Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena
libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti
Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso
Quali sono i requisiti di validità per le dimissioni del Papa? – Questi si trovano nel Codice di Diritto Canonico del 1983, Canone 332 §2;
§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo
renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite
manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
Qual’é quindi la prima condizione o
requisito di validità , secondo il canone 332 §2 per la validità delle
dimissioni del Papa? – Il requisito e’ che il Romano Pontefice rinunzi
il suo munus (muneri suo renuntiet).
Ha il testo delle dimissioni rinunziato al munus? – No, dice chiaramente: declaro me ministerio…renuntiare.
Se la rinunzia non riguarda il munus,
trova il canone 332 §2 applicazione? – Si e No. Si perché dal momento in
cui non assolve alle condizioni per dimissioni entro I termini (in
questo caso il munus) del Canone 332 §2, non è valida. E No, in
quanto essendo un atto giuridico che e’ posto al di fuori dei termini
del Canone 332 §2 non riguarda le dimissioni del Papa, ma meramente le
dimissioni dal servizio attivo.
Possono le dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI essere interpretate come valide?
Alcuni dicono, apparentemente a ragione,
che il Papa può rinunziare al munus nel rinunziare al ministerium. E’
questo un argomento valido? – No, non lo e’, perché non è materia di
mera affermazione, la Legge stessa deve dichiararlo. Si ricorda che non
vi può essere innovazione nella Legge della Chiesa in assenza di atto
positivo di un superiore competente.
Ma non è un atto di rinunzia un atto
giuridico che stabilisce un nuovo modo di rinunzia? – No. Gli atti
giuridici non sono atti tirannici, non possono auto-giustificarsi, ma
devono trovarsi in accordo con la Legge della Chiesa. Ciò perché, come
dichiarato dal Concilio Vaticano I, persino il Papa non ha autorità per
Ma se si dovesse sostenere che il
ministerium si possa supporre o possa essere compreso quale munus, come
si dovrebbe provare? – Come enunciato nel Canone 17, quando sia in
dubbio il significato della Legge, si deve fare ricorso ad altre parti
della Legge, e se non vi si trova chiarezza, si deve fare ricorso al
Il Codice di Diritto Canonico autorizza a supporre il “ministerium” quale munus o il “munus” quale ministerium? – No, in nessuna parte del Codice si dice che il ministerium é munus o il munus é ministerium.
Infatti, secondo il Canone 17, le definizioni dei termini contenuti nel
Codice medesimo, devono essere accettate quale AUTENTICA espressione
della mente del legislatore (Papa Giovanni Paolo II) nel promulgare il
Codice di Diritto Canonico. Il Canone 145 §1 definisce ogni ufficio
ecclesiastico (officium) quale munus, non ministerium.
E la tradizione canonica, richiede rinuncia di munus
quale valide dimissioni dall’uffcio papale? – Si, cio’é chiaro. perché
in tutte le dimissioni precedenti non solo c’è rinunzia del munus (o
sinonimi: onus, honor, dignitas, o nomi proprii: papatus, episcopatus) ma non c’e’ neppure menzione di ministerium. Neppure esiste tradizione canonica ove si possano supporre termini che non significano munus, quali munus secondo
tradizione canonica. Il papa non crea o inventa lingue o forme di
significati linguistici, altrimenti nulla sarebbe certo o oggettivo
nella Chiesa. Anzi, come dice il canone 38, se un Papa agisce in
qualsiasi modo contrario ai termini del Canone 332 § 2, il suo atto è
valido solo se menziona esplicitamente la sua intenzione di agire con
una deroga ai suoi termini.
Se entrambi il testo del Codice di
Diritto Canonico e la tradizione canonica richiedono la menzione del
munus in una rinunzia al papato, allora in virtù del Canone 17, coloro I
quali sostengono che la rinunzia di Benedetto XVI sia valida, hanno
valide ragioni? – No, nessuna.
Pertanto, devono tutti i cattolici riconoscere che in virtù proprio secondo il diritto, la rinunzia non è valida? – Si.
Significa qualcosa che tutti I Cardinali
agiscano come se fosse valida? – No, perché secondo il Canone 332 §2
anche se il tutto il mondo sostenesse che la rinunzia è valida, se non
incontra le condizioni del Canone 332 §2, non è valida. Non c’e’ la
minima possibilità di distorsione.
Ma il fatto che si sia tenuto un Conclave per eleggere un nuovo Papa, nel Marzo del 2013 non rende valide le dimissioni di Benedetto XVI? Il suo consenso tacito, non le rende valide? – No a tutte e due le domande. Prima di tutto perché nulla rende le dimissioni valide eccetto la conformità al Canone 332 § 2. Secondo perché per istituzione Divina il Munus Petrinum non può essere condiviso con altri, Per cui se Benedetto non lo ha rinunziato, lo detiene. Se lo detiene, eleggere un altro Papa è contrario alla legge divina fintantoché egli è in vita. E nel suo atto di rinunzia, egli non ha ordinato espressamente, che venisse convocato un Conclave in vita sua. Che egli abbia acconsentito a tale cosa, potrebbe essere dovuto a timore o ad errore nella sostanza riguardo a quanto necessario per rinunziare al suo Ufficio. Se dovuto a timore, ciò non lo rende valido. Se egli è in errore sostanziale, secondo il Canone 188, il suo atto è espressamente non valido iure ipso, cio’è proprio secondo il diritto.
Come cittadino della Repubblica italiana non posso tacere di fronte a una farsa nazionale.
Questa Repubblica, che per sua costituzione è vincolata ai principi della rappresentanza degli elettori e dei valori italiani, non può essere rappresentata in alcun modo, giusto o onesto, dai parlamentari che intraprendono azioni per impedire le elezioni politiche con lo scopo preciso di evitare la propria perdita alle urne!
Ma al di là di questo fatto storico lampante, l’agenda di questo nuovo governo non ha interesse ad aiutare la promozione del bene comune del popolo italiano. È sostenuto da un marxista argentino che ha l’abitudine raccapricciante di raccogliere pervertiti sessuali intorno se stesso. È stato sponsorizzato da un uomo in Francia che ha sposato il suo insegnante di scuola e da una donna in Germania, con una gioventù marxista, che pensa che distruggere la cultura nazionale tedesca sia la cosa migliore che si possa lasciare come eredità alla propria nazione. — Su questa onda di disonestà, Nancy Pelosi e una delegazione del suo partito dagli Stati Uniti hanno ispirato la strategia politica per rovesciare l’ex governo, mentre Donald Trump, contrariamente a tutte le sue dichiarazioni di sostegno a Matteo Salvini, ha annuito alla cosa fatta!
Ora abbiamo un governo con un primo ministro che non è mai stato eletto dal popolo italiano. Un ministro per le famiglie dello stesso partito il cui sindaco nel Nord Italia ha promosso la presa forzata di bambini dai loro genitori e l’uso dell’elettrocuzione per far sì che andasse avanti. E tanti altri incapaci dittatori.
Abbiamo un governo che pensa che l’unico bene per l’Italia sia la distruzione della nazione: l’importazione di popoli che non hanno abilità o talenti per lavorare in Italia, di culture e di religiosità che sono nemici dei valori italiani; la promozione delle perversioni sessuali e la persecuzione delle istituzioni naturali e divine della famiglia; il doppio parla senza fine di un nuovo umanesimo, che allo stesso tempo parli di abbassare e aumentare le tasse, e la generale baldoria che si riscontra tra i marxisti quando rovesciano qualsiasi nazione: i sogni di come derubare l’uomo comune per arricchirsi.
Né posso omettere di sottolineare che questo è un governo, non di nuove promesse, ma di vecchie bugie. — Il marxista ci predica da più di un secolo che solo loro possono realizzare veri progressi, che solo loro difendono i veri diritti dei popoli. Ma il progresso che cercano è il ritorno del neandertaliano alla sua caverna: cioè di una società senza alcuna umanità e solo gli avanzi della bestialità. — Chi con un cervello pensa davvero che il progresso economico o morale si ottenga dando potere ad un partito che pensa di discendere dagli scimpanzé ?!
No, non posso tacere! — E sarebbe ingiusto lasciare fuori che il più grande male che sostiene questo governo è l’incapacità mentale ecclesiastica di leggere il testo latino del Canone 332 §2: un impegno che chiunque con uno studio di due anni sulla lingua latina potrebbe capire se voleva. — Perché chiaramente quando si rinuncia ministerio non si rinuncia muneri in un modo che rite manifestatur.
Caro Signore Gesù Cristo, salva l’Italia dalla follia! Alza il tuo popolo in rivoluzione contro questo Teatro di ipocrisia e bugie! Salva il Suo vero e unico Vicario sulla terra, Papa Benedetto XVI!
The International Association « Veri Catholici » has published this open Letter to the Cardinals, on their twitter feed at @VeriCatholici. I post it here (in its unrolled format) for the sake of those who do not have a Twitter Account.
Here beings the Introduction, with the first paragraph of the Letter subordinated to it:
The rest of the text of the open Letter continues here:
“It’s also evident that canon 124.1 and canon 188 require that the proper object of canon 332.2 be posited, namely the renunciation of the munus, otherwise, in virtue of canon 188, the substantial error of doing otherwise invalidate the act ipso iure!
“Now if a pope should act in violation of Canon 332.2, since in doing so he would injure the rights of the whole Church to know who is and who is not the true Pope, he would have to apply canon 38 derogating from the discrepancy. But Benedict did not do anything of the kind!
“Therefore, he is still the pope, and canon 359 invalidated the Conclave of 2013. Also, on this account, all the Cardinals and Bishops ARE WRONG to reason from their presumption that Francis is the pope toward any conclusion. As he never was. He is an antipope, a usurper.
“Nor can one argue that the Pope, being above canon law, is above Canon 332.2, because that canon enshrines merely the principles of the Natural Law, which are superior to the Pope and from which he CANNOT dispense!
“One aspect of which is the semiotic law, whereby the being of a thing cannot in a forensic act be rite manifestatur by a term which signifies an accident of it.
“Take this example. A pope has the habit of calling the burden of his work, Bananas. And one day while shaving says, I am renouncing Bananas. Can the Cardinals lawfully proceed to elect another, if the Pope says nothing more? No, because Bananas is not a due term for a legal act.
“Even if he said, I am renouncing bananas, during a solemn Consistory of the Cardinals, they could not proceed to elect another. Not even if he commanded them or allowed them explicitly to do so, because until he says I renounce the Papacy, Christ does not remove the office!
“These Cardinals also need to recognize that the criteria employed to determine validity in contractual law is not the same in beneficiary law. For in contractual law, as is used in Annulments evidence regards whether there was a right intention, this is principal.
“But in beneficiary law, which regards bequests, the intention has no force, what matters is only the verbal signification of the act of bequest. Renunciations fall under beneficiary law, not contractual law. This is the fundamental legal error of the Cardinals and bishops.
“For just as it is impossible for anyone to be the Pope unless he succeeds to the Chair of Peter, the office, so it is impossible for anyone to renounce the Papal Office unless in a forensic act there is an explicit renunciation of that office.
“The case is analogous to property law, wherein no one is the rightful owner of the same single property, until the one who holds the property rights renounces them in a legal act. Renouncing only the usufruct (ministerium) does not grant the title to the successor in law.
Christ gave everything for our salvation: thus, we only exist as Christians if we live to serve Him.
Contrary to the common misconception, the works of mercy are not a decoration on the Christian life, they should be the very foundation of it. For this reason all of us should be doing a lot more than just our daily duties according to our state. We should be doing something more and this something should be aiding the poor and needy.
Most of you who read this blog know little or nothing about what I do off the blog. I want to tell you so that you might have the merit in joining in a very needed work.
As you may know, the persecution of Christians is not something of ages past, but is an on going tragedy of our present age, and something of which is rarely spoken of as much as it deserves. Since 2000 A. D., more than 1 Million Christians have been put to death in hatred of the Faith. A large portion of these are Catholics in the Mid East, Africa and Asia.
Following an inspiration which I received while praying in the Church of Saint Francis of Assisi, in Bagnoregio, Italy, more than 3 years ago, I have worked to encourage Catholics to rally to the defense of persecuted Catholics, especially priests.
With those who opened their hearts to these appeals, we founded the Ordo Militaris Catholicus: an international Association which aims to revive and re-practice the charity of Catholics of old who sacrificed everything to come to the help of persecuted Catholics.
Much of our work is helping persecuted Clergy and Catholic refugees. In fact, all our humanitarian support goes to or through the hands of Catholic Clergy. We help them whether they are persecuted by Muslims or Modernists. Alas, there are even priests who are being excommunicated merely for preaching the Faith which was always preached or for defending the canonical prerogatives of Pope Benedict XVI against the absurd claims of the Lavender Mafia (a.k.a. Team Bergoglio).
Some of our projects have been sending food and housing assistance to the Catholics of Mosul and Lebanon. Helping a Catholic school for the poor in India; a Catholic parish in Hawaii which was ransacked. Placing ads in Newspapers to propagate news of Pope John Paul II’s vision of the Islamic Invasion of Europe, nearly 30 years ago, in which he called on the whole Church to oppose it.
As a Franciscan Brother I work without salary and have nothing monetarily to give the poor whom I come to know of, having given all my possessions and inheritance to the poor when I became a friar.
But what I do have is the good will of the thousands of readers of this Blog, From Rome, and so I ask EACH OF YOU, to consider making a pledge in the Ordo Militaris Catholicus, through their website’s Donate Page. Everything raised by the Ordo Militaris Catholics goes to humanitarian efforts. We have no paid employees, only free volunteers.
The Order gets no support from any other organization. We depend on the Catholics who still have the Faith. Please help this Most Worthy Cause.
I will summarize in this article the suppositions and analysis which the volunteers and members of Veri Catholici have worked out in recent days about what really went on in the Vatican in 2012 — 2013. I will do so in a Timeline, which makes understanding what was going on easier. This will be a recitation of facts, with an interpretation which explains them all elegantly.
In March 2012 Pope Benedict XVI established a Commission of Cardinals to investigate leaks of reserved and confidential documents on television, in newspapers, and in other communications media (in what is known as the Vatileaks scandal). It first met on Tuesday, 24 April 2012. Cardinal Herranz served as the Chair, and was accompanied by Cardinals Jozef Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi. (Wikipedia: Vatican Leaks Scandal)
Someone leaks the results of the Vatican Commission on Gays in the Vatican to Team Bergoglio, which in response begins feverish activity at Rome (Documented by Dr. Sire in the Book, The Dictator Pope). This activity aims for the forced abdication of Benedict.
Early November: The Coup d’etat is hatched. Team Bergoglio demands the resignation of Pope Benedict to prevent the revelations of the Dossier to be presented by Vatican Commission on Gays in the Vatican. The contents of the dossier will implicate all the key members of Team Bergoglio and thus all force and expediency must be employed to stop its publication.
The conspiracy includes not only Team Bergoglio, but all named in the Dossier, the names of whom are given to Team Bergoglio by someone working in the Commission.
The terms of the Coup d’etat are as follows:
Pope Benedict will resign
Pope Benedict will not publish the contents of the Dossier
Pope Benedict will continuously testify that he resigned willingly
If Pope Benedict refuses, Team Bergoglio threatens the Pope with assassination, citing the published testimony of an Italian Journalist on Feb. 11, 2012 saying that the assassination will be within 1 year. The date Feb 11, 2013 is chosen for the resignation to signal to the Lavender Mafia round the world, that the abdication has been forced precisely to defend their evil institution.
Pope Benedict, taking counsel from no one, because he trusted no one, decides to go along but to leave tell tale signs for the Catholic world, so that any intelligent observer will discern what is going on. He extracts the condition of the promotion of his personal secretary to the position of the Pontifical Household, believing this will keep him safe and to signify that after his resignation, He is still the only one true Pope.
Nov. 23: James Michael CardinalHarvey, who had been the Prefect of the Papal Household under Benedict is named Cardinal Priest of Saint Paul outside the Walls, in an apparent reward for his role in allowing Benedict to be betrayed in the Vatican Leaks scandal and to make way for Ganswein.
Dec. 7: Father Georg Gänswein, the private secretary of Pope Benedict from the time he was a Cardinal, is named Prefect of the Papal Household.
December 17: The Pope received a report on “Vatican lobbies” prepared by Cardinals Julián Herranz, Salvatore De Giorgi, a former archbishop of Palermo, and Jozef Tomko. The same day, the Pope decided to resign. (Wikipedia: Vatican Leaks). This decision is forced and is Benedict’s sign to Team Bergoglio that he has accepted the terms given in the Coup d’etat.
January 6: The Feast of the Epiphany. Father Gänswein is ordained Archbishop of Urbs Salvia. He becomes the only holder of the office of Prefect of the Papal Household to ever enjoy the dignity of an Archbishop. Another Papal sign that the renunciation would be invalid and that Benedict would retain the true dignity of Pope. The choice of the titular see, Urbs Salvia, which was a center of the Imperial Cult of Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, is another sign to the Catholic world that Benedict’s resignation would be invalid, as the Prefect will care for the Pontifex Maximus. (That Bergoglio does not have an officer of the Papal Household caring for him is another sign he is not pope.)
Feb. 11, 2013: Pope Benedict XVI, his capacity as Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter renounces “the ministry which he received at the hands of the Cardinals” and calls for a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff. The alternate use of titles Successor of Saint Peter for himself and Supreme Pontiff for the one who would follow him is another sign to the Catholic world of the coup d’etat and forced resignation. But in his act of resignation, in resigning the ministerium not the munus he makes his resignation canonically invalid and sends a BIG CANONICAL MESSAGE to the Church warning them of what is going on (cf. Canon 332 §2). He also includes several errors in Latin in the text as written and as spoken to show that he is being coerced and has not acted freely.
Upon Benedict’s finishing the reading of Non Solum Propter, Cardinal Sodano, a chief conspirator in the Coup d’etat stands up and shouts out: This takes us as a surprise, like a bolt of lightning from heaven. He then orders all in the Vatican to say nothing about what the Act of Pope Benedict means, because he notices that the renunciation is of ministerium, not munus, as agreed. Not wanting to show that he is a member of the coup, he refrains from saying Benedict resigns. He orders Father Lombardi to speak with Journalists and find one who thinks it means he abdicated. Having found Giovanna Chirri, Lombardi gives her the go-ahead to spread the fake news, and after the journalists of the world (prepared by Team Bergoglio) make it a fact, the Vatican Press Office confirms the fake news in the afternoon. — This is the Marxist tactic of using hearsay to repress truth. This hearsay is now the unquestionable dogma of the Lavender Mafia world wide. The sign that priests, bishops and cardinals, as well as laymen, will not question it is a tangible proof of their adhesion to the coup d’etat or beguilement by it.
Feb. 28: Pope Benedict, alarmed that no one has understood the signs he has given, gives his final address spelling out explicitly that he has resigned the active ministry, not the munus, in a last desperate attempt to stop the forced resignation. The lack of response from any Cardinals leads Benedict to believe that he has no friends among them and that they too are part of the Lavender Mafia. He flys to Castle Gandolfo where he hopes to be rescued by Catholic Forces who recognize his resignation is invalid.
Feast of Saint Joseph, Protector of the Church: March 19: At the papal inauguration of Pope Francis, Cardinal Tomko, a member of the Commission on Gay activity in the Vatican, was one of the six cardinals who made the public act of obedience on behalf of the College of Cardinals to the new pope at his papal inauguration. (Wikipedia: Cardinal Tomko) — In an act of obvious agreement to the coup d’etat. A sign, perhaps, that he was the one who leaked information of the investigation to Team Bergoglio in the late summer of 2012. — The date of March 19 was chosen to indicate to the Lavender Mafia that the coup had protected their evil institution.
March 23: Bergoglio, warned that Benedict’s residence at Castel Gandolfo may be to escape the terms of the Coup d’etat, meets with him there and orders his return to the Vatican as a prisoner.
June 12 : Bergoglio awards Cardinal Herranz for his silence by raising him from the dignity of a Cardinal Deacon to that of a Cardinal Priest. (Wikipedia: Cardinal Heranz).
April: Pope Benedict approves the up and coming talk by Archbishop Gänswein at the Pontifical University of St Gregory the Great, in which the Archbishop affirms that Benedict retains the petrine munus and ministry, as another desperate attempt to get Catholics to study the timeline of events. Bergoglio responds with force and orders them both to silence on these matters.
February to May: Benedict having received a canonical brief demonstrating his renunciation was invalid as regards the petrine munus, tacitly accepts it to indicate canonically that he knows he is still the Pope, and politically, that he is under duress not to speak.
+ + +
In fine: His Holiness Pope Benedict, XVI remains a prisoner in the Vatican waiting patiently that someone in the Catholic world will read this timeline and realize what it means.
NOTA BENE: The interview has now been debunked as a complete fraud as regards its principle claim:
Many Thanks to a Member who shared the Benedict Interview with Veri Catholici HQ. We can now confirm that BENEDICT NEVER SAID during the interview, that There is only One Pope, and He is Francis. That quote was taken from several years ago.
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) June 28, 2019
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) October 15, 2019
Hence, Benedict’s tacit consent remains standing. He is has refused to admit that his resignation was valid. I say, “refused”, because the object of the interview was to make him say that, but there is no quote to that effect, other than in the Vatican News Article yesterday about the interview. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that Benedict refused to make such a reply and what reply he did make they refused to publish.
The Vatican trots out old lines but will not refute directly the tacit acceptance by Benedict that his resignation was not in conformity with Canon 332, because if they open that argument to discussion, they lose! https://t.co/xKNZenBDms
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) June 27, 2019
According to canon law, your claim to the papacy is not based on what a pope emeritus says, but on canon 332.2 and canon 359 and Universi Dominici Gregis. So the Vatican is obviously scared that one of these nixes Berg's claim.
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) June 27, 2019
It's also a ridiculous way to respond to a private letter received through Ganswein by Benedict regarding his failed resignation. Benedict could simply write our Members back who wrote to him. No public statement necessary. They are obviously very afraid, but wont confront facts
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) June 27, 2019
In fact, when published, if this interview in Corriere della Sera does not explicitly say: My resignation was valid according to the norm of canon 332.2, then it's nto even a denial of the tacit acceptance and argues more that Benedict is a prisoner being threatened than denying.
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) June 27, 2019
When we think or talk about the Papacy, as Catholics, we often use several words interchangeably: the Pope, the Papacy, the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff and the Successor of Saint Peter.
And in the controversies over Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation, we see all these terms used. For example, in the Act of Renunciation, Benedict signs the document, Pope Benedict. He says, therein (according to my English translation of the Latin original) that:
I declare in full liberty, that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me …
In the Catholic Church, these terms have a specific meaning:
The Bishop of Rome: The one who holds jurisdiction as Bishop over the Diocese of Rome.
Successor of Saint Peter: The one who succeeds to the Primacy of Saint Peter.
The Roman Pontiff: The Bishop of Rome.
The Pope: All of the above, in one sense or another, generally, but more correctly formally in regard to the Successor of Saint Peter.
Because, theoretically, the Pope could establish his primatial see in another place and assign someone to rule the Diocese of Rome with proper not delegated authority. — Indeed, the Cardinal Vicar of Rome already has this authority in the Italian Territory of the Diocese, that is, a delegated authority to act as the Bishop, though some voices at Rome insist that its a proper not a delegated authority, inasmuch as it does not require recourse to the Roman Pontiff for normal affairs.
+ + +
The reason why I write, however, is more pointed than discussing these terms for the Pope. While I have proven that Pope Benedict did not renounce the petrine munus — and while His Holiness has not chosen to contest the 39 arguments I marshaled to prove that — there are still some who think, that since the Pope is Christ’s Vicar, he has the authority to renounce the Papal Office in the Ministry and thus that Bergoglio is truly the Pope, Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Saint Peter, not just a Bishop of Rome.
This, however, is not just canonically impossible, it’s dogmatically impossible, since it violates the very Will of Christ, as the Church defines that Will to regard the Papal office. And here is the proof:
There is more to the Papal Office than a Ministry!
Pope Benedict XVI still lives and when he did renounce on Feb. 11, 2013, he renounced only the “ministry which I received from the hands of the Cardinals.”
Therefore, since the office of the Papacy includes the grace not to fail in the Faith and the vocation to love and follow Christ, and the duty or charge from Christ to Saint Peter confirm his brethren and feed His sheep, there is a lot more to the Papal Office than merely the ministry which the pope elect receives from the hands of the Cardinals.
The problem is that the Pope does not receive His office from the Cardinals! — Yes, canonically, they have the authority to elect him, inasmuch as they are the chief clergy of the Church of Rome, but they do not confer that office upon him. For as Vatican I infallible teaches:
Docemus itaque et declaramus, iuxta Evangelii testimonia primatum iurisdictionis in universam Dei Ecclesiam immediate ct directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, c. 1, 1)
Which in English is:
And thus We teach and We do declare, in accord with the testimonies of the Gospel, that a primacy of jurisdiction over all the Church of God was immediately and directly promised and conferred by Christ, the Lord, upon Blessed Peter, the Apostle. (my translation)
And further on, in Chapter II, the same Vatican I teaches:
Unde quicumque in hac Cathedra Petro succedit, is secundum Christi ipsius institutionem primatum Petri in universam Ecclesiam obtinet. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 2, 3)
Which in English is
Wherefore, whosoever succeeds Peter in this Cathedra, he obtains according to the institution of Christ Himself the primacy of Peter over all the Church.
The import of these 2 infallible teachings of Vatican I, is that the man who is elected as the Pope, receives his office immediately and directly from Christ inasmuch as he succeeds to the Cathedra, or Teaching Office, of Saint Peter.
Succession in the Cathedra vs. Delegation of Office
Herein is the problem with Bergoglio’s claim to power and authority. Yes, he was elected by the Cardinals, but no, Benedict had not yet renounced the Petrine Munus, at the time of his election.
Now according to canon 145 §1, the munus is the ecclesiastical office:
Can. 145 — § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.
Which in English, is:
Canon 145 — §1. An ecclesiastical office is any munus constituted stably either by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance, to be exercised for a spiritual end.
And according to the Code of Canon Law of Pope John Paul II, which we have quoted, the Papal Office is likewise a munus; this is established in law by Three canons:
Canon 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.
Canon 332 —§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
Can. 749 — § 1. Infallibiitate in magisterio, vi muneris sui gaudet Summus Pontifex quando ut supremus omnium christifidelium Pastor et Doctor, cuius est fratres suos in fide confirmare, doctrinam de fide vel de moribus tenendam definitivo actus proclamat.
Hence it is, that if a Pope does NOT renounce his munus, he retains it. And if he retains it, anyone who follows him as “pope” or “Bishop of Rome” while he still lives, cannot succeed to the Petrine Munus, the Papal Office, and hence only has a delegated authority.
It is delegated, because it is NOT received directly and immediately from Christ, but rather indirectly and through the intermediary of the Pope, who has not resigned his Petrine Munus.
Therefore, since as Vatican I teaches, the Roman Pontiff or Pope receives his office immediately and directly in Peter, inasmuch as he is the successor of Saint Peter’s Cathedra, or teaching office, Bergoglio cannot be the successor of Saint Peter, since someone else — namely Benedict — not only still occupies the Chair but stands in authority between Christ and Bergoglio as the grantor of his office, whatever it be.
Pope Benedict further indicates this by calling the one to be elected by the Conclave to be convened the new Supreme Pontiff, and not the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, or the Successor of Saint Peter! — Note the precision of terminology! (For the complete text of the Renunciation see here.)
Hence, it’s now clear, that not only did Pope Benedict not resign the Papal Office and the Petrine Munus,but that it is dogmatically impossible that Bergoglio
succeeded to the Office of Saint Peter’s Cathedra,
became by his election the Successor to Saint Peter,
is the Supreme Pontiff in the Catholic and traditional sense of that term, because Benedict remains such;
enjoys the grace of infallibility and the vocation to follow and love the Lord,which are attached to the Office of St. Peter;
exercises a proper office — not one at the good pleasure of Benedict — which is a charge or duty to feed Christ’s sheep and confirm his brethren — in a conceded Petrine Ministry, which he cannot possibly execute or fulfill without the other aspects of the Papal Office which Benedict by his faulty act and intention never relinquished.
These conclusions are confirmed by the teaching of Timothy Zaplena, De Ecclesia Christi, 1: Pars Apologetica, Gregorian University, 4th ed., p. 256, where he writes, commenting on the teaching of Vatican I on the Papal Primacy:
Ut vero aliquis sit successor Petri in primatu, non requiritur ut hic potestatem iurisdictionis accipiat ab ipso Petro, sed sufficit ut eidem succedat ex voluntate Christi in omnia iura primatialia.
Which in English is:
However, that any man be the successor of Saint Peter in the primacy, there is not required that he accept this power from Peter himself, but it suffices that he succeed the same (Peter) out of the Will of Christ in all primatial rights.
Hence, since Pope Benedict did not renounce all the primatial rights (i.e. the munus, the dignitas, the onus, the papacy, the grace and the vocation etc.), it follows that it is impossible dogmatically that Bergoglio be the Successor to Saint Peter, in the way Christ willed that succession to take place!
As an addendum, since the Pope is named in the Canon of the Mass because he is the Successor of Saint Peter, not because he exercises the Petrine Ministry or is the Bishop Rome — because the Office of Peter is the touchstone of unity and orthodoxy in the Church — it follows that it is not only canonically but dogmatically illicit to name Pope Francis in the Canon of the Mass, where the name of the pope is customarily enunciated.
Yesterday, Ann Barhnhardt posted her second Magisterial Study of Pope Benedict’s Invalid Resignation and the theological currents behind it. See here. You have to listen to this entire video to understand anything about what is going on in the Vatican today.*
*There is only one small factual error in what Mrs. Barnhardt says in this video, namely, when she says that all the vernacular translations of Benedict’s Act of Renunciation were made from the Italian translation, that is not true, the German is unique, as I have shown previously.
It’s rationally impossible to exclude, after Barnhardt’s marshalling of evidence, that Pope Benedict did not have a vicious and malign intention in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry, and not simply a substantial error of saying ministerium instead of munus.
This being the case, I can now offer a reasonable explanation of Why the Pope did NOT contest ANY of the 39 arguments I sent him?, which argue his resignation of ministerium did not effect a resignation of munus: The surprising answer is that Benedict acknowledges that it was NEVER his intention to resign the petrine munus, and was in fact his intention to resign only the petrine ministerium. — If you recall, in my Scholastic Question, which I sent him, I openly stated that I did not dispute the act effected a renunciation of ministerium.
There are 2 conclusions from this inference, which I say has sound probability on the basis of the 55 year history of Joseph Ratzinger in the speculations regarding transforming the papacy.
The first is that, if asked, Pope Benedict will admit openly and candidly before witnesses that he retains the Petrine Munus. He will however, on account of his error, say he does not hold the Petrine Office or the Papacy. This will seem to be an illogical self-contradiction, since it does not accord with the Latin text of Canon 145 §1: but in the Germanic School of theology to which Ratzinger belongs, the office of the Papacy is conceived as pertaining to the Petrine Ministry, that is, the active exercise of grace and vocation.
The second conclusion is, that every Catholic who accepts the teaching of Vatican I, will see that there are now 2 reasons for the renunciation of Benedict being null and void:* namely, not only substantial error, but malign intention. The malign intention (dolus) being to split the Papal Office. Both causes are causes of the act being null and void in canon 188.*
If these 2 considerations are true, then it will be difficult to understand from speaking with Benedict at any time, for a direct answer which indicates the renunciation was invalid to effect his no longer being the Pope.
The solution of the problem, therefore, must come solely from a canonical analysis, because neither as a private theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, nor as the Pope, does he have any authority to split the Papal Office from the Papal Ministry, nor to ascribe the office of the Papacy to the one who has the Papal Ministry, but not the Papal Munus.
Finally, I wish to praise Mrs. Barnhardt for her correct theological and moral characterization of those who have contested that the renunciation was invalid, arguing instead with a faulty notion of “universal acceptance”, as “demonic”, “satanic” and “free-masonic”.
For the Good of the Church, I will close by calling on all the Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, Religious and Laity, especially of the Roman Church, to return to the norm of Canon 332 §2 and recognize that
Pope Benedict is still the Pope, Bergoglio was never the Pope.
His renunciation of ministry effects nothing in Canon Law.
He is theologically confused as regards holding that the Papal Office is constituted by the one who exercises the Petrine Ministry, not the One who holds the Petrine Munus.
His deliberate intention to renounce only the Petrine Ministry was morally reprehensible and should be reprehended.
Anyone who speaks with Pope Benedict must resort to correcting him, because he not only committed a juridical error, but also a moral error, in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry.
* Barnhardt and myself, as well as nearly all the other commentators on this controversy, have been saying that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. The correct Canonical phrase, however, is that Benedict never renounced the Papal Office. Because, Benedict resigned nothing, in that he never used the verb resign. (The English translation of Canon 332 §2 has “resign” in the place of the Latin “renounce”.) Also, Canon 188 does not declare acts of renunciation invalid, it declares them “irrita“, that is, not properly done, or in other words, never done at all.
Can. 188 — Renuntiatio ex metu gravi, iniuste incusso, dolo vel errore substantiali aut simoniace facta, ipso iure irrita est.
The importance of the distinction in Canon Law regarding juridical acts which are invalid and juridical acts which are irrita is that, if a juridical act of the pope be in question, since one cannot dispute the legitimacy of papal acts, you cannot judge them valid or invalid. But if they were never done, never existed, that is, if they were irriti, then they never happened. And it’s no sin or crime, but true justice to say that they are such.
On January 30, 2019, Pope Benedict received at the Vatican, through the hands of Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the canonical brief I sent him demonstrating conclusively that the act contained in the declaration, Non Solum Propter, of Feb. 11, 2013 was not in conformity with the term of Canon 332 §2, which requires the renunciation of munus for a valid Papal resignation, and that therefore he remains the sole valid Roman Pontiff.
In my letter to the Archbishop, I indicated how the Holy Father could contact me in response to the brief. One Hundred and Sixty Days have passed without any objection to the arguments presented.
According to the norms of the Vatican itself, if no objection is made to a canonical assertion after 90 days, tacit consent is indicated.
* The PDF contains the same canonical arguments, only slight differences in its introduction. Also, in April of this year, I sent to the Holy Father, by regular mail, the same brief, but containing the Ad Obj. 16-19, which I added after January of 2019.
As is now notorious, Pope Benedict’s act of resignation of February 11, 2013 was invalid on account of not being in conformity with Canon 332 §2. Here at, the From Rome Blog, I have written about this extensively and subjected the text to a Scholastic analysis, demonstrating, I believe, conclusively, that the signification of the text can not be rationally said to conform to the norm of the law.
As a Latin translator of Ecclesiastical texts, I have wondered daily for six months how a mind such as that of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, could fall into such a grievous substantial error of mistaking the very object (cf. 126) of the act of a papal resignation, which is a renunciation of the Petrine Munus, to be rather a renunciation of the Petrine Ministry.
Ann Barnhardt sees malice in this, in an attempt to bifurcate the papacy. Her collaborators in Germany have found much evidence to this effect. But as a Franciscan, who is obligated by the Rule of Saint Francis to recognize the canonically elected popes and show them respect, I consider it my duty to investigate other causes which involve less or no culpability. I take the position of the international Association, Veri Catholici, that we need not presume malice, ignorance suffices, if ignorance can be demonstrated.
In that study, however, it was evident that the German translation was anomalous, that is, that it had entirely different errors than the other translations. These anomalies led me to today’s investigation.
Archbishop Gänswein and the German Translation of the Code of Canon Law
In the German translation of the Act of Renunciation, the anomalies are as follows:
The Latin word, munus, is translated as Dienst.
The Latin word, ministerium, is translated sometimes as Amt, sometimes as Dienst.
The syntactical association of the act of renunciation is followed by the correct translation of ita ut.
Following the forensic principle of Aristotle, that where there are 2 differing consequences there are 2 different causes, but when there is the same consequence, there is a unity among causes, I am led by comparison to conjecture why this may be the case.
Recall, if you may, the speech given by Archbishop Georg Ganswein at the Pontifical University of St Gregory the Great, in 2016, which sparked so much amazement, because in it, he said that Pope Benedict still shared in the Petrine Ministry and held the Papal Office.
Recently, however, Archbishop Gänswein, to both a German journalist and a journalist working for Life Site News, withdrew his assertions, claiming that he had misused the words for office and munus, in his German text.
Now, supposing that the Act of Renunciation, in the German translation, was overseen by Archbishop Gänswein, we might conclude that he has something to do with the anomalies it contains
This consideration alone, however, did not satisfy me, so I examined the causes for the Archbishop’s errors in German. Naturally, therefore, I went back to the Code of Canon Law in the Latin (the official text) and to the Vatican’s German translation (unofficial, but in practice used by German Speakers).
At the Vatican Website, you notice immediately that the German translation of Pope John Paul II’s Code of Canon Law is better linked than the English. In the German, the index contains links from each line of text, but in the English, the index contains links only in the titles to the books. This gives one to think that some German speaker was using the German translation of the Code quite frequently and has the authority to get the Vatican webmaster to add all the referential URLs, to make that edition more facile in its use.
This argues that Archbishop Gänswein, if not Benedict himself, frequently used the German translation.
O.K., that appears to be an obvious assumption, but there is a problem. THE GERMAN TEXT IS ERRONEOUS. And not in a small way! In a very crucial manner: it gets the translation of Munus WRONG! And that in a way that anyone using it, as a guide on how to Renounce the Papal Office, would write an invalid formula of resignation!
Let me explain, therefore, Why and How, Perhaps, Pope Benedict got his Act of Renunciation wrong in the Latin, and thus never in fact or before God resigned.
The key Canons which one must consult regarding how to write a valid act of renunciation of the papal office are canon 332 §2 and canon 145 §1. This is because in the former, the conditions for a valid resignation are stated, and in the latter, the nature of every ecclesiastical office are defined.
Let’s look at each in the German:
Can. 332 — 2. Falls der Papst auf sein Amt verzichten sollte, ist zur Gültigkeit verlangt, daß der Verzicht frei geschieht und hinreichend kundgemacht, nicht jedoch, daß er von irgendwem angenommen wird.
The error in this German translation is minor: it renders the Latin, Pontifex Romanus (Roman Pontiff) with the German, Papst, (Pope). However, it correctly translates the sense of the Latin, munus, as Amt. Because, in this canon, the Latin, Munus, has the sense of office, which is what the German, Amt, means.
It must be noted, here, that in the German translation of the Act of Renunciation, the author of that text in the crucial act of renunciation uses the correct German word for a VALID renunciation, Amt! — The only problem is, Pope Benedict XVI did NOT resign in German, he resigned in Latin!
But this anomaly of the German translation of the Act of renunciation does reveal, that at least ONE German speaker, the author of the translation, THOUGHT the act was a renunciation of the Papal MUNUS.
Now, let’s look at the other canon:
Can. 145 — § 1. Kirchenamt ist jedweder Dienst, der durch göttliche oder kirchliche Anordnung auf Dauer eingerichtet ist und der Wahrnehmung eines geistlichen Zweckes dient.
The importance of canon 145 §1 in the Code of Canon Law is this, that it DEFINES the nature of an ecclesiastical office (officium) as a munus. As I have discussed in my commentary on Boniface VIII’s Quoniam, the Latin word, munus, is the perfect word for an ecclesiastical office, since it signifies both that the office is a dignity, a charge or burden, and a gift, which upbuilds the one who receives it with grace. There is no 1 word in any modern language, to my knowledge, which has all the senses of the Latin word, munus.
For this reason, its difficult to translate munus properly, which is why I use the Latin word even in English prose. (The German Translation of the Code, which appears on the Vatican Website, seems to be that by Father Winfried Aymans, JCD, an eminent doctor of Canon Law from the Diocese of Bonn, Germany. Who however, does not seem to be a Latinist per se, though, to his merit, he be a signer of the Correctio Filialis)
So in this German translation, we see the TERRIBLE error: Every ecclesiastical office (Kirchenamt) is defined as a Dienst! But Dienst as every German speaker knows, means what we in English mean by service, and what every Latin speaker means by ministerium. So the German translation of canon 145 says: Every ecclesiastical office is a ministry! When the Code of Canon Law in Latin actually says: Every ecclesiastical office is a munus!
In fact, in the code of Canon Law, in the Latin, Pope John Paul II never speaks of any ecclesiastical office as a ministry (ministerium), but always as an office (officium) or munus.
This means, that if any German speaker read canon 145 §1 in the German, as found on the Vatican Website, and probably in most German translations of the Code of Canon Law, he would be mislead into thinking that to resign an ecclesiastical office its sufficient to renounce the ministry of that office! — But this is precisely the error in the Papal Resignation!
If we go back to the other vernacular translations of the Act of Renunciation, which I analyzed in my previous post, we see that all of them follow the erroneous German translation of munus in the German Translation of the Code of Canon Law! But, illogically and inconsistently, also follow the erroneous Latin text of Pope Benedict when he says ministerium in the Act of resignation. Thus the vernacular translations (excepting the German) are reading in some places the Latin original of the renunciation, in other places, the German translation of the Code and Act of resignation! This is the scientific reason why the vernacular translations are worthless if not maliciously contrived.
The error in canon 145 §1 might also explain why Pope Benedict thought that in writing ministerio in the Latin text of his renunciation, he thought he was writing munus, because the erroneous translation makes it appear that the German for munus is the same as the Latin, ministerium. For the German of Canon 145 §1 says that every Amt is a Dienst (which in Latin is a ministerium, but in canon 145 §1 is the German translation for munus), and the German of Canon 332 §2, says a Pope resigns when he renounces his Amt. So it appears that Benedict was mislead into thinking that in Latin, if he renounced his Amt, he could sufficient signify that by renouncing his ministerium!
I pray to God, therefore, that SOMEONE in the Church, who can speak with Pope Benedict XVI in person, makes this known to him!
April 8, 2019 A.D. — The Vatican has known all along that Pope Benedict’s Act of Renunciation was not in conformity with the requirements of Pope John Paul II’s Code of Canon Law, and the documentary evidence to prove it has been published by the Vatican for 6 years.
The Code of Canon Law requires that the man who is Pope resign in a specific manner, in in the Canon 332 §2:
§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
The literal English translation of this Canon reads:
§2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his MUNUS, there is required for validity that the renunciation be made freely and manifested duly, but nto that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.
Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare…
The correct translation of this key text is:
On which account, well aware of the weight of this act, I declare with full liberty, that I renounce the Ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter, committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th of April 2005, …
This glaring ERROR of mistaking the ESSENTIAL object of a papal renunciation as regarding the Petrine Ministry instead of the Petrine Munus (office) made the act have no legal effect (cf. canon 126 and 188).
BUT TO HIDE THIS INVALIDITY, the Vatican HAS PUBLISHED FALSIFIED translations into the vernacular of the act, which specifically ALTER the nature of the act and conceal that invalidity. This was one of the key and necessary acts of the Coup d’etat, of February 2013, of which I wrote previously.
The FALSIFICATIONS are these:
In all the translations, the double occurrence of the word MUNUS, in the Latin original is CONCEALED by translating it with the same word used to translate the Latin MINISTERIUM, which occurs thrice in the text.
The syntax of the clause of effect which follows the verb RENUNIET in the Latin, has been altered to make it appear to allow a metanymic manner of signification, when in the Latin it permits NO SUCH reading.
The syntax of the second independent clause following the DECLARO has been altered to make it appear as definitive command to convene a Conclave.
These 2 errors make it appear that in the mind of Pope Benedict there is NO distinction between the Petrine Office (which must be resigned) and the Petrine Ministry (which you can resign without resigning the office).* It also makes it appear that his act of resignation of the ministry effects the loss of office.
Now since ALL the vernacular translations have this error, its clear that the Vatican has DELIBERATELY AND WITH AFORETHOUGHT publicly misrepresented the nature of the Papal Act to make it appear to be in conformity with the Code of Canon Law.
But don’t take my word for it, see the Vatican Website to review each translation. In the texts below which I have cut and pasted directly from the Vatican Website, I have colored in RED the falsifications of munus and ministerium, and/or the alterations of the Syntax, and placed in BLUE the correct translations of MINISTERIUM or the syntactical forms where they occur in each.
The Falsified English
The English as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
The Falsified Italian
Italiano as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:
vi ho convocati a questo Concistoro non solo per le tre canonizzazioni, ma anche per comunicarvi una decisione di grande importanza per la vita della Chiesa. Dopo aver ripetutamente esaminato la mia coscienza davanti a Dio, sono pervenuto alla certezza che le mie forze, per l’età avanzata, non sono più adatte per esercitare in modo adeguato il ministero petrino. Sono ben consapevole che questo ministero, per la sua essenza spirituale, deve essere compiuto non solo con le opere e con le parole, ma non meno soffrendo e pregando. Tuttavia, nel mondo di oggi, soggetto a rapidi mutamenti e agitato da questioni di grande rilevanza per la vita della fede, per governare la barca di san Pietro e annunciare il Vangelo, è necessario anche il vigore sia del corpo, sia dell’animo, vigore che, negli ultimi mesi, in me è diminuito in modo tale da dover riconoscere la mia incapacità di amministrare bene il ministero a me affidato. Per questo, ben consapevole della gravità di questo atto, con piena libertà, dichiaro di rinunciare al ministero di Vescovo di Roma, Successore di San Pietro, a me affidato per mano dei Cardinali il 19 aprile 2005, in modo che, dal 28 febbraio 2013, alle ore 20,00, la sede di Roma, la sede di San Pietro, sarà vacante e dovrà essere convocato, da coloro a cui compete, il Conclave per l’elezione del nuovo Sommo Pontefice.
Carissimi Fratelli, vi ringrazio di vero cuore per tutto l’amore e il lavoro con cui avete portato con me il peso del mio ministero, e chiedo perdono per tutti i miei difetti. Ora, affidiamo la Santa Chiesa alla cura del suo Sommo Pastore, Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo, e imploriamo la sua santa Madre Maria, affinché assista con la sua bontà materna i Padri Cardinali nell’eleggere il nuovo Sommo Pontefice. Per quanto mi riguarda, anche in futuro, vorrò servire di tutto cuore, con una vita dedicata alla preghiera, la Santa Chiesa di Dio.
The Falsified Spanish Text
The Spanish as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:
Os he convocado a este Consistorio, no sólo para las tres causas de canonización, sino también para comunicaros una decisión de gran importancia para la vida de la Iglesia. Después de haber examinado ante Dios reiteradamente mi conciencia, he llegado a la certeza de que, por la edad avanzada, ya no tengo fuerzas para ejercer adecuadamente el ministerio petrino. Soy muy consciente de que este ministerio, por su naturaleza espiritual, debe ser llevado a cabo no únicamente con obras y palabras, sino también y en no menor grado sufriendo y rezando. Sin embargo, en el mundo de hoy, sujeto a rápidas transformaciones y sacudido por cuestiones de gran relieve para la vida de la fe, para gobernar la barca de san Pedro y anunciar el Evangelio, es necesario también el vigor tanto del cuerpo como del espíritu, vigor que, en los últimos meses, ha disminuido en mí de tal forma que he de reconocer mi incapacidad para ejercer bien el ministerio que me fue encomendado. Por esto, siendo muy consciente de la seriedad de este acto, con plena libertad, declaro que renuncio al ministerio de Obispo de Roma, Sucesor de San Pedro, que me fue confiado por medio de los Cardenales el 19 de abril de 2005, de forma que, desde el 28 de febrero de 2013, a las 20.00 horas, la sede de Roma, la sede de San Pedro, quedará vacante y deberá ser convocado, por medio de quien tiene competencias, el cónclave para la elección del nuevo Sumo Pontífice.
Queridísimos hermanos, os doy las gracias de corazón por todo el amor y el trabajo con que habéis llevado junto a mí el peso de mi ministerio, y pido perdón por todos mis defectos. Ahora, confiamos la Iglesia al cuidado de su Sumo Pastor, Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, y suplicamos a María, su Santa Madre, que asista con su materna bondad a los Padres Cardenales al elegir el nuevo Sumo Pontífice. Por lo que a mi respecta, también en el futuro, quisiera servir de todo corazón a la Santa Iglesia de Dios con una vida dedicada a la plegaria.
The Falsified French
The French as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:
Frères très chers,
Je vous ai convoqués à ce Consistoire non seulement pour les trois canonisations, mais également pour vous communiquer une décision de grande importance pour la vie de l’Église. Après avoir examiné ma conscience devant Dieu, à diverses reprises, je suis parvenu à la certitude que mes forces, en raison de l’avancement de mon âge, ne sont plus aptes à exercer adéquatement le ministère pétrinien. Je suis bien conscient que ce ministère, de par son essence spirituelle, doit être accompli non seulement par les œuvres et par la parole, mais aussi, et pas moins, par la souffrance et par la prière. Cependant, dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, sujet à de rapides changements et agité par des questions de grande importance pour la vie de la foi, pour gouverner la barque de saint Pierre et annoncer l’Évangile, la vigueur du corps et de l’esprit est aussi nécessaire, vigueur qui, ces derniers mois, s’est amoindrie en moi d’une telle manière que je dois reconnaître mon incapacité à bien administrer le ministère qui m’a été confié. C’est pourquoi, bien conscient de la gravité de cet acte, en pleine liberté, je déclare renoncer au ministère d’Évêque de Rome, Successeur de saint Pierre, qui m’a été confié par les mains des cardinaux le 19 avril 2005, de telle sorte que, à partir du 28 février 2013 à vingt heures, le Siège de Rome, le Siège de saint Pierre, sera vacant et le conclave pour l’élection du nouveau Souverain Pontife devra être convoqué par ceux à qui il appartient de le faire.
Frères très chers, du fond du cœur je vous remercie pour tout l’amour et le travail avec lequel vous avez porté avec moi le poids de mon ministère et je demande pardon pour tous mes défauts. Maintenant, confions la Sainte Église de Dieu au soin de son Souverain Pasteur, Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, et implorons sa sainte Mère, Marie, afin qu’elle assiste de sa bonté maternelle les Pères Cardinaux dans l’élection du Souverain Pontife. Quant à moi, puissé-je servir de tout cœur, aussi dans l’avenir, la Sainte Église de Dieu par une vie consacrée à la prière.
The Falsified Portuguese
The Portuguese as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:
convoquei-vos para este Consistório não só por causa das três canonizações, mas também para vos comunicar uma decisão de grande importância para a vida da Igreja. Depois de ter examinado repetidamente a minha consciência diante de Deus, cheguei à certeza de que as minhas forças, devido à idade avançada, já não são idóneas para exercer adequadamente o ministério petrino. Estou bem consciente de que este ministério, pela sua essência espiritual, deve ser cumprido não só com as obras e com as palavras, mas também e igualmente sofrendo e rezando. Todavia, no mundo de hoje, sujeito a rápidas mudanças e agitado por questões de grande relevância para a vida da fé, para governar a barca de São Pedro e anunciar o Evangelho, é necessário também o vigor quer do corpo quer do espírito; vigor este, que, nos últimos meses, foi diminuindo de tal modo em mim que tenho de reconhecer a minha incapacidade para administrar bem o ministério que me foi confiado. Por isso, bem consciente da gravidade deste acto, com plena liberdade, declaro que renuncio ao ministério de Bispo de Roma, Sucessor de São Pedro, que me foi confiado pela mão dos Cardeais em 19 de Abril de 2005, pelo que, a partir de 28 de Fevereiro de 2013, às 20,00 horas, a sede de Roma, a sede de São Pedro, ficará vacante e deverá ser convocado, por aqueles a quem tal compete, o Conclave para a eleição do novo Sumo Pontífice.
Caríssimos Irmãos, verdadeiramente de coração vos agradeço por todo o amor e a fadiga com que carregastes comigo o peso do meu ministério, e peço perdão por todos os meus defeitos. Agora confiemos a Santa Igreja à solicitude do seu Pastor Supremo, Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, e peçamos a Maria, sua Mãe Santíssima, que assista, com a sua bondade materna, os Padres Cardeais na eleição do novo Sumo Pontífice. Pelo que me diz respeito, nomeadamente no futuro, quero servir de todo o coração, com uma vida consagrada à oração, a Santa Igreja de Deus.
The Falsified German
The German as it appeared on the Vatican Website on April 8, 2019:
Ich habe euch zu diesem Konsistorium nicht nur wegen drei Heiligsprechungen zusammengerufen, sondern auch um euch eine Entscheidung von großer Wichtigkeit für das Leben der Kirche mitzuteilen. Nachdem ich wiederholt mein Gewissen vor Gott geprüft habe, bin ich zur Gewißheit gelangt, daß meine Kräfte infolge des vorgerückten Alters nicht mehr geeignet sind, um in angemessener Weise den Petrusdienst auszuüben. Ich bin mir sehr bewußt, daß dieser Dienst wegen seines geistlichen Wesens nicht nur durch Taten und Worte ausgeübt werden darf, sondern nicht weniger durch Leiden und durch Gebet. Aber die Welt, die sich so schnell verändert, wird heute durch Fragen, die für das Leben des Glaubens von großer Bedeutung sind, hin- und hergeworfen. Um trotzdem das Schifflein Petri zu steuern und das Evangelium zu verkünden, ist sowohl die Kraft des Köpers als auch die Kraft des Geistes notwendig, eine Kraft, die in den vergangenen Monaten in mir derart abgenommen hat, daß ich mein Unvermögen erkennen muß, den mir anvertrauten Dienst weiter gut auszuführen. Im Bewußtsein des Ernstes dieses Aktes erkläre ich daher mit voller Freiheit, auf das Amt des Bischofs von Rom, des Nachfolgers Petri, das mir durch die Hand der Kardinäle am 19. April 2005 anvertraut wurde, zu verzichten, so daß ab dem 28. Februar 2013, um 20.00 Uhr, der Bischofssitz von Rom, der Stuhl des heiligen Petrus, vakant sein wird und von denen, in deren Zuständigkeit es fällt, das Konklave zur Wahl des neuen Papstes zusammengerufen werden muß.
Liebe Mitbrüder, ich danke euch von ganzem Herzen für alle Liebe und Arbeit, womit ihr mit mir die Last meines Amtes getragen habt, und ich bitte euch um Verzeihung für alle meine Fehler. Nun wollen wir die Heilige Kirche der Sorge des höchsten Hirten, unseres Herrn Jesus Christus, anempfehlen. Und bitten wir seine heilige Mutter Maria, damit sie den Kardinälen bei der Wahl des neuen Papstes mit ihrer mütterlichen Güte beistehe. Was mich selbst betrifft, so möchte ich auch in Zukunft der Heiligen Kirche Gottes mit ganzem Herzen durch ein Leben im Gebet dienen.
This German translation is even more falsified than the others, becuase it INVERTS the translations for Munus (Amt) and Ministerium (Dienst) to make it appear that the resignation was a resignation of office!
Finally, I concede that I cannot read Arabic or Polish, but perhaps you can bet how those texts were also falsified?
* See my Scholastic Question: “Why the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI must be questioned,” (English, Espanol) for the philosophical, theological and canonical explanation. As for renunciations of ministry, Priests, Bishops and even Deacons resign the ministry when they retire or lose the clerical state. In such cases they may or may not retain the faculties of the priesthood, but continue to be Priests, Bishops or Deacons. Before Vatican II, when Bishops continued in office until death, it was very common to see reigning Bishops who could not exercise the episcopal ministry in matters of governance or liturgical functions, because they became totally senile or bed ridden or incapacitated. The modern concept of a co-Adjutor Bishop reflects this reality, wherein a reigning Bishop no longer feels capable of exercising the ministry which flows from the office, which he, however, continues to hold. — Note, however, that there is no Canon in the Code of Canon Law which regards a papal renunciation of ministry, because, since the Office of Peter is necessary for the Church by Divine Promise, the exercise of its ministry is a necessary good for the Church and consequently a grave obligation for the one who holds it. Thus, he who holds the munus can always exercise the ministry, even if he personally renounces it. Furthermore, its not really necessary even to declare such a renunciation, as the Pope can delegate many of his powers to Cardinals, Vicars and Legates apostolic, even as his physical powers fail him. — For all the rest, see the Scholastic Question in which I consider in its second part, all the reasons for holding the act of renunciation as it appears in the Latin original, and refute them point by point.
As my faithful readers may know, I began the From Rome Blog, on September 7, 2013 A.D. with a book Review of Enrico Maria Radaelli’s book, Il Domani Terribile o Radioso? del Dogma, which was a profound medication on the importance of recognizing Beauty as as one of the transcendentals of being. I remain ever thankful that my review so pleased Professor Radaelli that I had the honor of dining with him about a week thereafter.
I met him only on another occasion or two, and he urged me on in my proposal to blog, taking up the more profound questions of the day. I was at the time much immersed in my preparation of the English translation of the Commentaries of Saint Bonaventure, but I took heed of his encouragement.
Often it happens, that a chance meeting or reading will lead to greater things, of which one has not the foggiest notion or daring imagination to foresee. And at other times a slight negligence or carelessness about a chance reading or meeting can be the cause of grave omissions.
I see this now, more than 6 years after the events of February, 2013. At that time I was a student in the Faculty of Theology of Saint Bonaventure, at Rome, and I was given a copy of Professor Radaelli’s Supplica to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, in which he urges the Pope to take back his renunciation. He published this on Feb. 18, 2013.
At the time my mind focused only on one part of his argument: namely the faulty notion that whereas a pope could lawfully resign, it was metaphysically unsound to do so. Reading Professor Radaelli’s paper in Italian, which you can read from this link, today, here, I had the difficulty of thinking about his entire argument and the problem he was addressing, since I think in English. I saw that the Professor had written with the most profound emotion and philosophical sense, but I dismissed what he warned of, summarily, since I was given to the same fault of many Catholics, namely of holding that papal power is such that there can be no question of immorality or defect in anything a Pope could lawfully do.
An acquaintance who had served several Bishops in Italy as their private secretary also in those days approached me to ask my opinion of the resignation. He told me that there was an article in the Corriere della Sera about clamorous errors in the text of the resignation, which would make it invalid. I remarked curtly, that how could the Vatican be ignorant of Latin, after all. And upon reading Canon 332 §2 in the English and Italian found nothing to object to. — Though I remained unsatisfied that there was not yet an English translation of the act of renunciation, which, if I remember correctly, only appeared in March after Bergoglio took the name “Francis.”
Professor Radaelli’s work is entitled, Why Pope Benedict XVI should withdraw his resignation: it is not yet time for a new Pope, because if there is one, he will be an Anti-Pope. (This English translation of the Title, is my own). The Italian is:
Now, I can see that Professor Radaelli had a profund metaphysical sense which went way beyond my grasp at the time. He was warning the world that a papal resignation had to be in conformity with the metaphysical nature of the Papacy, as an office and gift of grace originating and bestowed by the Living God, Who is Being and Existence Himself. Not being a native speaker of Italian I did not at that time see what was motivating him so strongly to object. I see now that it was that the resignation, in Italian, was being called a dimissione, that is a letting-go of office. This is the secular term for leaving office. It implies that the office is entirely in the power of the one holding it, is something secular, and has no metaphysical realty of itself other than a relation to those served.
But this is precisely the nature of a ministerium in Latin, when considered in of itself. Thus, the metaphysical sense of Professor Radaelli was giving off a loud alarm. He did not express this alarm in terms of canonical invalidity but of moral non conformity.
Though no one at the time was discussing the issue of ministerium vs. munus — because nearly everyone was reading a faulty Italian translation of the act of renunciation (prepared by the Vatican) and no one was reading the Code of Canon Law in Latin — the Professor was speaking prophetically in a true sense to warn the Church of Rome of the dire consequences to come.
For this reason, because of my own cavalier attitude to Professor Radaelli’s work, I owe him an apology. And I think the whole Church does also.
I only awoke to the problem when I actually looked at the Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2 in the Latin, and the text of the renunciation in Latin. Then I saw immediately the problem. Further investigation of what Canon 17 required confirmed it.
Today, I know by acquired human reason and by divine faith that Pope Benedict never validly resigned, because to affirm the opposite would require that one reject the entire Catholic Faith, right reason and human language itself. The inherent perfection of Beauty, as a transcendental of being which is inscribed in all things, a perfection which is expressed in the balance of good and truth and unity in a perfect harmony and order, preaches most loudly to all who will hear Her, that such is the case.
In his recent article at Rorate Caeli, Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider writes a long article to quell the raging doubts Catholics now have regarding Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy.
But in that Article the learned Bishop gets his history lesson wrong, when he writes:
Popes were deposed several times by secular powers or by criminal clans. This occurred especially during the so-called dark ages (10th and 11th centuries), when the German Emperors deposed several unworthy popes, not because of their heresy, but because of their scandalous immoral life and their abuse of power. However, they were never deposed according to a canonical procedure, since that is impossible because of the Divine structure of the Church. The pope gets his authority directly from God and not from the Church; therefore, the Church cannot depose him, for any reason whatsoever.
As I recited in my article, Yes a Pope can be canonically deposed, the history of the Papacy contradicts the Bishop’s assertion, for the Church does recognize as legitimate a Synod which canonically deposed 3 claimants to the papacy, one of which had to be the legitimate pope.
I quote my own article:
The events are summarized by John Cardinal Newman, and summarized in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the events:
The proceedings of the Synod of Sutri, 20 December, are well summarized by Cardinal Newman in his “Essays Critical and Historical” (II, 262 sqq.). Of the three papal claimants, Benedict refused to appear; he was again summoned and afterwards pronounced deposed at Rome. Sylvester was “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery”. Gregory showed himself to be, if not an idiota, at least a man miræ simplicitatis, by explaining in straightforward speech his compact with Benedict, and he made no other defence than his good intentions, and deposed himself (Watterich, Vitæ Rom. Pont., I, 76); an act by some interpreted as a voluntary resignation, by others (Hefele), in keeping with the contemporary annals, as a deposition by the synod. The Synod of Sutri adjourned to meet again in Rome 23 and 24 December. Benedict, failing to appear, was condemned and deposed in contumaciam, and the papal chair was declared vacant. As King Henry was not yet crowned emperor, he had no canonical right to take part in the new election; but the Romans had no candidate to propose and begged the monarch to suggest a worthy subject.
Now, its not heresy to say that something happened, even if nutty Sedevacantists fell off their toilets when I wrote my article in September, accusing me of heresy. If the Church did depose a Pope canonically, its clearly not heresy to say that they did, or that the Church holds in practice that the Church can. Why since 2 of the deposed popes are depicted on the frieze of the Lateran (constructed in the 19th century), you could even argue the Vatican endorses both their papacies and their deposition, since Pope Clement II is also depicted there, who replaced all three.
Whether the Divine Constitution of the Church opposes such a notion or not, I think, is a concept of the constitution of the Church which excludes her history. Because if the Divine Constitution of the Church does make that impossible, then it’s also illicit, and thus immoral. But the Church has recognized the validity of the Synod of Sutri for 10 centuries, and the validity of the election of Pope Clement II for 10 centuries. So if anyone can quote a theologian or canonist after Sutri who said otherwise, quote him. But can we rely on his authority and not that of the Church by Her tacit acceptance? If we rely on such an opinion, are we not constrained to say the Church was in error for 10 centuries? And if we say that, are we not heretics?
As I said before, if Benedict IX did sell the papacy to Gregory VI, then the sale effected nothing, since you cannot validly sell an ecclesiastical office. That means that Benedict IX was the true Pope, because even if he did resign after the sale thinking he did sell the office, he was in substantial error and therefore his resignation was invalid. I suppose one could argue the Synod was in substantial error thinking it could depose Benedict or anyone for that matter, and that therefore Clement II’s election was invalid on account of substantial error, but the Church has never said that. The Frieze above the interior columns of the Lateran sill show Clement II as the one true valid Pope during the years of his reign.
I think its more probable, that whereas the Pope cannot be deposed as pope or for being pope, the man who is pope, who sins against the office by Simony or Heresy, can be deposed. But I admit that is my private fallible opinion. The Church’s Magisterium has not addressed such a specific case, to my knowledge, to handle the Synod of Sutri. The probability which causes me to hold such an opinion is that such an opinion avoids contradicting defined dogma and canons, by admitting an exceptional case in which the Law Maker Himself would not want otherwise unbending laws to prevail.
There is nothing much to be said for his article other than it’s a lawyer-esque attempt to convince his audience using 3 different shell games. As you may know, a shell game is where you put a ball under one shell and then quickly shuffle the shells on a table top so that the onlooker loses track of which of the shells contains the ball, and then you ask the onlooker to guess under which shell the ball is. In American popular discourse, a shell game, therefore, is a trick whereby you pretend that something is one thing at one time, when it really is not.
Here are Siscoe’s 3 Shell games:
In Siscoe’s mouth the verbal expression “The Church” has two distinct meanings: the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, AND the mass of those who uncritically accept that the resignation of Benedict XVI is valid because they never examined its conformity to Canon 332 §2.
The Shell Game that Siscoe plays with these 2 senses can be reduced to a simple Sophistic argument (i.e. invalid syllogism), thus:
Major:The Chuch (founded by Jesus Christ) cannot be deceived about who is the Pope.
Minor:The Church (of all those who have not examined the resignation of Benedict) accept Bergoglio as Pope Francis.
Conclusion: Therefore, The Church (founded by Jesus Christ) accepts Bergoglio as Pope Francis.
This kind of argumentation is a false illation, because the term “The Church” has not the same signification in both the major and minor premises of the syllogism. Aristotle calls this the Sophism of the undistributed middle term, or the equivocation.
Fallible Private Opinion
In Siscoe’s mouth, the phrase “Fallible Private Opinion” has two senses: in one sense its a judgement about something wherein the judgement may or may not be correct, because its not based on objective reality but on an interpretation of reality. In the other sense, its any fact of objective reality which he wants to ignore for the sake of his argument.
The Shell Game that Siscoe plays with these 2 senses can be reduced to a simple Sophistic argument (i.e. invalid syllogism), thus:
Major: No merely infallible private opinion about dogmatic facts can assert itself as more authoritative than the judgement of the majority of men and women in the Church, since the Church’s sensus fidelium and Her indefectibility protects Her from error.
Minor: That Benedict’s act of renunciation regards the ministerium and not the munus, is a fallible private opinion.
Conclusion: Therefore, no one has the right to sustain that Benedict’s resignation is invalid against the vast majority of the members of the Church.
The error of this illation is found chiefly in the Minor. Because, that Benedict said ministerio not muneri in his act of renunciation is NOT a private opinion, but a fact of history.
Siscoe may not know it, but the Science of Logic teaches that the verity of premises flows down to their conclusions in valid illations. Thus:
Major: That Benedict renounced his ministerium, is a fact of history.
Minor: That canon 332 §2 requires the renunciation of munus, is not a fallible private opinion, but a fact of law, being the very text of the Law.
Conclusion: That Benedict’s act of resignation is not in conformity with canon 332 is a fact of history.
Siscoe might want to ignore canon 38, which says that any Motu Proprio which runs counter to the terms of the law, EVEN IN THE CASE IN WHICH the one positing the act is IGNORANT of the law, is invalid UNLESS there is an express derogation from the law by the competent authority (in this case by the Pope), but Canon 38 is there and Catholics cannot ignore to apply it to this case. Thus the conclusion infallibly follows, since the act of resignation contained no derogation from canon 38 or 332, that:
Benedict did not validly resign.
Peaceful and Universal Acceptance
These words mean two things in the mouth of Siscoe: in one sense they mean universal and peaceful and CANONICAL acceptance by the Church (see last quotation in part II). In the other sense they mean peaceful and universal acceptance CANONICAL OR NOT by the Church (see the citation of Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori).
So Siscoe’s usage of both terms can be reduced to this syllogism:
Major: The acceptance (Canonical) by the Church of of a man as Pope requires that all accept him as validly elected.
Minor: Bergoglio has been accepted (even if it be unCanonically).
Conclusion: Bergoglio must be accepted by all the Church as validly elected.
Siscoe’s illation is false because he is using 2 different senses of accepted. If he used the ancient reflex principle in its proper context, as he cites it in the final citation of that article, and did so AT THE BEGINNING of his article it would be obvious that he is beating against the air, because since the controversy regards whether Benedict canonically resigned, the key quality to be examined in the resignation is its conformity to canon law.
Siscoe misunderstands the notion of infallibility. Infallibility as a quality is the natural property of God alone as Infinite Truth. Infallibility as a charism of grace is vouchsafed to only a validly elected successor of Saint Peter. But infallibility is a quality of every true proposition, on account of truth being per se infallible, even if the thing asserted be asserted by a non infallible created person without any gift of grace.
Siscoe also seems to not know the distinction between an opinion and a fact. One can have an opinion about whether there is life on Mars, because we yet do not know if there is or is not. But one cannot have an opinion of whether there is life on Earth, since that is a fact. An opinion can be had when both sides, pro and con, are possibles. But when there can be no truth on one side of the judgement, an opinion is impossible.
NOTE WELL: In this controversy, there is a fallible private opinion which is being asserted by some as superior to truth, reality and law, and it is this: that the renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of munus. Those who hold this opinion have yet to prove it, and the only valid proof must be in accord with the norm of Canon 17.
The image comes from Ann Barnhardt’s website, where she says she has confirmed its authenticity. Father Paolo Borgia, is, according to Wikipedia, an assessor in the Vatican Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the duty to respond to official correspondence received from the pope.
These affirmations coupled with Bergoglio’s public invitation to the crowds gathered at the 2019 Youth Day in Panama, “Wave your hands at Pope Benedict”, give all Catholics pause to think:
Because, suppose it be true that Bergoglio is Pope Francis, that is, is the true Pope. Therefore, it follows that when he invites us to call Benedict, Pope, he affirms publicly that Benedict is pope. But the Catholic Faith says there can only be one pope at a time. This is defined dogma, as per Vatican I. Therefore, since the first one to hold the title of pope is the true pope, since no one can claim the title until the title be renounced, then it follows that Bergoglio in inviting all to call Ratzinger the pope, is in fact saying that he is not the Pope and has no valid claim on the papacy.
Thus all Catholics now, must call Benedict the Pope and stop calling Bergoglio pope.
But if you reject this argument, saying, that when Benedict resigned, we should ignore that he renounced the ministerium, though Canon 332 §2 requires the renunciation of munus, and that when Francis speaks we should ignore that he called Benedict, “el papa”, then, should you NOT ask YOURSELF if you have just put yourself above the Pope, whomsoever he be, and made YOURSELF THE INFALLIBLE INTERPRETER OF THE POPE.
Hence, those who hold that Bergoglio is the Pope, now, must have 3 popes: Bergoglio, Ratzinger and themselves.
Those who hold that Benedict made a small mistake in his act of renunciation, however, are the Catholics, with only one Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, just as the Church teaches there should be only 1 pope.
So ask yourself, which is more Catholic?
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church