Category Archives: Canon Law

How to Canonically solve the problem of 2 Popes

REPRINT OF SEPT. 30, 2021 A. D.

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 un-canonical 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 murderer when apprehended 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 separated 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 Mirteto.

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 diocese 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 anti-pope 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 Anti-pope.

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.

 

Saint Vincent Ferrer, patron for those seeking the true Pope

REPRINT FROM JAN. 21, 2020

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The present Crisis in the Church, of having two popes, is not new in the Church. There have been more than a dozen such instances in Church history.

While nearly all of them included rivals which were supported by diverse factions of notable size (perhaps that of Benedict IX was not the case in 1046), yet they gave occasion for God to show us the way out of such crises by the example given to us by His Saints during those crises of ages past.

One such saint is Saint Vincent Ferrer. I have to admit, that of all the Saints of the Order of Preachers, he is my favorite, because he is such a stunning example of holiness and was so determined in the teaching of what it means to be holy.

Most Catholics, however, have no idea who he was. So let me tell you something about his life, and then show you how his example should be imitated by all Catholics right now.

saint-vincent-ferrer-01.2

So remarkable, many have thought he was a legend

Saint Vincent was born 670 years ago, on January 23, in the height of the Black Death.

The Catholic world was shaken to its core: millions were dying each month. It is estimated that more 100 million died in the entire world, and perhaps as much as 30 million in Europe alone, from the onset of the Plague in 1347 to 1351. It was a virulent strain of the Bubonic plague, which had spread from infected rats in the Gobi Desert to Caravans carrying rare goods to the Genoese trading port on the Black Sea, Kaffa, and thence by Genoese ships to Sicily and Western Europe.

The demographic, sociologic, psychological and economic effects were profound. So many bodies were piling up that people fled their villages, local priests fled their parishes in fear of dying. People took refuge in the wilderness and avoided contact with anyone with a cough. The strain was so virulent that those exposed in the morning were dead before midnight. It was spread by flees on rats but then became pneumonic, that is spread through the air by coughing. It is called the Black Death, because the lymph glands of the body would swell and then turn black, with death ensuing rapidly.

Catholics universally thought it was the end of the world, a fulfillment of the Apocalypse, which spoke of the fallen star Wormwood turning the waters of a third of the world poison. As there was no medical art which could precisely understand the causes, panic spread everywhere. The pope of the time survived only by sequestering himself in his palace at Avignon and having a huge fire set in his private chamber’s fireplace which was kept burning without stop for many months.

Into this horror, was born a Saint through which God would call most of Western Europe back from despair and apostasy, Saint Vincent Ferrer. At an early age he dedicated himself to Jesus Christ, and became a son of Saint Dominic.

Saint Vincent, being an devote practitioner of the ascetical life, quickly passed every spiritual test and was endowed by the Lord with extraordinary gifts of prophesy, foreknowledge, conversion, and miracle working.

On one occasion, being in a port which was suffering famine and starvation, he preached to the people to remain calm and that the Lord would send them ships filled with grain the next day. Sure enough, the next day a fleet loaded with food arrived.

But his fame began with a deadly fever which he contracted at Avignon, while the service of the anti Pope. You see, St. Vincent was a follower of Cardinal Pedro de Luna, who was one of the Cardinals who pledged obedience to the pope at Avignon, even though the Cardinal knew that he was an antipope and lied to Saint Vincent. But I will get to that, later.

It was at Avignon, while the forces of the Charles VI besieged the City to capture the antipope — the King of France was intelligent enough to investigate the controversy between the rival claimants to the papacy, and switch his allegiance back to the Pope at Rome — that Saint Vincent nearly died. But in the midst of his mortal fever, Our Lord appeared to him, along with Saints Dominic and Francis of Assisi, and commissioned him to be the 4th Angel of the Apocalypse: to preach penance everywhere, telling men that if they did not repent God would come and destroy the world. This was in September of 1398 A.D.. A year later, convinced of his divine mission, the Antipope appointed the Saint Missionary a lateri Christi, that is, sent from Christ Himself. The Saint spent the next 20 years in a most extraordinary apostolate which single-handedly saved Christianity in Europe.

He preached from Northern France to Italy and back to Spain. Upon seeing Bernardine of Sienna in Italy, he prophesied that Bernardine would convert Italy back to the faith. The crowds came to hear Saint Vincent were so great he could not preach in Churches, but had to use Piazzas and open fields. And his mission was signed by extraordinary miracles the likes of which have never again been seen in Christendom.

When he preached, his voice has a miraculous power to be heard at great distances. Those who could not enter the towns where he preached, would climb bell towers in near by villages and hear his voice distinctly at the distance of two to three miles!

One day he led the crowds listening to him to storm a Synagogue and immediately began preaching in Hebrew to the Jews. He was so convincing in their own tongue and from their own version of scripture, that he converted the entire congregation to the Catholic Faith and they immediately consecrated the place a Catholic Church!

On another occasion, he led the crowds from the Piazza in which he was preaching, to the Castle above the town, saying that great sin must be stopped. He broke through the gates of the Castle and found the noblemen in the most evil debauchery. He cursed them for their sin and everyone of them turned to stone!  A thing witnessed by all the officials of the town to the amazement and terror of everyone. Upon hearing the pleas of the relatives, he commanded that the afflicted return to life, heard their confessions and after giving them his blessing they all dropped dead, but this time, went to eternal life.

His preaching of penance was so persuasive that huge crowds of penitents followed him everywhere, beating themselves with chains and hooks and nails to blood. The sight of these flagellants arriving was the signal that St. Vincent was on his way and this news would empty the fields and villages of the area, for all wanted to hear him preach. In whatever language they could understand, his voice was miraculously heard, even though he always spoke in his own dialect or in Latin.

He is known to have raised from the dead at least 7 persons. On one occasion, in a most extraordinary way. To a fellow Dominican who did not believe his claims to be sent by Christ to preach, he said: Do you doubt that I am one the Angels of the Apocalypse? Bring a dead man here, one who has been dead 4 days and whose body is rotting, and I will prove that I am telling the truth. Whereupon, he commanded the decaying corpse to arise and give testimony. And the man came back to life and his body was instantly restored to perfect health!

I could go on and on about the wonders and virtues of Saint Vincent. But I recommend you find a biography about him and read it. It will change your life and make you want to abandon all and become a devout religious. A thing the Church really needs in great quantity now.

The major relics of Saint Vincent Ferrer, in the Church at Vannes, France, where he died.

The Great Schism

Despite all the graces and gifts which Saint Vincent had, and despite the great wisdom and learning he possessed from years of studying — for example he memorized the entire Latin version of the Bible and spoke 5 languages: Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French and Langue d’óc  — CHRIST WITHHELD from the Saint graces to see who was and who was not the true pope. Our Lord did this, in my opinion, to give us as lesson for our own time.

The Saint was a close friend to Cardinal Pedro de Luna, who was a supporter of the Antipope.  The Schism began in 1378, when the previous pope, having been persuaded by Saint Catherine of Sienna to return to Rome, died. And the new Pope Urban VI was elected at Rome. The French Cardinals did not accept the election and immediately elected Clement VII. Cardinal Pedro knew his election was uncanonical, but concealed the facts from Saint Vincent for 38 years! In 1394, Cardinal Pedro was elected to succeed the antipope, and took the name Benedict XIII.

Saint Vincent was so deceived by Cardinal Pedro that he preached to convince the people of the Kingdom of Aragon to give allegiance to the Antipope of Avignon and to break from Rome! So troublesome was this schism to the soul of Saint Vincent that he said to others that it frequently made him ill.

The Great Western Schism had begun on a dispute where the wrong side was making claims on the basis of their allegations of being forced to vote. This kind of claim was really impossible to prove, it rested solely on the testimony of the alleged victims. No one disputed that the antipope was elected second. No one disputed the laws which govern the election.

But though he was a convinced supporter of the antipope of Avignon, Saint Vincent, nevertheless, loved the Church more than his personal friend, the Cardinal, and thus he urged Councils to end the Schism. And here is where his virtue is a lesson for us.

Because in Council of Perpignan, in the Kingdom of Aragon, in January 6, 1416, when the evidence was presented to Saint Vincent by the King of Aragon that Benedict XIII’s claim was not well founded, Benedict’s supporters could give no response and defend his claim against the charges. Saint Vincent had come to the Council a supporter of Benedict. He even preached in his defense. But when no evidence could be brought to defend the claim of the man whom he thought was the pope, St. Vincent immediately switched allegiance, for he recognized, being a master of Logic — a text book on which he had written — that when one side refuses to answer or has no argument, it means that they have no valid claim at all for their position.

In shame and penance for his having supported for so many years the wrong man, he went to France and spent the rest of his life in exile from his native land.

The “Renunciation” of Pope Benedict

The Great Western Schism began when the Cardinals elected Pope Urban VI and immediately upon his enthronement, seeing that he would curb their power, left the city, declared that they had been forced to vote for him, and elected instead Robert of Savoy as Clement VII.

We are in an analogous situation today. The Cardinals, not wanting to endure Pope Benedict XVI any longer, claimed on Feb. 11, 2013 that he had renounced the papacy. But in truth he had only announced his retirement from active ministry. They published false news to the world and through their personal contacts have suborned the entire Episcopate and Catholic Media to believe this lie. That is why they remain silent. They are the criminals of this Great Modern Schism.

Pope Benedict XVI for his part has been ignored and effectively locked up at the Vatican. But the truth of what he did on Feb. 11, 2013 has become known and now all Christendom can do what Saint Vincent did: ask the side which thinks Bergoglio is the pope for their explanation. Ann Barnhardt and hundreds of other Catholics have been doing this: she for four years, nearly, and others longer or less. But still there is no canonical explanation from the other side.

I think you can see how easy the choice is, who the real pope is. Do what Vincent did!

The Great Schism in its causes also sheds light on the principles of how to discern who today is the true pope and who is not.  As a legal case the solution of the disputed election of 1378 was a simple one: possession is 9 tenths of the law, that is, the first man elected is always presumed be the legitimate claimant, the second one elected has to prove that the laws were violated in the first election, not just claim that they were. This is especially true with those Cardinals who voted for the first claimant. Their votes are explicit consent to the validity and legality of that act. — Today, the same principal applies: Benedict must be presumed to remain the true pope, until there is a proof in canonical form that his renunciation — not anything he said before or after, or anything he did before or after — is conformable with the terms of Canon 332 §2. No proof has ever been given! So those who sustain Bergoglio is the pope, have no case!

Saint Vincent for all his supernatural gifts, erred for many years, because he put his trust in his favorite Cardinal, who was lying to him. And he never bothered to examine the case calmly according to the principles of the law. — He was not a canon lawyer, and so that failing is understandable in a man who was so humble as to never think evil of others. But it nevertheless was such a grave error in law, that God Himself did not give him the grace to see it by supernatural means. The truth came to him by the testimony of fellow men.

In November, I asked Cardinal Burke through Canon Lenhart for an audience to discuss the Renunciation. In December, I returned and asked again and was promised one in January. January has come and is now ended. Still no audience or response to my Scholastic Question, containing 39 arguments which conclude that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope.

In November, I shared that same Question with 700 members of the Clergy of the Diocese of Rome. But I got no canonical argument in response to refute it. In December I distributed 500 copies of the same to the students of theology and canon law in the City, at Pontifical Universities. I got no response in reply.

I say this to give you a personal testimony. I think you should now understand what it means. St. Vincent shows us the way.

POSTSCRIPT: Saint Vincent died at Vannes, France on April 5, 1419. He was canonized by Pope Calixtus III in 1455. He is buried in the Cathedral of Vannes, but you can find relics of his right arm at his Church in New York City, or in the parish Church at Castle Umberto, in the province of Messina, Sicily, where I stop by every time I am in town, to venerate them.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image and Image of Saint Vincent is by Giovanni Bellini and is conserved at Venice. It is in the public domain as a work of art older than 200 years.

CIONCI: All your questions answered, why Benedict XVI is still the Pope

by Andrea Cionci

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL ITALIAN TEXT (Here)

According to the Church, Our Lady of Fatima asked the pope only one thing: the consecration of Russia, one hundred years ago. On March 25, Bergoglio, on the other hand, celebrated an ” inclusive ” consecration which, within a few days, was announced would also involve Ukraine, humanity, the Church, “ourselves”, with a formula full of oddities: the “Mystery of iniquity” of Saint Paul transferred from apostasy to war; the suspicious insistence on ” brotherhood “; unusual Marian attributes such as the vaguely Pachamamic “land of heaven” (used by the neo-Arian Enzo Bianchi), and the reference to the esoteric cult of the ” Knot-looser “. HERE the details.

Moreover, at the same time, Konrad Krajewsky, his almsgiver, celebrated the Consecration at Fatima . As we found out by questioning the electricity company, this same man never paid , as he had promised, the 300,000 euro bill of the occupied Roman building to which he had illegally reconnected the power, three years ago, up to now maintaining a situation of dangerous illegality HERE .

It is not surprising that Benedict XVI, “joining the call” (and not the intention) of Bergoglio, chose not to participate directly in any of this, rather praying on his own (and we do not know in what terms).

Only the events of the last week would be enough to understand who the pope is and who is not, intuitively confirming the irrefutable results of the investigation we have been conducting since 2020 and which is spreading all over the world. You will find it rearranged at the bottom of this article HERE .

It is a shocking story , we are aware of it, of not immediate understanding, at first, also because the true Holy Father Benedict XVI cannot speak explicitly , for two reasons: 1) he is in impeded, a canonical situation where the pope is confined / Prisoner. 2) He speaks with a subtly logical language like Jesus, to ensure that only “those who have ears understand” and to “separate believers from non-believers”, as he himself admitted to Herder Korrespondenz.

However, the veiled language of Pope Ratzinger describes a objective canonical reality : no conspiracy. Moreover, we would have no interest in affirming things of such gravity for the masochistic taste of self-discrediting. Instead, there are two extremely important reasons why it is worth discussing:

1st reason, for the laity : if the so-called strong globalist powers and international freemasonry have succeeded in driving out the true pope from the “impregnable citadel” of the Catholic Church, imagine the situation in the world of secular politics , with all the risks for citizens and for our country.

2nd reason, for believers . Do you think the Lord can be happy that his Vicar has been overthrown? Believe that God can adapt to the plots and sin of men without sending them some “proof” to find their way? And here, several harsh “trials” have been pouring out for years, it seems.

So, below, you will find a series of quick answers, on the well-known and effective ” yes yes / no no” model , to easily clarify the Magna Quaestio , with all the links to the necessary insights.

CATECHISM ON THE DUAL PAPACY

Does the code of canon law require that the pope, in order to abdicate, must renounce the Petrine MUNUS (papal title of divine origin)? YES, in article 332.2 of the Code of Canon Law. And the renunciation must be simultaneous, as is the election.

Did Benedict XVI renounce the munus on 11 February 2013? NO . He has renounced the ministerium , the practical exercise of power, deferred and not ratified after the deadline. So, just de facto nor legally.

But aren’t munus and ministerium interchangeable? NO. By renouncing the munus , the ministerium also lapses , because there is abdication, but if the ministerium is renounced, the munus does not lapse . HERE .

If there was no abdication, does another canonical situation arise? YES , the impeded see (canon 412) where the pope does not exercise his practical power because he is impeded, a prisoner, confined and not free to express himself.

But is the pope impeded still the pope? YES . So Benedict is today the only existing pope and vicar of Christ, as he himself admits HERE .

But the 2013 conclave elected Francis? NO . It did not elect anyone: the conclave was null because it can only be convened with the previous pope who died or abdicated and neither of the two pre-existing indispensable conditions existed. HERE

It was card. Ratzinger to introduce the munus / ministerium dichotomy in canon law? YES . In 1983, he was the right hand of John Paul II. The system fully follows the anti-usurpation system of the Austro-German dynastic law, which Ratzinger could not fail to know. HERE

But does the fact that all the cardinals have accepted Francis’ election make this valid? NO. The doctrine of Universalis ecclesiae adhaesio could heal some imperfections in a legitimate conclave, but NEVER heal an illegitimate conclave, summoned by a not-yet-dead and non-abdicated pope. The cardinals did not realize that Benedict entered the seat impeded, because this cannot be explicitly declared: it is just there.

So there can’t be two valid popes? NO . So much so that Benedict himself has been repeating for 9 years that the pope IS only one without ever explaining which one. HERE

But does the “extended ministry” we speak of exist for canon law? NO. It does not exist juridically, it exists only in fact, but it is a “theological place”, a sort of ministry between a legitimate pope and an illegitimate pope, where a sacrifice is made, as it was for Christ with Judas.

And does a papal emeritus exist from the canonical point of view? NO , so much so that Bergoglio, last year, charged the canonists to find a jurisprudence for this non-existent institution. HERE

So does “pope emeritus” have another meaning? YES’. From the Latin verb emereus , “he who deserves, who has the right” to be pope. It is the name used to distinguish the true pope in the extended ministry between the legitimate pope and the illegitimate pope. HERE

So is the pope emeritus the Supreme Pontiff? YES’. The Vatican Secretariat of State also writes it verbatim HERE . But even the canonists who contested this “novelty” of Pope Benedict understood it as a juridical institution had already grasped it, “by exclusion”.

Is this why Benedict wears white and keeps the pontifical name? YES’. And he continues, as a few days ago HERE , to impart his apostolic blessing (exclusive of the reigning pope) and to live in the Vatican. He has removed two trappings – the sash and the cape – from the pope’s habit to signify his impediment, his “impairment”. HERE

So did Pope Benedict formally imprison himself to defend the Church and the faith? YES’. As admitted by card. Danneels in 2015, the Mafia of St. Gallen, a lobby of modernist cardinals enemies to him, wanted to make him abdicate and, as described by Paolo Flores d’Arcais in 2010, he was against all the globalist powers of the world. So he had to be out of the way. HERE and HERE

But Benedict said from Castel Gandolfo, on Feb. 28, 2013: “I will no longer be Supreme Pontiff”. NO . He said that he would no longer be the “pontiff supreme”, that is, he would no longer be “the pontiff in the highest position” since there would be another more in sight than him (and illegitimate). Moreover, one can remain popes even without being supreme pontiffs, since the title appeared only in the fifth century. HERE

Yet Benedict admitted that he freely renounced his ministry? YES: but his “ministry- ministerium “, not his “ministero- munus ” since munus and ministerium are translated into Italian with the same word “ministry”. They wanted to make him abdicate, but he, really, freely chose … to enter the seat prevented.

But Benedict swore obedience to Francis? NO . In 2016 he wrote in Last Conversations answering a question about how he could swear obedience: “The pope is the pope, no matter who he is.” So he never swore obedience to Bergoglio. He said on February 28, 2013 that among the true cardinals who listened to him there would be the future pope, and he was right … But he is still waiting for him. HERE

As for real cardinals? So those named by Bergoglio are not valid? YES. The 70 cardinals appointed by the antipope are not valid and if we go to a future spurious conclave, together with those of legitimate appointment, pre-2013, they will elect another antipope, perhaps the John XXIV he speaks of (it is not known in what capacity ) Bergoglio and who, not surprisingly, also takes the name of the antipope John XXIII, Baldassarre Cossa. HERE

Did Benedict say this on other occasions? YES’. In the same Declaratio , Benedict specifies that the next pope must be elected “by those to whom he belongs.”

But in the Declaratio he wrote that he was leaving the “seat vacant”? NO . The Latin verb vacet literally translates as “free, empty, vacant seat” and, juridically, the renunciation of the ministerium does not produce a vacant seat. In fact, the pope took the helicopter and left the seat cleared, at the disposal of the usurpers. HERE

Will the situation be resolved with Bergoglio’s departure? NO . It is essential that either Benedict be restored to the throne (if alive), perhaps with a pseudo-re-election, or that the next conclave be pure, that is, composed only of pre-2013 cardinals or validated by Pope Benedict. HERE

Yet Benedict, in “Latest Conversations” (2016), seems to appreciate Francesco? NO . He made only neutral observations on some human characteristics of Bergoglio, such as his decisive character, his capacity to please the mass and his attention to consensus. No uniquely positive appreciation of man, zero comments on the alleged pope’s doctrine, holiness or ability to govern.

So when Benedict embraces Bergoglio is it all a scene? NO . Pope Benedict is sincere: like Jesus, he “loves his enemy”, that is, the illegitimate pope, which is very different from being his friend or recognizing him as a legitimate pope. Christ let himself be kissed by Judas: was it perhaps a scene? HERE

Has the Vatican ever denied your investigation? NO . Less than ever since March 2021, when the lawyer Estefania Acosta published her legal volume which denied the validity of the Declaratio as a waiver. HERE

And has Pope Benedict ever denied that your interpretation is true? NO. Not even when he honored us with a letter from him. If he were a former pope he certainly should have. Indeed, he gave us the only answer that he could give from the impeded see: “even with every good intent, it is not really possible to receive you”, accompanying the letter with his coat of arms as reigning pope. HERE

So does Benedict use some kind of veiled language? YES’. We have called it, for convenience, the “Ratzinger Code” and it has been analyzed and certified by various scholars, linguists, jurists, psychologists, writers, historians, Latinists. HERE

But Is this not a language only for specialists, canonists, theologians…? NO . Many messages from him are within everyone’s reach, some are understandable even by an eight-year-old child, like when he repeats that the pope is one without ever saying which one. Others are so direct (the “0 km messages”, as we have called them) that there is no need to interpret them. HERE

Are others messages more complex? YES. Like the “red mozzetta puzzle”, HERE or the key reference to medieval Pope Benedict VIII HERE . Some study is needed, but the meaning is clear and unequivocal.

But can’t Benedict speak more clearly? NO. He is in an impeded seat, a situation in which he is not free to express himself, so he uses the same language of Jesus to make understand only to those who “have ears to hear”. HERE

Do you therefore want Catholics to make a sort of selection among Catholics? YES’. In this way he intends to “separate believers from non-believers”, as he declared to Herder Korrespondenz this summer.

But Benedict sometimes calls Bergoglio “Pope Francis”? YES’. But he never says he’s the pope. Moreover, there is also Pope Theodore II who is not Catholic but Coptic Orthodox. He calls him that because Bergoglio IS the pope, exercises power, which has nothing to do with his legitimacy, his BEING pope. He is the illegitimate pope of the extended ministry.

So is Bergoglio an antipope? YES , of course. Because the previous pope is alive and not abdicated, therefore he abusively exercises the papal practical power not having the investiture of divine origin, the munus .

Has Bergoglio ever addressed the subject? NO. Indeed, he obsessively recommends not “gossiping”, presumably towards him. HERE

But is Bergoglio, as an antipope, assisted by the Holy Spirit? NO. From the point of view of faith, only the true pope is so, both ex cathedra and in ordinary teaching (art. 892 of the Catechism). HERE

But officially Bergoglio has already attempted to alter doctrine? YES, with the encyclical Amoris laetitia and the catechism in art 2267. HERE Then he “euthanized” the ancient mass in Latin, the only one to fully guarantee catholicity. HERE

Is Bergoglio Catholic? NO. He has a spirituality all his own, which draws on neoluteranism, neoarianism, neopaganism, psychoanalysis, esotericism, modernism, atheist ecology, syncretism, gnosis, apocatastasis. A spiritual conception much appreciated by the anti-Christian Freemasonry, so much so that Bergoglio has received about 70 letters of appreciation from lodges all over the world. HERE

Does this new religion, is it likeable? YES because it extinguishes the sense of sin, sends everyone to Heaven, nourishes emotionality and proposes itself as an easy philosophy of life. It has the same appeal as a weight loss diet based on pizza and sweets, or a risk-free financial investment with ample returns. However, it is not the teaching of Christ handed down by the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.

But at this point, since we like it, can’t we keep Bergoglio’s religion? NO, that’s not correct. Those who want to believe in Bergogliism are free to build a church on their own. But changing the 2,000-year-old Catholic faith by pretending to be Catholics is called a “scam”. It is illegal and nothing good can come of it.

Have authentic Catholics, linked to orthodoxy, all understood that Bergoglio is not the pope? NO . Not everybody. Only a minority party that explicitly recognizes Benedict XVI as pope. The others are the so-called una cum, who speak very badly of Francis, but recognize him as a legitimate pope and will probably give us another antipope, after him, approving a spurious conclave.

Is it a contradiction to speak ill of Francis and recognize him as pope? YES’. Because the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit (even in ordinary teaching) and therefore Catholics cannot speak ill of him, or claim that he is a heretic, or an enemy of the faith, without offending the Trinitarian Third Person.

So the only theological explanation is in the fact that Bergoglio is not pope? YES’. In fact, Bergoglio is “justified” in doing what he does, that is, demolish Catholicism, as he is not the pope.HERE

Are there any ecclesiastics who have made statements to this effect? YES’. Three emeritus bishops (Lenga, Gracida, Negri) and several priests, monks, friars, nuns. Some were excommunicated without a canonical process. HERE

So everything Bergoglio has done in nine years is null and void? YES’. Everything will be canceled, except for a few acts of ordinary administration.

Will there be a schism after he dies? YES’. It is very probable, but it would be a good thing given that a large part of the clergy is no longer Catholic, has apostatized various dogmas and has acquired worldly and globalist demands that are completely contrary to the Catholic faith.

So is Pope Benedict purifying the Church? YES’. With his sacrifice, which legally annihilates the usurper, he has already schismed the heretics and modernists.

It therefore remains to be understood in which part the Petrine see will remain ? YES’. Much will depend on true Catholics and their willingness to fight for the true faith. For now, the “broad road” (downhill) offered by Bergoglio is convenient for many. HERE

So could a true Catholic Church rise out of nowhere? YES’. The true Church could lose everything, the Vatican, money, treasures, buildings etc. “Coming out of the synagogue” as in the early days of Christianity. But faith will be saved and, over time, the structure will also be resurrected.

Can the Cardinals do anything about this mess? YES’. For example, they can ask for a provincial synod to shed light on the impeded see of the bishop of Rome. But it would be enough for them to simply tell the truth, en bloc.

Would they be excommunicated by Bergoglio for doing this?  YES, in all likelihood, but the excommunication would be invalid as it was imposed by an antipope. Then a lot depends on the “critical mass”: it would be a bit hard for Bergoglio to excommunicate about fifty cardinals. HERE

Can the faithful do anything? YES’. Indeed, the responsibility lies largely in the hands of the laity since the clergy are punishable. They can spread the truth and demand clarity from their pastors. They can desert all the initiatives of the anti-papal Church, as the French Catholics did in 1790, making scorched earth around the clergy who had sworn allegiance to the Revolution.

Isn’t it strange that none of the mainstream media dares to touch upon the subject? YES’. And it is extremely concerning.

Radio Radio interview Cionci: Benedict XVI never did renounce the Papacy

Editor’s Note: This is Cionci’s interview in Italian at Radio Radio. While it presents no new information about the invalidity of the renunciation, or rather, regarding how a renunciation of ministry is not an abdication, it does represent an important step forward in Italian media, that Radio Radio, one of the leading independent outlets has at last decided to air the controversy. This would be similar to a large and influential radio station in the United States interviewing someone like Ann Barnhardt on the same topic.

Br. Bugnolo’s Cordial Reply to Dr. Gordon on Precedence in the Renunciation of Benedict XVI

Editor’s Note:This video responds to the comment of Dr. Gordon regarding the concept of precedence in Church Law, which he refers to in this video interview of Mr. Patrick Coffin.

This same video is also available here on the server of FromRome.Info, where all can download it for free.

Please note, that in my video reply above, I mis-spoke when I referred to canon 148, the correct reference is to canon 145.

Here is my 7 part video series on the Renunciation, many of which principles Mr. Coffin has adopted:

For my comments on Mr. Coffin’s position on moral certitude, see the same video, here.

Here is a link to the documentary, A Message in a Bottle (click here).

A Debate: Was the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI invalid due to substantial error?

Editor’s Note: This is posted for information. This does not mean any or all of its content is approved. Dr. Mazza is a Ph.D. in History, and Steve O’Reilly is a former CIA agent, who chose to put a Gladiator’s helmet in his office during the debate, as if to indicate that he is a former or current member of the Gladio Operation for narrative, political, and social control of Western Europe and the Catholic Church. I think that is all you need to know, to connect the dots here.

¡Viva Guadalajara! & Why one should never presume in matters canonical

An Open Letter to the College of Cardinals

REPRINTED FROM DEC. 11, 2019 A. D.

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 Cerimonies 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?

Silence.

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 the fingers of each hand. 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?

Silence.

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 further. 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 plane 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, flies 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 sycophancy. 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.

 

Tosatti airs Cionci’s “Impeded See”

And Cionci responds:

Cionci: Are We Ready for Anti-Pope John XXIV?

A Response to the Pied Piper

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and foes of Stilum Curiae, Andrea Cionci, who yesterday was graciously asked a question by The Pied Piper on the pages of Stilum Curiae, has sent us this response. Enjoy your reading.

Are we ready for antipope John XXIV? A Response to the Lonely Pied Piper

I want to give a heartfelt thanks to Marco Tosatti and the Lonely Pied Piper for having addressed the now “unmentionable” Magna Quaestio. I must say, dear Pied Piper, that your last question threw me into a panic. Two years of (free) work, about 160 articles in which I have explored the entire question, in the most hidden details, summarizing it in all sorts of ways, even resorting to metaphors and fables, repeating myself until it becomes unbearable, and yet it seems I have not yet succeeded in communicating the general sense [and purpose] of Papa Ratzinger’s “Plan B.”

It’s my fault: I will try once again.

Cornered by the mutiny of the modernist clergy who wanted him to abdicate, Benedict XVI issued a Declaratio with which he announced a de facto self-imposed exile in an impeded see. The thing that we have become accustomed to perceiving for the last eight years as a resignation of the papacy was not that at all, and I have demonstrated it. I know, it’s crazy – but if you do not radically change the paradigm, you will not understand the matter.

This Declaratio, “as white as a dove and as cunning as a serpent,” enabled Ratzinger 1) to not abdicate and to remain the “only pope” of which he has been speaking for eight years without explaining which one it is, and 2) to make the modernists mistake his Declaratio for a resignation, and 3) to in this way give rise to a null conclave (since it took place while a non-abdicated pope was still living), which would necessarily elect an antipope: Francis.

In this way, Ratzinger ensured that a part of the now unrecoverable clergy would put themselves into schiem, thanks to their own greed for power, thereby purifying the Church. Thus, Benedict XVI did not destroy the papacy at all, but rather as Giorgio Agamben had already understood, with a brilliant move – probably prepared for decades – he enormously strengthened the papacy by permitting a purifying schism to finally take place, freeing the Church from the rotten fruits of the Council, saving the Catholic faith and all the souls of the world from this time into the coming centuries.

Why doesn’t Ratzinger say clearly that he is the Pope? On the one hand, he cannot because he really is being controlled, as Vittorio Messori has testified HERE: https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/29726687/vittorio-messori-rivela-papa-benedetto-tenuto-all-oscuro-disinformato-non-riceve-i-giornali-non-rivelero-le-cose-che-mi-ha-d.html , on the other hand he limits himself so as not to lose the status of an impeded see where the bishop cannot communicate freely. For this reason, for now Benedict confirms the canonical situation to us with subtle logical messages that are completely unequivocal in a system he uses called the “Ratzinger Code” which has been certified by various experts HERE https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/articolo_blog/blog/andrea-cionci/29422686/benedetto-xvi-codice-ratzinger-reale-decodificate-lettere-cardinal-brandmuller.html . A moment of truth will arrive; do not doubt it. In any case, his Declaratio, which is NOT a resignation but rather a non-juridical announcement of self-imposed exile in an impeded see, is already consigned to history and canon law, and can now be recognized and denounced for what it is. A provincial synod would be enough to verify that the bishop of Rome is in an impeded see.

Thus, “Pope Francis” never existed, and nothing done by him for the last eight years has any validity. Poof – the nightmare vanishes in an “eschatological combustion.”

Now, the fact is that if we go to the next conclave with 80 non-cardinals appointed by the antipope, another antipope will be elected. Thus, if we continue to pay attention, on the one hand, to the mainstream that has sold out in block to Bergoglianism, and, on the other hand, to the traditionalist-sedevacantists who do not want to understand nor even discuss the investigation of Plan B and legitimize Bergoglio with canonical follies and, in addition, throw mud on the hated Ratzinger, then before resolving the matter we will have to endure another round of jousting with an antipope Tagle, or Zuppi, or Maradiaga, who will have the name John XXIV. Do you understand, dear Pied Piper, how great the drama is?

But – one will object – if everything has been made explicit, where is the problem? The problem lies in the fact that the question raised by Cionci (a modest journalist who has only limited himself to organizing the facts, documents and discoveries made by others) is laid to one side, as if it were a mere piece of diversionary entertainment for fans of religious-fantasy novels. Is it merely “a conspiracy theory fantasy,” you understand? “Agatha Christie stuff,” as one prelate told me. The only scenario that offers a perfectly coherent explanation from a canonical, theological, evidential, documentary, testimonial, historic, and prophetic point of view is thus dismissed in two words at this slaughterhouse and/or told like Cinderella to go to the kitchen and wash the dishes.

The upper levels of the clergy, even if they have understood this, have been totally immobilized due to the possible retaliation of the antipope. They only ones who are able to do anything are journalists, but 98% of these are completely sold out to Bergoglianism, and the remaining 2% is held hostage by the anti-Ratzingerian traditionalists, and both categories together prevent there being any debate on this matter, which is the keystone of everything.

Now, I realize that this is a huge, gigantic, shocking and incredible matter, but since I don’t want to look like a fool by peddling crazy conspiracies, I have illustrated what I affirm with extremely rigorous precision in 46 chapters of investigation, which you will find here below: https://www.byoblu.com/2021/12/11/papa-e-antipapa-linchiesta-il-nuovo-anti-presepe-della-pachamama-di-bergoglio-parte-45/

You don’t have to read everything, but I absolutely advise you to spend half an hour reading chapters 1,2,5, and 6 through 14. The canonical question, and the confirmation of the Ratzinger Code: one hand washes the other [the two aspects of the matter confirm each other].

For my part, you may ask my friend Tosatti for my private mail if you have any doubts, and I will be happy to respond to your questions.

At this point, beyond continuing to write every day in my newspapers, I can’t do anything more. Either my Vatican colleagues come to my rescue (meaning that we talk about, discuss, and dissect the question) so that we will arrive at the moment of the death of one of the two “men dressed in white” with a mature public opinion, or else we will have to go and take selfies with antipope John XXIV, as we await the Great Prelate. I can’t do anything more.

Thank you for your letter.

Andrea Cionci

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.

„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.

1) DEN “EMERITIERTEN PAPST” GIBT ES NICHT

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”.

2) DAS „ERWEITERTE PAPSTTUM“ GIBT ES NICHT UND DER PAPST KANN NUR EINER SEIN

„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.

3) DER PAPST KANN MUNUS UND MINISTERIUM NICHT TRENNEN

„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.“

4) BENEDIKT HAT STATTDESSEN MUNUS UND MINISTERIUM GETRENNT UND UNTERSCHIEDEN

“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.

5) SIND MUNUS UND MINISTERIUM ALSO SYNONYM?

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.

6) BONI ERKLÄRT, DASS SIE IM RECHTLICHEN SINNE NICHT GLEICHBEDEUTEND SIND

„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”.

7) WARUM VERTEIDIGT BONI DANN DIE LEGITIMITÄT VON BERGOGLIO? DER ENDGÜLTIGE FEHLER

„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.

8) RATZINGER HAT NIE ABGEDANKT. REKAPITULIEREND:

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.

9) DER KANONISCHE “LETZTE GRABEN”: “DIE UNIVERSALIS ECCLESIAE ADHAESIO”.

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.

10) IN ZUSAMMENFASSUNG:

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.

1) THE “POPE EMERITUS” DOES NOT EXIST

“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.”

2) THE “ENLARGED PAPACY” DOES NOT EXIST AND THE POPE CAN BE ONLY ONE

“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 .

3) THE POPE CANNOT SEPARATE MUNUS AND MINISTERIUM

“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.”

4) BENEDICT HAS INSTEAD SEPARATED AND DISTINGUISHED MUNUS AND MINISTERIUM

“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.

5) ARE MUNUS AND MINISTERIUM THUS SYNONYMOUS?

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.

6) BONI EXPLAINS THAT THEY ARE NOT SYNONYMS IN THE JURIDICAL SENSE

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.”

7) SO, WHY DOES BONI DEFEND THE LEGITIMACY OF BERGOGLIO? THE FINAL ERROR 

“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.”

AND INSTEAD, THE POPE HAS VERY CAREFULLY ABSTAINED FROM RENOUNCING THE MUNUS PETRINUM, instead resigning the MINISTERIUM: “…declaro me MINISTERIO Episcopi Romae … commisso renuntiare”!!!

[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.

8) RATZINGER NEVER ABDICATED. SUMMARY:

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.

9) THE CANONICAL “LAST STRONGHOLD”: “THE UNIVERSALIS ECCLESIAE ADHAESIO”

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.

10) IN SYNTHESIS:

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.

Discussion

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

REPUBLISHED FROM MARCH 9, 2020 A. D.

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.

Legitimacy

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.

Conclusion

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!

REPUBLISHED FROM DEC. 11, 2019

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?

Silence.

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?

Silence.

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.