Category Archives: Ecclesiology

How to Canonically solve the problem of 2 Popes

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Catholics have been lulled into accepting the revolution, which drove Benedict XVI from power and installed the globalist pseudo-savant from Argentina in the Vatican, by many specious arguments.

Chief of which is that promoted by Cardinal Raymond Burke, that, namely, there is no canonical procedure to address an invalid or contested papal resignation.

However, thanks to the genius of Pope Benedict XVI, a canonical way to restore him to the Apostolic Governance of the Church of Rome is available.  And it is provided for in the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by his predecessor, John Paul II, which he himself, when still a Cardinal of the Roman Church, advised upon.

This solution enshrines the example of the Synod of Sutri (See here, here, here and here), which in 1046 met at Sutri, in the Metropolitan Province of Rome to discern which of the three papal claimants was legitimate or not. It found that none were, and deposed all three.

As Andrea Cionci has established with the input of the leading canonical scholars who are collaborating with him, Pope Benedict XVI did what he did on Feb. 11, 2013 to give notice to the whole Church that the Apostolic See was impeded by a conspiracy of Cardinals who were preventing him from governing the Church of Rome and the universal Church, as Christ’s Vicar on Earth.

This conspiracy to obstruct his apostolic mission was impeding the Apostolic See. And in the case of an impeded see there are specific canons which govern what can be done and what is to be done.

Now in the case of an impeded see which is subsequently usurped by an invalid uncanonical election, there does exist in the Code of Canon Law a solution and a remedy, contrary to what Cardinal Burke has publicly declared.

Let’s examine it closely.

First, the dispute as to whether or not Pope Benedict XVI’s renunciation of ministry effects his loss of munus cannot be resolved by private judgment or opinion. The solution must be based on canonical norms and principles, read authentically according to the mind of the Church as expressed in Canon 17.

That canonical argument has been made already.

But the argument is distinct from the canonical judgement which would canonically oblige all Bishops everywhere to accept Benedict and not Bergoglio the Pope.

Here we are face to face with two realities. The truth, and the judgement of the truth in a forensic forum.  A judge does not make a man a murderer, but a murdered when apprended and judged as such, is publicly known in a forensic manner to be a murderer.

A forensic judgement does not make a thing true or false, but it does proclaim in an authoritative manner what that truth or falsity is.

This is why, in addition to there being only one sound canonical determination of the truth that Benedict XVI is the pope, there also needs to be a forensic judgment of that.

Such a judgement is under the competence of the Provincial Council of the Roman Ecclesiastical Province.  This province is the territory which comprises the Diocese or Rome and the suburbican Bishoprics which over time were separted from it and which still are included under Apostolic right, inasmuch as they are ruled by Cardinal Bishops who are reckoned members of the Roman Curia.

I speak of the Dioceses of Ostia, Velletri-Segni, Porto-Santa Rufina, Frascati, Palestrina, Albano, and Sabina-Poggio Mirtelo.

The metropolitan see is the Apostolic See, in this case, since it is the chief see in the Roman Province.

A provincial council is described in canons 440-446.  And how Cardinal Burke does not know of this is beyond me.

Canon 440 § 1 specifies that a provincial council can be called anytime there arises a need which the Bishops of the Province deem suitable.  This is an extremely liberal grant of discretion.  Certainly doubt as to whom is the true Pope is sufficient need.

Now in Canon 440 §2, it is said that in a sede vacante in the Metropolitan See, a provincial synod is not to be called, yet in canon 442 §2, it says, that when that See is impeded, the Bishops of the province can elect one of themselves and preside over such a Council.  This implies that a provincial council can be called when the Metropolitan See is impeded. Which is the exact case in law.

Accordingly in accord with canon 442 §2, the elected suffragan can determine the time and place of such a Council and the questions to be discussed, the length of the discussion and whether to move it from one place to another as may seem opportune or necessary. He can also dissolve it or extend its sessions.

Now in accord with Canon 443, §1, all the Bishops, Bishop co-adjutors and auxiliaries must be convoked, if a Provincial Council is called. Also all other Bishops who hold a munus in the province. Bishops emeriti can also be called, as well as all other Bishops incardinated in the Province. This includes all the Bishops and Archbishops incardinated at the Vatican, such as Archbishop Viganò, and all the Cardinals of the Roman Church.

In addition all the major superiors of religious communities in the Province must be invited, as well as all Rectors of Pontifical institutes in the Province, and all Rectors of Major Seminaries. Vicar generals and Episcopal Vicars must also be called.

All these have the right to vote.

In addition, all the clergy and laity of the province can be called, but they do not get but a consultative voice, but no more than half the number of those who must be invited who can vote. In addition two members of each priestly diocesan council of each dicese in the province and of each Cathedral Chapter are to be invited with consultative voice.

Finally, others can also be invited by the presiding Bishop with the consent of the other bishops of the province who are ordinaries.

The power of the Provincial Council of the Roman Province is affirmed in canon 445, which says it can act “to defend common ecclesiastical discipline”, and surely, who is the true Pope is the keystone to all ecclesiastical discipline in the Province.

In the case of two rival popes, I would gather that not only the Bishops and clergy and superiors which an antipope appointed but also those which the true pope appointed, even though they were thrust from their sees could attend.  And clearly those appointed by the true Pope do not need permission from those appointed by the Antipope.

Thus, with such Council called, a synod like that of Sutri in 1046 can resolve canonically who is the true Metropolitan of the Roman Province and order deposed the one who has not a shred of canonical right to call himself the Pope.


Pope Alexander IV would condemn Bergoglio as a heretic

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

To any Catholic with a simple sense of the Faith, what Bergoglio did in attending and worshiping before the idol of Pachamama on Oct. 3, 2019 was an act of idolatry and apostasy. But since that time, many a Bergoglian apologist has sought to insist that Bergoglio was not ipso fact thrust out of the Church, as are all apostates. They argue that worshiping another God may violate the First Commandment, but it does not constitute rejection of the true God.

Here is the video proof:

This is utter nonsense, since the First Commandment forbids absolutely that one have other gods alongside the true God.

It is also utter nonsense, since the worship of idols involves an act of heresy. Yet to this third charge, the Bergoglians have marshaled a strong defense by claiming that no pope has classified idolatry as heresy.

Well in this they lie, because Pope Alexander IV (Dec. 12, 1254 to May 25, 1261 A. D.), in his Bull, Quod super nonnullis, wrote the following:

Crimes involving magic should be left to local authorities unless they had “knowledge of manifest heresy to be involved”, wherein “manifest heresy” included “praying at the altars of idols, to offer sacrifices, to consult demons, [or] to elicit responses from them”*

Canon 1364, by imposing ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae immediately thrusts out of the Catholic Church all who commit public acts of heresy, apostasy, or schism and show no repentance.  This must include, therefore, in accord with the Bull of Alexander IV, all who attended and participated in the adoration of Pachamama on Oct. 3, 2019 in the Garden of the Vatican, and on Oct. 4, 2021 in the Basilica of St. Peter the Apostle at the Vatican.

That means no one can reasonably argue that Jorge Mario Bergoglio holds any office in the Church, since as canon 1331, teaches, those who are excommunicated can obtain no dignity, office or munus in the Church.


** Cited from the Wikipedia article on Pope Alexander IV, which in turn cites A. Tomassetti (ed.), Bullarum, Diplomatum et Privilegiorum Sanctorum Romanorum Pontificum Taurensis editio (Turin 1858), pp. 663–666, no. XLVI.

Why the Catholic World needs a Catholic Army this year

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Dear Catholic men, remember that by your Baptism you have been clothed in Christ and now share with Him the duty and vocation to come to the rescue of this world! whether in the common role of a father, the supernatural roles of a priest, religious, hermit or a monk, or the extraordinary vocation of a Catholic Soldier.

Remember, that all our rights as Catholics, to practice our Faith in peace, come from God on the supernatural level, but exist and are recognized on the civil level only by means of the heroic feats and power of the Catholic Soldier.

For Catholic Society cannot exist without the Catholic Soldier and indeed is threatened in its very existence without him. He thus takes on a role which in its own proper manner, temporal and civil and military, is analogous to the role of Christ Jesus Our Redeemer, in his temporal and eternal, hierarchical and civil, peaceful and military vocation to conquer the Evil One and liberate us from the punishment of the eternal slavery of death into which he cast us.

The vocation of the Catholic Soldier is thus a holy one, a noble one, and a most necessary one. All Catholics need to honor them, support them, and help them come into existence, get the training and support they need, open the way for them and let them do their work, so that we might all live in peace and so that in those parts of the world where the order of justice has been so perverted that only military solutions can restore that order, do their work!

If these truths had been preached during the last 200 years, the world would not be in such a dire predicament as it is now. The only way out of a tyranny established by an elite who wants to genocide nearly everyone, and enslave everyone else is by military action: whether rebellion, insurrection, coup d’etat or arrest of all globalist actors.

If we pretend that it will come any other way we delude ourselves with a false concept of humanity. Even the grace of God, without the Catholic Solider, cannot achieve lasting security. Nay, rather, the grace of God shows fruit in a people truly obedient to the Divine Will, when there arises the Catholic soldier to defend the Faith and the Church, or liberate the faithful and the Church.  All who say otherwise are simply fools and useful idiots of the Globalists.

Pacifism is for cowards, and there is no paradise for the coward.

Militancy is for Catholic Saints, and in Heaven there are own crowned the courageous.

„Benedikt XVI. ist der wahre Papst“: Die Juristen Sànchez und Acosta demontieren die Verteidigung der Bergoglianer

A concise and simple summary so anyone can understand the case

by Andrea Cionci

2 August 2021

Other Authorized Translations (English, Française, Português)
For the Italian original, click the image above.

Kirchenrecht verschreckt jedermann, aber seien Sie unbesorgt: Abgesehen von einigen etwas „technischeren“ Passagen haben wir sehr einfache Zusammenfassungen erstellt, die für jeden zugänglich sind.

Es lohnt sich, sie aufmerksam zu lesen: Die Frage betrifft 1,285 Milliarden Katholiken und ist von unermesslichem Ernst, denn wenn Papst Benedikt nicht gültig abgedankt hat, ist Franziskus ein Gegenpapst: Wenn die „Magna quaestio“ [lat.: große Frage; Anm. d. Übers] über den Verzicht nicht gelöst wird, wird es nach ihm in seiner Nachfolge nur Gegenpäpste geben und die katholische Kirche wird nicht mehr die sichtbare, kanonische sein, die wir kennen. Nach der Untersuchung der Indizien sind wir durch Logik, durch Ausschluss, zu der These des so genannten „Plan B“ gezwungen, wonach Papst Benedikt nie abgedankt hat, sondern einen absichtlich ungültigen Verzicht bewerkstelligt hat, der dafür sorgt, dass die modernistische „falsche Kirche“ im Laufe der Zeit ihre wahre Natur offenbart, um jene dann für null und nichtig erklären zu können. Sie finden das alles hier, hier und hier. Da die Hypothese auf der Ebene der Indizien äußerst plausibel ist, findet die letzte Konfrontation, der „Endkampf“, im Kirchenrecht statt.

Prof. Antonio Sànchez Sàez, Professor für Rechtswissenschaften an der Universität von Sevilla (hier) und die kolumbianische Juristin Estefania Acosta, bereits Autorin des Buches Benedikt XVI: Pope emeritus?, fegen in diesem Artikel die letzten Verteidigungen zweier berühmter Kanonisten hinweg, die Bergoglio legitimieren, indem sie deren eigene Aussagen verwenden. Die Rede ist von Monsignore Giuseppe Sciacca (Sekretär der Apostolischen Signatur und Generalrevisor der Apostolischen Kammer) und Prof. Geraldina Boni von der Universität Bologna, zwei “Großen”, hinter deren Studien sich all jene verschanzen, die die Legitimität von Franziskus als Pontifex unterstützen.

Wie Sie wissen, liegt der Kern des Streits in der Tatsache, dass das päpstliche Amt 1983 [mit der Neufassung des CIC; Anm. d. Ü.] unter Papst Johannes Paul II. (mit Kardinal Ratzinger als seiner „rechten Hand“a.A.) ontologisch in zwei Aspekte unterteilt wurde: das „munus“ [lat., Amt im Sinne von „Gabe, Aufgabe, Obliegenheit, Pflicht, Bestimmung, Gnade“, Anm. d. Ü.], den göttlichen Titel des Papstes, und das ministerium [lat., Amt im Sinne von „Dienst, Dienstleistung, Arbeit, Tätigkeit“, Anm. d. Ü.], die praktische Machtausübung. Wir haben eine Hypothese über diese Maßnahme aufgestellt: ein „falsches Ziel”“, das von langer Hand gegen eine vorhersehbare interne Aggression gegen das Papsttum vorbereitet wurde (hier).

Nach kanonischem Recht (can. 332 § 2) muss der Papst nämlich [seitdem; Anm. d. Ü.] auf das munus verzichten, damit seine Abdankung gültig ist, und stattdessen hat Benedikt XVI. (hier) auf das ministerium verzichtet. Aber gehen wir der Reihe nach vor.


Professor Sànchez erklärt: „Ich habe ein Interview von Monsignore Giuseppe Sciacca mit Andrea Tornielli gelesen (hier).

Zunächst einmal gibt Monsignore Sciacca selbst zu, dass es die Institution des ’emeritierten Papstes’ nicht gibt: ‘Es handelt sich [bei der Emeritierung eines Papstes; Anm. d. Ü.] um keine Amtsausübung [orig. esercizio], die in irgendeinem Lehrdokument jemals identifiziert oder definiert worden wäre’“, und weiter: „(Der Emeritus) kann nicht auf das Amt des Papstes bezogen werden“. Darin sind sich alle einig, auch die Kanonisten Boni, Fantappié, Margiotta-Broglio, der Historiker de Mattei und andere”.


„Sciacca räumt dann ein,“, so Sànchez weiter ,„ dass es nicht einmal ein “erweitertes Papsttum” gibt, in dem Benedikt XVI. das munus und Franziskus das ministerium behalten könnte. Nur EINER kann Papst sein, niemals zwei zur gleichen Zeit: Das ist wahr und entspricht dem Kirchenrecht und der Tradition. Es gibt also nicht zwei Päpste: einen aktiven und einen passiven, es gibt kein ‘erweitertes Papsttum’ mit zwei Köpfen“.

Wir fügen hinzu, dass sogar Papst Benedikt XVI. seit acht Jahren wiederholt, dass es NUR EINEN PAPST gibt (ohne jemals zu erklären, welchen), wie sein Sekretär, Erzbischof Gänswein, (hier) zugibt.


„Aber“, so Sànchez, „die Schlussfolgerung, die Bischof Sciacca daraus zieht, ist, dass der Papst nur Jorge Mario Bergoglio ist, der im Konklave vom 13. März 2013 zum Papst gewählt wurde.

Dies ist ein dramatischer FEHLER: Damit ein Pontifex gültig gewählt werden kann, muss der vorherige Papst TOT sein oder gültig ABGEDANKT haben. Und Benedikt hat EXAKT wegen dem, was Msgr. Sciacca Tornielli gesagt hat, nicht abgedankt, nämlich dass (für den Papst) das munus und das ministerium untrennbar sind: “Die Tatsache, dass der Codex des kanonischen Rechts in Kanon 332 von munus petrinum spricht – schreibt Msgr. Sciacca – kann keinesfalls als Wunsch des Gesetzgebers interpretiert werden, in Angelegenheiten des göttlichen Rechts eine Unterscheidung zwischen munus und ministerium petrinum einzuführen. Diese Unterscheidung ist unmöglich.“


“Monsignore Sciacca hat Recht – fährt Sànchez fort – wenn er sagt, dass das Papsttum nicht in munus und ministerium unterteilt werden kann. Nur eine Person kann beides gleichzeitig aufrechterhalten: der Papst.“

Wie ist es also möglich, dass Ratzinger sie stattdessen unterschieden und getrennt hat, indem er auf das ministerium und nicht auf das munus verzichtete?

Daher ist der Verzicht Benedikts XVI. auf einen mutmaßlichen Teil des Papsttums (das Ministerium) und nicht auf das gesamte päpstliche Amt (das munus) NICHT GÜLTIG, weil die Declaratio des Verzichts einen wesentlichen Fehler enthält, insofern sie die Bedingung „sine qua non“ vor der Papstwahl betrifft: die Konstituierung des sede vacante. In Kanon 126 heißt es: „Eine Handlung, die in Unwissenheit oder Irrtum vorgenommen wird, die den Inhalt der Handlung betrifft oder die unter die Bedingung sine qua non fällt, ist nichtig.“

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Der Verzicht war ungültig aufgrund eines wesentlichen Fehlers (Trennung munus/ministerium), der nicht zu einem freien hl. Stuhl führen konnte, so dass das Konklave von 2013 nicht stattfinden konnte und die Wahl von Jorge Mario Bergoglio daher null und nichtig ist.


Das einzige „Schlupfloch“, das bleibt, ist, dass dieser lässige Gebrauch von munus und ministerium durch Benedikt rein sprachlicher Natur ist. Mit anderen Worten, Ratzinger hätte diese beiden Entitäten zitiert, “um nicht dasselbe Wort zu wiederholen”, als literarische Eigenheit, trotz der juridischen Katastrophe, die dies zur Folge gehabt hätte. Es sei daran erinnert, dass er selbst in dem Buch-Interview “Ein Leben” (2020) erklärt, dass sein Text innerhalb von vierzehn Tagen geschrieben und dem Staatssekretariat zur Korrektur von Rechts- und Formfehlern übergeben wurde, aber UNTER DEM PÄPSTLICHEN GEHEIMNIS: hier lesen .

Wir müssen jedoch zugeben, dass munus und ministerium synonym sein können und dass daher das eine das andere ausdrücken kann. Wir wollen sehen, ob das stimmt.


„Professor Geraldina Boni“ erklärt die Juristin Estefania Acosta „argumentiert in ihrem Buch ‘Sopra una rinuncia’ (2015), dass munus und ministerium manchmal als Synonyme verwendet wurden, zum Beispiel in der Ermahnung ‘Pastor Gregis’ von Johannes Paul II. von 2003.

Wie sie jedoch selbst zugibt, kommt diese Synonymie NUR IN EINEM NICHT-JURIDISCHEN SINN vor, d.h. wenn das Wort munus im Sinne von Funktion, Hausaufgabe [compito], Dienst oder Tätigkeit verstanden wird, die mit einer bestimmten (unauslöschlichen) ‘ontologischen Qualifikation’ verbunden ist, die durch das Weihesakrament bestimmt wird. Andererseits gibt es, wie Boni selbst einräumt (S. 180-181), eine ZWEITE BEDEUTUNG, die dem Wort MUNUS zuzuschreiben ist, eine Bedeutung, die nicht mehr ontologisch oder sakramental ist, sondern “JURIDISCH”, gleichbedeutend mit Aufgabe [orig. carica, vergl. englisch charge; Anm. d. Übers.] und ‘fast gleichbedeutend mit officium‘, was sich aus Kanon 145 des Codex des kanonischen Rechts ergibt, welcher darauf hinweist, dass jedes munus (oder “carica“), das durch göttliches oder kirchliches Recht zu einem geistlichen Zweck dauerhaft eingesetzt wurde, auch ein „kirchliches Amt“ ist – natürlich ist das petrinische munus, das durch göttliches Recht zu einem geistlichen Zweck dauerhaft eingesetzt wurde (Mt 16,18-19 und Joh 21,15-17), auch ein kirchliches Amt.

Daraus ergibt sich, dass diese zweite Bedeutung des Wortes MUNUS auch für Boni alle möglichen SYNONYME mit dem Wort MINISTERIUM sprengt. Bis jetzt gibt es nichts gegen die Professorin einzuwenden”.


„Der (grobe) Fehler von Boni“, so Acosta weiter, „besteht darin, dass sie grundlos und fälschlicherweise behauptet, Benedikt XVI. habe auf den MUNUS gerade in seiner zweiten juridischen Bedeutung verzichtet, während der Text der Declaratio so etwas nie behauptet. In der Tat schreibt Prof. Boni: „Kurz gesagt, angesichts dieser doppelten Anerkennung des munus wollte Ratzinger mit seiner Declaratio vielleicht nur daran erinnern, aber nicht festlegen, wie er sich durch die BEKUNDUNG des munus als Amt nicht des sakramentalen munus entledigt hat (des nicht-juridischen, n. d.r.): was im Übrigen keineswegs in seine Verfügungsgewalt fällt, als Beweis dafür, dass die des Pontifex keine absolutistische oder totalitäre Macht ist, die sich vor allem in den vom ius divinum gezogenen Grenzen bewegt”.

STATTDESSEN ABER hat der Papst sich sorgfältig dessen enthalten, auf das MUNUS PETRINUM zu verzichten und hat stattdessen auf das MINISTERIUM verzichtet: “…declaro me MINISTERIO Episcopi Romae … commisso renuntiare”!

[Boni vermutet außerdem, dass Papst Benedikt mit der Declaratio unterstreichen wollte, dass er sich nicht vom sakramentalen (d.h. bischöflichen, nicht juridischen) munus gelöst hat, und fügt die offensichtliche Tatsache hinzu, dass dieses munus unverfügbar und unveräußerlich ist, auch für den Papst. Wir stellen jedoch fest, dass Seine Heiligkeit Benedikt XVI. in der Generalaudienz vom 27. Februar 2013 erklärte, dass er sich am 19. April 2005, als er seine Wahl zum Papst annahm, “für immer und ewig dem Herrn” anvertraute. Wie ist eine solche Aussage des Papstes zu verstehen, die eine Unauslöschlichkeit des Pontifikats suggeriert, obwohl es kein Sakrament ist und daher keinen unauslöschlichen “ontologischen” Charakter hat? Man beachte, dass der Papst seine endgültige oder “ewige” Verpflichtung nicht mit seiner Bischofsweihe (d. h. nicht mit seinem sakramentalen munus), sondern mit der Übernahme des Primats verbindet. Diese Aussage allein widerlegt Bonis Behauptung, dass das einzige, was Benedikt XVI. seit der Erklärung “für immer” beibehalten hat, das bischöfliche munus ist, nicht das petrinische munus. Der fragliche Satz kann also nur verstanden werden, wenn man davon ausgeht, wie wir glauben, gezeigt zu haben, dass DIE ERKLÄRUNG NICHTS ANDERES ENTHÄLT ALS EINEN NICHT EXISTENTEN ODER UNGÜLTIGEN VERZICHT AUF DAS MUNUS PETRINUM]”.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Prof. Boni räumt ein, dass munus und ministerium im juridischen Sinne keineswegs synonym sind. Sie räumt ein, dass Ratzinger munus im juridischen Sinne zitiert. Boni sagt, dass Ratzinger auf das juridische munus  verzichtet und das nicht-juridische munus beibehalten hat, UND DAS IST NICHT WAHR, denn er hat auf das ministerium verzichtet.


Nur aus den Studien von Scaccia und Boni, den “Legitimisten” von Bergoglio, geht also hervor, dass:

1) Es gibt weder zwei Päpste, noch ein “erweitertes Papsttum”.

2) der Papst ist nur einer

3) den emeritierten Papst gibt es nicht,

4) munus und ministerium sind keine Synonyme im rechtlichen Sinne.

5) Ratzinger hat munus im juridischen Sinne verwendet, ohne jemals darauf verzichtet zu haben

6) Er trennte die beiden Entitäten, die im Falle des Papstes jedoch unteilbar sind,

7) Er verzichtete auch auf die falsche Instanz, nämlich das ministerium.

Wie wir gesehen haben, hat Papst Ratzinger alles getan, was er tun konnte, um eine Verzichtserklärung ungültig zu machen, und er hat sie zudem mit zwei schweren Fehlern in Latein begleitet, obwohl er ein ausgezeichneter Latinist ist, wahrscheinlich um die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Dokument HIER zu lenken.

“Man kann auch hinzufügen”, kommentiert Sànchez, “die Unterwerfung unter eine zeitliche auflösende Bedingung eines Aktes wie den Verzicht, der an sich göttliches Recht ist”, d.h. der von Ratzinger auf den 28. Februar 2013 verschobene und nie nach 20 Uhr bestätigte Verzicht, den der Theologe Carlo Maria Pace und der Jurist Francesco Patruno hier und hier erörtert haben, was wiederum nach Ansicht der Autoren den Verzicht ungültig macht.

All dies könnte Papst Ratzinger ganz bewusst nach dem PLAN B getan haben oder auch unbewusst, aufgrund einer Reihe von ganz besonderen und sehr zufälligen Koinzidenzen und Zerstreutheiten (vielleicht “gelenkt” durch den Heiligen Geist?), aber das ändert wenig.


Der letzte Einwand der Bergoglianer betrifft die Doktrin der sogenannten “Universalis Ecclesiae Adhaesio”, nach der die Wahl von Franziskus als selbstverständlich und damit gültig angesehen wird, da kein Kardinal, der am Konklave 2013 teilgenommen hat, protestiert oder Zweifel an ihr geäußert hat.

“Diese Lehre”, erklärt Prof. Sànchez, “war nie dazu gedacht, die ‘CONDITIO SINE QUA NON’ zu retten, zu heilen oder als erfüllt anzusehen, ohne die eine Maßnahme niemals eingeleitet werden könnte. Im Falle des Papsttums besteht diese Bedingung darin, dass der Stuhl vakant ist, d. h. dass der amtierende Papst tot ist oder rechtsgültig abgedankt hat. Die Universalis Ecclesiae Adhaesio konnte einen Fehler oder eine Lücke in der einmal begonnenen kanonischen Maßnahme der Papstwahl a posteriori beheben, aber niemals die vorherige Bedingung für die Einleitung dieser Maßnahme”. Die Einzelheiten findet man hier.


Acosta und Sanchez sind der Meinung, dass es sich bei dem in der Universalis Ecclesiae Adhesio erwähnten Konklave um ein rechtmäßiges Konklave handeln MUSS, d.h. um ein Konklave nach dem Tod oder der Abdankung des Papstes. Da Benedikt jedoch nicht abdankte, hat das Konklave 2013 nie stattgefunden.

Der emeritierte Papst ist der einzige existierende PAPST, der Papst ist einzig Benedikt XVI. Ergo, FRANZISKUS IST EIN ANTI-PAPST.

“Ratzinger is the True Pope” – The jurists Sanchez and Acosta dismantle the Bergoglian Narrative

A concise and simple summary so anyone can understand the case

by Andrea Cionci

2 August 2021

Authorized English Translation

Canon law frightens everyone, but stay calm: apart from a few passages that are a little more “technical,” we have organized some very simple summaries and syntheses that can be easily understood by anyone.

It is worth reading carefully: the question concerns over 1.2 billion Catholics and is of immeasurable gravity, because if Pope Benedict did not validly abdicate, Francis is an anti-pope: if the Magna Quaestio of the resignation is not resolved, then those who succeed Francis will all be anti-popes and the Catholic Church will no longer be the visible canonical Church that we know. After investigating the various aspects of the affair, we were constrained by logic, by way of excluding what was impossible, to arrive at the thesis of the so-called “Plan B” – which says that Pope Benedict never abdicated, having organized an intentionally invalid resignation in order to be able to annul a “false church” of Modernism, giving it a way to reveal itself over the course of time.  You will find everything here,  here, and here. Since the hypothesis is extremely plausible at a circumstantial level, it appears that the ultimate confrontation, the “final battle,” is taking place over canon law.

In this article, Professor Antonio Sànchez Sàez, ordinary professor of Law at the University of Seville here and the Colombian lawyer Estefania Acosta, the author of the book “Benedict XVI: Pope emeritus?,” convincingly take down the last defenses of two famous canonists who argue in favor of Bergoglio’s legitimacy. We are speaking of Msgr. Giuseppe Sciacca (Secretary of the Apostolic Signatura and the Revisor General of the Apostolic Camera) and Prof. Geraldina Boni of the University of Bologna, two “big names” who are invoked by everyone who supports the legitimacy of Francis as the Pontiff.

As you all know well, the crux of the dispute derives from the fact that in 1983, under Papa Wojtyla (with Card. Ratzinger already working as his “right hand man”), the papal office was divided into two entities: the munus, the divine title of pope, and the ministerium, the practical exercise of power. We have already made a hypothesis about this provision: a “false target” prepared well in advance against a foreseeable internal attack on the papacy here. In fact, according to canon law (Can. 332 § 2) the pope must renounce the munus in order for his abdication to be valid, but instead Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium here. But let’s proceed in order.


“I have read,” Professor Sànchez explains, “an interview given to Andrea Tornielli by Msgr. Giuseppe Sciacca HERE . Above all, Monsignor Sciacca himself admits that the institute of “Pope Emeritus” does not exist: “It is an exercise that has never been identified or defined in any doctrinal document,” and again: “[The title of emeritus] cannot be applied to the office of the Pontiff.” On this point everyone is in agreement, even the canonists Boni, Fantappié, Margiotta-Broglio, the historian [Roberto] de Mattei and others.”


“Msgr. Sciacca then admits,” Sànchez continues, “that there is also not an ‘enlarged papacy’ where Benedict XVI could maintain the munus while Francis possesses the ministerium. Only ONE person can be Pope, never two at the same time: this is true and is in conformity with canon law and tradition. There are not, therefore, two popes – one active and the other passive – there is not an ‘enlarged papacy’ with two heads.” We also add that Pope Benedict XVI has also actually repeated for eight years that THERE IS ONLY ONE POPE (without however explaining which one of the two it is), as his secretary Msgr. Ganswein admits HERE .


“And yet,” Sànchez comments, “the conclusion drawn by Bishop Sciacca is that the pope is therefore only Jorge Mario Bergoglio, elected pope in the conclave of 13 March 2013. This is a dramatic error: for a pontiff to be validly elected, the preceding pope must be dead or have validly abdicated. And Benedict did not abdicate, exactly as declared by Msgr. Sciacca to Tornielli, since (for the Pope) the munus and ministerium are inseparable: “The fact that the Code of Canon Law in canon 332 speaks of the munus petrinum,” Msgr. Sciacca writes, “cannot in any way be interpreted as an intention of the legislator to introduce, in a matter of divine law, a distinction between the Petrine munus and ministerium. A distinction which, moreover, is impossible.”


“Monsignor Sciacca is right,” Sànchez continues, “when he says that the papacy cannot be divided into munus and ministerium. One person alone can hold both at the same time: the pope.” And so how is it possible that Ratzinger has distinguished and separated them, renouncing the ministerium and not the munus?  Therefore, the resignation of Benedict XVI of an alleged part of the papacy (the ministerium) and not of the entire papal office (the munus) is not valid because the “Declaratio” of the resignation commits a substantial error, as regards the condition “sine qua non” prior to a papal election: the establishment of a vacant see. So says canon 126: “An act placed out of ignorance or out of error concerning something which constitutes its substance or which amounts to a condition sine qua non is invalid.”

IN SYNTHESIS: The resignation was invalid because of a substantial error (a separation of the munus/ministerium) which could not produce a vacant see, and thus the conclave of 2013 could not have taken place, and thus the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is invalid.


The only “loophole” that remains is that this casual use of munus and ministerium by Benedict corresponds to a purely linguistic concern. That is, Ratzinger would have used these two terms “in order to not repeat the same word” for the sake of literary charm, despite the juridical catastrophe that it would entail. We recall that he himself explains in the book-interview “Ein Leben” (2020) that his text was written in two weeks and passed the scrutiny of the Secretary of State so that legal and formal errors were corrected, but UNDER THE SEAL OF THE PONTIFICAL SECRET: read HERE.

However, let us also consider the position that munus and ministerium can be synonyms and that one can mean the same thing as the other. Let’s see if this is true.


Prof. Geraldina Boni,” explains the lawyer Estefania Acosta, maintains in her book “Sopra una rinuncia” (2015) that at times munus and ministerium are indicated as synonyms, for example in the 2003 exhortation Pastor Gregis by John Paul II. However, she herself admits that this synonymy occurs ONLY IN THE NON-JURIDICAL SENSE, that is, when the word munus is understood in the sense of “function,” “task,” “service,” or “activity” tied to a certain (indelible) “ontological qualification” determined by the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Instead, as Boni herself admits (pp. 180-181), there is a SECOND MEANING ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WORD MUNUS, a meaning that is no longer ontological or sacramental but rather “JURIDICAL,” equivalent to “office” [or “position” – carica] and “almost equivalent to officium,” which results from canon 145 of the Code of Canon Law, which indicates how every munus (or “office”) permanently established for a spiritual purpose by the divine law (Mt 16:18-19 and Jn 21:15-17) is also an ecclesiastical office. This being the case, one sees that, also for Boni, THIS SECOND MEANING OF THE WORD MUNUS BREAKS ANY POSSIBLE SYNONYMY WITH THE WORD MINISTERIUM. Thus far, no objections to the professor.”


“Boni’s (gross) error,” continues Acosta, “lies in gratuitously and erroneously affirming that Benedict XVI renounced the MUNUS precisely in the second juridical meaning, while the text of the Declaratio never says such a thing. Prof. Boni writes: “In short, in the light of THIS TWO-FOLD SENSE OF MUNUS, Ratzinger, with his Declaratio, could have only wanted to recall, and not (as is already well understood) to determine, how, LAYING DOWN THE MUNUS AS AN OFFICE, he would not strip himself of the sacramental MUNUS [Editor’s note: the non-juridical one]: which moreover would not have in any way been within his faculty of disposition, confirming that the power of the pope is not an absolutist or totalitarian power, flowing first of all within the boundaries laid down for it by ius divinum.”


[Furthermore, Boni suggests that, with the Declaration, Pope Benedict wanted to emphasize that he did not detach himself from the sacramental munus (that is, the episcopal munus, not the juridical munus), and she adds the obvious fact that this munus is indispensable and un-renounceable, also for the Pope. Yet we note that in the General Audience of 27 February 2013, His Holiness Benedict XVI affirms that it was precisely on 19 April 2005, accepting his election to the office of the Roman Pontiff, that he committed himself “always and forever to the Lord.” How can we understand such a sentence from the Pope, which suggests an indelibility of the Pontificate, despite the fact that it does not constitute a sacrament and therefore lacks an “ontological” indelible character? One notes that the Pope links his definitive or “forever” commitment, not with his episcopal ordination (that is, not with his sacramental munus) but with his assumption of the primacy. This statement alone demolishes Boni’s affirmation that the only thing Benedict XVI has preserved “forever” after the Declaratio is the episcopal munus, not the Petrine munus. Thus, the sentence in question may be understood only if it is assumed, as we believe we have demonstrated, that THE DECLARATIO CONTAINS NOTHING OTHER THAN A NON-EXISTENT OR INVALID RESIGNATION OF THE PETRINE MUNUS.”]

IN SYNTHESIS: Prof. Boni admits that munus and ministerium are not in fact synonyms in the juridical sense. She admits that Ratzinger cites the munus in a juridical sense. Boni says that Ratzinger has renounced the juridical munus, maintaining the non-juridical munus, AND THIS IS NOT TRUE because he renounced the ministerium.


Right in the very studies of Scaccia and Boni, the “legitimizers” of Bergoglio, we therefore have the following:

1)  There are not two popes, nor an “enlarged papacy” 

2)  There is only one pope

3)  The position of “pope emeritus” does not exist 

4)  Munus and ministerium are not synonyms in a juridical sense

5)  Ratzinger used munus in a juridical sense, without ever having renounced it

6) He separated the two entities, which however are indivisible in the case of the Pope

7) And yet he renounced the wrong entity, that is, the ministerium.

As we have seen, Papa Ratzinger did everything one could do to render a resignation invalid, in addition to accompanying it with two serious errors in Latin despite being an excellent Latinist, probably in order to arouse interest in the document HERE.

“We can also add,” Sànchez comments, “the submission of an action like the resignation which is, in itself, a matter of divine law, to a condition of temporal determination,” that is, the resignation which Ratzinger deferred to 28 February 2013 which was never confirmed after the hour of 8:00 p.m., about which the theologian Carlo Maria Pace and the jurist Francesco Patruno have spoken HERE  and HERE, which once again, according to the authors, renders the resignation invalid.  Papa Ratzinger could have done all this in a fully conscious way, according to PLAN B, or even unconsciously, through a series of very particular and fortuitous coincidences and distractions (perhaps “guided” by the Holy Spirit?), but whichever way it was, it changes little.


The last objection of the Bergoglians concerns the doctrine of the so-called Universalis Ecclesiae Adhaesio” according to which, since no cardinal who participated in the conclave of 2013 is protesting or raising doubts about the election of Francis, it is therefore to be considered good and valid. “Such a doctrine,” explains Professor Sànchez, “was never intended to save, heal, or consider satisfied the “CONDITIO SINE QUA NON” without which a provision could never be initiated. In the case of the papacy, this condition is that THE SEE IS VACANT, that is, that the reigning pope is dead or has validly abdicated. The Universalis Ecclesiae Adhaesio could remedy a posteriori an error or a lacuna in the canonical provision of the election of the Pope, once it has begun, but never the preceding condition for the initiation of that provision. Here are the details.


Acosta and Sànchez say that the conclave mentioned in Universalis Ecclesiae Adhesio ought to be a legitimate conclave, that is, held after a pope dies or abdicates. But since Benedict did not abdicate, the conclave of 2013 never existed. The “Pope Emeritus” is therefore the only existing Pope. There is only one Pope, Benedict XVI. Therefore, Francis is an anti-pope.

Father Z’s Dares Righteousness but needs some major guidance

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Father John Zuhlsdorf, who is known on the Net simply as, “Father Z”, from his famous blog by the same name, did something the other day which only a handful of Catholic priests have dared to do in the last 8 years: he spoke publicly about the controversy over the “resignation” of Pope Benedict XVI.

His post is entitled, “The Question of Two Pope Bothers a lot of people. Some Thoughts” and it was published on June 29, 2021.

I know at least 4 priests who would not have the courage, even though they privately recognize Benedict XVI as the true pope.

And so, for that daring, Father Zuhlsdorft deserves praise and applause from all Catholics everywhere.

We live in a time when the clergy, alas, have fallen nearly totally silent about the truths of the Faith and about the errors and falsehoods of our day. And of the greatest of these errors is that which regards understanding what happened — or, as Ann Barnhardt rightly says in a more correct language, what did NOT happen — on Feb. 11, 2013, in the Sala Clementina, from approximately 11:30 AM local time until about 11:40 P.M..

The Vatican announced that Benedict XVI had resigned. Benedict XVI three years later, in his official biography interview by Peter Seewald, however, would explicitly deny that he had abdicated. In other words, he is still the pope, but some sort of revolution or coup d’etat has taken place at the Vatican. A thing which is undeniable by all, since there are two “Popes” at the Vatican.

But since Father Zuhlsdorf has publicly opined upon the matter, and since he has in true humility admitted, as a prologue, that he is not an expert on the controversy, I will make some comments here about what I see are the grave errors which pepper his discussion and keep anyone reading it from arriving at a certain and true conclusion regarding which is the true pope.

Where Father Hunwicke got mislead

Father Zuhlsdorf opens by citing a historical example of a case in which there were two popes, believing by such reference to obtain some light on how to explain the current situation.  So he cites another rather well known Catholic priest blogger, Father Hunwicke, a convert, who lives in the United Kingdom.

Here I follow the citation of Father Zuhlsdorf:

Over at his splendid blog, Fr. John Hunwicke had an engaging piece provoked by the whirling of your planet back to the annual Feast of St. Silverius, Pope and Martyr (+537).

Fr. H used this occasion to look into a question which vexes many a thoughtful Catholic these days: two popes at the same time.  Possible?  Fact: Francis is going around doing pope things while Benedict lives in the Vatican Gardens still looking a lot like The Pope.  It’s a head-scratcher.

NB: Some people wave away questions about “two popes” or an invalid resignation.  To my mind, it is wrong-headed to gloss over hard questions that vex people, to turn a blind eye to them and whistle a happy tune with fingers deep into one’s ears.  There are people who are really upset by this situation.  We have an obligation to tackle these questions head on in order to put people at ease about them.   Let’s do that.

Back to Fr Hunwicke’s piece.

Background first:  In 537, the Byzantine general Flavius Belisarius entered Rome and deposed Pope Silverius who had been elected the previous year.  Belisarius brought in his own guy, Vigilius, and made him Pope while Silverius was still alive (for a few months, at least).  So, who was the real Pope?

Father Zuhlsdorf’s recourse to a historical example seems a reasonable way to proceed. But I submit that it is colored by the fact that he has grown up in the United States and come to believe that the Common Law principle of precedent is a good principle to apply in a dubious legal case of two popes.

Here Father gets it completely wrong in his presumption. Because the Roman Church has always chosen Roman Law not Common Law — which by the way did not even exist for some 800 years after the faith came to Rome — as Her legal system.  In Roman law, precedent has nearly no worth. What matters is what is the statuary law at the time a dispute arises, not what happened in past cases when the laws where different.

And such is the case of the example brought up by Father Hunwicke. Thus, whatever happened in that case, simply has no bearing whatsoever in regard to a solution in the present case.  This is true because in the present case, the laws which bear on determining whether the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI was valid or not, were promulgated in 1983 in the New Code, which expressly abrogated and obrogated all past laws. Whereas, the case cited by Father Hunwicke took place some 1400 years before when there were no canons or laws regarding papal resignations, forced or otherwise.

Dom Guéranger’s quip is worthless and misleading in this debate

Now, in a controversy over law or rights, it is important to cite authorities. No one denies that. But the value of the authority depends on whether he has said anything pertinent to the debate.

Now there is no doubt that Dom Prosper Guéranger is a man worth citing. But since he died before the canons of the Church were codified in 1917 by Pope Benedict XV, he obviously approached the problem of a papal schism differently than we do today.  He had to, because there was no law to appeal to.

So citing this very learned Benedictine, as Father Zuhlsdorf does in citing Father Hunwicke, is again simply useless, even if the argument sounds good:

Hunwicke provides something from dom Gueranger concerning Silverius and Vigilius (my emphases):

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church … acknowledges in the person of a certain pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.”

Do you get that?   No matter how strange a path by which some fellow became the one with his “bum in the chair”, when “the Church” acknowledges him, then he is the legitimate Pope.

It is simply useless, because we cannot pretend today that there is no law determining whether Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation is valid or not or makes him no longer the pope or not!  Nearly all who claim Bergoglio is the pope do entertain such a pretense, because if you don’t then you have to recognize that the law gives you no leg to stand on.

But that is not the only error, implicit in the citation of Dom Guéranger. Because, when we cannot know the facts of a case or the moral or legal principles by which it can be solved with certitude, we are forced to resort to reflex principles which indicate a probable or more probable solution.

So Dom Guéranger was right to resort to a reflex principle in a case in which he could not have known the facts well or personally. But we are wrong to do so, since we can easily have the facts of the case with certitude and can easily find the code of canon law in Latin which sets out the principles by which we can arrive with certitude at the correct answer.

A Shameful error in reading Latin

Now if anyone sees the Latin term, which is key in this controversy, and mistranslates it as office — for wont of a better term — I as a Latinist can excuse him, because I have done the same. But since Father Zuhlsdorf is rather famous for his Latinity, I will have to say that when he renders munus as office, it is a shameful error.

Admittedly Father Zuhlsdorf claims no expertise in this debate, and so perhaps does not know that Canon 17 explains how to understand the word munus, but after all that has been written, which is not hard to find on the internet, it is simply irresponsible to cite a translation of munus as office without at least pointing out the translation is wrong or insufficient to understand this controversy.

For if munus meant office, then in canon 145 §1, the Code would not define officium as a munus, under a certain sort of specification. It would simply say they mean the same thing. But it does not, therefore, in the mind of the legislator we must understand, as Canon 17 requires us, that the words do NOT mean the same thing.

And if you want to know what munus means, you can avail yourself of the only academic paper every submitted in a Conference at Rome, which followed the norm of canon 17 to discover what it means. And you can read it here. It was delivered 21 months ago and has never been refuted by anyone, anywhere.

Father Zuhlsdorf then wanders into quacksand

At this point, the learned Father Zuhlsdorf, who evidently does not know the principles of Canon Law, wanders off into speculating that the Office of the Pope can be separated from the Office of the Bishop of Rome.

This speculation has found favor and pleasure among some who are participating in this debate. But out of respect for them, I will not mention them by name.

Suffice it to say, that the office of Peter cannot be separated from the Bishopric of Rome, when both are understood properly, that is, according to the correct understanding of their terms.  We can know this with certainty, because Vatican I infallibly declared that the Pope has no authority over the deposit of the Faith. And the Deposit of the Faith includes Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition means what the Apostles handed down, left to us, for our instruction.  And obviously the office of St. Peter was left to the Church of Rome BY THE APOSTLE PETER. Hence it cannot be alienated from it by anyone.

To say otherwise is simple heresy. For it implies that Apostolic Tradition can be overthrown, corrected or changed. Now that is the doctrine of Bergoglio (e. g., in regard to the Our Father), but it is not Catholic.

And to imply that Pope Benedict XVI intended that, is not only unsubstantiated by any explicit statement, but requires a reading of his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013 which is artificial and strained at the best, and totally imaginary at the worst.

You do not have to play games of theological speculation, to find out whether the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI is valid or not.  Simply read canon 332 and the text of the Declaratio and it is clear enough, if you want to see it, and if you are not a priest who is naming Bergoglio as the pope in the canon of the mass.

In Conclusion

Father Zuhlsdorf’s exposition of the controversy does contain some accurate parts, where he lays out the basic argument for the invalidity of the Declaratio to cause Benedict XVI to no longer be pope.

But for the most part his exposition is rambling and confusing and seems inconclusive.

I object strongly at his blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, in saying that that Divine Person might rig a papal election with the intent of giving us a bad pope.  God cannot will evil. To say so, is to call God the Devil.

And I demure at the entire post by Father Zuhlsdorf, because I think that if a priest open his mouth, he should at least give clear doctrine and not muddle the waters.

But what is lacking is grave also in this, that Father seems to think, by his noticeable omission, that if a priest names someone he doubts is the pope in the Canon of the Mass that he is not gravely sinning, or that if he names someone whom God knows is not the pope, he is not gravely sinning.  This omission in the article is very shocking, because it pretends to a form of Catholicism in which the manner of the offering of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is one which is acceptable to God when it is rubrically correct, regardless of whom it is offered in communion with, a true or false pope. And that makes a mockery of the Divine Majesty.

What does a valid Papal renunciation look like? — St. Celestine V shows the way

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

For more than 8 years Catholics have discussed and debated the  Declaration of Pope Benedict XVI, what it means and the peculiarities of its formulations.

Now after 8 years, it is more and more clear that it is not a Papal Abdication, but only an act of retirement, which renounces service but retains all power, authority, office, title and dignity.

This becomes clearer if we look to what words a canonized Saint, Celestine V, used to renounce the Papacy.

Here is the Latin text of his act, taken from His Papal Bull of December 13, 1294 A. D.:

Ego Caelestinus Papa Quintus motus ex legittimis causis, idest causa humilitatis, et melioris vitae, et coscientiae illesae, debilitate corporis, defectu scientiae, et malignitate Plebis, infirmitate personae, et ut praeteritae consolationis possim reparare quietem; sponte, ac libere cedo Papatui, et expresse renuncio loco, et Dignitati, oneri, et honori, et do plenam, et liberam ex nunc sacro caetui Cardinalium facultatem eligendi, et providendi duntaxat Canonice universali Ecclesiae de Pastore.

Here is my own translation into English:

I, Celestine V, Pope, moved out of legitimate causes, that is, for the sake of humility, and for a better life, and for a wounded conscience, by the debility of body, by the defect of knowledge, and by the malignancy of the plebs, by infirmity of person, and so that I might repair to the quiet of my past consolation: voluntarily, and freely cede the Papacy, and I expressly renounce the position, and Dignity, the burden and honor, and I do give full, and free faculty from hence forth to the sacred assembly of the Cardinals to elect and provide for the Universal Church a Pastor, so long as (it be done) in a canonical manner.


Notice how the Saint does not renounce insignificant parts or details of the Papal Office. He does not renounce the execution of his office nor his clothing, because he understands that when you renounce the cause or root of power, you have renounced all rights and duties which flow from it.  Thus he renounces the the position (locus) in which he was placed above all (this is the office), the Dignity, which exalted him above all (this is the superior quality which is inextricable from that), the burden (onus) which is the totality of duty not in its execution but in its imposition — this is one sense  of the munus — and the honor, that is the quality which demands from all other recognition.

Thus he has named all the essential parts of the Papal Office. And he renounces all of them.

That is how to renounce. And a canonized Saint has shown the way.

For anyone to claim therefore, that to say, “I declare to renounce the ministry which I received from the Cardinals”, is sufficient for a papal renunciation, makes a joke of the papacy and a very bad argument.

The Blindness of Canonists just became permanent

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Antipope recent revised his Code of Canon Law, rejecting that promulgated by Pope John Paul II.  The new anti-Code has an entirely new and unauthorized Penal Code.

The changes will permit the Antipope to start excommunicating and punishing all who oppose them. All who know Bergoglio know his mean and vicious character, but this can be seen even in his new code, where instead of 1 canon on crimes of speech, there are now 2, one of which allows the medieval penalty of interdict. —  I really should not call it a penalty, because being denied sacraments in a heretical and sacrilegious “church” is a blessing, not a penalty.

Among the new punishments, are any criticism or contradiction of any non-definitive teaching of Bergoglio or his Synods.  Before, you could only be punished for speaking against defined doctrine. Now you can be punished for speaking against pronounced politics or heresy.

Welcome to the Church of the Antichrist.

The Status of the Debate on the invalidity of the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI

But canonists who refused to read and observe the Code of 1983, are now out of the game. Because by following lies and closing their eyes and ears to the truth, they now follow an false Code which hides even more the evidence.

For one of the reasons for this action was to rewrite or replace Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which by showing that excommunicated persons could exercise a ministry, demonstrated that the renunciation of a ministerium was possible without loss of any dignity (dignitas), officium (office) or charge (munus).

The new anti-canon 1331, speaks only of power of governance. (here)  The phrase “power of governance” is obviously a fig leaf to hide the concepts of munus and ministerium, one of which is a power and the other which is only a duty.

Indeed, on Dec. 11, 2019, A. D., when I personally spoke for more that 45 minutes with Mons. Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts, I demonstrated irrefutably from that canon that the renunciation was invalid.  To which the Monsignor replied, that they were preparing a revision of the Penal Code and that canon would be “fixed”.

This will make them incapable of participating in the debate and of finding the truth.

But as they have chosen darkness not the light, because the fear that their works of darkness be seen in the light, they have now a new Code to serve as a unbreakable chain to drag them down and keep them down.

The reverse of this is also true. Those of us who remain in communion with Pope Benedict are now free of them even more. And those who know canon law, who are of our number, are now the world experts on the Code of 1983, since we alone believe it remains in force.

Siscoe & Salza attack Bugnolo on Dogmatic Facts — He replies


by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I appreciate a good debate, but the attack launched against me personally won’t offer much worthy of attention because it is founded upon a totally incapacity to think. As I will explain.

I am speaking about, Mr. Robert Siscoe and Mr John Salza’s article entitled, Br. Bugnolo Redefines “Dogmatic Facts” to justify Benevacantist schism.

First, let me publicly thank them for calling me Brother. I will respond by referring to them as Mister, because I believe that in debating a Catholic should be respectful of persons and of truth, and disrespectful of error and falsehood.

However, as regards the title it is incorrect. I am not a Bennyvacantist. A Bennyvacantist, if the word means anything but a purile slur — and I assumed Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza are gentlemen and would never stoop to such  behavior — must mean someone who holds that Pope Benedict has vacated the Apostolic Throne.  But that is not my position, that is the position of Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza.

So there is some major confusion. As the attack on me personally regards the accusation that I am misusing words and changing definitions, I am not nitpicking the title, I am merely showing that my interlocutors are misusing words and changing the proper meaning of particles. So that kind of puts doubt that their critique of my position on dogmatic facts will be sound.

Here is their opening charge against me:

There’s a common saying that schism always ends in heresy. If a false doctrine isn’t trumped up to justify the schism, a true doctrine is distorted and eventually denied to sustain it. The latter is taking place before our eyes with Br. Alexis Bugnolo, whose “Benevacantist” position has now forced him to falsify the meaning of dogmatic facts by entirely redefining the term. It was only a matter of time before this happened, since his rejection of the peaceful and universal acceptance (UPA) has always really been a rejection of the infallibility of the Magisterium in judging dogmatic facts. As we will see later, according to Cardinal Ratzinger himself, by rejecting the legitimacy of Francis’ election, Br. Alexis Bugnolo has rejected a truth of the faith, denied the infallibility of the Magisterium, and cut himself from communion with the Catholic Church. And this teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger is perfectly consistent with what all the theologians have taught, and what Martin V defined at the Council of Constance.

I concede the first proposition…but they should have not

It is true as regard the Greek Schismatics, for example. But why is it true. Because when you separate yourself from the true Pope you fall away from Christ’s Mediation of grace. We see heresy arise in all schisms which perdure a long time, when they intentionally reject the Roman Pontiff.

However, it is really poor judgement that my opponents cite this principle at the very beginning of their diatribe. Because, as you can see, logic itself turns against them:

MAJOR PROPOSITION: There’s a common saying that schism always ends in heresy. If a false doctrine isn’t trumped up to justify the schism, a true doctrine is distorted and eventually denied to sustain it.

MINOR PROPOSITION:  But Jorge Mario Bergoglio by the universal acceptance of every Catholic author in the last 7 years who accepts the perennial magisterium has spoken heresy, has refused to retract it and continues to profess it.

CONCLUSION:  Therefore, Bergoglio must be in schism, because he has ended in heresy. But if he is in schism he is not the pope.

Contrariwise, after 7 years, Pope Benedict XVI has not fallen into heresy. Therefore he must be in union with the true pope. But Bergoglio is not the true pope, since he has fallen into schism. Therefore, he must be the true pope, because the Church cannot be without its Head.

Truths of the Faith

As we will see later, according to Cardinal Ratzinger himself, by rejecting the legitimacy of Francis’ election, Br. Alexis Bugnolo has rejected a truth of the faith,

The Faith is defined as the totality of Divine Revelation, when “the Faith” is used as a metynymic term for the whole of the Catholic Religion. Faith as a virtue is not called, “the faith” in English, as anyone who has ever taken 1 course in theology at a Catholic institution should have learned.

So when Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza classify Dogmatic Facts as truths of the faith, I have to shake my head. They have just redefined the Faith.  It is a truth of faith, but not of the Faith. It is a truth of faith, because faith requires implicitly that when we show obedience of assent to the teaching of the Magisterium, that we accept that certain authorities involved in is promuglation are in fact legitimate. Thus, as Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza rightly say, elsewhere in their article:

Again, we see that a dogmatic fact must be believed with faith because of its connection to revealed truth, and is a fact that the Church judges infallibly due to its relation with a revealed truth.

Here, Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza change their definition of Dogmatic Fact. Now they say it regards revealed truth. Whereas before in their opening peroration they said is was “a truth of the faith”, which I explained, must mean a revealed truth.

The problem here arises from the Latin, since we say of truths of the faith that they are de fide. And Latin does not have the definite article, the. If you are skilled in the philosophy of particulars and universals, and in the theology of dogma and in the English language, you can understand this. But you won’t learn it in law school or in other disciplines, because they do not teach it.

So I can honestly concede that Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza are scandalized at my use of terms when speaking about all these three arguments, and about canon law, because they simply are trying to squeeze what I am saying into the wrong categories of their own minds, which do not know how to distinguish them properly. I see this commonly among many Catholics and I do not get angry at it, since I know that I once also did not understand this before I went to Seminary and 3 pontifical universities. Though for the record, I do not hold a degree in them. My degree is in Cultural Anthropology.

This leaves Br. Bugnolo in quite the predicament. If he remains in communion with Pope Benedict, he too is a member of the Church of Antichrist.

Here Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza make a grave error in their ecclesiology. As Catholics we should be in communion with all the other members of the Catholic Church. Not to do so would be schismatic. So whether you think Benedict is the pope or not, you should be in communion with him. To say that anyone who is is a member of the Church of the Antichrist is as much false, as it is an absurd exaggeration and horrendous thing to say. Because by saying it, they are implying that Pope Benedict XVI is the Antichrist.

I think this lapsus linguae is very revealing.

Yet if they refuse to accept his own judgment that Benedict’s abdication was invalid, he is “rebelling against the papal law,” and “condemned by Unam Sanctam.” 

But as regards the judgement that Benedict’s Declaratio did not have the proper canonical form to effect his separation from the petrine munus, I do not recall that I have ever said that this is so because I judge it so. If Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza can find such a statement, I will withdraw it. But as I have loved the Papal magisterium from my youth, and know well in what it consists, I learned when I was a boy, reading Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, that in matters of the Catholic religion we must leave aside our own judgement completely and simply accept the words used by Holy Mother Church or by the Saints at their face value. And this includes canon law. Do my opponents do that?

I submit that all rational and sane men by universal acceptance will grant that in saying that “when Benedict renounces ministerium while canon 332 requires the renunciation of munus, that the renunciation is not in conformity to the norm of law and is rendered of no effect by canon 38, irritus by canon 188 and not binding on anyone in virtue of canon 41,” that I am not using my own judgement to support my such an assertion, I am merely reiterating the law in the circumstances which prima facie it appears to apply to. And as every lawyer knows, the prima facie meaning of a law or legal text has the presumption in every argument. For that reason, since the application of the LAW to due circumstances is not an opinion, which wavers between doubt and assent, it is also wrong to call it my opinion. I do not hold it as an opinion, I hold it with the same certitude that the Sun rose this morning and that Rome is the capital of Italy, because those are facts of reality just as factual and real as that ministerium was renounced by Benedict in his text and that munus is found in canon 332 §2. From these facts, the conclusion follows with the same certitude: prima facie the renunciation of the papal office never was effected, therefore it must be held that Benedict is the pope still, because the cessation of power is not to be presumed.

Dogmatic Facts

In the formation of Catholic Clergy, prior to the study of theology or canon law, a seminarian has to study philosophy. This is required because you cannot understand theology without the intellectual ability to make the proper distinctions and to undrstand words in their proper senses. I have had such formation at Our Lady of Grace Seminary in Boston, where I graduated cum laude.

So on the central argument of Dogmatic Facts, I concede all the authors cited. But I point out that none of them is magisterial and that theologians are often imprecise even if they are substantially correct. This is mostly because they write for one purpose, but readers read them for another purpose and so miss the finer points of context, which change how you apply the principles or truths they enunciate.  That is why no theologian or canonist has publicly denounced my position. In fact, Edward Pentin on Saturday, at his blog, affirmed that Mons. Nicola Bux knows many canonists who hold the same position.

Let me cite Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza, where they write:

Here is how another real theologian, Tanquerey, explains dogmatic facts in Vol. I of Dogmatic Theology (1959).

The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely. Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council. That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain.” (Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, 1959, p. 146.)

The debate with me, however, regards only the historical Dogmatic Facts, though I admit referring to doctrinal dogmatic facts. Elsewhere, above this, in their article they attack me claiming my examples of dogmatic facts are wrong:

As anyone who has ever consulted a theology manual concerning dogmatic facts would know, the nomination of a bishop is not a dogmatic fact, regardless of whether he accepts the nomination. Neither is the choice of the Cardinals during a conclave.

Here, I really got to chuckle. Evidently, Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza think that dogmatic facts are like points in a Cartesian plane, through which there are no intersecting lines. I know that this is false, because when I studied what dogmatic facts were, under Dr. Peter Felhner, OFM Conv., I asked him the question:  If it is a dogmatic fact that Vatican I was a true council because it defined papal authority, then would not all the facts which lead to that also be dogmatic, like the fact that Pope Pius IX was the canonically elected, was validly ordained a Bishop, was validly baptized, and was born and existed. His answer was yes, they are remotely considered as dogmatic facts, whereas that Vatican I was a valid council is the proximate dogmatic fact. Also there are negative and positive dogmatic facts. A positive one is that which is connected to a dogma by positively affirming it. A negative one is that which is connected to a dogma by affirming that contrary evidence is not authoritative. Such as for example the teaching did not come from an authentic source, which becomes dogmatic inasmuch as it negative demonstrates that the contrary doctrine is not dogmatic.

Wherefore, when I say the nomination of a bishop is a dogmatic fact, I am referring to remote historical dogmatic facts. I did not specify their connection to dogma, because in the context of my writing I am referring to the acts themselves inasmuch as they are classified. Obviously, the nomination of a man as Bishop does regard a dogmatic fact, because as Bishop he holds the ordinary power of the magisterium, and his teaching enters into the ordinary magisterium of the Church only if he is a licitly appointed or validly ordained Bishop of the Catholic Church holding jurisdiction. If he did not accept, then that he was not a Bishop is a negative dogmatic fact. But his appointment by the Pope is a remote dogmatic historical fact, inasmuch the act proves that the Pope was the true pope, and the Pope exercises the Magisterium which touches upon many points of doctrine affirming or which will be used to affirm the definition of dogma or doctrine int he future.

If you know philosophy you understand these things.

Church Doctrine vs. the teaching of theologians

The next major confusion that Mr. Siscoe and Mrs. Salza have regards doctrine. The word means simply teaching. The Church teaches and theologians teach. But not every opinion of a theologian is Church doctrine.  For example, Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori wrote a book on Moral Theology in which he presents thousands of his own opinions on matters of morals. But it would be incorrect to say that since he is canonized and a doctor of the Church that his opinions are church doctrine or binding doctrine. Yes, they are approved of, inasmuch as the Church probably will not punish anyone for holding them, but nearly all of them have never been formally taught by the extraordinary Magisterium, even though many of them may regard and be derived from the ordinary magisterium.

When you study dogmatic theology 101, you learn these things.

So, I have to object to what Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza write when they say:

The consequences of rejecting this Doctrine

They make the statement in reference to the opinions they cite from theologians in the previous section:

  1. Fr. E. Sylvester Berry’s book, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, which was originally published in 1927
  2. Tanquerey, explains dogmatic facts in Vol. I of Dogmatic Theology (1959).
  3. Msgr. Van Noort provides the same explanation in his manual of Dogmatic Theology, The Church of Christ, published in 1957.

Now, as can bee seen from their identities, it is a dogmatic historical remote negative fact that they are not Bishops of the Catholic Church and never held an office which participated in the ordinary magisterium of the Church.  Therefore, their doctrine is not magisterial. And therefore it might contain some imprecision and may even be wrong. I do not think their doctrine is wrong, but I do think that some of their statements regard other kinds of dogmatic facts, or are extrapolations poorly expressed. No one is required to accept their doctrine as they state it, since it is not the doctrine of the Church in the form in which the state it, it is their own doctrine.

I am not sure if Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza understand these distinctions.

Nay, it seems that they suffer from super-scrupulosity in accepting the doctrines of theologians who are fallible men and yet suffer from a complete lack of scrupulosity in accepting the terms of Canon Law which does not come from man, but from the office of Saint Peter, approved in Heaven by Mouth of God Himself, saying:  whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven.

I find their inability to do this inexplicable. I find their imbalanced approach also inexplicable, though I tried to explain it here.

Intrinsic and extrinsic proofs

One of the fundamental problems that Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza seem to have is their inability to distinguish the proper hierarchy of forensic evidence.

Forensic refers to things which pertain to the scrutiny of a court. Forensic evidence is evidence presented to judgment. We are not talking about courts here, but we are talking about evidence which pertains to the truth or value of canonical acts in the Church. So I use the term forensic in this sense.

Now among such evidence there is a hierarchy. Let us take an example to illustrate this. A man is charged with murder. There is his confession, the video tape of the murder, the testimony of witnesses which saw it, or heard it when it happened, and of witnesses who heard others speak of it or of the accused confess it. Then there is the evidence from the crime scene which is strictly spoken of as forensic evidence when gathered for a prosecution in court.

In the USA the legal system puts the judgement about the evidence to be admitted for a trial before all other proceedings of the actual case, because it is important to get the evidence correct. Thus, I think we can agree that some evidence is more determinative than other evidence.

For example, if there is a video of the actual murder, and the testimony of someone a week later who heard the accused say he was not innocent. The testimony cannot be regarded as as crucial or important. Even the testimony of someone who heard the crime but did not see it. There is a hierarchy of importance. And this is determined by its proximity to the historical event or act which is under investigation or dispute.

But for Mr. Siscoe and Salza, they want the remote and post factum consequential evidence of what Bishops thought happened because they uncritically listened to the media say Benedict did in fact resign the papacy to be the SOLE determinative factor, and want everyone to ignore the crucial proximate evidence that Benedict renounced ministerium not munus.

I think anyone can see that is simply not a sound way of proceeding.

But that some theologian in the past at any time advocated the use of such remote post factum evidence as proof, is really praeter rem to the present argument. Because in the past documentation was hard to come by. Ancient manuscripts and notes and transcripts have been lost. One does not have certain proximate evidence, so there is some necessity to argue a case on the basis of remote post factum evidence. But with Benedict XVI that is not necessary as we all have all the proximate evidence  in his Declaratio and the Code of Canon Law.


Thus in regard to the election of Roman Pontiffs or their renunciations, the conformity of their election or renunciation to the norm of law in force at the time is the principle and proximate forensic criterion upon which to base the evaluation of the proximate or remote positive or negative historical dogmatic fact that they were elected or not, or did resign or not. That is what legitimacy means properly.

Legitimacy does not mean public opinion. But when the proximate evidence is lacking or obscure some theologians have appealed to post factum evidence to establish legitimacy. But they are not talking about canonical legitimacy in the sense of conformity to law, but in the sense of determined by the judgement of a Council or the Apostolic College.

The citations made to Martin V regard the Council of Constance which condemned Huss. The question of the legitimacy of Martin V’s election results from the 38 year controversy over who was validly elected in the election of 1378, whence sprang the Great Schism in the Church. Because Martin V was elected after both rivals renounced their claims, though one later fled to Spain and left a series of successors as anti-popes. Since the Great Schism was put to an end in a Council, it is one of the few dogmatic facts which prove the possible doubts to a papal title, in this case Martin V, whom the Hussites charged was not the valid pope on that account. So the statements made about universal acceptance had value in that debate, since the proximate evidence of 1378 was long put in doubt.


Understanding all of the above, because I learned it from those more knowledgeable than myself,  hold that Benedict still the pope for the reasons I have stated in my Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation. I do so because I recognize things the way the Church teaches them, while my opponents rush off to find some other kind of evidence while ignoring the proximate issues.

For this reason I think the arguments marshaled against my position are false, praeter rem, erroneous, mistaken, and based on a lot of lack of familiarity with philosophy, theology and canon law, and the principles of forensic evidentiary methodology.

Finally, please excuse any errors in this rebuttal, as I wrote it quickly in the space of an hour or so, and am a poor proof reader.

+ + +

If you do not want to be damned, please admit TODAY that you have been hoodwinked

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The whole Catholic world knows and accepts that Pope Benedict XVI was elected canonically and accepted his election on April 19, 2005 A. D..

And everyone knows that you do not presume that a non-heretical pope is no longer pope, until he dies or has renounced the papacy.

And all Catholics know we are obliged to follow Canon Law.

And if you do not know it by now, I will repeat it for the umpteenth time:  According to Canon 332 §2, the man who is the pope does not renounce the papacy, until he renounces his munus, and renounces that munus freely and in the due manner.

And the whole Catholic world knows that Pope Benedict XVI HAS NEVER RENOUNCED HIS MUNUS.

Therefore, if you were hoodwinked into thinking Benedict XVI is no longer the pope or resigned the papacy, because you watch TV or read websites, but did not know of the points of fact and law I just cited, please have the integrity to admit you were hoodwinked.

Because though a person can fall into error through being fooled or being ignorant, THE DECISION TO REMAIN IN ERROR after the facts have been shown to you, DOES IN FACT constitute a mortal sin of pertinacity in a lie, which merits indubitably ETERNAL DAMNATION.

Tomorrow is the 16th anniversary of the canonical election of Pope Benedict XVI and the 16th anniversary of his ongoing Pontificate.  If you do not want to go to Hell, then join with true Catholics in celebrating it, and stop attending liturgies of those who want or do not fear to go to Hell, naming Bergoglio as the Pope.

¡Viva Guadalajara!


Written in Socratic jest for Mons. Juan Ignacio Arrieta,
Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Legal Texts,

and presented viva voce by Br. Bugnolo to him in person on that morning.

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In the conclave of 2243, the Cardinals of the Roman Church, in their final votation, elected a Spaniard.

So, according to the rules established by Pope John Paul II, on February 22, 1996, in the document Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 87, the Cardinal Deacon, the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and the Master of Ceremonies for Pontifical Liturgies approach the Spanish Cardinal and ask him in these solemn words if he will accept his election:  Do you accept your canonical election as the Supreme Pontiff?


Then the Cardinal Deacon signals with his eyes to the Elected Cardinal, asking for an answer.

The Cardinal Elect, smiles, then extends both hands to each side and forms the V sign. With that he says in a clear voice: ¡Viva Guadalajara!

The Spanish Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel, familiar with the jocularity of the Elected Cardinal, giggle. The Cardinal from Barcelona says to himself, “What a joker! But this is not a time for laughs!”

The Secretary of the College gives a stern look at the Cardinal Elect. He is not amused at this kind of levity. So he turns to the Cardinal Deacon, who is perplexed, and whispers: “Let’s ask him again”.

So the aged Cardinal Deacon, turns to the Cardinal Elect, and asks again, this time in Spanish: ¿Acepta su elección canónica como Sumo Pontífice?


Then, the Cardinal Elect, answers: raising both his right and left hand as before, and making the V sign with each, he says: ¡Viva Guadalajara! — This time with an even bigger smile on his face.

At this point, the Cardinals break their silence, and mixed mutterings of insouciance and consternation.

The Cardinal Deacon, now impatient, says to the Cardinal Elect: “This is no time to make jokes. Please answer the question with a Yes or a No”. Then recomposing himself, he repeats the canonical question, this time in Italian: Accetti la tua elezione canonica a Sommo Pontefice?

And again, the Cardinal Elect responds in the same manner.

At this point, the Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel break out in small groups of conversation. Everyone is trying to figure out what the Cardinal Elect means to say. The Spanish Cardinals approach the Elect and attempt to reason with him. But he says nothing futher. All he does is keep smiling and raising his right and left hand now and then with the V sign, for victory.

So in accord with the Papal Law on Conclaves, UDG, n. 5, the Cardinal from Paris asks that the College discuss and decide what is to be done, since the Papal Law says nothing about the manner in which the Cardinal Elect is to accept the office, whether it be by a Yes or No or by some other sign.

Two factions arise among the Cardinals. On the one side, a minority hold that the Cardinal Elect, by the words used has not accepted his election and must be considered either in error or mad. On the other side, the position taken is that of the Cardinal of Mexico City, who reasons this way: There is no more certain a manner of indicating that one has accepted the dignity of a prince than to respond in a manner which requires his listeners to acquiesce to his authority. Now by responding in this manner, does not the Cardinal Elect clearly show his intent to act like a prince? And therefore, his intention to accept the election? Is he not just putting our loyalty to the test? I for one will not fail in my loyalty to the Supreme Pontiff in this his first act of office!

This line of reasoning wins over the majority and they vote to regard the manner of speech chosen by the Cardinal Elect as meaning, “Yes, I accept”.

The Cardinal Deacon, then approaches the Cardinal Elect and asks him by which name he wants to be known. He replies, “Ignazio I”.

And years pass. And there is nothing controversial in the pontificate of Ignatius the First. Not in the least.

Except for this one thing.

Every time journalists manage to get an interview with him, and they ask him about the moment of his election as Pope, they ask him what he said, and he says: ¡Viva Guadalajara!

About 6 years into his reign as pope, one journalist, by the name of Marco Tosatti III, wanting to understand this better, asks a very specific question of Pope Ignatius I, during a plan trip.

Tosatti III: I know, your Holiness, has been asked this same question many times. And we are all impressed by your talent for humor and your jocundity, which is so unique among the Popes. But the day of your election, if I may ask again, can you tell just what you said, when the Cardinal Deacon asked you if you would accept your canonical election?

Ignatius I: I said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!

Tosatti III: Is that all you said?

Ignatius I: Yes.

Tosatti III: Did you not say, Yes?

Ignatius I: No, I never said Yes or No. I simply said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!

Marco Tosatti III publishes his interview and it goes round the world. The Pope never said yes.

A few days later, another Italian Vaticanista, by the name of Sandro Magister V, obtains an interview with the aged Cardinal Deacon, who confirms the story: Yes, he never said, yes. In fact there was a controversy in the Conclave, and now that Pope Ignatius I has abolished the pontifical secret on his election, I can reveal that we held a vote in accord with Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 5, and we determined that canonically speaking, this phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! would be taken to mean, “yes, I accept”.

Magister V also publishes his interview, which causes even more of an uproar and travels round the world.

About two weeks later, an old lady from the suburb of Madrid, Spain, where Pope Ignatius I grew up, flys to Rome and enters the Piazza of St Peter with a sign, saying, “He is not the Pope!” The Gendarmerie, the Vatican Police, attempt to take the sign from her, there is a scuffle and they end up punching her and she punching them back. Eventually they take both her and the sign away.

But the pilgrims in the piazza photograph and video record the entire travesty and these images go world wide on all social media platforms.

The next day in all the majors newspapers and MSM sites the one topic is why they beat up this poor old women. And the journalists who are allowed to interview her in the Vatican jail all receive the same statement, prepared by her attorney: In my suburb of Madrid, where I grew up with Pope Ignatius I, the phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! has always meant, “You got to be kidding. I would no more agree to that than support the team from Guadalajara, by shouting ¡Viva Guadalajara! at a soccer match with our own team!”

At this news, journalists flock to Madrid, Spain and interview all those they can find who knew the Pope as a child or youngster. And they all agree that what this old lady said is the absolute truth.

And these journalists report what they find. And, the next day, Ignatius I gives an interview and says: You see, there is nothing I hate more that arrogance and sycophantry. So when I saw that there were no worthy candidates for the Papacy, I determined to do what I could to delay as much as possible the Conclave, so the most unworthy ones would be taken by the Lord or not be able to vote, having reached the age of 80. So I contrived the deception I used to fool everyone. And it worked. But now that my purpose has achieved its goal, I willing admit that I was never pope, because I never accepted my election as the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, I will now stop pretending to be pope and go back to Madrid and enjoy my final years of life by drinking cerveza and watching the Madrid Soccer team. Good-bye and Adios!


The Limits of Discretion

So ends the fictional canonical case I have created. As you can see, strange things can happen if the discretion which we Catholics traditionally accord to the Cardinals goes beyond all limits. There are just some things they cannot do even if they want to.

One thing they cannot do, even if they want to, regards the interpretation of verbal texts. As a translator of medieval texts, I understand well that there are 3 ways of determining the meaning of any obscure phrase. The first is intrinsic, the second extrinsic and the third is referential.

Intrinsic methods look to the meaning of the words used and their grammatical structure. Extrinsic methods look to the context in which the phrase is used and impose a theory about what the intent was in the author’s mind in using the obscure phrase. Referential methods look for other occurrences of the same obscure phrase in the writings of the same author, his contemporaries or those authors he read or cited.

And as a translator, I have learned the hard way, that the worse method of interpretation is the extrinsic method. The intrinsic method can be used but it requires great discretion and a good knowledge of the author one is reading. The referential method is the most certain but one has to take into account that every author might use standard phrases slightly differently.

¡Viva Guadalajara!

As can be seen from the fictional case I have constructed, grave error can arise when the ones who should be interpreting the meaning of things said by the Pope use the extrinsic method, by adopting the context of the phrase and some theory of what the intention was of the one saying it, and from these two data points extrapolate the meaning of the phrase.

This has been no idle study. And though you may find this story humorous, that is not my intention. Because though it regards what could happen regarding the very first moment an man becomes the Pope, the same interpretational problem can arise in the very last moment a man is the Pope, that is in an Act of Renunciation.

Because, when a man renounces the papacy, Canon 332 §2 requires that he say something that signifies, In my capacity as Roman Pontiff, I renounce the munus which I received in the Apostolic Succession from Saint Peter, the day I accepted my election as Supreme Pontiff by the College of Cardinals.

The words do not have to be the ones I just wrote, but they have to signify essentially the same thing.

If you say, however, I declare that I renounce the ministry which was entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals, the day I was elected, then you have a problem. Because no where in the Code of Canon Law, nor in Canonical Tradition, nor in the mind of Pope John Paul II do we find any clear equation or predication of munus by ministerium. To hold that Pope Benedict’s renunciation of ministry means a renunciation of munus is an interpretation, unfounded in the law. Moreover, the Cardinals and Bishops and Clergy who hold this interpretation have no authority in the law to interpret the Papal Act in this manner.

We need to be adults and admit this problem of interpretation.

And the ones who committed this error have to grow up and stop insisting that we follow them in it. After all, religious extremism does not consist in refusing an error of interpretation. Religious extremism consists in insisting, like ISIS, that we accept their errors of interpretation or else.

CREDITS: the image of the Cathedral of Madrid is taken from the Wikipedia article on the Facade of the Cathedral of Madrid and is used under the wiki commons license described there.


How they boldly lie to defend Bergoglio….

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The one golden thread of consistency in every defender of Bergoglio, whether of his blatant heresies, blasphemies or crimes, or whether of his claim to be validly elected or retain his office, is that his defenders are willing to lie, and to lie boldly.

I have had occasion to publicly out them as such many times here at FromRome.Info, and today, I consider it necessary to do so once again.

I speak of Steve O’Reilly, who says he is a convert to the Catholic Faith and lectures Catholics about what to see and not to see, what to think and not to think, on his own authority, about the Declaration of Pope Benedict.  He has attempted some childishly immature and false arguments from November 2018, when he entered into the fray of the debate.  And he has painted his position with redundant misrepresentations, lies and logical frauds ever since.

Now, however, he has proceeded to a new low, that of putting forth his own opinion as the historical narrative.

He makes this claim in his new essay, “Being Wrong: The Ontology of the BiP Argument”, published yesterday at his blog, Roma locuta est, by which he mans, “Steve has spoken, now shut up”!  BiP is a derogatory term for those who hold that Benedict Is the Pope.  It  is crafted to make such persons appear to be blips of ignorance.

His recent sui generis extravagance is this:

I do not believe I ever have heard Dr. Mazza or other BiP-ers adequately explain what Benedict meant when he wrote in the Declaratio he renounces the Petrine ministry ‘in such a way’ that the ‘See of Peter will be vacant.’

The author who crafts an argument from a faulty memory is truly a sophist of the highest quality, so I will only remark that objectively speaking, if Mr. O’Reilley has a perfect memory, then he is a public liar, since I explained the canonical and logical meaning of that statement adequate in my Disputed Question on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI  in December of 2018, some 2 years and 5 months ago – and which he has read in my replies to his ludicrous argumentations. In that question from Dec. 2018, I asked and responded to this problem, he now reposes, in Part II of that Question:

13. Because Pope Benedict said, “I declare that I renounce the ministry which I had received from the hands of the Cardinals, … so that the See of St. Peter be vacant on …”, he clearly indicated that his renunciation was to effect a loss of office (munus), therefore his resignation was in accord with Canon 332 §2, despite not explicitly using the word munus, as that Canon requires for validity. Therefore, the resignation was valid.

Ad obj. 13.: This objection was refuted in the arguments of the First Part, but its complexity deserves a fuller answer for those minds which cannot understand how it is invalid. First, as demonstrated in the First Part of this Disputed Question, a resignation is valid if it includes a resignation of munus; it is not valid if it does not. And according to Canon 17, if there is any doubt as to whether munus is included in canon 332 §2 as a sine non qua condition or according to its signification in a broader sense, one must have recourse to other parts of the Law, the canonical tradition, and to the mind of the Legislator (John Paul II) of the Code. As has been shown elsewhere, there is no basis for an argument from canon 17 that ministerium can mean munus. However, since ministerium is followed by 2 subordinate clauses, the argument that it is invalid, must respond to that condition. For in Latin, some subordinate clauses can alter the signification of the main clause. And it is true that there is a poetical form, in which part of a thing can substitute for the whole, as when at Mass in the Latin Rite we say, “Come under my roof” to mean “come into my soul”. However, as regards the Latin of the text of the renunciation, to say, “which I received from the hands of the Cardinals” imposes no necessity of reference to the Petrine Ministry per se, because Ratzinger also at that time received the Episcopal and Pastoral Ministry for the Diocese of Rome. The second clause, “so that the See of St Peter be vacant”, has been shown in Part I to necessitate no necessity. For those who do not understand Latin grammar, this needs to be explained. Because, in a subordinate clause such as “so that … be vacant”, the clause is a clause of purpose of the kind which begins with the particle “ut”, and thus is a pure clause of purpose which indicates only a goal. If the subordinate clause of purpose had begun with “in the kind of way which” (quomodo) or “in such a way as to” (in tali modo quod) it would have been a purpose clause of characteristic which has the power to alter the manner of signification in the main clause, and allow the use of metynomic signification, that is, when a part refers to the whole. Since Pope Benedict did not say anything of that kind, this way of reading the subordinate clause is not possible. Hence it remains invalid.  However, even if a metonymic signification was had, it remains invalid per canon 332 §2, since it would not be duly manifested. Because just as if one were to pronounce marriage vows by saying, “I take you to be my Viennese strudel” instead of saying “I take you to be my wife”, an interpretation would be necessary to be resorted to, to make the phrase signify taking a wife, so in an act of resignation a metonymic manner of signification renders the act invalid because it publicly does not duly manifest the intention.

And I expanded upon my response, further, writing:

14. In his act of resignation Pope Benedict XVI declared two things. The First regarding his resignation, the second regarding the convocation of a Conclave “that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is”. He would not have said this, if his intention was not to resign the office of the Papacy. Therefore, he did resign the office of the papacy.

Ad obj. 14.: This argument is a conflation of two arguments, one of which has previously been refuted, viz. that one which regards his intention, which was refuted in Ad obj. 2. Here I will respond to the other, that which regards the papal command to convene a Conclave.   That the Pope declared that a conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff forms the second independent clause of his verb, “I declare”. Thus, it is logically independent and bears no necessity in the alteration of the signification of the first clause, which regards the resignation.  Thus, if the resignation not be duly manifested in accord with Canon 332 §2, that the Pope declares a Conclave be called is a papal declaration which is totally vitiated by the substantial error in his first declaration. Thus canon 188 invalidates the execution of this command. This is especially true, because in the declaration of convocation he does not require the convocation to take place before or after he ceases to be pope, or on a specific date or even during his life time. To see this more clearly, recall the example from the arguments against the validity, wherein a hypothetical pope declares, “I renounce bananas so that on Feb. 28, at 8 PM, Roman Time, the see be vacant” and simply add, “and that a Conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff”.  As can be seen in this hypothetical, the second declaration does not make the first valid, it just continues the substantial error: a substantial error which also makes the Conclave of 2013 and all the acts of Bergoglio as pope invalid.

I suppose, however, that by “adequately” O’Reilly means, what he always means by his writings in defend of Bergoglio, namely, that “When I say you have no proof or adequate argument, I am setting up myself as the measure of truth and adequacy and hoping that you do not see that I am gaslighting you all along.”.

Indeed, O’Reilly consistently argues as if the English translation published by the Vatican is the true canonical document. And you can see that in how he renders the Latin “ut”.  I know that the State Department does not know Latin, because one of their staff employers purchased my Latin Course for their staff library, many years ago.

And that may be the truth, because as Mr. O’Reilly admits on the About page of his blog, he is a former intelligence officer. He does not say of which agency or nation, however.

I recently was informed by a reader, moreover, that the founders of LifeSite News, which consistently affirm the validity of the Renunciation, are former employees of a Canadian publication founded by a MI5 intelligence asset.  Like Michael Matt of The Remnant, who has gone silent, is a graduate of Christendom College which was founded by a CIA agent.  I hope the picture is becoming clear for you.

For public disclosure, I have  never worked for any intelligence agency.

A Canonical Justification for the Second Synod of Sutri

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

It has been reported that Cardinal Burke has recently remarked that canonists, seeking a solution to the current problem of a patently heretical pope or a dubious papal resignation, have found no canonical way forward in the present juridical system of the Church.

To this alleged assertion, I intend to response with this brief essay, as it becomes all the more clear to a majority of the faithful and bishops who have been paying attention, that Bergoglio was never canonically elected and Benedict never canonically resigned.

First of all, it must be said, that in truth no canonical solution is required, if by “solution” one means putting into practice a special juridical tribunal or making a special appeal to some particular body. This is because, the real and simple solution would be to PUBLICLY simply ask Pope Benedict XVI what he did and intended to do and accept that. — Or as Ann Barnhardt proposes, in the case of Benedict truly thinking by error that the papal dignity can be shared, to rebuke him for his error as St. Paul did St. Peter, and publicly call on him to recognize that — and, as I would add, to renounce the papacy wholly if he no longer wants to be the pope. (Though this must be after some decision is made regarding to the invalidly nominated Cardinals and Bishops, and the invalidly appointed members of the Roman Curia and Vatican government)

But if one means by a ‘canonical’ solution a special event or action to rid the Church of Bergoglio or put an end to the controversies on these matters, then there needs to be a canonical justification for such an action. And that is what I intend to expound, herein.

In the Middle Ages, when the Church was faced with apparently insolvable doubts about discipline, and in particular, about who was the real pope, She convened councils and synods. This is how the Church sought to end the Great Western Schism which began in 1378 when the college of cardinals claimed to have elected in separate conclaves two different men as the Pope. The general council of Constance (1414-1418) was called to end that conflict, and obtained the resignation of the two rivals, and paved the way for the election, by compromise and unanimity of all the real and alleged Cardinals, of Pope Martin V.

Before that at the Synod of Sutri in 1046, the clergy of Rome, to whom there pertained the right of electing the Roman Pontiff, were convened at the request of Henry III, King of Germany, to sort out which if any of the three claimants to the papacy: Silvester III, Benedict IX or Gregory VI were the pope.  That Synod deposed all three, and paved the way for the election of Pope Clement II on the vigil of Christmas of that year.

The Church has always accepted as canonical, valid and legitimate, the actions of both of these synods. And that establishes the precedent upon which an argument for a future synod, after the manner of that of Sutri in 1046 can be made.

The first problem, however, is that in the present Code of Canon Law, synods and councils are called and convoked by the Pope.  It expressly says in canon 344, that “A Synod of bishops is directly beneath the authority of the Roman Pontiff, to whom it belongs, n. 1, to convoke the synod, howsoever often it seems to be opportune, and to designate the place where its meetings are to be held”. Indeed, both at Constance and Sutri both or at least one of the rival claimants to the papacy convoked the meetings.

Since it is unlikely that Bergoglio would ever convene such a synod, and while it remains unlikely that Benedict would be allowed to publicly call for such a convocation, there remains to consider other arguments to justify such an assembly.

These can be classified into two categories: arguments from divine right or ex iure divino; arguments from necessity or by natural right.  Both categories have supreme authority, inasmuch as the divine and natural laws are both promulgated by God, the former in the Gospels and the latter in creation.

I will begin with a consideration of natural right, which is the weaker of the argument, inasmuch as it is more indirect.

The necessity of the Church requires that it have a government which is united. The existence of two popes makes that unity impossible.  Since the subjects of every society have the right to know the identity of their government, the Church has a corresponding duty to Her members to not delay to identify Her own earthly head in a public declaratory manner.

As for divine right, there are several arguments which could be advanced.  the first is that the highest law of the Church is the promotion of the salvation of souls. And since no one can be saved who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff, as Pope Boniface VIII magisterially taught in his bull, Unam Sanctam, it is a practical necessity of all the faithful to be subject to the true pope. And hence the Church is gravely obligated, in all her members, to put to rest such a doubt with an authoritative declaration.  This is the argument of natural right raised to the level of the supernatural.

The second argument from divine right is that the unity of the Church requires the unity of the clergy. And since there can be no unity unless the clergy recognize the same man as the Roman Pontiff, it is of divine right that the clergy have the right to know who is the true pope and thus of the Church to given them a public authoritative declaration of the fact.

The third argument from divine right is that the Bishops of the Church, inasmuch as they are successors of the Apostles, while they each have a duty towards their own flocks, nevertheless all share in the duty of being responsible for the government of the whole Church universally, and that in the case of an Apostolic See impeded by doubt about who is and who is not the real pope, they have the right to make a public declaration of the matter.

In fact, as regards this latter argument, many Synods were called by bishops locally, during past schisms which resulted from more than one claimant to the papacy.  In such cases, these Synods were called at the request of Kings and Princes, by under the authority of the primate of the Kingdom and other Archbishops of those territories. And indeed, in such cases, there were occasions in which the Synod of this kingdom rendered a decision differing or concordant with the decision of synod of another kingdom.  This happened often in the Great Western Schism (1378-1415).  Even during the schism under Bl. Urban II or the antipope Anacletus II, several councils were held in France to repeat the decision in favor of the true pope.  So that there be only one Synod rather than more is not even a necessity.

Now the strongest argument against calling such a council or synod is that it would never be legitimate canonically unless it be called by Pope Benedict XVI or by Bergoglio, depending upon which you think is the true pope.

But the stronger argument is this: Since every Bishop has the right and duty to remain in communion with the true pope.  This is implied formally in canon 392 §1, which says:

Since he is obliged to defend the unity of the Church universal, the Bishop (of each diocese) is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and hence to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

Thus, if a Bishop is obliged he has a right to act, and if he be bound to promote the common discipline, he is even more bound to uphold the terms of Canon 332 §2 on papal renunciations and canon 1364 regarding heretics, apostates and schismatics, even if they intrude upon the Apostolic See.

As for the convocation of such a Synod, this too is a duty of the Bishops in virtue of their specific obligation of communion with and visits to the Roman Pontiff (cf. canon 399) every 5 years, because a Synod held in the presence of the Pope is nothing more than a public audience of the Pope held in the presence of the bishops to hear from his own mouth his instructions and councils and explanations and to hear from their own mouths, their needs and questions.

Another avenue is the Provincial Council, which can be convened by the Metropolitan Archbishop (canon 442) when the majority of bishops in that ecclesiastical province agree (canon 440), and though this can only be done with the approval of the Apostolic See (cf. canon 339), it would be sufficient that one of the claimants to the papacy remain silent, to grant the tacit permission to convene the Synod. In a provincial council, the Metropolitan determines the place, procedures, questions, time of opening and can transfer, prorogue or dissolve the assembly of bishops (canon 442 §1 n. 3). In the case of there being no valid Metropolitan, this can be done by a  validly nominated suffragan Bishop elected by other valid suffragan bishops (canon 442 §2). Canons 443-446 specify how to conduct a Provincial Council.  And it is noteworthy to note, that the Synod of Sutri in 1046 was most likely a Provincial council.

Perhaps the most risky of all solutions, however, would be to await the death of one or the other claimants and allow the Cardinals who recognize Benedict XVI as the true Pope, to meet and make a public declaration for Pope Benedict (when Bergoglio passes away or resigns) or to proceed to elect his successor in a new conclave, depending on the case in question. Though I think that a public declaration by the Cardinals would still require a public confirmation by Pope Benedict XVI or a Synod).

+ + +

CREDITS: The Featured image is that of the doors of the Cathedral of Sutri. All rights reserved by FromRome.Info.

Il Libero: “A Book has put Ratzinger back on the Throne”

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

March 6, 2021: The Italian Daily, il Libero Quotidiano has published an  article by Andrea Cionci provocatively entitled, “Un libro rimette Ratzinger sul soglio” (A Book has put Ratzinger back on the Throne). — Above is the image of the actual article. — Below follows the Italian and ENGLISH translation.

The article features the juridial study of Attorney Estefania Acosta Ochoa, an legal expert from Colombia, South America, which was published by Amazon Books in English, Portuguese and Spanish last week, and which is causing a global sensation among the sacred hierarchy. FromRome.Info featured the book in two previous articles. (here & here)

It represents an important work necessary for the International Inquest into Corruption at the Vatican, which was issued 366 days before the publication of Acosta’s Book. The Inquest calls for an extraordinary Synod to hear the facts, depose the antipope Bergoglio, and restore Pope Benedict XVI to the Apostolic Throne.

The article by Andrea Cionci, in the Libro, this morning here in Italy, marks the first time, according to my knowledge, that a major Italian newspaper dares to express that Benedict XVI is still the pope according to the juridical facts and laws.

As such, it is a decisve shot across the bow of the ecclesiastical establishment which in the eyes of a large portion of the faithful world wide has UTTERLY discredited themselves, and the institution of the priesthood, over their malicious insistence to simply ignore the facts and laws, while proclaiming Bergoglio undoubtedly the pope.

ITALIAN ORIGINAL –  Reprinted with permission

Il primo testo giuridico: Benedetto XVI invalidò le dimissioni.
Il papa è lui.

“Il papa è solo lui, non Francesco”: la ricostruzione dello stratagemma

by Andrea Cionci

E’ appena uscito il primo testo giuridico che conferma: il papa è uno solo, Benedetto XVI, in quanto la Declaratio di dimissioni è stata da lui costruita in modo giuridicamente invalido.

L’avvocatessa colombiana Estefania Acosta, autrice di “Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?“ spiega come la Declaratio sia stata preparata con cura da Ratzinger in modo che, sulle prime, non si notasse che non si stava affatto dimettendo. Gli errori di latino avrebbero poi attirato l’attenzione anche sul meccanismo giuridico auto-invalidante.

Non essendo giuristi dobbiamo rimanere ai dati di cronaca oggettivi, come gli ambigui comportamenti di Benedetto stigmatizzati dal card. Pell: egli veste ancora di bianco (giustificandosi col dire che “non ha più talari nere nell’armadio”), risiede in Vaticano, mantiene il nome, la benedizione apostolica e, da otto anni, ripete – sibillino – che “il papa è uno solo”, senza mai specificare quale.

Ci hanno provato a farglielo dire, nel 2019, quando Vatican News titolò: “Per Benedetto il papa è uno, Francesco”, citando (un giorno prima) un’intervista di Massimo Franco sul Corriere. Ma il virgolettato era di Franco, non di Benedetto. Una svista?

La Acosta, nelle sue 300 pagine, analizza anche altre questioni, come le dichiarazioni del cardinale Danneels, primate del Belgio e membro della “Mafia di San Gallo” che, nell’autobiografia andata a ruba e mai smentita dal Vaticano, dichiarava che la stessa lobby di cardinali modernisti mirava a far dimettere Ratzinger avendo come campione Bergoglio. Roba da scomunica automatica, secondo la costituzione Universi Dominici Gregis promanata da Wojtyla nel ’96.

Ma per la Acosta, dirimente è solo la Declaratio: «Attenzione, le dimissioni non sono invalide perché Benedetto è stato “forzato”: egli ha agito consapevolmente, sapeva che non si stava dimettendo dall’ESSERE il Papa (cedendo il munus petrino), ma semplicemente dichiarava di rinunciare al FARE il papa (il ministerium), a svolgerne – solo alcune – azioni pratiche. Ciò invalida le sue dimissioni, poiché munus e ministerium, per il papa, sono INDIVISIBILI, come conferma (pur in difesa di Bergoglio)  il canonista Mons. Sciacca. Si spiega così l’ultima battuta di Ratzinger al Corriere: “Otto anni fa ho compiuto la mia scelta in piena consapevolezza e ho la coscienza a posto”. Il mainstream non ha capito».

Altro fatto strano: perché nelle versioni della Declaratio dal latino in italiano e altre lingue il Vaticano ha tradotto il munus sempre come ministerium? Perché essi sono indivisibili, o per celare la “trappola” di Benedetto? A “guadagnarci”, in entrambi i casi, è il Benedetto-stratega.

Ancora più strano come la gravissima questione venga evitata in modo surreale non solo dai vescovi, ma anche dai media laici. Eppure, l’hanno già denunciata giornalisti, teologi, latinisti.  Ora c’è finalmente un testo giuridico: si apra il dibattito.

Indifferenze, attacchi personali e accuse di complottismo, in reazione, avvalorerebbero la tesi per cui Benedetto, nel 2013, isolato e impotente, seguì tale strategia per lasciare che la “deep Church”, al servizio del mondialismo, si svelasse. “Ambiguo per non mentire”, avrebbe così mantenuto quanto da lui scritto nella Declaratio, anche se essa è giuridicamente invalida. Del resto, sotto attacco dall’interno, cosa avrebbe potuto fare per difendere la Chiesa? Solo usare la Logica e il Diritto canonico,  attendendo che i vescovi, “vedendo davvero” la Declaratio, uno ad uno, dicano semplicemente la verità: che l’unico papa è Benedetto. Il resto verrebbe da sé.


The first legal text: Benedict XVI invalidated the resignation. The pope is him.

“The pope is only him, not Francis”: the reconstruction of the stratagem

The first legal text confirming: the pope is only one, Benedict XVI, has just come out, as the Declaratio of resignation was constructed by him in a legally invalid way.

Colombian lawyer Estefania Acosta, author of “Benedict XVI: pope emeritus?” explains how the Declaratio was carefully prepared by Ratzinger so that, at first, it was not noticed that he was not resigning at all. The Latin errors would then also draw attention to the self-invalidating legal mechanism.

Not being jurists, we have to stick to objective facts, such as the ambiguous behavior of Benedict stigmatized by Card. Pell: he still wears white (justifying himself by saying that “he has no more black cassocks in his closet”), he resides in the Vatican, he keeps his name, the apostolic blessing and, for eight years, he repeats – sibylline – that “the pope is only one”, without ever specifying which one.

They tried to get him to say it, in 2019, when Vatican News titled, “For Benedict the pope is one, Francis,” quoting (a day earlier) an interview by Massimo Franco in the Corriere. But the quotation mark was Franco’s, not Benedict’s. An oversight?

Acosta, in its 300 pages, also analyzes other issues, such as the statements made by Cardinal Danneels, primate of Belgium and member of the “Mafia of St. Gallen”, who, in his autobiography, never denied by the Vatican, stated that the same lobby of modernist cardinals aimed to make Ratzinger resign, having Bergoglio as a champion. Stuff from automatic excommunication, according to the constitution Universi Dominici Gregis emanated by Wojtyla in ’96.

But for Acosta, what is decisive is only the Declaratio: “Attention, the resignation is not invalid because Benedict was “forced”: he acted consciously, he knew that he was not resigning from BEING the Pope (ceding the Petrine munus), but was simply declaring that he was renouncing to DO the Pope (the ministerium), to carry out – only some – practical actions. This invalidates his resignation, since munus and ministerium, for the pope, are INDIVISIBLE, as confirmed (though in Bergoglio’s defense) by canonist Monsignor Sciacca. This explains Ratzinger’s last remark to Corriere: “Eight years ago I made my choice in full awareness and I have a clear conscience. The mainstream has not understood”.

Another strange fact: why in the versions of the Declaratio from Latin into Italian and other languages did the Vatican always translate munus as ministerium? Because they are indivisible, or to conceal Benedict’s “trap”? To “gain”, in both cases, is the Benedict-strategist.

Even stranger is how the very serious issue is surreally avoided not only by the bishops, but also by the lay media. Yet, journalists, theologians, Latinists have already denounced it. Now there is finally a juridical text: open the debate.

Indifference, personal attacks and accusations of conspiracy, in reaction, would corroborate the thesis that Benedict, in 2013, isolated and powerless, followed such a strategy to let the “deep Church”, at the service of globalism, unveil itself. “Ambiguous in order not to lie,” he would thus have maintained what he wrote in the Declaratio, even though it is legally invalid. Moreover, under attack from within, what could he have done to defend the Church? Only use Logic and Canon Law, waiting for the bishops, “really seeing” the Declaratio, one by one, to simply tell the truth: that the only pope is Benedict. The rest would come by itself.

Andrea Cionci

Was it Substantial Error, or Divine Inspiration?


by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

A frequent question that I receive is that which regards why Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministry which was committed to me through the hands of the Cardinals and not the petrine ministry which he received when he accepted his election as Roman Pontiff.

The First to Answer is Ann Barnhardt

The first to answer this question substantially, was Ann Barnhardt. And she did that in June of 2016, way before anyone else. Her explanation is that Pope Benedict XVI made a substantial error. His declaration, therefore, does not effect the loss of the papal office because this error of naming the wrong thing in the act of renunciation causes the act to be irritus – Ann, however,  nearly always says, “invalid” for simplicity sake — in virtue of Canon 188, which means that it has no legal effect.

Her analysis and argument was the first to break through the Big Lie of our age. And it has rescued countless minds from the lies and propaganda of the Bergoglian party. It was the first convincing argument I ever heard. I watched it in one of her videos in August of 2018 and in October of 2018 I actually made the time to look at the Latin of the Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013 and the Latin of the Code of Canon Law, canon 332 §2, two things I had never done. I saw she was 100% correct in about 5 seconds.

That is all it should take for anyone to see that she is correct. Because the act of the intellect which is needed to see it is the first act of the mind: that ability — given to us by the Most Holy Trinity who creates our soul out of nothing in the moment of our conception — to recognize the essence of any thing for what it is before comparing it to anything else.

And there is only 3 ways to not be able to exercise that ability. The First is that your are mentally impaired or retarded. The Second is that, in this case, you cannot read.  And the third case is that you allow your will to prevent you from thinking, either by bad will or because you allow yourself to be seduced by an unsubstantiated doubt, gratuitously asserted.

Those who have the first problem are not guilty. Those who have the second problem should study if they can. And those who have the third problem will be damned, because in matter so grave as who is the true Pope, the forcible intervention of will to prevent the mind from seeing what God gave it the ability to see, is a direct attack on the Divine Will for you, and thus a mortal sin.

As regards a substantial error, it can be caused by any number of causes. But that is another thing all together. Regardless of what was the cause, the substantial error is objective. No amout of ink, argument or bluster, no amount of insults or villainy can change the historical fact that Benedict renounced the ministerium, but Canon 332 §2 requires the renunciation of munus.

The Second Answer is Divine Inspiration

I was not the second to give answer, nor was I the first to suggest divine inspiration. Archbishop Gänswein himself said that Pope Benedict XVI was inspired by God to do what he did. I think in the book length interview with Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict XVI confirms this.

But what many do not realize, there are at lest 19 kinds of Divine Inspiration, and not all of them have the same effects. I know this because many years ago, when I was in a library with some ancient manuscripts, I read Saint Bernardine of Sienna’s tract on divine inspiration written in the 15th century, in Latin.

I will not summarize the 19 kinds, but I will simplify the classifications.  There is Divine Inspiration which is perfectly efficacious and is the cause of the whole act. There is Divine Inspiration which is efficacious but requires collaboration in the act by the fallible recipient of the inspiration, and then there is Divine Inspiration which is only motive and puts all the burden of work in the one inspired, infallible as he is.

So, even if it be true that Pope Benedict XVI was divinely inspired to renounce, that does not mean that what he did was Divinely Inspired in every aspect of it.

I have no reason to think Pope Benedict XVI is a liar and thus accept what he says about being inspired by God. And in several articles, here at FromRome.Info I have speculated that he acted to defend the Church from Freemasonry. In this I presume not to judge the Pope, as the Rule of Saint Francis requires me. I also presume that he did not sin in the least.  And in this I am merely obeying charity, which thinketh no evil of any man.

Third Answer is Both

The third possibility is that he was both inspired by God and made a substantial error. And that this happened because God gave him the inspiration to resign, but not the grace to do it perfectly. And that God did this because God wanted to protect the Church from Freemasonry, but did not want Pope Benedict XVI to be guilty of making a fake resignation or of being accused of deceiving anyone.

If such was the case, God also acted perfectly. Because He owes no man grace to be perfect and impeccable in what he does, not even the Roman Pontiff.

In this case, too, it may be that God blinded the minds of the Cardinals and Bishops to not see the substantial error in the act of renunciation because He was completely disgusted with them and wants to cut them off from His Church, or at least to so humiliate them before men as to produce from them a wholesome repentance and conversion which would not be achieved through any other means.

In this third supposition, Pope Benedict XVI may have sinned through pride, imprudence, haste, fear or avarice, depending whether the substantial error was conceived and executed out of vanity, neglect of seeking sound counsel, fear to avoid being assassinated or desire to have something after resigning that he had no right to have.


As can be seen, the First Answer addresses the objective facts and presumes personal fault or error and excludes divine inspiration. The second presumed divine inspiration and excludes personal fault or error. But the third and last presumes in part divine inspiration but in part some personal fault.

Yes, as Pope Innocent II teaches, we cannot judge the Roman Pontiff except when he errs in matters of the faith. And thus, we must say that it was a substantial error and affirm that it is an error to hold that the papacy can be divided. But as the Church has not definitively taught this truth — though it be clear in the Deposit of the Faith — holding this error does not cause you to be a heretic canonically. And acting on the basis of this error is not the same thing as professing the error, because, as I said, the error can arise out of passion and not dissent of mind.

But whatever was the reason answer, (1) we are all obliged to pray for Pope Benedict XVI and (2) urge that the right canonical order be restored in the Church: that he be recognized as the one and only true Pope, that it be affirmed that Bergoglio was  never the pope, and that Bergoglio be publicly reproved for teaching heresy and promoting schism, if not also for usurping the papal office (on the supposition he does know the resignation is invalid).

Both things need to be done: here at FromRome.Info we are not heroes or better than anyone else in the Church, nor even experts. We just advocate that which the Faith teaches all of us should advocate in such a crisis.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]