di Benedetto XVI Pontifex Maximus
Ha vissuto 95 anni, 8 mesi, 15 giorni
Presiedeva la Chiesa universale
7 anni, 10 mesi, 9 giorni
dal 19 aprile 2005 al 28 febbraio 2013
Deceduto il 31 dicembre
Nell’Anno del Signore 2022
Editor’s Note: The only Italian news source, which I have been able to find so far, which says anything about the next conclave, is one called, “Il Dinero”, which insists, without citing any Cardinal, that there will not be a conclave after the death of Pope Benedict XVI.
“Il Dinero” in Italian, means “The Money”.
Now I think everything has been revealed.
Editor’s Note: This entire ceremony was altered on key points to emphasize that those responsible for stealing the flock of Christ from Pope Benedict XVI could justify themselves. They have buried Benedict XVI, but now God will bury them.
Summary and Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
There is a lot which could be discussed in regard to this interview, given yesterday afternoon, but I will address the most significant section, in which it appears the Archbishop has commented on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, at 10:46 in this video:
Where the interviewer, asks:
Q. Il mondo non dimenticherà mai quell’undici Febbraio del 2013, con l’annuncio della rinuncia. C’è qui continua dire che non sia stata una libera scelta, o addiratura che lui abbia dopo voluto rimanere papa in qualche modo. Cosa ne pensa?
My English Translation:
Q. The world will never forget that 11th of February, 2013, with the announcement of the Renunciation. There are those who continue to say that it was not a free decision, or even, that he had after wanted to remain pope in some manner. What do you think of this?
At this point in the interview, it is clear that the Archbishop gasps to answer the question: he stops, begins to speak and then responds thus:
A. Questa domanda in altre parole — in diverse — in diversi situazioni — ho detto io a lui. — Eh! — Cercono una dietrologia che lei non ha detto quando ha fatto questo annuncio il 11 Febbrario dopo il Consistoro. Cercano, cercano, e cercano. Devono essere qualche di. — Chi non crede che ciò che ho detto è il vero motivo, non mi credi anche se dico adesso credetemi: è così. Poi non voglio adesso andare — entrare negli dettagli. — è l’unica — Questo è e rimane l’unico motivo. E questo è grave. E non dobbiamo dimenticare. A mi ha detto: Devo farlo, poiché io ero dei primi che cercava di convincergli che non è possibile. E poi mi ha detto nettamente: Senta! Non chiedo il Suo parere, ma communico la mia decisione, pregato, sofferto, presa coram Dio.
Non è così, che si può scavare e credere di trovare qual cosa. Che non credere e fare teorie, anche in riguardo che ha lasciato parte e ha mantenuto un’altra parte o o ecc. — Tutti quelli che dicono questo fanno delle terorie su una parola o su una teroria di un’altra cosa, al fin fine non si fidono di Benedetto, di cio che ha detto. Vuole dire, questo è proprio un affront contro di lui. Però ognuno ha la sua, la volontà di sua libertà e può dire o cosa sensato o cosa manchi sensato.
La nuda verità è quello che non ha più avuto più la forza di guidare la Chiesa. Come ha detto questo in latino. Io ho chiesto, “Perché il latino?” – Questo da — questa è la lingua della Chiesa e io vorrei farli questo e questo. E poi loro traducono e capiscono.
Chi crede di trovare o dove di trovare, qualche vero, vero, vero motivo, sbaglia. Il vero motivo ha communicato lui. Amen.
My English translation:
A. This question in other words — in diverse — in diverse situazions — I have said to him. — Eh! — They seek a behind-the-scenes-explanation which you have not said when you made this announcement on February 11th, after the Consistory. They seasrch, search and search. There must be something of. — He who does not believe what I have said is the true motive, will not believe me even if I now say, “Believe me: it is so!” Now, I do not want to go — to enter into the details. — It’s unique — This is and remains the unique motive. And this is grave. And we ought not forget. To me he said: “I have to do it”, since I was among the first who sought to convince him that it is not possible. And then he told me succinctly: “Listen! I am not asking for your opinion, but am communicating my decision, having prayed, suffered, a decision taken before God.
It is not like this, that one can dig and believe to find something. That one does not believe and makes up theories, even in regard to that he left a part and has maintained another part, or, or, etc.. — All these who say this are making up theories based on a word or one a theory about something else: at the very end, they do not trust Benedict, in what he has said. This means, this is indeed an effrontery against him. However, each one has, the will of his own liberty and can say what he feels or what he needs to feel.
The bare truth is that he no longer had no longer the strength to guide the Church. Why he did this in Latin, I asked him, “Why in Latin?” — This one gave — “This is the language of the Church and I would want to do these, this and that. And then they translate and understand.”
He who believe to find or where to find, something true, true, true motive, errs. The true motive he himself communicated. Amen.
It is clear first of all that the Archbishop has dodged the Magna Quaestion. Because the question is not about Benedict’s intentions, but about what he actually did do. But since the interviewer phrased the question withing the boundaries of internal motivations, the Archbishop responded to that limitation.
Second, it is clear that the Archbishop was troubled in answering this question. He frequently rephrased himself and he spoke in a very crude Italian. Perhaps he is not able to do otherwise. But his response, like that at the LUMSA university at the end of September, lacks proper introductory context in several places, so that it is not clear if he is quoting Pope Benedict XVI or is merely inserting his own words in the Holy Father’s mouth.
Forensically, this testimony, hence, is worth little. Because whether Benedict XVI renounced the papacy or not, or whether he had recourse to canon 332 or 333 has NOTHING TO DO WITH INTENTIONS, it has only to do with the proper manifestation of intention.
Hence, one can only conclude, from the above, that the Archbishop has testified that Benedict renounced because he felt too week to continue. But as regards the question of what he renounced, he gives no answer.
But even more importantly, if the Archbishop thinks that it is only the critics of the renunciation who think that Benedict did not renounce the entire dignity, office, munus and ministry of the Papacy, then he is joking with the world, because Pope Benedict XVI for nearly 10 years kept wearing the papal garments, signing as pope, giving the papal blessing, using the papal heraldic symbols, etc. etc. etc. And the Archbishop never faulted him for that.
And thus, while the Archbishop faults a large segment of the Catholic world for not trusting in Benedict and offering him an effrontery, he has by this interview basically called Pope Benedict XVI an idiot for not knowing how to renounce and for pretending to be pope for 10 years afterwards. And that is a level of insult much more grave than the one he alleges against others.
But since the Archbishop seems to not understand the canonical aspect of the question, one must suppose that either the Archbishop who holds a doctorate in canon law, has an degree which is absolutely worthless, because he understands nothing of the Latin language or of the principles of right, or he believes that words do not have meanings, only the brute force of personal intentions. That is, if one does not allege that he is under threat or blackmail, which at this point would be ridiculous to maintain after such an explicit declaration.
But as regards the Archbishop’s joking, if you ask any lawyer expert in the transfer of titles, you will find immediately that the Archbishop is living in an imaginary world, which has never existed in any concept of right in a civilized literate society.
Finally, if one accepts the Archbishop’s testimony, the controversy about the invalidity of the Declaratio to render Benedict XVI no longer pope does not go away. Benedict XVI was not in substantial error. The Archbishop does not understand the controversy at all. And the Cardinals who proceeded to elect Bergoglio were either in bad will, or like the Archbishop, totally clueless and hence incompetent to elect a Roman Pontiff.
Everyone now needs to interrogate the Archbishop to ask him on point about whether Benedict XVI’s act is an application of canon 332 or 333. Not to ask him about the intentions of the Holy Father, which cannot change what Benedict actually did, but to seek only what the Archbishop understands as a jurist about a renunciation of the papacy and what that requires, because it is now clear that he seems to understand nothing at all.
As for the accusation against those who hold that Benedict XVI remains the pope until death: I end here by rebutting entirely and explicitly the insult launched by the Archbishop that we hold that Benedict XVI did not mean what he said.
REPRINTED FROM JAN. 22, 2020
(Note the Date!)
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Three days after the publication of this article,
Bergoglio accepted the election of Cardinal Re as dean of the College of Cardinals
It is not easy for Catholics to understand why Cardinals do and do not do what they do. Especially in these times, when the Cardinals should be warning and reproving and taking steps to clean up the mess at the Vatican, which is leading the apostasy of the world.
For this “why” I cannot give an explanation. But understanding where Cardinals come from and to which faction in the Church they may belong, may shed some light on this “why”, however so superficial.
With this in mind, let us examine the Faction of Cardinals which has as its co-consecrator, Giovanni Battista Re, one of the most important Cardinals in the College of Cardinals, which is seen by the fact that Bergoglio selected him to be Vice-Dean of his college of cardinals on June 10, 2017. A position he has weathered despite the unceremonious demotion of the Cardinal Dean of many years, Cardinal Sodano, in December.
Let me begin by saying that Cardinal Re’s episcopal lineage does not descend from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, the god-father of the St Gallen Mafia. It descends rather from Pope John Paul II.
Second, that Cardinal Re is an impressive Bishop in action. He has participated in over 165 Episcopal consecrations in his life time. A truly remarkable number, which makes him one of the greatest all time consecrators of bishops in the Church. This is due to the fact, that when Pope John Paul II consecrated Bishops, Cardinal Re was normally assisting as a co-consecrator, by some special arrangement of the Pope.
Normally, factions in the Church among Bishops are denoted by lineages of principal consecrators, not co-consecrators. A principal consecrator is the Bishop who presides over the consecration of a man who has been nominated to be a bishop. A co-consecrator is one of two or more Bishops who assist in the consecration of the nominated.
However, Cardinal Re was not the principal consecrator of any Bishop who later became a Cardinal. A fact which means, that no one upon whom his favor rested that much, was ever raised to the dignity of a Cardinal. However, he is the co-consecrator of 18 Cardinals, which is extraordinary. Nevertheless, this seems to be because these future Cardinals were all consecrated by Pope John Paul II, with few exceptions.
Let me list the names of those Bishops and Cardinals, in the order of the year they were co-consecrated Bishop by Cardinal Re. You might recognize someone you know:
Patriarch Michel Sabbah (1988)
Archbishop Marian Oles † (1988)
Archbishop Emery Kabongo Kanundowi (1988)
Bishop Luís d’Andrea, O.F.M. Conv. † (1988)
Bishop Victor Adibe Chikwe † (1988)
Bishop Athanasius Atule Usuh † (1988)
Bishop José Raúl Vera López, O.P. (1988)
Bishop Srecko Badurina, T.O.R. † (1988)
Bishop Luigi Belloli † (1988)
Bishop John Gavin Nolan † (1988)
José Cardinal Saraiva Martins, C.M.F. (1988)
Bishop Giuseppe Matarrese (1989) ###
Archbishop Giovanni Tonucci (1990)
Archbishop Ignazio Bedini, S.D.B. (1990)
Archbishop Mario Milano (1990)
Archbishop Giovanni Ceirano † (1990)
Archbishop Oscar Rizzato (1990)
Antonio Ignacio Cardinal Velasco Garcia, S.D.B. † (1990)
Archbishop Paul Runangaza Ruzoka (1990)
Bishop Marian Błażej Kruszyłowicz, O.F.M. Conv. (1990)
Bishop Pierre François Marie Joseph Duprey, M. Afr. † (1990)
Archbishop Domenico Umberto D’Ambrosio (1990)
Bishop Edward Dajczak (1990)
Bishop Benjamin de Jesus Almoneda (1990)
Archbishop Francesco Gioia, O.F.M. Cap. (1990)
Archbishop Edward Nowak (1990)
Archbishop Giacinto Berloco (1990)
Archbishop Erwin Josef Ender (1990)
Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran † (1991)
Vinko Cardinal Puljić (1991)
Archbishop Marcello Costalunga † (1991)
Archbishop Osvaldo Padilla (1991)
Francisco Javier Cardinal Errázuriz Ossa, P. Schönstatt (1991)
Bishop Bruno Pius Ngonyani (1991)
Bishop Francis Emmanuel Ogbonna Okobo (1991)
Bishop Andrea Gemma, F.D.P. † (1991)
Bishop Joseph Habib Hitti (1991)
Bishop Jacinto Guerrero Torres † (1991)
Bishop Bl. Alvaro del Portillo y Diez de Sollano † (1991)
Julián Cardinal Herranz Casado (1991)
Archbishop Bruno Bertagna † (1991)
Archbishop Ernesto Maria Fiore † (1992)
Archbishop Rino Passigato (1992)
Bishop Juan Matogo Oyana, C.M.F. (1992)
Bishop Gastone Simoni (1992)
Bishop Iñaki Mallona Txertudi, C.P. (1992)
Bishop Philippe Nkiere Keana, C.I.C.M. (1992)
Bishop Benjamin David de Jesus, O.M.I. † (1992)
Bishop John Joseph Glynn † (1992)
Bishop Petar Šolic † (1992)
Michael Louis Cardinal Fitzgerald, M. Afr. (1992)
Bishop Henri Salina, C.R.A. † (1992)
Archbishop Diego Causero (1993)
Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle (1993)
Elio Cardinal Sgreccia † (1993)
Bishop Henryk Marian Tomasik (1993)
Archbishop Henry Joseph Mansell (1993)
Bishop Jan Kopiec (1993)
Archbishop Alojzij Uran (1993)
Bishop Luigi Sposito † (1993)
Bishop Norbert Klemens Strotmann Hoppe, M.S.C. (1993)
Bishop Elmo Noel Joseph Perera † (1993)
Archbishop Csaba Ternyák (1993)
Archbishop Domenico De Luca † (1993) ###
Archbishop Peter Paul Prabhu † (1994)
Archbishop Peter Stephan Zurbriggen (1994)
Archbishop Jean-Paul Aimé Gobel (1994)
Bishop Julien Mawule Kouto † (1994)
Bishop Edward James Slattery (1994)
Bishop Uriah Adolphus Ashley Maclean (1994)
Bishop Emiliano Antonio Cisneros Martínez, O.A.R. (1994)
Bishop Américo do Couto Oliveira † (1994)
Bishop Christo Proykov (1994)
Archbishop Ramon Cabrera Argüelles (1994)
Bishop Ricardo Jorge Valenzuela Rios (1994)
Bishop Paolo Gillet (1994)
Bishop Antoni Józef Długosz (1994)
Archbishop Bruno Musarò (1995)
Bishop Petko Jordanov Christov, O.F.M. Conv. (1995)
Bishop Antonio Napoletano, C.SS.R. † (1995)
Bishop Zacharias Cenita Jimenez † (1995)
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (1995)
Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez † (1995)
Bishop Pierfranco Pastore † (1995)
Bishop Stanislav Szyrokoradiuk, O.F.M. (1995)
Bishop Paweł Cieślik (1995)
Bishop Stefan Regmunt (1995)
Archbishop Charles Asa Schleck, C.S.C. † (1995)
Archbishop Luigi Ventura (1995) ###
Carlo Cardinal Caffarra † (1995)
Archbishop José Paulino Ríos Reynoso (1996)
Archbishop Riccardo Fontana (1996)
Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli (1996)
Archbishop Jaime Vieira Rocha (1996)
Kurt Cardinal Koch (1996)
Bishop Ārvaldis Andrejs Brumanis † (1996)
Bishop Antons Justs † (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Pérez González (1996)
Archbishop Richard Anthony Burke, S.P.S. (1996)
Bishop Marko Sopi † (1996)
Bishop Rafael Ramón Conde Alfonzo (1996)
Bishop Riccardo Ruotolo † (1996)
Bishop Antal Majnek, O.F.M. (1996)
Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Gil Hellín (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Conti (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Pezzuto (1997)
Paolo Cardinal Sardi † (1997) Titular Bishop of Sutri, Italy
Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil, C.SS.R. † (1997)
Bishop Delio Lucarelli (1997)
Bishop Ignace Baguibassa Sambar-Talkena † (1997)
Bishop Luciano Pacomio (1997)
Archbishop Angelo Massafra, O.F.M. (1997)
Bishop Florentin Crihălmeanu (1997)
Archbishop Jean-Claude Périsset (1997)
Bishop Piotr Libera (1997)
Bishop Basílio do Nascimento (1997)
Bishop Hil Kabashi, O.F.M. (1997)
Leonardo Cardinal Sandri (1997) ###
Mario Francesco Cardinal Pompedda † (1998)
Archbishop Marco Dino Brogi, O.F.M. (1998)
Bishop Peter Kwaku Atuahene (1998)
Bishop Filippo Strofaldi † (1998)
Archbishop Wiktor Paweł Skworc (1998)
Bishop Franco Dalla Valle, S.D.B. † (1998)
Archbishop Angelito Rendon Lampon, O.M.I. (1998)
Bishop Tomislav Koljatic Maroevic (1998)
Bishop Francesco Saverio Salerno † (1998)
Archbishop Alessandro D’Errico (1999)
Archbishop Salvatore Pennacchio (1999)
Archbishop Alain Paul Charles Lebeaupin (1999)
Bishop Cesare Mazzolari, M.C.C.I. † (1999)
Bishop Pierre Trân Ðinh Tu (1999)
Bishop Rafael Cob García (1999)
Archbishop Mathew Moolakkatt, O.S.B. (1999)
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (1999)
Bishop José Luis Redrado Marchite, O.H. (1999)
(Layman) Józef Wesołowski † (2000)
Archbishop Giacomo Guido Ottonello (2000)
Archbishop George Panikulam (2000)
Archbishop Alberto Bottari de Castello (2000)
Bishop Ivo Baldi Gaburri (2000)
Archbishop Gabriel Mbilingi, C.S.Sp. (2000)
Bishop David Laurin Ricken (2000)
Bishop Anton Coşa (2000)
Bishop András Veres (2000)
Péter Cardinal Erdő (2000)
Bishop Giuseppe Pasotto, C.S.S. (2000)
Bishop Franco Croci (2000)
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (2000) ###
Fernando Cardinal Filoni (2001)
Archbishop Henryk Józef Nowacki (2001)
Archbishop Timothy Paul Andrew Broglio (2001)
Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino (2001)
Archbishop Tomash (Tomasz) Bernard Peta (2001)
Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo (2001)
Marc Armand Cardinal Ouellet, P.S.S. (2001)
Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi (2001)
Bishop Đura Džudžar (2001)
Bishop Fabio Fabene (2014) ###
Now look at that list again. I have colored in RED the Cardinals who were suspected as members of the group which engineered the election of Bergoglio in the uncanonical Conclave of 2013. They formed a group called by Austen Ivereigh, “Team Bergoglio”. There are at least 3, Cardinal Koch, Bishop of Basel Switzerland might be the fourth.
I have colored in Green, those who were Cardinal Electors in 2013, but whose allegiance in voting is not known. There are 7 of these, not counting Cardinal Koch.
I have colored in BLUE the men whom Bergoglio presumed to name Cardinals. I say presumed, because as an Anti-pope, he has no authority to name Cardinals (To do that you need to hold the petrine munus, which Pope Benedict clearly and textually never renounced.) There are 2 Cardinals in this category.
Three of the Cardinals on this list are publicly known for having criticized the Bergoglian regime: Cardinal Sandri, who is rumored to have bitterly denounced Bergoglio to his face for attacking the Discipline of the Sacraments; Cardinal Caffara who was renowned for denouncing relativism (God rest his soul); and Cardinal Burke, whose reputation is such it need not be summarized here, after his numerous public statements in favor of the Eternal Faith and in criticism of the policies of Bergoglio, even if he continues to hold Bergoglio as the Pope.
The Cardinals and Bishops whose episcopal lineage descends from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, are marked with a ### in Black (there are 3); those who descend from Cardinal de Lai, both of whose co-consecrators descend from Cardinal Rampolla, or from Cardinal Gasparri, the secretary of Cardinal Rampolla, are marked with a ### in Red (There are 5, nearly all Sodano men).
I think it is important to note, that in all the cases in which Cardinal Re is not assisting Pope John Paul II as principal consecrator, he is assisting an ally or direct descendant of Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro.
The only reasonable inference that can be made from that, is that Cardinal Re was a member of the St. Gallen Mafia, by adoption. And that would explain why he is now Vice-Dean of Bergoglio’s college of cardinals.
The fact that he was trusted by Pope John Paul II in so many ceremonies of episcopal ordination, shows that he succeed so well in gaining the confidence of the Pope that he served as a sort of minder of his activities during his pontificate. This may imply that Cardinal Re was one of the chief St. Gallen Mafia secret agents in the Vatican for many years, hiding in plain sight.
So the next time you ask why any Cardinal on this list, like Cardinal Burke, may not be doing what you want him to do, read this list and contemplate what it might mean. They might be hedging, so that in the next conclave they elect someone from the House of Cardinal Re, which, alas, might not be a good thing after all.
+ + +
REPRINT FROM FEB. 9, 2020
By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
In January, it was announced by the Vatican, that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re was named Dean of the College of Cardinals. Since it it the duty of the Dean to convoke the College, I wrote him a Letter in Latin to express my concerns, in accord with Canon 212, regarding the canonical status of Pope Benedict XVI, in the assumption that he may not be aware of them.
Here is the text of my letter, which he received more than 2 weeks ago:
Vobis scribo ex iure mihi concesso ab papa Ioanne Paolo II in canone 212, ad Vobis manifestandas inconvenientias graves in declaratione quae emissa est ab papa Benedicto XVI in Festo B. V. M. Lapurdensis anno Domini 2013.
In primis, ministerii eius renuntiatio non est conformans normae canonis 332 §2 qui renuntiationem muneris petrini requirit et hinc est actus nullus qui secundum canonem 41 neminem constringat.
Secundo, nemini licet ut interpres sit actus renuntiationis papalis, et hinc omnis interpretatio actus istius invalida ac illicita esto qui munus legat ubi ministerium scribatur.
Tertio, in dicendo ministerium et non munus vir qui est papa Benedictus XVI actum validum non ponere potest sine concessione derogationis secundum canonem 38 et hinc quia aliquid tale non fecit ut Romanus Pontifex actum irritum posuit ut vir qui est Pontifex.
Quarto, in ministerii renuntiatione et non muneris actus apparens papalis renuntiationis irritus est secundum canonem 188 per errorem substantialem quoniam essentia actus necessaria penes canonem 332 §2 est renuntiatio muneris non ministerii.
Quinto, non est libertas ad muneri renuntiandum quo renuntiatio ministerii fiat et hinc actus talis deficit ex debito canonis 332 §2 ad libere faciendum actum renuntiationis muneris et hinc invalidus est.
Sexto, non est ritualis manifestatio ubi non est manifestatio actus debiti, et quia impossibile est quod actus ministerii renuntiationis manifestet renuntiationem muneris, hinc est invalidus secundum canonem 332 §2.
Septimo, quoniam aliquot diebus post declarationis enuntiationem actus integer non habebatur, impossibile est quod actus Cardinalis Decani precedentis validus fuit ad renuntiationem papalis annuntiandam secundum normam canonis 40 et postea ad conclavem convocandam.
Octavo, omnes actiones papae Benedicti XVI per septem annos demonstrant quod Is apprehendat munus ut vocationem et gratiam nunquam abiiciendam et non ut ministerium seu officium ecclesiasticum rentuntiatum, et evidens est quod verum sit, quapropter ille nomen et indumentum et dignitatem papalem adhunc portat ut possessionem personalem, qui demonstratio est clare quod intentionem renuntiationis muneris non haberet et non habeat.
Ex totis rationibus ego supplex Vos precor Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei ut convocatio Cardinalium in praesentiae papae Benedicti XVI faciatis in tempore opportuno ad verum quaerendum in materia ista ita ut omne dubium de successione petrina tollatis pro Ecclesia Christi salute. Partibus omnibus in ista controversia eliminatio dubii istius ius et debitum est et nulli vulnera.
Gratias Vobis do pro tempore lectionis litterarum mearum,
In Sancto Francisco servus humilis papatus,
Fra’ Alexis Bugnolo
Here is my English translation of the Letter, for the benefit of the readers of FromRome.Info
I am writing you on account of the right granted me by Pope John Paul II in canon 212, to make known to you the grave problems in the Declaratio which was pronounced by Pope Benedict XVI on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, in the year of Our Lord 2013.
First of all, His renunciation of ministry is not in conformity with the norm of Canon 332 §2 which requires the renuntiation of the Petrine Munus, and hence it is an actus nullus which according to canon 41 constrains no one.
Second, it is not licit for anyone to be the interpretor of a papal renunciation, and hence every interpretation of that act of His, which reads “munus” where “ministerium” is written, is invalid and illicit.
Third, in saying “ministerium” and not “munus” the man who is Pope Benedict XVI cannot posit a valid act without the concession of a derogation, according to canon 38, and hence because he never did any such thing, as the Roman Pontiff, he posited, as the man who is the Pontiff, an actus irritus.
Fourth, in renouncing ministry and not munus, the apparent act of papal renunciation is irritus according to canon 188 by means of a substantial error, since the essence of the act necessary under the terms of Canon 332 §2 is a renunciation of munus, not of ministerium.
Fifth, there is no liberty to renounce munus where a renunication of ministerium is made and hence such an act fails from what is due in Canon 332 §2 regarding a free act of renuncaition of munus, and hence is invalid.
Sixth, there is no due manifestation where there is no manifestation of the due act, and because it is impossible that an act of renunciation of ministerium manifest an act of renunciation of munus, hence it is invalid according to Canon 332 §2.
Seventh, since for some days after the pronouncement of the declaration the integral act was not had, it is impossible that the act of the previous Cardinal Dean was valid to announce a papal renunciation, according to the norm of Canon 40 and afterwards to convoke a conclave.
Eighth, all the actions of Pope Benedict XVI throughout the last 7 years demonstrate that he understands munus as a vocation and grace never to be rejected and not as a renounced ministerium or ecclesiastical office, and it is evident that this is true, because He bears still that Name and clothing and dignity of a pope as a personal possession, which is clearly a demonstration that he did not have nor has the intention of renouncing the munus.
For all these reasons, I humbly beg you for the sake of the Holy Church of God to call a convocation of the Cardinals in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI, at an opportune time, to seek the truth in this matter so as to bear away all doubt concerning the petrine succession for the sake of the salvation of Christ’s Church. The elimination of this doubt is the right and due to all the parties in this controversy and harms none of them.
Thank you for the time you have taken reading my letter,
In Saint Francis, a humble servant of the Papacy,
– – –
I have published this letter to encourage all of you to write to your own Cardinals and Bishops in your part of the world an urge them to the same thing. You have my permission to copy and paste the test of my Latin or English version of my letter.
As you can see, the reasons for holding that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope are the most profound and grave and are drawn entirely from Canon Law and historical facts. They are not based on unfounded opinion, misquoted texts or insults, as those of Trad Inc..
+ + +
Editor’s Note: Take a look at the book, and ask yourself why it says, “Santo Padre” instead of “Presider” or “Dean of the College”, who will actually be the one to preside. This is an example of the kind of psychology which is the last refuge of the thief, in the docket.
Editor’s Note: Prada is one of the first journalists to admit what was going on in the Vatican prior to Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to retire to a life of prayer. The entire chorus of ecclesiastics who wanted Benedict gone have been saying for days how wonderful he was and how they all got alone wonderfully. But Prada has sounded out the sour truth, that he was brutally opposed by the Roman Curia and Hierarchy who did not want any true reforms. Thank you, Senor Prada! — This article is behind a paywall, but can be read here in English translation.