently.

Thus, Munus (gift or charge) is a term which connotes a relation between the one receiving it and the one giving it, but Ministerium (service) is a term which denotes the relation of the one serving to the ones served. This is because Ministerium is exercised in favor of inferiors and needy, but a Munus is received from superiors of abundance.

Likewise, when one recognizes the relation of terms in the logic of the Latin language, by which the duty of a superior is termed a magisterium, and the duty of an inferior a ministerium: for he who has a munus to teach holds a magisterium, and when he renounces his ministerium, he does not lose his magisterium, nor his munus.

Therefore to say that munus and ministerium mean the same thing is absurd. To say they signify the same thing is a psychotic denial of reality. Thus Benedict XVI never abdicated, and those who say he did are the enemies of the Living God, who is Eternal Truth.

9 thoughts on “Those who say Munus = Ministerium are the Enemies of the Living God”

  1. This is the argument I got from a priest friend of mine whom I approached to share the Impeded See thesis. He also mentioned that “Pope Francis” is imprudent with the things he says. I have yet to have a rebuttal with him.

  2. It amazes me how desperate the Bergoglian apologists are to resort to this type of claim.

    They take our entire argument, which has been not only asserted but thoroughly demonstrated and they “refute” it by asserting that our argument is merely semantics and a “distinction without a difference” as Salza has recently claimed. They don’t demonstrate this of course, they merely assert it.

    The three approaches they really have, according to my observations, are:

    1. Claim that “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance” is dogma and that we are in opposition to this Church doctrine by denying Bergoglio is Pope. This is easily refuted by pointing out that this peaceful and universal acceptance heals some issue arising from an election, but that this presumes a valid conclave to start with and that this universal acceptance can do nothing to legitimize an illegitimate conclave. And in our case, there was still a Pope alive, so their conclave is invalid and nothing can change that.

    Every single quote they can throw at us only speak of some issue with the election or electors, not the conclave itself. They misapply it to a conclave and insist that it renders our entire argument moot. It should be patently obvious that for a valid Pope we need not merely peaceful and universal acceptance but also a valid conclave, otherwise the entire Church could decide that it doesnt like a particular, legitimate Pope and just decide to call a conclave while the Pope is living, elect a new one and then since the new “Pope” is “peacefully and universally accepted”, then that makes him a real Pope? Absurd. Such an interpretation of the principle of universal acceptance turns it from a very sound and reasonable principle to an utterly absurd one which would logically allow for new Popes to be elected on a whim while the previous Pope is alive, as long as he is “universally accepted”. (I’ve actually been told that I was a naturalist and a modernist rationalist for stating this.)

    2. The second approach is to jump right over our actual argument and insist on discussing secondary matters which they think derive or are implied by our position if it be true. Usually takes the from of, “well if you are right and Benedict has always been Pope and Francis an antipope, then what about xyz?” Or “if Benedict didn’t abdicate…then xyz would be the case and xyz can’t be true, or is too difficult to believe, therefore Francis has to be a real Pope”.

    These are trickier to deal with since it can easily come off as though we are trying to avoid their hypothetical scenario. My approach is usually to point out that these are secondary matters, ones which can make for good questions, but are still secondary to the actually matter, and should be discussed once we’ve determined the facts of the matter based on canon law. If we determine that Benedict did abdicate and Francis is Pope, then their secondary concerns are moot. If we determine that Benedict didn’t abdicate, was therefore always Pope and Francis antipope, then we know for a fact that Benedict is Pope and Francis antipope, then we are better equipped to tackle these secondary questions or possible implications. But they often want to tackle these matters first, and do so inevitably with many assumptions, rather than first determine the facts and then allow those facts to guide us in seeking answers to secondary questions.

    3. The third approach, spoken about above, is that when pushed to discuss our actual argument, they just wave it away as “semantics”. “Oh, munus…ministerium, they obviously mean the same thing.”

    For some reason, I guess because I assumed the best of them at first, I assumed that these apologists wanted to convince us “Benevacantists” of our error. But I’ve now concluded that all this material of theirs isn’t intended to convince us that we are wrong but is intended as some sort of pathetic damage control on their end. A sad attempt to inoculate their followers against taking the time to listen to our claims and arguments and consider them seriously and carefully.

    If their intent was to convince us, they couldn’t be so dumb as to think they’d succeed by ignoring our actual argument and continually straw-maning us.

    1. Excellent. Exactly. Rather than be logical, they have chosen to be psychological, that is not to discuss truth, but to push propaganda.

    2. There are many priests who take this line because they don’t take the time to follow current events in the Church and don’t read what Bergoglio says and does and so have a distorted understanding of the situation, so they think all this is conspiracy theory.

      I have no doubt that with time everyone will be forced to either stay with the Antichurch or convert to the true Church.

      1. Agreed and we’ll said. And I think that official “decision time” will be soon enough. It will be an interesting year.

    3. Many thanks for that explanation, very comprehensive & accurate!

      I have encountered all three of the “approaches” you detail from local friends in Christ who, apart from their Bergoglio-is-Pope indoctrination, are otherwise faithful Catholics with good intellects.
      The enemy’s usual strategy of Deception creating Division creating Distraction creating Discouragement has worked well!
      These friends of mine are so Discouraged at the thought that almost the entire hierarchy of the Church may be wrong, that their local priests are obedient to a heretical antipope, that they resort to verbal attacks/ridicules and various nonsensical statements such as “my Faith may be destroyed” or “the Holy Spirit has abandoned His Church” and even “if there is no successor of Peter then the Church as we know it will cease to exist…”.

      The above utterances were, however, made before the death of Pope Benedict XVI and so, now, that last utterance is a very real scenario that we are facing…….

      Pax tecum.

  3. Very clear and helpful. Thank you. I remember hearing an English translation of B16s words. He said he would no longer retain the power of administration. That was the English translation on a video I watched. It said nothing of setting aside his teaching autbority. He remained the Holy Father. He wore white. He lived a life of prayer and continued to teach through his writings. If permitted, he could have recorded teachings and released them, but he was cloistered from us by others. He is a powerful intercessor now. The power resides with the risen Lord until he confers it upon a true successor of Peter.

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.