Category Archives: Canon Law

Sulla Riprensione e la Deposizione di un papa eretico

January 9, 2024 Editor 4 Comments

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

(This is the Italian version of the original English, which is found here; for the French translation, see here)

Desidero qui discutere un caso speciale di diritto giuridico, in cui la Chiesa deve affrontare la necessità di rimuovere dall’incarico un papa eretico. Dato che il fatto che esista un modo giuridicamente valido per farlo è un presupposto necessario dell’Iniziativa Sutri, e poiché cardinali eminenti come Burke hanno pubblicamente affermato che non esiste una soluzione canonica a tale problema, ora spiegherò pubblicamente come si può fare, per dare spunti di riflessione a tutti coloro che desiderano vedere spiegato come può essere che il cardinale Burke abbia torto nella sua opinione.

Innanzitutto, lasciatemi dire che questa soluzione, per essere canonicamente valida, non deve violare alcun canone del Codice di Diritto Canonico, pubblicato da Giovanni Paolo II, che vieta al canone 334 che vi sia alcuna innovazione nel diritto della Chiesa quando la Sede Apostolica è impedita o vacante, cioè quando il Romano Pontefice non la promulga. Per il Codice del 1983, vedi qui.

In secondo luogo, non deve nemmeno violare il principio giuridico e il Dictum della Fede, ovvero che sedes prima a nemine judicatur, vale a dire che la prima sede non è giudicata da nessuno. E questo, inteso come il dotto cardinale Bellarmino riteneva inteso, cioè che non è lecito a nessuno nella Chiesa giudicare la persona del Romano Pontefice.

In terzo luogo, contro la sentenza del Romano Pontefice non vi è appello (canone 333 § 3). Non si possono quindi revocare i suoi decreti, anche se si può spingerlo a ritirarli per un motivo legittimo.

NOTA BENE: Qui uso “giudicare” non in riferimento alla formazione di una convinzione personale nel fedele che considera il Romano Pontefice, ma a un atto giuridico con il quale viene proclamata una sentenza o si discerne un fatto giuridico.

Il Romano Pontefice, in quanto Pontefice, non può essere rimosso dall’ufficio dagli uomini

Da questi due principi ne consegue che il Romano Pontefice propriamente parlando non può e non potrà mai essere rimosso dall’ufficio, se non per atto diretto del suo Superiore, il Signore Gesù Cristo, il quale non avviene se non con la morte.

Dico propriamente parlando, cioè, quando parliamo dell’uomo che è il Romano Pontefice, in quanto Romano Pontefice. In questo senso viene chiamato Romano Pontefice, ovvero la persona del Romano Pontefice. Ed è così che il diritto canonico parla sempre di lui, poiché questa è la norma giuridica in ogni discorso del diritto canonico. Infatti, come Romano Pontefice, non può essere giudicato da nessuno e non è soggetto all’autorità di alcun sottoposto.

Il Romano Pontefice, in quanto uomo, può essere giudicato

Che l’uomo che è il Romano Pontefice possa essere giudicato, però, è chiaro, perché è l’insegnamento del Magistero pontificio, tramandato da papa Innocenzo III – eminente canonista – e perché è chiaro che l’uomo, in quanto uomo, è anch’esso soggetto a Cristo e all’autorità della Chiesa.

Nessun uomo nella Chiesa può essere giudicato se non dalla legittima autorità

Ciò deriva direttamente dal fatto che Cristo ha dato la Sua autorità alla Chiesa per pascere tutto il Suo gregge, sia collettivamente che individualmente. E poiché nessuno, tranne colui che detiene autorità su un uomo, può giudicare un uomo – questo è un principio naturale di ogni diritto (ius) – solo il superiore ordinario di un uomo, o il Papa, o coloro che detengono l’autorità ecclesiastica nella regione, possono giudicare un uomo.

Un Concilio provinciale può giudicare tutti gli uomini della sua provincia

Un concilio provinciale di tutti i Vescovi di una provincia ecclesiastica ha autorità su tutti i cattolici di una provincia, come dichiara il canone 432 § 1. Il concilio provinciale, infatti, ha status di persona giuridica, come dichiara il canone 432 § 2.

Ciò significa che un concilio provinciale può giudicare qualsiasi cattolico che risiede nel suo territorio, sia discernendo fatti giuridici o morali riguardanti l’uomo, sia imponendo sanzioni o sentenze canoniche.

Un concilio provinciale nella provincia ecclesiastica di Roma può giudicare l’uomo che è il Romano Pontefice

Da quanto precede ne consegue che il concilio provinciale della provincia di Roma può giudicare il Romano Pontefice come uomo, cioè riguardo ai fatti giuridici o morali che lo riguardano, cioè se sia cattolico e se ha una valida rivendicazione sull’ufficio di Romano Pontefice. Infatti in tali cose il Concilio non giudica l’ufficio che egli rivendica.

Nei casi di eresia e di invalidità della rivendicazione d’ufficio, il Concilio Provinciale Romano può essere convocato dai Vescovi della Provincia senza e contro la volontà di colui che rivendica il papato

Il canone 442 § 2 concede ai Vescovi di una provincia di convocare un concilio provinciale quando la sede metropolitana della provincia è legittimamente impedita. Qui il latino recita:

Metropolitanae, eoque legitime impedito, Episcopi suffraganei ab aliis Episcopis suffraganeis Electi est concilio provinciali praeesse.

Il concetto di “legittimamente” impedito si riferisce non alle norme del diritto canonico né alle norme di qualsiasi diritto pontificio, ma a un motivo o causa moralmente valida che impedisce al Metropolita di agire: la costrizione fisica o morale, l’incompetenza o l’incapacità.

Ad esempio, se il Metropolita viene rapito o trattenuto da forze ostili; in arresto, in coma; aver subito un ictus o un collasso mentale o emotivo che impedisca l’uso della retta ragione; nascondersi per paura di essere catturati, o comunque incapace di comunicare. Questi sono fattori oggettivi per l’esercizio del suo munus.

Ma se l’uomo è eretico o scismatico o apostata, ma non è stato ancora privato dell’ufficio, ne consegue, in ragione del principio giuridico, che laddove vi sia forza maggiore, cioè un maggiore potere che interviene o ostacola, di quelli citati nei casi normali per impedimento, tanto più è legittimo ritenere che la sede sia impedita.

Quindi, poiché il Romano Pontefice è il Metropolita della Provincia Romana, quando l’uomo che è il Romano Pontefice è un eretico, un apostata o uno scismatico, allora può essere giudicato in un concilio provinciale.

I Vescovi della Provincia Romana hanno il diritto di esigere la prova dell’affermazione di quell’uomo di essere Romano Pontefice

Poiché i Vescovi della Provincia non possono presumere che un uomo sia colpevole o che un fatto sia tale prima di giudicarlo, è necessario che interrogando l’uomo che si dichiara Papa, stabiliscano che egli rifiuta di dimostrare che la sua pretesa è valida o che sia cattolico. Tale rifiuto, di persona o con comunicazione scritta, prova giuridicamente e canonicamente l’esistenza di un dubbio oggettivo, dal quale nasce conseguentemente ed immediatamente un impedimento per la Sede Apostolica a causa del rifiuto, da parte di colui che rivendica l’ufficio, di dimostrare ai Vescovi della Provincia la validità della sua pretesa di governarli.

In mancanza di offerta probatoria spontanea, può essere convocato un concilio provinciale per richiedere prove speciali e straordinarie

Ciò è per diritto naturale, cioè per diritto naturale ogni regnante ha il dovere di dimostrare ai suoi sudditi la legittimità della sua pretesa di signoria su di essi. Questa dimostrazione deve essere tanto più solenne e collegiale quando i suoi colleghi ne chiedono la prova.

Richiedere tale prova è un diritto del soggetto e una dimostrazione della sua onestà. Poiché non lede i diritti di nessuno, non danneggia nessuno e non è un crimine. E quindi una simile richiesta non può essere rifiutata.

Normalmente ciò avviene mediante la promulgazione dell’elezione o della nomina del superiore da parte della persona o dell’ente che ha l’autorità di nominarlo.

Ma quando intervengono fatti oggettivi che mettono in dubbio ciò, la prova può essere richiesta di diritto dai suoi pari, poiché essi, in quanto titolari della giurisdizione locale sotto di lui, hanno il diritto naturale alle prove più certe.

E così quando tramite contatto personale e per iscritto viene rifiutata la prova spontanea della cattolicità di colui che pretende di essere Papa o la validità della sua elezione, i Vescovi NON presumono, quando si avvalgono del diritto loro concesso, a causa di una sede impedita, a convocare un concilio provinciale senza o contro la volontà di colui che si pretende Papa.

Tale Concilio provinciale, convocato senza o contro la volontà di colui che è il Romano Pontefice, non può essere ostacolato da alcuna autorità

Tale concilio non può essere impedito da alcun atto di alcuna autorità ecclesiastica, poiché sui Vescovi della Provincia Romana non ha potestà nessuno se non il Romano Pontefice, né colui che si professa Romano Pontefice, ma rifiuta il consenso spontaneo alle sufficienti prove nel corso normale delle cose, esercita legittimamente l’autorità dell’ufficio del Romano Pontefice per ostacolare o vietare tale convocazione. Poiché con il suo rifiuto ha impedito la Sede Apostolica, con la sede impedita i suoi poteri sui sudditi non possono essere usati per alcun fine legittimo.

Tale concilio provinciale può legittimamente convocare colui che pretende di essere il Papa

Che un tale Concilio possa legittimamente, cioè canonicamente, costringere, l’uomo che afferma di essere papa a parteciparvi, deriva dalla sua autorità concessa nel canone 432. Ne consegue anche dal canone 443, che richiede che tutti coloro che rivendicano uffici di vescovo nel territorio siano convocati in ogni concilio provinciale, e dal canone 444 §1, che richiede la presenza di tutti i convocati. Né può reclamare impedimento, se può viaggiare liberamente o parlare con gli uomini.

Tale Concilio provinciale deve prima protestare contro l’uomo che sembra essere un eretico, scismatico o apostata, ma rivendica il papato

C’è un ordine nella Carità, e, quindi, prima i Padri conciliari dovrebbero procedere esponendo le ragioni della convocazione del Concilio e chiedere che coloro a cui spetta il diritto di voto confermino la convocazione. Poi, dovrebbero esporre le ragioni per convocare colui che pretende di essere papa, per dare solenni prove certe che la sua elezione era giuridicamente valida e che la sua pretesa alla carica rimane legittima. Poi dovrebbero interrogare l’uomo per ottenere prove solenni della validità o della nullità della sua richiesta. E, con le risposte date, proporre di rilasciare una dichiarazione solenne sulla loro coerenza, chiedendo il voto del concilio per approvare che l’uomo è o non è idoneo a ricoprire la carica che rivendica, ha una valida pretesa o ha perso il suo diritto. Pertanto, se i Padri conciliari ritengono che le sue risposte siano insufficienti o dubbie, il Concilio dovrà protestare una seconda volta con l’uomo in questione e giudicare le sue risposte mediante voto una seconda volta, e anche una terza volta, se necessario. Dopodiché se persiste nelle sue risposte invalide, il concilio può solennemente dichiarare oggettivi i fatti giuridici che detto uomo, in virtù del canone della chiesa applicabile, non ha mai ricoperto l’ufficio, o non lo ricopre ora, a causa del fatto di non essere un cattolico.

Tale concilio provinciale non impone alcuna pena né privazione d’ufficio, e quindi non ha bisogno che i suoi atti siano approvati dal Romano Pontefice

Una constatazione di fatto è un atto di discernimento da parte di un’autorità competente a farlo. Un concilio provinciale romano è la persona giuridica più alta e competente per accertare tali fatti mediante indagini e interrogatori di tutti i cattolici nella provincia romana. Solo in caso di frode la sentenza di tale concilio potrebbe essere impugnata. Pertanto, se tale concilio accerta che l’uomo non ha una pretesa valida al papato o non è cattolico, allora può dichiararlo scomunicato a motivo del canone 1364, e quindi, ipso facto, privato dell’ufficio, poiché nessuno scomunicato può rivendicare un ufficio nella Chiesa, a norma del canone 1331.

Colui che si dichiara Romano Pontefice e rifiuta di dare prove spontanee e solenni della legittimità della sua pretesa a ricoprire l’ufficio, può essere dichiarato ipso facto deposto se rifiuta di presenziare a tale Concilio Provinciale

Che un tale uomo, se rifiuta di presenziare a qualsiasi parte di un siffatto concilio provinciale, dove potrebbe dare prova solenne e giuridica delle sue pretese, può essere dichiarato deposto, consegue dai principi sopra enunciati, perché nessun uomo con una pretesa onesta vorrebbe rifiutare tali prove. Che un Papa validamente eletto, Benedetto IX, sia stato dichiarato contumace e deposto per essersi rifiutato di partecipare a un simile concilio provinciale nel dicembre del 1046, a Sutri, in Italia, è un fatto storico, accettato come valido dalla Sede Apostolica per quasi 1000 anni: un’accettazione che è equipollente all’approvazione e alla conferma dell’argomento di cui sopra, delle loro ragioni di diritto naturale ed ecclesiastico, e della loro validità secondo la legge consuetudinaria.

Ergo quod erat demonstrandum, demonstratum est.

SI PREGA DI CONDIVIDERE QUESTO ARTICOLO CON TUTTO IL CLERO CHE SUPPORTA L’INIZIATIVA SUTRI O CHI SI OPPONE AL FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS!

Canon Law

On the Rebuke and Deposition of a Heretical Pope

December 28, 2023 Editor 23 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française — Versione Italiana

Here, I wish to discuss a special case of juridical right, wherein the Church must confront the necessity of removing a heretical pope from office. Since that there is a juridically valid way to do this is a necessary presupposition of the Sutri Initiative, and since Cardinals as eminent as Burke have publicly said there is no canonical solution to such a problem, I will now publicly explain how it can be done, to give food for thought for all who like to see expounded how it can be that Cardinal Burke is incorrect in his opinion.

First, let me say, that this solution to be canonically valid must not violate any canon of the Code of Canon Law, published by John Paul II, which forbids in canon 334 that there be any innovation in Church law when the Apostolic See is impeded or vacant, that is, when the Roman Pontiff does not promulgate it. For the Code of 1983, see here.

Second, it must also not violate the juridical principal and dictum of the Faith, that sedes prima a nemine judicatur, namely, the first see is judged by no one. And this, understood as the learned Cardinal Bellarmine, held it to be understood, namely, that it is licit to no one in the Church to judge the person of the Roman Pontiff.

Third, against the sentence of the Roman Pontiff, there can be no appeal (canon 333 § 3). Thus one cannot overturn his decrees, though one can urge him to withdraw them for a legitimate reason.

NOTE WELL: Here, I use “judge” not in reference to the formation of a personal conviction in the faithful who considers the Roman Pontiff, but a juridical act by which a sentence is proclaimed or a juridical fact is discerned.

That the Roman Pontiff, as Pontiff, cannot be removed from office by men

It follows from these two principals, that the Roman Pontiff strictly speaking can not and can never be removed by office, except by a direct act of his Superior, the Lord Jesus Christ, which is only done by death.

I say strictly speaking, that is, when we speak of the man who is the Roman Pontiff, as the Roman Pontiff. In this sense, he is called the Roman Pontiff, or the person of the Roman Pontiff. And it is thus that Canon Law always speaks of him, for this is the juridical norm in all canonical discourse and law. For as the Roman Pontiff he can be judged by no one, and is not subject to the authority of any subjects.

That the Roman Pontiff, as the man, can be judged

That the man who is the Roman Pontiff can be judged, however, is clear, because it is the teaching of the Papal Magisterium, handed down by Pope Innocent III — an eminent canonist — and because it is clear that the man, as a man, is also subject to Christ and to the authority of the Church.

That no man in the Church can be judged except by legitimate authority

This follows directly from the fact that Christ gave His authority to the Church to shepherd all His flock, both collectively and individually. And since no one but one who holds authority over a man, can judge a man — this is a natural principal of all right (ius) — only a man’s Bishop, or the Pope, or those holding ecclesiastical authority in the region, can judge a man.

That a Provincial Council can judge all men within its province

A provincial council of all the Bishops of an ecclesiastical province holds authority over all Catholics in a province, as Canon 432 §1 declares. Indeed, the Provincial Council has the status of a juridical person, as Canon 432 §2 declares.

This means that a Provincial Council can judge any Catholic who resides in its territory, both by discerning juridical or moral facts about the man, or by imposing canonical penalties or sentences.

That a Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome can judge the man who is the Roman Pontiff

It follows from the above that a Provincial Council in the province of Rome can judge the man who is the Roman Pontiff, as a man, that is, as regards juridical or moral facts about the man, namely, whether he be a Catholic and whether he have a valid claim to the office of the Roman Pontiff. For in such things, the Council does not judge the office which he claims.

That a Roman Provincial Council can be convened by the Bishops of the Province without and against the will of the man who is the Roman Pontiff in cases of heresy and invalidity of claim to office

Canon 442 §2 grants to the Bishops of a province to convene a provincial council when the Metropolitan See of the province is legitimately impeded. Here the Latin reads:

Metropolitanae, eoque legitime impedito, Episcopi suffraganei ab aliis Episcopis suffraganeis electi est concilio provinciali praeesse.

The concept of “legitimately” impeded refers not to the norms of canon law nor to the norms of any papal law, but to a morally valid reason or cause which prevents the Metropolitan from acting. Such as physical or moral duress, incompetance or incapacity.

For example if the Metropolitan be kidnapped or held by hostile forces; under arrest; in a coma; having suffered a stroke or mental or emotional collapse, preventing use of right reason; in hiding for fear of capture; or otherwise incapable of communication. These are objective factors for the exercise of his munus.

But if the man be a heretic or schismatic or an apostate, but has not yet been deprived of office, the same follows, by reason of the juridical principal, that where there be a force majeur, that is a greater intervening or obstructing power, than those cited in normal cases for an impediment, all the more is it legitimate to hold that the see be impeded.

So, since the Roman Pontiff is the Metropolitan of the Roman Province, when the man who is the Roman Pontiff be a heretic or apostate or schismatic, then he can be judged in a Provincial Council.

That the Bishops of the Roman Province have the right to demand the proof of the claim of the man to be the Roman Pontiff

Since the Bishops of the Province cannot presume that a man is guilty or that a fact be such before judging the fact, it is necessary that by interrogating the man who claims to be the Pope, they establish that he refuses to demonstrate that his claim is valid or that he be a Catholic. Such a refusal in person or by written communication proves juridically and canonically that there is an objective doubt from which there consequently and immediately arises an impediment of the Apostolic See by reason of the man, who claims the office, refusal to demonstrate to the Bishops of the Province the validity of his claim to rule over them.

Failing a spontaneous offer of proof, a Provincial Council can be convoked to request special and extraordinary proof

This is by natural right, namely, by natural right every lord has the duty to demonstrate to his subjects the legitimacy of his claim to lordship over them. This demonstration must be all the more solemn and collegial when his peers ask for the proof.

Asking for such a proof is a right of the subject and a demonstration of his honesty. As it injures no one’s right, it harms no one, and is not a crime. And thus, such a request cannot be refused.

Normally, this is done by the promulgation of the election or nomination of the man to hold the office of superior by the person or body which has the authority to nominate him.

But when objective facts intervene which put this in doubt, proof can be requested by his peers by right, since as holders of local jurisdiction under him they have the natural right to the most certain proofs.

And thus when through personal contact and by writing a spontaneous proof of the Catholicity of the man who claims to be the Pope or the validity of his election be refused, the Bishops do NOT presume, when they use the right granted to them on account of an impeded See to convoke a provincial council without or against the will of the man who claims to be the pope.

That such a Provincial Council, called without or against the will of the man who is the Roman Pontiff cannot be obstructed by any authority

Such a council cannot be impeded by any act of any ecclesiastical authority, since, neither does anyone have authority over the Bishops of the Roman Province but the Roman Pontiff, nor does the man who claims to be the Roman Pontiff but who refuses the spontaneous sufficient proofs in the normal course of things legitimately exercise the authority of the office of Roman Pontiff to obstruct or forbid such a convocation. Since by his refusal he has impeded the Apostolic See, and with the see impeded, its powers cannot be used over its subjects for any legitimate purpose.

That such a Provincial Council can legitimately summon the man who claims to be the Pope

That such a Council can legitimately, that is canonically constrain, the man who claims to be he pope to attend follows from their authority granted in Canon 432. It also follows from Canon 443, which requires that all who claim offices of Bishop in the territory be summoned to every Provincial Council and from Canon 444 §1, that requires all summoned attend. Nor can he claim impediment, if he can freely travel or speak with men.

That such a Provincial Council should first remonstrate with the man, who appears to be a heretic, schismatic or apostate, yet claims the papacy

There is an order in Charity, and so first the Council Fathers should proceed by expounding their reasons for convening the Council and ask that those with the right to vote confirm the convocation. Then, they should expound the reasons for convoking the man who claims to be the pope, to give solemn certain proofs that his election was juridically valid and that his claim to the office remains legitimate. Then they should interrogate the man to elicit solemn proofs of his claim’s validity or invalidity. And with his responses given, propose to issue a solemn declaration as to their coherence, asking for a vote of the Council to approve, that the man is or is not eligible to hold the office he claims, has a valid claim or has lost his claim. Whereupon, if the Council Fathers find his responses insufficient or doubtful, the Council should solemnly remonstrate with the man a second time, and judge his responses by vote a second time, and even a third time if necessary. After which if he persists in his invalid responses, the Council can solemnly declare that the juridical facts are objective that said man in virtue of the canon of the church applicable has never held the office, or does not now hold it, by reason of not being a Catholic or not being Catholic.

That Such a Provincial Council imposes no sentence or deprivation of office, and therefore need not have its acts approved by the Roman Pontiff

A finding of fact is an act of discernment by an authority competent to do so. A Roman provincial council is the highest and most competent juridical person to determine such facts by investigation and interrogation of all Catholics in the Roman Province. Only in the case of fraud, could the judgement of such a council be impugned. Therefore, if such a council find that the man be not a Catholic, then they can declare him excommunicate by reason of canon 1364, and thus ipso facto deprived from office, since no excommunicate can claim an office in the Church, as per Canon 1331.

That the man who claims to be Roman Pontiff and who refuses to give spontaneous and solemn proofs of the legitimacy of his claim to hold the office can be declared ipso facto deposed if he refuse to attend such a Provincial Council

That such a man, if he refuse to attend any part of such a Provincial Council, where he might give solemn and juridical proof of his claims, can be declared deposed, follows from the principals enunciated above, for no man with an honest claim would refuse such proofs. That a validly elected Pope, Benedict IX, was declared contumacious and deposed for refusing to attend such a provincial council in December of 1046, at Sutri, Italy, is a fact of history, accepted as valid by the Apostolic See for nearly 1000 years: and acceptance which is equipollent to the approval, approbation and confirmation of the above argument, their reasons of natural and ecclesiastical right, and their validity by the law of custom.

Ergo quod erat demonstrandum, demonstratum est.

PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH ALL CLERGY WHO SUPPORT THE SUTRI INITIATIVE or WHO OPPOSE FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS!

Canon Law

On the Canonical Invalidity of ‘Fiducia supplicans’

December 19, 2023 Editor 4 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On Monday, Dec. 18, 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Fernadez published a Declaration entitled Fiducia supplicans.

Seeing that this document has scandalized the entire world, inasmuch as it says that habitual sinners, living in the vices of fornication, adultery and or sodomy can receive the blessing of a priest of Jesus Christ, it is necessary that all understand clearly and precisely what legal value this document has in the Catholic Church.

The laws of the Church are codified in the Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II in 1983. And so, when discussing the legitimacy or legal status of any instruction or document signed by any Cardinal or the Pope, one speaks about the juridical or canonical validity.

Canonical validity is a species of the genus of juridical validity. To say that something is canonically valid is to say that it does have force of law according to the canons of the Church published in the Code of Canon Law. To say that some instruction or document is juridically valid, is to say that it does have some binding force upon subjects, in this case, of faithful Catholics members of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, to the Question whether Fiducia supplicans is canonically valid, the answer is “It is NOT!”.

And to the Question whether Fiducia supplicans is juridically valid, the answer is “It is NOT!”.

And the reasons for these two answers are multiple. Let me explain.

First of all, as Vatican I teaches, the Pope has no authority to teach novel doctrines. Nor does he have any authority to teach things which are contrary to revealed truths, right morals, or against the Divine, Natural or Evangelical Law. Thus if he attempt to, he he attempting to do something beyond his powers. And thus his act or attempt is ultra vires, and thus null and void. In juridical consideration it is considered never to have been done. And in canonical consideration, it is considered never to have existed. — But, Fiducia supplicans teaches many things contrary to revealed truth (that God can bless sin), against the Divine Law (that God’s Name be invoked in blessing over impenitent sinners), against the Natural Law (that sodomites be blessed or approved of), against the Evangelical Law (taught by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans, namely that these sins prevent one from salvation and thus from receiving blessing), and against right morals (public approval of public sin). Therefore, the Pope’s signature to this document adds to it no juridical or canonical value.

Second, the authority of the body which issued the document, Fiducia supplicans, is the Discastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. But if one searches in the Acta Apostolica Sedes one can find NO entity by this name erected into existence by a Roman Pontiff. For to establish anything in existence, the one establishing it must have the authority to do so. And every entity of the Apostolic See must exist by means of a published legal act bearing the signature of a man who holds the Petrine Munus at the time of its publication. But Pope Francis was not the holder of the Petrine Munus before January 30, 2023 — Pope Benedict XVI was, since he never renounced it by any legal act — therefore, this Dicastery does not exist in law. Hence all decrees, declarations and instructions of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith lack all juridical and canonical value. They are null and void from the moment they are published.

Third, and finally, no document has authority without an act of promulgation. The declaration Fiducia supplicans lacks any codicil of promulgation, as can be seen by reading its last paragraphs. Furthermore, it declares no obligation upon anyone for its acceptance. Therefore, it has imposed no juridical or canonical obligation upon anyone. Therefore it is also juridically and canonically invalid.

Dogmatically, the canonical invalidity of Fiducia supplicans is a fact which demonstrates the truth of the power and compass of Christ’s High Priestly Prayer for Saint Peter and his successors, since what has no legal value is not the object of Christ’s promise to intervene to prevent the faithful from going astray. And in this case, if any do go astray, the fault is of all those Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy and Canon Lawyers, and talking heads, who keep insisting that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated on Feb. 28, 2013. — For this reason, Christ will continue to allow grave abberations to be published in ways which are only explicable on His part, because He too recognizes that Pope Benedict XVI was His Vicar on earth until his death, as He told us He would, when He declared to the Successors of Saint Peter in regard to Canon Law, in particular canon 332: Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in Heaven ….

UPDATES:

Once again, Ed Condon, who welcomed Fiducia supplicans, gets the canonical value of the document totally wrong, since he fails to consider first of all the level of authority of the issuing dicasery. This will be the standard pencil-pushing narrow sighted response from “canonists” on the document, so it is useful to read it, to familiarize oneself with their blind spots.

Canon Law, Editorials

Br. Bugnolo: The sacking of Strickland is an act of Schism with the Catholic Church

November 11, 2023 Editor 6 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

TRADUCTION FRANÇAISE

Even a pope is automatically excommunciated if he commits the crime of ecclesiastical schism, which consists in refusing communion with members of the Church.

This crime is even greater, when a pope refuses communion with a legitimate and Catholic member of the hierarchy.

But sacking a Bishop without cause and for no crime other than being a Catholic is the worst crime of refusing communion.

Therefore, the act whereby Pope Francis attempted to sack Bishop Strickland of Texas is an act of schism, which has ipso facto merited Pope Francis the penalty of excommunication leveled in Canon 1364.

This means that Catholics in good conscience can refuse all commands and orders of Pope Francis and priests can refuse to mention his name in the Canon.

However, only a provincial or general Council of the Church can declare that Pope Francis has lost his office or is no longer a member of the Church.

Therefore, it becomes the grave duty of all who recognize this as an act of schism, to join the Sutri Initiative and insist on a Provincial Council to judge the crime.

CREDITS: A Photo of Br. Bugnolo visiting the Castle of Tolfa, in the Suburbican Diocese of Porto Santa Rufina, outside Rome, this October.

Action Items, Canon Law, News, Videos

It’s now Open Civil War in the Catholic Church

November 11, 2023 Editor 8 Comments

JOIN THE MOVEMENT TO GET RID OF POPE FRANCIS BY HAVING HIM REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR HERESY, SCHISM AND APOSTASY

The movement is called the Sutri Movement. You can read more about it here.

It consists in a letter writing campaign to the Catholic Bishops in Lazio, Italy, who have the canonical right to depose a claimant to the papacy if he be found to be a heretic, schismatic, apostate or invalidly elected.

Other efforts will include lobbying them to heed the letters received. Catholics have begun this letter writing campaign back on Oct. 20, 2023. If we can get thousands of letters via email or surface mail sent to each bishop, they will see how important it is for them to act.

If you would like to participate in the Sutri Initiative, to lobby the Bishops of the Catholic Church to depose Bergoglio, see here.

SHARE THIS VIDEO, BECAUSE YOUTUBE IN ITS SEARCH RESULTS IS LISTING VIDEOS ON THIS TOPIC WITH 4 VIEWS BUT HIDING THIS ONE WITH NEARLY 8000 VIEWS.

The above video can also be seen and shared from Youtube:

UPDATE: Canon Peters says Pope Francis has no canonical authority to remove Bishop Strickland without cause:

UPDATE: Cardinal Mueller: the sacking of Strickland is an abuse of divine right:

Canon Law

Impediments to Marriage: Feminism

November 10, 2023 Editor 12 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There are various facts and problems which can prevent the Sacrament of Matrimony from taking effect and thus rendering it null and void, illicit, or fruitless in the order of grace.

But the Sacrament of Matrimony is the most important for maintaining the Christian social order, since the Family is the fundamental unit of human and christian society.

For this reason, when considering marriage a Catholic man or woman, or any near relation to the couple, should take care to assess the real viability of a future marriage.

In the English speaking world, among Catholics, the proper term for Christian marriage is “Matrimony”. This term should be used instead of “marriage” so as to distinguish the sacramental bond from the civil or natural bond, which is known as “marriage” or in Latin, “connubium”.

Before, I discuss the problems which can be caused by Femisim, in Matrimony, let’s first review what the Sacrament of Matrimony is, and how it can come about that it be invalid or illicit because of some defect in the spouses.

Matrimony according to Church teaching is the union in a stable promise of indissolubility of one man and one women, both of whom are baptized before receiving the Sacrament.

The Sacrament can be conferred upon a Catholic and his or her spouse who has promised solemnly to be baptized in the future. In this case, the ritual of Matrimony effects the connubium or marriage, but the Sacramental reality only comes into being at the Baptism of the other spouse. The Church has the authority to confer the Sacrament in such rare cases, when She judges that the one promising to be baptized needs to know the Catechism better before receiving that Sacrament, and yet, so as to avoid sin, judges also that the couple should be joined in marriage as soon as possible.

But without such a promise on the part of the unbaptised spouse, such a marriage is not Matrimony and no Sacramental bond is effected by the marriage in the Church.

The Sacrament of Matrimony has Christ as its author, and the matrimonial bond cannot be dissolved by any authority on Earth. Marriage, as a natural bond, also has God our Creator as author, but God has in past times give His earthly representatives power to dissolve is, such as Moses decreed in cases of divorce.

For this reason, Catholics should never speak of “divorce” in cases of the Matrimonial Bond, because such is a contradiction in terms. Christian Matrimony is something entirely different in its nature of permanence than any form of marriage in the Old Testament.

Matrimony is monogamous, by the Divine Will. But Marriage as is clear in the Old Testament was compatible with polygamy. This must be kept in mind to avoid arguments and excuses drawn from the Old Testament against the indissolubility of Matrimony.

The Sacrament of Marriage comes into being, or is confected, when one Catholic man promises publicly to one Catholic women to live with her in Christian matrimony for life, according to the teaching of the Church. The traditional formulae for the vows of matrimony signified this. Altering them in any manner can make the Sacrament invalid, and thus should never be done.

All unmarried Catholics, who are not prohibited by the law or by vows, can validly and licitly receive the Sacrament of Matrimony.

In the Code of Canon Law of 1983, there was a fundamental change of allowing the Sacrament to be conferred in cases wherein one spouse was a Christian but not a Catholic. Before this, such marriages were considered in valid. This new disposition of the law however presumes that the Christian non-Catholic accept the Catholic notion of matrimony. Otherwise the matrimony would be invalid.

This is true also of a matrimony among two Catholics. Both must honestly and sincerely accept the Catholic notion of marriage and promise such to the other person. If any one of them fail in this, the Sacrament is not confected and the ceremony effects no sacramental bond. Marriage is not a one way street. And when objective evidence as discerned by the Church shows that one party never had the right intention, the other party should not allow scruples, such as, “I promised” to lead them to think the Matrimony was valid.

The Sacrament is presumed valid, before the consideration of any doubt, according to the juridical principles that the cessation of right is never presumed. For the same reason that Pope Benedict XVI is presumed to have remained the pope after his resignation, by reason of the fact that he never renounced the petrine munus, that is, because the cessation of right is never presumed.

There are two kinds of problems which can make a Matrimony invalid, even if the civil marriage is valid.

These are called diriment impediments, which is derived from the Latin for “destructive impeding things”.

Such impediments are as follows:

If the man be younger than 16 years of age, or the woman younger than 14 years of age (local Bishops can require higher ages, according to local customs).
Incapacity on the part of any one or both of the spouses to engage in the physical act of reproduction. (Not to be confused with biological sterility).
If any one of the spouses was previously joined in the Sacrament of Matrimony to another, even if that marriage was not consummated.
If one or the other spouses has not been baptized in any Christian Church.
The man has received the Sacred Order of the Episcopacy, Priesthood or Diaconate.
Any one of the spouses has made a public vow of chastity in a religious institute.
If they woman was kidnapped with the scope of forcing a marriage.
If one spouse has murdered the previous spouse of the other.
If one spouse is the brother/sister, niece/nephew, uncle/aunt, parent of the other; or if one spouse is related within the 4th degree to the other.
If one spouse is or was ever the guardian or adopter or godparent of the other.

Matrimony can be invalid also due to lack of proper consent, or intentions:

If one or both of the spouses lack the capacity or maturity to make a promise or receive a promise.
If one or both of the spouses is psychologically incapable of the responsibility of marriage.
If one or both of the spouses do not accept that the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble, that is, is for life and can never be dissolved by a divorce effected for any reason by any human authority.
If one spouse presents himself or herself under fraudulent claims as to name, social status, wealth, or physical capacity, such as claiming one is not sterile, when one knows oneself to be sterile.

It is for these last reasons, that we can see that if one or both of the spouses accept the erroneous ideology of Feminism, that the Sacrament would be invalid, because by such an ideology, they would reject the proper role and responsibility of a woman, wife and mother in the marriage, and thus be psychologically incapable by bad will of the responsibility of marriage.

Such a rejection of the Sacrament can seem very innocuous. It can present itself under the false pretext of the “right” of the woman to pursue a career, and thus postpone or forego motherhood — a thing which cannot be obtained without tacit consent to contraception or grossly perverse forms of copulation. Or the “right” of the woman that the man in the house share the roles of motherhood or housekeeping etc., which results in the perverse social psychological formation of the children, resulting in lesbianism or homosexuality among the children. Or the “right” of the woman to refuse her husbands advances, in private, when they are in accord with nature, which would deprive both of them of the abundance of Children which God has willed from all eternity to give them in Matrimony and to promote the bond of marriage.

For these reasons, a Catholic man should not ignore any manifestation of feminism in a future spouse and the parents of both spouses should be sincere about this matter with both parties, and do what they can to correct the problem or counsel against the marriage beforehand.

The teaching of Scripture is clear and definitive: God created women to be helpers of men. A Catholic woman considering Matrimony should accept that just as the man exists to serve God and neighbor, so she exists to serve her man and her family. If she rejects this notion of womanhood, it is better for everyone that she not enter into a marriage.

Canon Law, Debates, Editorials, Moral Theology

Why Archbishop Viganò is smarter than Michael Matt

October 25, 2023 Editor 5 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

French Translation

Earlier this month, Michael Matt, the editor of The Remnant and a descendant from what appears to be a Frankist Jew, on his mother’s side, who began the family’s tradition of printing Catholic news information, won international notoriety by squelching the video of Archbishop Viganò at the former’s Catholic Identity Conference, even though he has sold the conference on the promise of an exclusive interview with the famed Vatican monsignor.

FromRome.Info reported on that here.

The substance of the Archbishop’s talk, however, was lost in the news cycle, and therefore, because it is important and impinges on the canonical questions regarding the validity of the papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis, I want to take it up in this essay.

The thesis of the Archbishop touches on the principal of acceptance of a canonical or juridically valid election.

And the Archbishop’s thesis is that a man who intends to destroy the Church or who has a heretical intention in wanting to be the Pope, cannot validly consent to accepting the office. He calls this the vitium consensus, or the vice in the act of consent.

Matt squelched the talk because he insists that those who participated in the conference did not want or deserve to have their reputations smeared with the accusation of sedevacantism.

But this argument of Michael Matt is absurd on the face of it. Sedevacantism is the ideology that there is no pope, no matter what the evidence is; but the argument of the Archbishop is a profound one, namely, that inasmuch as being the pope requires a man to receive the Mandate given St. Peter, it is impossible for a heretic to do this, since he has no relationship with Jesus Christ and thus no intention to do so, even if he says yes.

That “yes” then is a deception.

I have briefly commented on this before, saying, while the argument is a good one theologically or morally, it is canonically a difficult solution. This is because, being a baptised, confirmed Catholic, consecrated a Bishop and lawfully nominated as a Cardinal, in law he must be presumed to have consented validly to be the pope, when asked, and when responding, “Yes”.

As I pointed out in my satirical article about the Cardinal from Guadalajara, Spain, here, presumption has its limits. But presuming yes, when someone says yes, is clearly within the ordinary limits.

So from a juridical point of view, it is impossible to prove the case advanced by the Archbishop against Bergoglio. He could sufficiently remain silent and the presumption of the law would be that he validly consented.

But I think that the thesis of Viganò, however, is not to be lightly cast aside, because it does have its place where juridical right is determined by theological discernment. That is, where rights come into being and are extinguished by the authority Christ gave to the Church, under the guide of the Holy Spirit, to judge all things in the light of God.

And that place is a juridically valid Council of Bishops, whether universal or particular, that is, whether in a General Council of the whole Church, or in a Provincial Council of an ecclesiastical province.

Because there, what a man has done and said can be judged. And this judgement can regard whether these acts constitute heresy, apostasy or schism, whereupon if they be judge there to attain to this, the person who is presumed to consent, can be discerned in a juridically valid manner never to have consented and/or in a juridically valid manner to no longer so consent.

In the case of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, if it can be proven, for example, that he became a member of the Masonic Lodge before 1983 he fell under excommunication in the old Code of 1917 for that, and such a council could judge him to be invalidly nominated a Cardinal and invalidly elected and incapable of validly consenting to be the pope. Likewise if he joined after 1983, when the new Code of Canon Law, without this penalty, was approved, on the grounds that he was incapable of validly consenting inasmuch as he holds heretical views or is an apostate in virtue of the Masonic creed.

And that is why the thesis of the Archbishop must be considered in a Provincial Council of the kind proposed in the Sutri Initiative.

So the Archbishop is far smarter than Michael Matt. He is also more of a gentleman and cares more for the whole Church and the salvation of souls than others do of their own reputations.

Michael Matt is a graduate of Christendom College, an institution founded by 3 CIA agents. That Bergoglio was put into power by the CIA under the auspices of Hilary Clinton can be discerned when reading his homilies, which channel Barack Obama 99% on the same issues, such as globalism, immigration, poverty, discrimination, etc..

Call to Action, Canon Law, News

The Sutri Initiative: to put an end to the Heresies, Blasphemies, Scandals perpetrated by Pope Francis

October 20, 2023 Editor 141 Comments

PUBLISHED FROM SUTRI ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2023 A.D.

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

TRADUCTION FRANÇAIS — VERSIONE ITALIANA — TRADUCCIÓN AL ESPAÑOL

Yesterday, I explained from Sutri, Italy, (here) how the First Provincial Council or Synod of Sutri put an end to the horrible chaos of the Roman Church in 1046, when 3 different men claimed the office of the Pope: one a predatory sodomite, another an outright usurper, and still another a flagrant simoniac.

Today, I ask all the faithful in the whole world to please listen to a voice of sanity: to do what the Faithful of the 11th century did and call for a Provincial Council to be held once again, to put an end to the years of scandals, blasphemies, heresies and schism, not to mention persecutions, perpetrated and promoted by Jorge Mario Bergoglio who claims to hold the office of the Roman Pontiff.

The Sutri Initiative is the only juridical and real solution to put an end to the crisis in the Roman Church since it addresses the problem directly and in a canonical valid and facile manner.

But to achieve the convocation of such a Council, we the faithful must make our voices heard, and petition the Bishops of the Roman Province to convoke it.

These Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops belong to the following 20 jurisdictions. By clicking on the links below you can find the addresses of the Bishop or Auxiliary Bishops. I urge you to write them all, individually, a personal letter.

Roma {Rome}: Albano (Suburbicarian See), Anagni-Alatri, Civita Castellana, Civitavecchia-Tarquinia, Frascati (Suburbicarian See), Frosinone-Veroli-Ferentino, Gaeta (Archdiocese), Latina-Terracina-Sezze-Priverno, Montecassino (Territorial Abbey), Ostia (Suburbicarian See), Palestrina (Suburbicarian See), Porto-Santa Rufina (Suburbicarian See), Rieti (-S. Salvatore Maggiore), Sabina-Poggio Mirteto (Suburbicarian See), Subiaco (Territorial Abbey), Tivoli, Velletri-Segni (Suburbicarian See), Viterbo — The Diocese of Sora-Cassino-Aquino-Pontecorvo may also be a member.

Since in 4 cases, one Bishop rules 2 diocese at the same time (As in the cases of Frascati & Velletri, and Porto-Santa Rufino & Civitavecchia-Tarquinia and Tivoli & Palestrina, and Frosinone-Veroli-Ferrentino & Anagni-Alatri), and since one Diocese no longer exists (Ostia) separately from Rome, the actual 15 addresses of the 15 Bishops to be contacted by letter are as follows. Here I write them in the style accepted in Italy.

Msgr. Vincenzo Viva
Vecovo di Albano
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Vescovile, 11
00041 Albano Laziale (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Ambrogio Spreafico
Curia Vescovile
Via dei Villini, 82
03014 Fiuggi (Frosinone)
Italia

Msgr. Marco Salvi
Curia Diocesana
Piazza Matteotti, 27
01033 Civita Castellana (Viterbo)
Italia

Msgr. Gianrico Ruzza
Piazza Calamatta 1
00053 Civitavecchia (Roma), Italia

Msgr.Stefano Russo
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Paolo III 10
00044 Frascati (Roma)
Italia

Msgr. Luigi Vari
Piazza Arcivescovado 2
04024 Gaeta (Latina)
Italia

Msgr. Mariano Crociata
Vescovado
Via Sezze 16
04100 Latina
Italia

Abate Antonio Luca Fallica, O.S.B.
Abbazia
Via Montecassino,
03043 Cassino (Frosinone)
Italia

Cardinale Angelo De Donatis (Update: Now Cardinale Baldassare Reina)
Vicariato di Roma
Piazza S. Giovanni in Laterano 6/a
00184 Roma, Italia

Msgr. Mauro Parmeggiani
Curia Vescovile
Piazza Gregorio Pantanelli 8
00036 Palestrina (Roma)
Italia

Msgr. Gianrico Ruzza
Curia Vescovile
Via del Cenacolo 53
00123 Roma – La Storta (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Vito Piccinonna
Vescovado
Via Cintia 83
02100 Rieti
Italia

Msgr. Ernesto Mandara
Vescovado
Piazza Mario Dottori 14
02047 Poggio Mirteto (Rieti)
Italia

Abate Mauro Meacci, O.S.B.
Piazza S. Scolastica 1
00028 Subiaco (ROMA)
Italia

Msgr. Orazio Francesco Piazza
Palazzo Vescovile
Piazza S. Lorenzo 9/a
01100 Viterbo
Italia

Proposed Letter

We can do this by writing letters or speaking in person. But in this we can act in two different ways: one by listing all the errors, heresies, blasphemies and persecutions perpetrated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio during the years he has claimed the Papacy; or we can enlighten the Bishops as to the correct canonical way of proceeding, most of whom perhaps have no clear idea.

This second aspect of the problem is the most crucial since it is the one which is less patent.

And thus, in the Sutri Initiative, I urge you that to make your letter effective, you should see to it, that it contain the correct canonical justification and argumentation.

I present a proposed text, which you can address to each bishop and sign with your full name and address. You can write in Italian, French or English, or if you write in another language, please include a translation of your letter in one of these 3 languages.

Proposed text:

Your Excellency,

I am writing to you in accord with my rights in Canon 212, §2, to demand an end be put to the scandals, heresies, blasphemies and doctrinal and moral confusion being promoted by Pope Francis and those appointed by him in the Roman Curia, on the grounds that this is causing the loss of tens of millions of souls who are thus put in the gravest spiritual danger, confusion and disorientation by the constant affirmation of things which are contrary to Divine Revelation, Sacred and Apostolic Tradition, Catholic Doctrine and the defined dogmas of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I.

Thus, in accord with canon 1752, which affirms that the salvation of souls is the greatest good and highest end of all juridical ordinance in the Church of Jesus Christ, I beg you to recognize that by the continuous grave scandals perpetrated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio the Apostolic See has been put into a state of impediment, since millions of Catholics cannot reconcile his pertinacious errors and heresies as compatible with being a member of the Catholic Church, without which quality he cannot be a legitimate holder of the Petrine Munus or claimant to the Apostolic Dignity.

Therefore, since according to Canon 440 ff., the Provincial Council in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome is empowered to judge and discern all questions which regard the common good of the Church, and since the positive doubt as to the Catholicity of a claimant to the Apostolic See makes it impossible for the Church in good conscience to remain in communication with a doubtful claimant, because a papa dubius papa nullius est, it becomes your grave duty before the Living God and the entire Church, to urge the convening of such a Provincial Council according to the right expressed in canon 440 §1.

Such a Council can be legitimately convoked according to the norm of canon 442 §2, because a positive doubt regarding the claim of a man to the office of the Roman Pontiff creates such a conflict of interests that he cannot legitimately forestall its convocation nor has he a right to so long as he persists in grave moral and doctrinal errors, as this man has done for years in the judgement of millions of souls. The state of impediment exists as a fact on account of his failure to recant his public errors, the list of which grows weekly.

I therefore demand that for the salvation of souls, the removal of all scandal, and to obtain the possible grace of the conversion of the man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, from his errant ways, that such a Council be convoked according to the norm of canons 443 and 444, and that it exercise its plenary authority in accord with canon 445, by pronouncing whether the man who claims the office of the Papacy rejects the Catholic Faith, has broken from communion with the Church, or is an apostate and idolater. Let the man accused be summoned to explain himself. Let the Council Fathers question him on matters of Catholic Faith and Morals; let his public scandals be listed for him to hear. Let him be recalled to the Catholic Faith, right morals and a sane pastoral care of the faithful. Let it be demanded that he recant his errors and if he does, let him be begged and counseled to withdraw his ruinous decrees. If he refuse rebuke, let him be pronounced as being guilty of one or more of the crimes punished with latae sententiae excommunication in Canon 1364 and let the Council declare that the See of Peter be legitimately vacant.

The Provincial Council of Rome rebuked Pope Marcellinus for his act of public idolatry of the Roman god, Mars and the Provincial Council held at Sutri in 1046 deposed three unworthy claimants to the Apostolic Throne, for their gross immorality and unlawful claim: Benedict IX, Sylvester III and Gregory VI.

It is your duty before the living God to see to the salvation of souls. The Provincial Council in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome has the authority in law and by precedent to act in this way. More than a billion souls hang in the balance.

Have fear of the Living God for what will be your judgment if you do not heed such a reasonable, juridically valid and honest solution to the greatest crisis in the history of the Papacy. And trust like Saint Paul the Apostle trusted, when he went to Antioch to rebuke St Peter to his face, for not holding to the decrees of the First Council of Jerusalem.

For if you believe the man to be Peter still, you must trust the Holy Spirit will lead him back to a Catholic state of mind; and if you do not believe him to be Peter still, you have the solemn duty to take action to declare the Apostolic See legitimately vacant.

Sincerely,

_______________________________________

UPDATE: For more information about the juridical justification to call such a Provincial council see here: https://www.fromrome.info/2023/12/28/on-the-rebuke-and-deposition-of-a-heretical-pope/

Canon Law, Church History, Videos

The Provincial Council of Sutri, Dec. 20-23, 1046 A.D., and It’s importance for the Church of Today (Video)

October 19, 2023 Editor 14 Comments

Traduzione Italiana in fondo

Editor’s Note: Tomorrow I will launch the Sutri Initiative. But as a preparation, here is my first video made at Sutri, Italy, recounting the remarkable and historic events which took place here in 1046, and its importance for resolving the crisis in which the Church of Rome finds Herself now.

This video is also available on YouTube here:

FromRome.info gives permission to all to translate, transcribe and publish other language versions of this video. — Br. Bugnolo’s other articles on Sutri and Provincial Councils can be found here and here.

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO — which corrects some minor errors in the video

Traduzione Italiana in fondo

Welcome to FromRome.Info Video. My name is Br. Alexis Bugnolo. I am the publisher and editor of FromRome.info an electronic journal for news, information and commentary about the Catholic Church, the Vatican, Rome and Italy.

Today I find myself in Sutri, in the province of Viterbo, to discuss the Council of Sutri and its implications for the Church of Today.

Here in Sutri, there occurred in 1046 A. D. one of the most curious, interesting and unique events in the entire history of the Church. One so obscure that, even at Sutri, it is forgotten.

Sutri has a long history. As you see here, this is the modern gateway to the old part of town. Behind me is the Cathedral in the old part of two. But in 1046 the town only extended this far.

Sutri was the first town given to the Roman Pontiff in the Roman countryside, by the Lombard King Luitiprand. It has always had an intimate relationship with the Apostolic See. And here in the old town, the Church of St. Sylvester was aggregated to the Basilica of Saint Peter.

The Synod of Sutri, or more exactly the Council of Sutri was an even that solved one of the knotting questions of its age. It’s an extraordinary example of how medievals addressed problems directly and solved them and did not spend their time lamenting and tweeting about them for years.

A little background on the Synod of Sutri

In 1032, nearly a 1000 years ago, there was elected to the Apostle See Theophylactus of Tusculum. He was one of the youngest men ever to be elected pope. He came from a power family of land holders in Lazio. He was only however 20 years old, and was perhaps chosen by the members of his family because he was the only male member who was yet unmarried, and thus, who could hold ecclesiastic office.

But very soon, things went wrong, in a most extraordinary way, because Theophylactus of Tusculum, who took the papal name, Benedict IX, was, according to historians, one of the most immoral men ever to sit on the Chair of Saint Peter. No less than Saint Peter Damnian says he was a flagrant sodomite. Other writers said he committed moral depravities so obscene they could not describe them. The scandals grews. He hosted orgies, he engaged in bestiality, he raped other men, maybe even boys, and all Italy was disgusted by the man.

But as he was a member of a very powerful family, by force of arms he held the Apostolic See.

Until the disgust grew so big, that his rivals drove him from the city of Rome. And here is where the Catholic faction who wanted an honest man on the throne of Saint Peter erred, because they took a bishop from Sabina and elected him the pope. He took the name Sylvester III. Since Benedict IX was still alive, Sylvester is recognized by all ecclesiastic historians as an antipope, even though he lived an upright and honorable life and ruled the Church of Rome with satisfaction of the people.

Now, if you are not a Catholic you might find this very scandalous.

How can someone who is completely immoral be the true pope and an upright man be an antipope? Well, holding an office in the Catholic Church is not based on your personal morality but upon whether you were legitimately elected to the office. As in modern times, it does not matter how popular a candidate is or how upright, only if he has been legally elected, he can hold the office.

Benedict IX, being from a powerful family, eventually drove Sylvester III from Rome. But the scandals continued and Benedict returned to his immoral life. Eventually he decided, however, to marry one of his cousins and obtain her wealth by dowry. But since as Pope one was forbidden to marry, he sought counsel with his godfather, John Gratian who was a very learned and wealthy priest of Rome. And so they agreed that Benedict IX would resign and that John Gratian would purchase the papacy from him, so that Theophylatcus could obtain the money he needed for his wedding

Well, when word of this became public, Catholics of Italy were scandalized, because you should not purchase or sell an ecclesiastical office. That is one of the greatest sins in the Church and it much scandalized the faithful of the 11th century, because of the commercialization of an intangible spiritual gift which should be freely given.

So the Bishops of Italy wrote the German King, Henry III. This was the year 1045 A. D. Now, Henry III wanted to be crowned Emperor of the Romans, a thing which could only be done by the Pope in Rome. But Henry III did not want any one of these three men to lay the crown upon his head, lest his reputation be stained by them; so he announced that he would put the Church of Rome in order and resolve the dispute among these three popes: Benedict XI, Sylvester III and Gregory VI. John Gratian had taken this last name.

Gregory VI being a very proper man, after purchasing the papacy had the clergy of Rome elect him Pontiff and then wrote to the German King for approval of his election. Because from about 950 to 1050, the Kings of Germany had the right to approve or confirm papal elections.

Upon receiving his letters, the German King gave no immediate response

.. but descended into Italy and asked Gregory VI to convene a provincial council here at Sutri.

And this is why I have come here today to tell you the story no one else will tell.

Sutri was a small medieval borgo. It probably had no more than 5000 souls living in its environs. And this council of Sutri took place, most likely, in this tiny Church of St. Sylvester, behind me.

The year was 1046 Anno Domini. The date was December 20th. And the Germany King with his bodyguard of soldiers, calvary and noblemen, along with all the Bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Rome and the principal members of the clergy of Rome came to this little church, and perhaps filled this tiny piazza – which perhaps was larger back then, since Italians have the habit of encroaching upon public spaces and attended this Council of Sutri, a most unique event, because at this Council 3 pope were deposed.

And this historic event is one of the most controverted in the post Tridentine era of the Church. This is because at the Council of Basel in 1432, the Bishops during the sessions which were not approved by the Roman Pontiff, after the Pope left, taught that a universal council of all the Bishops of the Catholic Church was superior to the Pope. And this began three centuries of conflict in the West where many Bishops and theologians promoted the error of Conciliarism, which taught this error. So many writers of that epoch tried to portray the Council of Sutri as proof of the truth of conciliarism. But conciliarism was later condemned as a grave error and heresy, I believe, by Pope Pius VII, because the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and no one can judge him.

So how is it, then, that at this Council of Sutri in 1046, 3 popes were deposed?

To understand this we have to make a very fine distinction: the distinction between the man who is the pope, and the man as the pope.

So, before you are elected pope, you are just a man, and when you are elected you are asked to accept your election; and it is the man who says yes. But once you say yes, you hold the office of the pope and then the two realities, the office and the man, walk together, as it were. But its the man who eats eggs at breakfast and toasts wine in the evening, not the Roman Pontiff. It’s the Roman Pontiff who says mass, teaches, promulgates documents and laws. So the two realities, while they go together, are distinct. And the man who holds the office of Roman Pontiff holds it as the man. That is why when a pope resigns, its the man who resigns, not the pope. Though in canon law, if you don’t understand this distinction you won’t see that, because in canon 332, section 2, it talks about the Roman Pontiff renouncing.

So here at the council of Sutri, they did not judge the Roman Pontiff. They judged the three men who claimed to be the Roman Pontiff. And this claim is a natural fact, a historical fact, a juridical fact, and to judge it’s validity is the duty of a Provincial Council, because in canons 440-443, even in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, a provincial council can establish disciplinary measured which bind all the Churches in the province.

So the mere fact that provincial councils operate in the same manner as they did back then shows the perenniality of the Catholic Church and how important the juridical character of the Council of Sutri in 1046 was, that the Catholic Church thereafter never changed the rules for provincial councils, because of its outcome.

And so on December 20-23, 1046 A. D. 3 Popes were deposed

Of course, the outcome of the Council of Sutri here in this little Church probably had a lot to do with the will of the German King, Henry III, on account of his military forces surrounding the place, but it was also something wanted by the clergy of Rome and the Bishops of central Italy, because it was simply an intolerable situation to have 3 popes: one who was a predatory sodomite, and that was Benedict IX; one who was a usurper, and that was Sylvester III; and one who was a simoniac, and that was Gregory VI. – The crime of simony consists in the sale and purchase of ecclesiastical offices.

So they met here on Dec 20, 1046, from the 20th to the 23rd. And Gregory VI and the German King summoned all three popes to the council. Benedict IX refused to come.

Sylvester III came. He was judged to have usurped the papacy and never legally held the office of Pope. He was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in a monastery, even though he was otherwise an upright man. – You can commit a crime evne with good intentions. – That is why you won’t find his name among the popes.

The next on trial was Gregory VI. The German King and council asked him to relate how he became pope. And they were aghast to learn that it was a contract of sale on the condition of resignation and exchange of money. – We do not know to this day what kind of contract it was. Did Benedict resign because Gregory paid him money to convince him? – If that happened then he resignation of Benedict X would be invalid. But if Benedict resigned and took the money to support the claim of Gregory to be the pope, then the resignation would be valid.

And the Church holds that the resignation of Benedict IX was valid.

But the entire council was scandalized by the relation of the events. And John Gratian knew that purchasing an ecclesiastical office was wrong. And Henry III was not going to accept the imperial crown from a simoniac. So Gregory was asked to resign. The imperial register says that Henry III deposed him. But Bl. Victor III, abbot of Monte Cassino, and future pope, who was present, says that Gregory VI out of humility resigned freely. And both stories might be true.

So that left Benedict IX. What he pope or not? The Council summoned him, but he refused to appear. So the Council judged him contumacious for refusing the summons, and he was excommunicated for selling the papacy. Whether he had representatives here to plead his case, we do not know.

So that was the Council of Sutri, in 1046. Afterwards, the German King and Clergy of Rome nominated the chaplain of the Germany Kind, the Bishop of Bamberg, as Clement II and the next day at the Vatican, on Dec. 24, he was duly elected. And on Christmas Day the Germany King was given the imperial crown by Clement II.

And this is the Council of Sutri, a council not to be forgotten.

The value of the example of Sutri for the Church of today

This is my first video about the Counci of Sutri. And it shows us today the way forward out of the present problems of the Church. Because if some claimant of the papacy appears to many learned and rational Catholic clergy to be one who does not hold to the Catholic Faith or who has no intention of even being a Christian, it is clear that the Church as a problem. Should catholics listen to such a man or should they not listen to him. In the Catholic Church we have a canon 1364, which says that heretics, schismatics and apostates are automatically excommunicated. I believe canon 192 says, however, that in such cases a judgment must be made.

So in a question of the Apostolic See it is only a provincial council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome which can judge the case, and this is why the Synod of Sutri in 1046 is so important for our present age. Already Catholics from around the world are writing the bishops of the Roman ecclesiastical province asking them to call a Council; because in canon law, if the Apostolic See is impeded, they can convene a council on their own authority and summon a claimant to the apostolis see to determine if his claim is valid or not. This is very important because there are proposals now, here in the air at Rome, to grant permission to Catholic priests or clergy, to bless unions which are not of one man and one woman in Christian matrimony. And which are contrary even to the natural law. And there is a big debate about that. But to do that would be clearly and act of apostasy because in the Catholic Church, according to the Christian religion, from the day Christ opened His mouth, you have to believe and repent, repent and believe; you cannot just claim to believe what you want to and practice whatever sin you want. That is not Christianity. So from the moment that something like that would be approved, the clergy who approved of it would become public apostates. And we are pretty much on the verge of that. The Synod on Synodality is in session at Rome, it concludes Oct. 28th. I am making this video on October 19. So the Synod concludes in 9 days. We will soon know what kind of decisions will be made and we will soon know if Pope Francis is going to un-pope himself as Cardinal Mueller implied, when he said, that to approve such a thing contrary to the Deposit of the Faith, would cause pope Francis to lose his moral authority. – That is a diplomatic way of saying lose his office.

But whatever Pope Francis decides to teach, and whatever Catholics think of it or not, or whether millions of Catholics follow or do not follow him in this, only a provincial council can make a decision which binds on the whole Church.

So this is the video on the Council of Sutri, Dec. 20-23th, 1046. It is not even mentioned on the historical bulletin board over there. But it is the most remarkable council in the history of the Church; and it was here in this moment of history, 980 years ago, that all these controversies of canon law, juridical principles and theological questions and rights of the Pope, the supremacy of the pope, the validity of papal elections, all came together and changed history.

It was after this council that Clement II was elected pope and it was his successor, who was also a German, in 1054 who excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and begame the Great East-West Schism, a thing an Italian pope probably would not have done.

So there were big consequences of this council. And so important was its decisions to its contemporaries that 15 years later the clergy of Rome came here to the Church of St. Sylvestr, for the Second Council of Sutri, to decide rules for the reform of the clergy of the City.

This council was approved of by some of the great Saints of its day. In these days, there was present in council Saint Hildebrand, who was the acolyte of Gregory VI and would himself go one to be elected some 20 years later, as Gregory VII. At Rome, when the Council concluded, there was Saint Peter Damian, who praised its decisions. And though he was not present in person, Bl. Victor III, who years later would become Abbot of Monte Cassino, and be elected Pope 40 years later, speaks highly of it in his histories of this age. So there were 2 Saints and 1 Blessed who approved of this council, and the Church to our day recognizes that Gregory VI was deposed here.

Unfortunately many do not know of this council and confuse its issues with many controversies which arose centuries later. A provincial council that rebukes a pope or which questions his claim to his title is nothing more than what Saint Paul the Apostle did at Antioch when he reproved Peter the Apostle for not holding to the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem.

If you liked this video give it a thumbs up, please share it. Thank you.

TRADUZIONE ITALIANA

Benvenuti in questo video di FromRome.Info. Sono Fr. Alessio Bugnolo. Sono colui che pubblica e fa l’editing di FromRome.info, un giornale elettronico di notizie, informazioni e commenti sulla Chiesa cattolica, il Vaticano, Roma e l’Italia.

Oggi mi trovo a Sutri, in provincia di Viterbo, per discutere del Concilio di Sutri e delle sue implicazioni per la Chiesa di oggi.

Qui a Sutri si verificò nel 1046 d.C. uno degli eventi più curiosi, interessanti e unici dell’intera storia della Chiesa. Uno così oscuro che, anche a Sutri, è dimenticato.

Sutri ha una lunga storia. Come vedete qui, questa è la porta moderna verso la parte vecchia della città. Dietro di me c’è la Cattedrale nella parte vecchia. Ma nel 1046 la città si estendeva solo fin qui.

Sutri fu il primo centro donato al Romano Pontefice nel contado romano, dal re longobardo Liutprando. Ha sempre avuto un rapporto intimo con la Sede Apostolica. E qui, nel centro storico, la Chiesa di San Silvestro è stata aggregata alla Basilica di San Pietro.

Il Sinodo di Sutri, o più esattamente il Concilio di Sutri, fu un evento che risolse una delle questioni intricate della sua epoca. È un esempio straordinario di come i medievali affrontassero i problemi direttamente e li risolvessero senza passare il tempo a lamentarsi e a twittare al riguardo per anni.

Un po’ di storia del Sinodo di Sutri.

Nel 1032, quasi mille anni fa, fu eletto apostolo Teofilatto di Tuscolo. Fu uno degli uomini più giovani mai eletti papa. Proveniva da una potente famiglia di proprietari terrieri del Lazio. Aveva però solo 20 anni e fu forse scelto dai membri della sua famiglia perché era l’unico maschio ancora celibe e quindi in grado di ricoprire incarichi ecclesiastici.

Ma ben presto le cose andarono storte, in un modo davvero straordinario, perché Teofilatto di Tuscolo, che prese il nome papale, Benedetto IX, fu, secondo gli storici, uno degli uomini più immorali che si siano mai seduti presso l’ufficio ecclesiastico. Addirittura, San Pier Damiani afferma che fu un flagrante sodomita. Altri scrittori dissero che era coinvolto in depravazioni morali così oscene da non poterle descrivere. Gli scandali crebbero. Fece orge, praticò bestialità, violentò altri uomini, forse anche ragazzi, e tutta l’Italia era disgustata da quell’uomo.

Ma poiché apparteneva a una famiglia molto potente, con la forza delle armi tenne la Sede Apostolica.

Finché il disgusto non diventò così grande, che i suoi rivali lo cacciarono dalla città di Roma. Ed è qui che la fazione cattolica che voleva un uomo onesto sul trono di San Pietro ha sbagliato, perché presero un vescovo della Sabina e lo elessero papa. Prese il nome di Silvestro III. Poiché Benedetto IX era ancora in vita, Silvestro è riconosciuto da tutti gli storici ecclesiastici come un antipapa, anche se visse una vita retta e onorevole e governò la Chiesa di Roma con soddisfazione del popolo.

Ora, se non siete cattolici, potreste trovare questo molto scandaloso. Come può qualcuno che è completamente immorale essere il vero papa e un uomo retto essere un antipapa? Ebbene, ricoprire una carica nella Chiesa cattolica non si basa sulla tua moralità personale, ma sul fatto che tu sia stato legittimamente eletto alla carica. Come nei tempi moderni, non importa quanto un candidato sia popolare o quanto sia onesto, solo se è stato eletto legalmente può ricoprire la carica.

Benedetto IX, proveniente da una famiglia potente, alla fine cacciò Silvestro III da Roma. Ma gli scandali continuarono e Benedetto ritornò alla sua vita immorale. Alla fine, decise, però, di sposare una delle sue cugine e di ottenere la sua ricchezza tramite dote. Ma poiché come Papa era proibito sposarsi, cercò consiglio presso il suo padrino, Giovanni Graziano, che era un prete di Roma molto dotto e ricco. E così concordarono che Benedetto IX si dimettesse e che Giovanni Graziano acquistasse da lui il pontificato, affinché Teofilatto potesse ottenere il denaro di cui aveva bisogno per le sue nozze.

Ebbene, quando la notizia divenne pubblica, i cattolici d’Italia si scandalizzarono, perché non si deve comprare né vendere un ufficio ecclesiastico. Questo è uno dei peccati più grandi della Chiesa e scandalizzò molto i fedeli dell’XI secolo, a causa della commercializzazione di un dono spirituale intangibile che dovrebbe essere donato gratuitamente.
Così scrivevano i Vescovi d’Italia al re tedesco Enrico III. Era l’anno 1045 d.C. Ora, Enrico III voleva essere incoronato imperatore dei romani, cosa che poteva essere fatta solo dal Papa a Roma. Ma Enrico III non volle che nessuno di questi tre uomini gli mettesse la corona sul capo, affinché la sua reputazione non ne fosse macchiata; annunciò così che avrebbe messo ordine nella Chiesa di Roma e risolto la disputa tra questi tre papi: Benedetto XI, Silvestro III e Gregorio VI. Giovanni Graziano aveva preso tale nome.

Gregorio VI, essendo un uomo molto perbene, dopo aver acquistato il papato si fece eleggere pontefice dal clero di Roma e poi scrisse al re tedesco per l’approvazione della sua elezione. Perché dal 950 al 1050 circa i re di Germania avevano il diritto di approvare o confermare le elezioni papali.

Ricevute le sue lettere, il re tedesco non diede immediata risposta ma scese in Italia e chiese a Gregorio VI di convocare qui a Sutri un concilio provinciale.

Ed è per questo che sono venuto qui oggi per raccontarvi la storia che nessun altro racconterà.

Sutri era un piccolo borgo medievale. Probabilmente non contava più di 5000 anime nei suoi dintorni. E questo concilio di Sutri si è svolto, molto probabilmente, in questa minuscola Chiesa di San Silvestro, alle mie spalle.

L’anno era il 1046. La data era il 20 dicembre. E il Re di Germania, con la sua guardia del corpo di soldati, cavalleria e nobili, insieme a tutti i Vescovi della provincia ecclesiastica di Roma e i principali membri del clero di Roma, vennero a questa chiesetta, e riempirono forse questa minuscola piazza – che forse era più grande allora, dal momento che gli italiani hanno l’abitudine di invadere gli spazi pubblici, e hanno partecipato a questo Concilio di Sutri, un evento davvero unico, perché in questo Concilio furono deposti 3 papi.

E questo evento storico è uno dei più controversi dell’epoca post tridentina della Chiesa. Questo perché nel Concilio di Basilea del 1432, i Vescovi, durante le sessioni non approvate dal Romano Pontefice, dopo la partenza del Papa, insegnarono che un concilio universale di tutti i Vescovi della Chiesa cattolica era superiore al Papa. E questo ha dato inizio a tre secoli di conflitto in Occidente dove molti Vescovi e teologi hanno promosso l’errore del Conciliarismo, che ha insegnato questo errore. Tanti scrittori dell’epoca tentarono di dipingere il Concilio di Sutri come una prova della verità del conciliarismo. Ma il conciliarismo è stato poi condannato come errore grave ed eresia, credo, da Papa Pio VII, perché il Romano Pontefice è il Vicario di Cristo e nessuno può giudicarlo.

Allora come mai in questo Concilio di Sutri del 1046 furono deposti 3 papi? Per capirlo dobbiamo fare una distinzione molto sottile: la distinzione tra l’uomo che è papa e l’uomo in quanto papa.

Quindi, prima di essere eletto papa, sei semplicemente un uomo, e quando sei eletto ti viene chiesto di accettare la tua elezione; ed è l’uomo che dice di sì. Ma una volta che dici sì, ricopri la carica di papa e allora le due realtà, la carica e l’uomo, camminano, per così dire, insieme. Ma è l’uomo che mangia le uova a colazione e brinda col vino la sera, non il Romano Pontefice. È il Romano Pontefice che dice messa, insegna, promulga documenti e leggi. Quindi le due realtà, pur andando insieme, sono distinte. E l’uomo che ricopre l’ufficio di Romano Pontefice lo ricopre come uomo. Ecco perché quando un papa si dimette, è l’uomo che si dimette, non il papa. Tuttavia, nel diritto canonico, se non capisci questa distinzione non la vedrai, perché nel canone 332, sezione 2, si parla della rinuncia del Romano Pontefice.

Quindi qui al concilio di Sutri non hanno giudicato il Romano Pontefice. Giudicarono i tre uomini che affermavano di essere il Romano Pontefice. E questa affermazione è un fatto naturale, un fatto storico, un fatto giuridico, e giudicarne la validità è compito di un Consiglio provinciale, perché nei can. 440-443, anche nel Codice di Diritto Canonico del 1983, promulgato da Papa Giovanni Paolo II, un consiglio provinciale può stabilire provvedimenti disciplinari che vincolano tutte le Chiese della provincia.

Quindi il solo fatto che i concili provinciali funzionino nello stesso modo di allora dimostra la perennità della Chiesa cattolica e quanto importante fosse il carattere giuridico del Concilio di Sutri del 1046, che da allora in poi la Chiesa cattolica non ha mai cambiato le regole dei concili provinciali, a causa del suo esito.

Certo, l’esito del Concilio di Sutri qui, in questa chiesetta, probabilmente ha molto a che fare con la volontà del re tedesco Enrico III, a causa delle sue forze militari che circondavano il luogo, ma è stato anche qualcosa di voluto dal clero di Roma e dei Vescovi dell’Italia centrale, perché era semplicemente una situazione intollerabile avere 3 papi: uno sodomita predatore, e quello era Benedetto IX; uno che era un usurpatore, e quello era Silvestro III; e uno che era simoniaco, e cioè Gregorio VI. Il delitto di simonia consiste nella compravendita di uffici ecclesiastici.

Quindi si incontrarono qui il 20 dicembre 1046, dal 20 al 23. E Gregorio VI e il re tedesco convocarono al concilio tutti e tre i papi. Benedetto IX si rifiutò di venire.

Arrivò Silvestro III. Si ritiene che abbia usurpato il papato e non abbia mai ricoperto legalmente la carica di papa. Fu arrestato e condannato all’ergastolo in un monastero, anche se per il resto era un uomo retto. Puoi commettere un crimine anche con buone intenzioni. Ecco perché non troverai il suo nome tra i papi.

Il successivo processato fu Gregorio VI. Il re tedesco e il consiglio gli chiesero di raccontare come divenne papa. E rimasero inorriditi nell’apprendere che si trattava di un contratto di vendita con condizione di dimissioni e scambio di denaro. Ad oggi non sappiamo che tipo di contratto fosse. Benedetto si dimise perché Gregorio gli pagò dei soldi per convincerlo? Se successe questo allora le dimissioni di Benedetto X non sarebbero valide. Ma se Benedetto si dimise e prese i soldi per sostenere la pretesa di Gregorio di diventare papa, allora le dimissioni sarebbero valide.

E la Chiesa ritiene valide le dimissioni di Benedetto IX.

Ma l’intero Concilio rimase scandalizzato dalla narrazione degli avvenimenti. E Giovanni Graziano sapeva che acquistare un ufficio ecclesiastico era sbagliato. E Enrico III non avrebbe accettato la corona imperiale da un simoniaco. Quindi a Gregorio è stato chiesto di dimettersi. Il registro imperiale dice che Enrico III lo depose. Ma il beato Vittore III, abate di Montecassino e futuro papa, che era presente, dice che Gregorio VI per umiltà si dimise liberamente. Ed entrambe le storie potrebbero essere vere.

Quindi restava Benedetto IX. Papa o no? Il Consiglio lo convocò, ma egli rifiutò di comparire. Perciò il Concilio lo giudicò contumace per aver rifiutato la citazione, e fu scomunicato per aver venduto il papato. Non sappiamo se avesse rappresentanti qui per perorare la sua causa.

Così fu il Concilio di Sutri, nel 1046. Successivamente, il re tedesco e il clero di Roma nominarono Clemente II, il cappellano della gente di Germania, vescovo di Bamberga, e il giorno dopo in Vaticano, il 24 dicembre, egli è stato regolarmente eletto. E il giorno di Natale il re di Germania ricevette la corona imperiale da Clemente II.
E questo è il Concilio di Sutri, un concilio da non dimenticare.

Questo è il mio primo video sui Conci di Sutri. E ci indica oggi la via d’uscita dagli attuali problemi della Chiesa. Perché, se qualche pretendente al papato sembra a molti sacerdoti cattolici colti e razionali come qualcuno che non sostiene la fede cattolica o che non ha nemmeno intenzione di essere cristiano, è chiaro che la Chiesa ha un problema. I cattolici dovrebbero ascoltare un uomo simile o non dovrebbero ascoltarlo? Nella Chiesa cattolica abbiamo il canone 1364, che dice che gli eretici, gli scismatici e gli apostati vengono automaticamente scomunicati. Credo che il canone 192 dica, tuttavia, che in tali casi si deve emettere un giudizio.

Quindi in una questione della Sede Apostolica è solo un concilio provinciale della provincia ecclesiastica di Roma che può giudicare il caso, ed è per questo che il Sinodo di Sutri del 1046 è così importante per la nostra epoca attuale. Già cattolici di tutto il mondo scrivono ai vescovi della provincia ecclesiastica romana chiedendo loro di indire un Concilio; perché nel diritto canonico, se la Sede Apostolica è impedita, possono convocare di propria autorità un concilio e citare un pretendente alla Sede Apostolica per determinare se la sua pretesa è valida o meno. Questo è molto importante perché ci sono proposte ora, qui nell’aria a Roma, di concedere il permesso ai preti o al clero cattolico, di benedire le unioni che non sono di un uomo e una donna nel matrimonio cristiano. E che sono contrari anche alla legge naturale.

E c’è un grande dibattito a riguardo.

Ma farlo sarebbe chiaramente un atto di apostasia perché nella Chiesa cattolica, secondo la religione cristiana, dal giorno in cui Cristo aprì la bocca, devi credere e pentirti, pentirti e credere; non puoi semplicemente affermare di credere in ciò che vuoi e praticare qualunque peccato tu voglia. Questo non è cristianesimo. Quindi, dal momento in cui qualcosa del genere venisse approvato, il clero che lo approvasse diventerebbe un pubblico apostata. E siamo praticamente sull’orlo di questo. È in corso a Roma il Sinodo sulla sinodalità che si concluderà il 28 ottobre. Questo video lo farò il 19 ottobre. Quindi il Sinodo si conclude tra 9 giorni. Presto sapremo che tipo di decisioni verranno prese e presto sapremo se Papa Francesco rinuncerà, come ha lasciato intendere il cardinale Mueller, quando ha detto che approvare una cosa del genere, contraria al Deposito della Fede, sarebbe far perdere a papa Francesco la sua autorità morale. Questo è un modo diplomatico per dire che perderà la sua carica.

Ma qualunque cosa Papa Francesco decida di insegnare, e qualunque cosa i cattolici ne pensino o no, o se milioni di cattolici lo seguono o non lo seguono in questo, solo un concilio provinciale può prendere una decisione che vincola tutta la Chiesa.

Quindi questo è il video sul Concilio di Sutri, 20-23 dicembre 1046. Non è nemmeno menzionato nella bacheca storica laggiù. Ma è il concilio più notevole della storia della Chiesa; ed è stato qui in questo momento storico, 980 anni fa, che tutte queste controversie sul diritto canonico, sui principi giuridici e sulle questioni teologiche e sui diritti del Papa, sulla supremazia del papa, sulla validità delle elezioni papali, si sono riunite e hanno cambiato storia.

Fu dopo questo concilio che Clemente II fu eletto papa e fu il suo successore, anch’egli tedesco, nel 1054, a scomunicare il patriarca di Costantinopoli e a dare inizio al Grande Scisma Est-Ovest, cosa che un papa italiano probabilmente non avrebbe fatto.

Quindi ci furono grandi conseguenze da questo concilio. E le sue decisioni furono così importanti per i contemporanei che 15 anni dopo il clero di Roma venne qui nella chiesa di San Silvestro, per il Secondo Concilio di Sutri, per decidere le norme per la riforma del clero della Città.

Questo consiglio fu approvato da alcuni dei grandi santi del suo tempo. In questi giorni era presente al concilio sant’Ildebrando, che era l’accolita di Gregorio VI e che sarebbe andato lui stesso al papato una ventina di anni dopo, come Gregorio VII. A Roma, concluso il Concilio, c’era san Pier Damiani, che ne lodò le decisioni. E sebbene non fosse presente di persona, il beato Vittore III, che anni dopo sarebbe diventato abate di Montecassino e sarebbe stato eletto papa 40 anni dopo, ne parla molto bene nelle sue storie di quest’epoca. Quindi furono 2 Santi e 1 Beato che approvarono questo concilio, e la Chiesa fino ai nostri giorni riconosce che qui fu deposto Gregorio VI.

Purtroppo, molti non conoscono questo Concilio e ne confondono le questioni con le tante controversie sorte secoli dopo. Un concilio provinciale che rimprovera un papa o che mette in dubbio la sua pretesa al titolo non è altro che ciò che fece san Paolo apostolo ad Antiochia quando rimproverò Pietro apostolo di non essersi attenuto alle decisioni del Concilio di Gerusalemme.

Se ti è piaciuto questo video lascia un like e condividilo. Grazie.

Canon Law, News

VATICAN: Pope Francis issues Motu Proprio to curb Opus Dei’s influence in Dioceses

August 12, 2023 Editor 5 Comments

Commentary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Pope Francis has made a strong and forceful move against the entire work of Opus Dei, by quitely issuing a Motu Proprio on Wednesday of this week, and declaring it to go into effect immediately.

The news is being glossed over across the web, so it is important the I speak to that directly.

Click the image to the right to find out Zenit News has spun the story.

It has long been wondered who controls Zenit. Now you know.

Now look how Catholic News Service has spun the same story, below:

There is an old saying, “Thou doest protest too much!”, which based on the line from Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, Act III, spoken by Queen Gertrude: where one vociferously affirms something excessively so as not to be believed by the cogent observer. — Can we expect Pope Francis to encounter stronger opposition from Opus Dei? — Methinks so.

Pope Francis by his apostolic authority just changed the Code of Canon Law. This means his decision will have lasting effect for decades. And we should all pay attention.

Note, that this Motu Proprio is the first canonical act of Pope Francis’ papacy to modify the Code of Canon Law, as far as I know.* The text is already available in Italian, here:

Commentary on the Alterations of Canons 295 and 296

On account of the historic nature of this act, I will provide a commentary.

First, this is not the first juridical act of Pope Francis’ authentic Papacy, since his juridically valid election on January 30 of this year. He has issued a number (9) of Motu Poprios on various juridical themes, especially on the reform of the Penal Code.

So, Wednesday’s Motu Proprio is minor in comparison, but it will impact directly Opus Dei since it regards the canons on Personal Prelatures.

The Motu Proprio is textually a very dry document, evidently written by canonists, as it contains no theological explanation or reason for its promulgation.

CANON 295

The first canon which it alters is canon 295 §1. Here is the text of the new and old canons, and my English translation of each:

OLD CANON 295 §1:

Prelatura personalis regitur statuis ab Apostolica Sede conditis, eique praeficitur Prelatus ut Ordinarius proprius, cui ius st nationale vel internationale seminarium erigere necnon alumnos incardinare, eosque titolo serviti praelaturae ad ordines promovere.

NEW CANON 295 §1 — With Changes in Bold Face

Praelatura personalis, quae consociationibus publicis clericalibus iuris pontificii cum facultate incardinandi clericos assimilatur, regitur statutis ab Apostolica Sede probatis vel emanatis eique praeficitur Praelatus veluti Moderator, facultatibus Ordinarii praeditus, cui ius est nationale vel internationale seminarium erigere necnon alumnos incardinare, eosque titulo servitii praelaturae ad ordines promovere.

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

OLD CANON 295 §1

A personal prelature is ruled by statutes established by the Apostolic See, and is presided over by a Prelate as its own Ordinary, whose right it is to erect a national and-or international seminary and also to incardinate its students, and promote them to orders by a title of service to the prelature.

NEW CANON 295 §1

A personal prelature, which is likened to public clerical co-associations of pontifical right, having the faculty to incardinate clerics, is ruled by statutes approved and/or emanating from the Apostolic See and is presided over by a Prelate as if its Moderator, endowed with the faculties of an Ordinary, whose right it is to erect a national and/or international seminary and also to incardinate its students, and promote them to orders by a title of service to the prelature.

As regards Canon 295 §2,

OLD LATIN

Praelatus prospicere debet sive spirituali institutioni illorum, quos titulo praedicto promoverit, sive eorundem decorae sustentationi.

NEW TEXT

Utpote Moderator facultatibus Ordinarii praeditus, Praelatus prospicere debet sive spirituali institutioni illorum, quos titulo praedicto promoverit, sive eorundem decorae sustentationi.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the New Version:

Inasmuch as a Moderator endowed with the faculties of an Ordinary, the Prelate ought to look after both the spiritual instruction and the due support, of those whom he has promoted by the aforesaid title.

My Remarks on changes to Canon 295 §1 §2

Pope Francis has made a major change in the legal status of all personal prelatures by defining what they are and making clear that they are only the likenesses of other canonically erected priestly associations, which have the right to erect their own seminaries and incardinate their members.

This is a big blow to Opus Dei, since it has put them on a juridical plane which will or would be inferior to the Society of St. Pius X, if they are reconciled eventually to the Church, since they will apply as a priestly fraternity.

The emphasis Pope Francis has placed with the words, “likened” and “as if”, and “inasmuch as” shows clearly that he considers personal prelatures transitory juridical entities which must be subordinated to all other groups in the Church, from Dioceses to the smallest kind of public associations.

He has also explicitly denied that they have an Ordinary in the proper sense, by conceded that their Moderator has the faculties of a Bishop, but not episcopal dignity per se.

From the changes to this one Canon, I forsee that the next moderator of Opus Dei will not be allowed to be a Bishop.

I will also remark that the text of the Motu Proprio seems to have been redacted by an English speaker, who has imposed upon the Latin text a style of capitalization not found either in the Code nor in Latin.

CANON 296

OLD LATIN TEXT

Conventionibus cum praelatura initis, laici operibus apostolicis praeflaturae personalis sese dedicare possunt; modus vero huius organicae coopeationis atque praecipua officia et iura cum illa coniuncta in statutis apte determinentur.

NEW VERSION

Servatis can. 107 praescriptis, conventionibus cum praelatura initis, laici operibus apostolicis praelaturae personalis sese dedicare possunt; modus vero huius organicae cooperationis atque praecipua officia et iura cum illa coniuncta in statutis apte determinentur.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE NEW VERSION

Having observed the prescriptions of canon 107, according to those conventions initiated with the prelature, laymen can dedicate themselves to the apostolic works of the prelature; however, the manner of this organic cooperation as well as its chief offices and the rights conjoined to them, are to be aptly determined in their statutes.

My remarks on changes to Canon 296

By the reference to Canon 107, which specifies that all laypeople are subject to the pastor of the local parish and to the bishop of the local diocese or apostolic administration, Pope Francis has struck a mortal blow to the independence of apostolic activities of all Opus Dei lay members throughout the world.

They now must have the consent and approval of their local pastors, whether the pastor of the parish in which they reside or have a permanent or temporary domicile, as well as the Ordinaries of the dioceses in those places.

IN SUMMARY

It appears that decades of complaints by local Bishops against the abusive intrusion of Opus Dei have at last been heard. Opus Dei has been demoted from an entity superior to every other, to the least of all of those in the Church, and their lay members have been placed under the spiritual care and authority of the local pastors of the Church, constituted in accord with Apostolic Tradition.

Finally, reflecting on these changes, it seems to me that the recent remarks of Pope Francis against clergy and seminarians who go into the parishes to teach ideology, may have been directed directly at Opus Dei, and not at their rivals, the Traditionalists, against whom nearly all news sources framed that interview. Indeed, by issuing a Motu Proprio which goes into effect immediately, he has apparently acted in such a way as to prevent a counter wave of lobbying against this move.

And this might shock my readers, but I can at last say, that I totally agree with at least one juridical act of Pope Francis. He has done the right thing and in a way which is both charitable and decisive. He has applied the proper cure, without rehashing all the dirty laundry. — I nevertheless pray that all who have been injured by Opus Dei in any way bring their complaints even more forcefully to the public pervue, so that the entire Church might see how right this move was.

** The reform of the Penal Section of the Code in April of this year, was ideated throughout his antipapacy. It’s promulgation during his authentic pontificate had little or no effect on its composition, so there is a strong argument that its promulgation lacked due consent of the office holder.

Canon Law, Debates, Ecclesiology, Faith, News, Videos

Fra’ Bugnolo responde alle critiche di Andrea Cionci

May 28, 2023 Editor 7 Comments

In questo video, Fra’ Bugnolo risponde alle critiche mosse di Andrea Cionci (vedi QUI) sul video allegoria publicato 2 settimane fa, di Fra’ Bugnolo:

Canon Law, Editorials, News

The anti-Church is an alternate Church with an alternate canonical reality

March 1, 2023 Editor 7 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRANÇOIS

For more than 10 years we have been fed with an alternate reality from a group of Catholics who want an alternate Church. And it has been very difficulty for many Catholics, who discern truth, not on the basis of objective criteria, but on the basis of the majority of bits of information they receive, to discern who is right and who is wrong.

It’s like a classroom in a public school run by radical cultural marxists, where, in the class on Mathematics, when the teacher writes 2+3 = ?, she does not tell the class the answer, or ask them to calculate the correct answer, but instead says, “Let’s take a poll: who thinks the answer is 4, and who thinks the answer is 6?” To determine the truth of the question.

The only problem is, in such a chaotic classroom, the true answer is not allowed to be uttered. Everyone must live in the alternate reality and follow the alternate mathematics.

This is the ultimate phase of the dictatorship of relativism condemned by Pope Benedict XVI. And you cannot claim to be a true Catholic if you refuse to avoid this error.

But to avoid the dictatorship of relativism, you have to do something truly radical, rational, and traditional: you have to return to the ancient definition of truth, “which is the conformity of the mind with reality,” not with what others want that reality to appear to be.

This is why social media, and indeed all electronic media, are very unreliable sources of information to make true decisions, simply because there is too great a capacity granted to those who control the media and the content to claim that the reality is other than it is. And this is social media’s most potent power to control you: disinformation.

A case example of the Alternate Church with its Alternate Canonical reality

To help one understand this better, let’s take a look at a real case: the claim being made by Cardinal Roche, Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments, regarding the canonical value of his personal agenda of talking points, which he is now claiming is a rescript.

Here, I will cite for your the editorial on this topic by Michael Sean Winters, in the National Catholic Reporter, one of the most left-wing publications in the United States, which voices neither national opinions, not Catholic beliefs, nor presents reporting, other than planned propagandistic talking points of Freemasonry.

What is most striking about his editorial is that on the principle points of the facts he claims exist, he is in perfect agreement with all the Traditionalist social media influencers.

How can that be?

Well apart from objective facts, that is, the claims made by Cardinal Roche, they are both reading from the same alternate Canon Law, and thus are in agreement with the notions of the alternate Church.

Let’s examine these one by one, to see on what basis this alternate Church is claimed to exist and what are its fundamental doctrines, so that we can understand why on earth it is, that Traditionalist social media influencers are on-board, when they should be doing the exact opposite.

The Pope is not whom Canon Law says is pope, but rather is he whom the MSM says is pope

We have seen this already for 10 years. It has to do with the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 11, 2013. According to the norm of Canon Law, it was an administrative decision based on the authority granted the person who is the pope in Canon 333 §2, whereby he is free to exercise the Petrine Ministry in any way he thinks best. But it was announced to the world, rather, as an act of Canon 332 §2, whereby the man who is the pope renounces the Papacy and abdicates.

This is where the true Church of Christ separates from the alternate Church. Here at FromRome.Info, we have by study, analysis and investigation shown how this error was propagated and just what it means (here and here).

As regards the present claims of Cardinal Roche, who was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to head the Congregation for Divine Worship, the true canonical reality has immediate effects. The first of which is that he was not the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship from Feb. 28, 2013, when Pope Benedict XVI renounces his ministry and effectively suspended all canonical functions of the entire Roman Curia, until January 30, 2023, when the faithful of the Church of Rome elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope. Thus, Cardinal Roche has no authority to make any reference to any meeting he had with Pope Francis prior to Jan. 30th. And since his “rescript” claims that, it is ipso facto invalid in virtue of canon 63 §2, which declares all rescripts to have no force of law if they contain a falsehood.

The same results by Cardinal Roche’s reference to Traditionis Custodes, which is a non existent document. I say, “non-existent” in the canonical sense, since Jorge Mario Bergoglio had no authority to issue it since at that time he did not hold the petrine munus, which Pope Benedict XVI never renounced in life.

The Church must conform Herself to the Masonic Agenda, not to Tradition

Returning to the article in the NCR, it is patently absurd that the Cardinal claims that two world wars necessitated Church reform, especially of the liturgy. This is some sort of Masonic dribble, because the Church has had the same liturgy throughout 2000 years of wars and the most tremendous cultural and economic changes, world wide. What the Cardinal seems to be saying, rather, is that the stunning success of the Pilgrim Society to destroy Christendom in Europe must now be followed up by the total eradication of the traditions of Catholic worship in the Church.

This is an alternate view of reality for an alternate Church.

Obedience must be shown to non-existent documents made more restrictive by non-existent rescripts

And thus, Winters in his editorial accuses the Bishops in the United States of arrogating the right to ignore the non-existent document of a non-pope. Here we find ourselves in the analogous position of a mental asylum arguing with a patient who claims to be Napoleon Bonaparte, and who insists that the Napoleonic Code is not being observed by the janitor in the cleaning of the toilets with the brush in the right hand rather than in the left, as he himself decreed just last week!

I have already mentioned, here, that it is not even a question of understanding the rescript as invalid in virtue of canon 63, as I stated above, since a rescript by its very nature is a favor granted by a superior, not a juridical act whereby a non-existent law is made more restrictive by an inferior who claims his superior approved his self-signed crib-notes for the meeting.

We are in full-blow alternate reality here.

Juridical acts of the Roman Pontiff are issued only by the Roman Pontiff, in written form, signed by 2 bishop witnesses. No mere curial official can take away the canonical rights of anyone, not even by whim or fraud.

Yet the traditionalist social media influences don’t even suspect the alternate reality as alternate. For them, as well as the leftist NCR, their alternate is the only reality. And. Don’t. You. Dare. Claim. Otherwise.

They are like the other patient at the asylum, who claims to be Josephine, the wife of Napoleon, and who barks in unison with him, in all his madness.

Christ, however, by His High Priestly prayer for Pope Francis, has protected the rights of all Catholics who recognize the traditional Roman Rite as the only one inspired by God, by preventing Pope Francis as pope, from affirming in any way either the non-existent Traditionis Custodes, or the demands of Cardinal Roche, dismissing him with the embarrassing situation of having to make claims on his own authority, and sending a strong message to all true Catholics, who live in the true Church with the true Canon Law, that the Traditional Rites remain forever free and accessible to all.

UPDATE:

https://twitter.com/ctrlamb/status/1631291067994710017

Here Mr. Lamb appears to have read FromRome.Info from the other side of the fence.

Canon Law, Church History, History, Liturgy

Quo Primum — St. Pius V’s 1570 Bull on the Roman Missal — Latin and English Text

February 10, 2023 Editor 11 Comments

Editor’s Note by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Since the persecution of the Catholic Faithful who continue to use the ancient missale is even more in the news lately, I present here the original text of the Bull of Pope Saint Pius V which forever declared the Ancient Roman Rite the liturgical norm of the Roman Church. And to better aid comprehension to all my readers, I have included after the original text, which I have extracted from the Benzinger edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum, my own English translation of the Latin original of the Papal Bull, which I prepared this afternoon.

Saint Pius V, was the greatest Dominican to sit on the throne of St. Peter. He organized the Holy League which defeated the entire navy of the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Lepanto, Oct. 7, 1571, and in the year before defended the Roman LIturgy with this monumental declaration of Quo Primum. He is also known to have authorized the official text of the Hail Mary (Ave Maria), which the Catholic world prays today.

In all the debates over the rights of Catholics to continue praying the same prayers that their ancestors have used from the distant ages of the past, there is continual reference to the Bull Quo Primum, which follows below. — St. Pius V did not invent this liturgy. His Missale Romanum of 1570 was nearly identical to the Curial Missal published a century beforehand, which was in turn nearly an exact copy of the Missal compiled by the Minister General of the Order of Friars Minor in the 13th century, when for a more useful single compilation of the liturgical books of the ancient Roman Rite, which Pope Innocent III granted to St. Francis of Assisi as the liturgy proper to his new Order, he ordered them recompiled into a single volume with permission of the Apostolic See.

Here follows the text of the 1570 A. D. bull.

PIUS EPISCOPUS

SERVUS SERVORUM DEI

AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM

QUO PRIMUM tempore ad Apostolatus apicem assumpti fuimus, ad ea libenter animum, viresque Nostras intendimus, et cogitationes omnes direximus, quae ad Ecclesiasticum purum retinendum cultum pertinerent, eaque parare, et, Deo ipso adiuvante, omni adhibito studio efficere contendimus. Cumque inter alia sacri Tridentini Concilii decreta, Nobis statuendum esset de sacris libris, Catechismo, Missali et Breviario edendis atque emendandis: edito iam, Deo ipso annuente, ad populi eruditionem Catechismo, et ad debitas Deo persolvendas laudes Breviario castigato, omnino, ut Breviario Missale responderet, ut congruum est et conveniens (cum unum in Ecclesia Dei psallendi modum, unum Missse celebrandae ritum esse maxime deceat), necesse iam videbatur, ut, quod reliquum in hac parte esset, de ipso nempe Missali edendo, quam primum cogitaremus.

First, from moment We were raised up to the summit of the Apostolate, We willingly turned Our spirit and strengths, and directed all Our thoughts, to those things, which pertained to retaining the cult of the Church pure, and We do now, also, with God Himself helping, strive to effect their preparation, having employed every effort. And when among other things there was established by Us, among the other decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent, concerning the publication and emendation of the sacred books, the Catechism, the Missal and Breviary: with the Catechism already published, with God Himself approving, and the Breviary corrected to render to God due praises, it seemed then entirely necessary that the Missal respond to the Breviary, as is fitting and convenient (since in the Church of God it is most decorous that there be one manner of singing Psalms, one manner of celebrating the ritual of the Mass), that, what remained in this matter, namely, in publishing the said Missal, We might consider first of all.

Quare eruditis delectis viris onus hoc demandandum duximus: qui quidem, diligenter collatis omnibus cum vetustis Nostrae Vaticanae Bibliothecae, aliisque undique conquisitis, emendatis, atque incorruptis codicibus; necnon veterum consultis ac probatorum auctorum scriptis, qui de sacro eorundem rituum instituto monumenta Nobis reliquerunt, ad pristinam Missale ipsum sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum restituerunt. Quod recognitum iam et castigatum, matura adhibita consideratione, ut ex hoc instituto, coeptoque labore, fructus omnes percipiant,

Wherefore, We directed that this burden be committed to chosen expert men: who indeed, having diligently gathered together all the ancient, emended and incorrupt codices from Our Vatican Library, and others searched out from all places,; and not without having consulted the writings of ancient and approved authors, who left to Us their testimonies concerning the institution of the same rituals, and restored the same Missal to the pristine norm of the holy Fathers. Which having already been recognized and corrected, having employed mature consideration, so that all might perceive the fruit of this instituted and undertaken labor,

Romae quam primum imprimi, atque impressum edi mandavimus: nempe ut sacerdotes intellegant, quibus precibus uti, quos ritus, quasve caeremonias in Missarum celebratione retinere posthac debeant. Ut autem a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, ceterarum Ecclesiarum matre et magistra, tradita ubique amplectantur omnes et observent, ne in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus in omnibus Christiani orbis Provinciarum Patriarchalibus, Cathedralibus, Collegiatis et Parochialibus, saecularibus, et quorumvis Ordinum, monasteriorum, tam virorum, quam mulierum, etiam militiarum regularibus, ac sine cura Ecclesiis vel Capellis,

We ordered that it be first printed at Rome and published in printed form: namely, so that priests might understand, which prayers to use, which rituals, or which ceremonies they ought hereafter to retain in the celebration of Masses. Moreover, so that all the things handed down by the sacrosanct Roman Church, the Mother of all other Churches, be embraced everywhere and observed, lest unto posterity in unending future generations in all the Patriarchates, Cathedrals, Collegiate, Parish and secular Churches, and those of any Order or monastery whatsoever, both of men, as of women, even of regular soldiers, or Churches and/or Chapels without the care of souls,

in quibus Missa Conventualis alta voce cum Choro, aut demissa, celebrari iuxta Romanae Ecclesiae ritum consuevit vel debet, alias quam iuxta Missalis a Nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur, etiamsi eaedem Ecclesiae quovis modo exemptae, Apostolicae Sedis indulto, consuetudine, privilegio, etiam iuramento, confirmatione Apostolica, vel aliis quibusvis facultatibus munitae sint; nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica approbata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem, vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus;

in which Conventual Mass is accustomed or ought to be celebrated out loud with a Choir, or in low voice, according to the rite of the Roman Church, there be sung anything other than according to the formula of the Missal published by Us, even if the same Churches have been exempted in any manner by an indult of the Apostolic See, custom, privilege, even under oath, by Apostolic confirmation, and/or any other faculty; lest having been approved by the Apostolic See from their first institution, whether by a custom, which, has been observed and/or by its own institution more than two-hundred years of being assiduously celebrated in those same Churches: from which, We in no way take away the aforesaid constitution, and/or custom of celebrating;

sic si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de Episcopi, vel Praelati, Capitulique universi consensu, ut, quibusvis non obstantibus, iuxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus; ex aliis vero omnibus Ecclesiis praefatis eorundem Missalium usum tollendo, illaque penitus et omnino reiiciendo, ac huic Missali Nostro nuper edito, nihil unquam addendum, detrahendum, aut immutandum esse decernendo, sub indignationis Nostrae poena, hac Nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione statuimus et ordinamus. Mandantes ac districte omnibus et singulis Ecclesiarum praedictarum Patriarchis, Administratoribus, aliisque personis quacumque Ecclesiastica dignitate fulgentibus, etiamsi S. R. E. Cardinales, aut cuiusvis alterius gradus et praeeminentiae fuerint,

thus, if this Missal, which We now have taken care to publish, pleases the same more, by consent of the Bishop, and/or Prelate, or entire Chapter, We permit that they can celebrate Masses according to it, with nothing whatsoever withstanding: however, We establish and ordain, under the punishment of Our indignation, by this our perpetually valid Constitution, that with the publication of this our said Missal, nothing is ever to be added, detracted, or changed by taking it from the use of those same Missals of any of the aforesaid Churches, and by rejecting those things thoroughly or entirely. We, commanding also strictly each and every Patriarch, Administrator of the aforesaid Churches, and other persons enjoying whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, even if they be Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or anyone of another grade or preeminence,

illis in virtute sanctae obedientiae praecipientes, ut ceteris omnibus rationibus et ritibus ex aliis Missalibus quantumvis vetustis hactenus observari consuetis, in posterum penitus omissis, ac plane reiectis, Missam iuxta ritum, modum, ac normam, quae per Missale hoc a Nobis nunc traditur, decantent ac legant; neque in Missae celebratione alias caeremonias, vel preces, quam quae hoc Missali continentur, addere vel recitare praesumant.

precepting these in virtue of holy obedience, so that with all those reckonings and rituals, from other customary Missals howsoever ancient hitherto observed, hereafter entirely omitted, and plainly rejected, they may sing and read the Mass according to the rite, manner, and norm, which is handed down now by Us through this Missal nor let them presume in the celebration of the Mass to add and/or recite other ceremonies and/or prayers, than those which are contained in this Missal.

Atque ut hoc ipsum Missale in Missa decantanda, aut recitanda in quibusvis Ecclesiis absque ullo conscientiae scrupulo, aut aliquarum poenarum, sententiarum et censurarum incursu, posthac omnino sequantur, eoque libere et licite uti possint et valeant, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus. Neve Praesules, Administratores, Canonici, Capellani et alii quocumque nomine nuncupati Presbyteri saeculares, aut cuiusvis Ordinis regulares, ad Missam aliter, quam a Nobis statutum est, celebrandam teneantur:

And also, by Our Apostolic authority, and the tenor of the present letters, We also concede perpetually and indulge, that they may entirely hereafter follow this Missal in a sung, or recited, Mass in whatever Churches without any scruple of conscience or incursion of any punishments, sentences and censures, and use this freely and licitly and validly. Or lest Praefects, Administrators, Canons, Chaplains and other secular Priests named by whatever name, or regulars of any Order, be bound to celebrate Mass otherwise, than is established by Us:

neque ad Missale hoc immutandum a quolibet cogi et compelli, praesentesve litterae ullo unquam tempore revocari, aut moderari possint, sed firmae semper et validae in suo exsistant robore, similiter statuimus et declaramus. Non obstantibus praemissis, ac constitutionibus, et ordinationibus Apostolicis, ac in Provincialibus et Synodalibus Conciliis editis generalibus, vel specialibus constitutionibus, et ordinationibus, nec non Ecclesiarum praedictarum usu, longissima et immemorabili praescriptione, non tamen supra ducentos annos, roborato, statutis et consuetudinibus contrariis quibuscumque.

We similarly establish and declare that they also cannot be coerced and compelled by anyone to change this MIssal, nor can the present letters be at any time ever revoked or constrained, but that they stand forth always firm and valid in their strength. With no Apostolic constitutions, and ordinations, and/or special constitutions and ordinations published in Provincial and Synodal general Councils, nor use of the aforesaid Churches, strengthened by the longest and immemorial prescription, not more than two-hundred years, or statutes and customs whatsoever contrary, withstanding the aforesaid.

Volumus autem et eadem auctoritate decernimus, ut post huius Nostrae constitutionis, ac Missalis editionem, qui in Romana adsunt Curia Presbyteri, post mensem; qui vero intra montes, post tres; et qui ultra montes incolunt, post sex menses, aut cum primum illis Missale hoc venale propositum fuerit, iuxta illud Missam decantare, vel legere teneantur. Quod ut ubique terrarum incorruptum, ac mendis et erroribus purgatum praeservetur, omnibus in Nostro et S. R. E. dominio mediate, vel immediate subiecto commorantibus impressoribus, sub amissionis librorum, ac centum ducatorum auri Camerae Apostolicae ipso facto applicandorum:

Moreover, We will and decree by the same authority, so that after the publication of this Our Constitution, and Missale, which shall be displayed at the Roman Curia, for the Priests, after a month: but who dwells on this side of the Alps, after three months; and where beyond the Alps, after six months, or when this Missal has been offered to them for sale, that they be bound to sing and/or read the Mass according to it. Wherefore, so that it be preserved incorrupt in all lands, and purged from emendations and errors, to all printers resident in Our immediate and/or mediately subjected Domain and that of the Holy Roman Church, under the loss of the books, and 100 ducats of gold to be applid ipso facto to the Apostolic Camera:

aliis vero in quacumque orbis parte consistentibus, sub excommunicationis latae sententiae, et aliis arbitrii Nostri poenis, ne sine Nostra vel speciali ad id Apostolici Commissarii in eisdem partibus a Nobis constituendi, licentia, ac nisi per eunden Commissarium eidem impressori Missalis exemplum, ex quo aliorum imprimendorum ab ipso impressore erit accipienda norma, cum Missali in Urbe secundum magnam impressionem impresso collatum fuisse, et concordare, nec in ullo penitus discrepare prius plena fides facta fuerit, imprimere, vel proponere, vel recipere ullo modo audeant, vel praesumant, auctoritate Apostolica et tenore praesentium similibus inhibemus.

but to others consisting in whatever part of the globe, under the punishments of latae sententiae excommunciation and others at Our will, We prohibit by Apostolic Authority and the tenor of the present letters, that, they dare in any manner to receive, and/or presume, to publish or offer for sale, without Our permission and/or special license, according to that of the one to be constituted in those same parts by Us as Apostolic Commissioner, the exemplary copy, from which there is to be accepted the norm of other printings by the printer himself, before full faith has been first given to the printer himself by the same Commisioner for the Missal to be published in great quantity in the City of Rome and that it not be discrepant in anything at all.

Verum, quia difficile esset praesentes Iitteras ad quaeque Christiani orbis loca deferri, ac primo quoque tempore in omnium notitiam perferri, illas ad Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Florae de more; publicari et affigi, ac earundem litterarum exemplis etiam impressis, ac manu alicuius publici tabellionis; subscriptis, nec non sigillo personae in dignitate ecclesiastica constitutae munitis, eandem prorsus indubitatam fidem ubique gentium et locorum, haberi , praecipimus, quae praesentibus haberetur, si ostenderentur vel exhiberentur.

Truly, because it might be difficult for the present letters to be borne to all places of the Christian globe and to proffer unto the notice of all at first notice, We precept, that these be published and affixed to the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, and to the Apostolic Chancery, and in the piazza of the Campus Flori as is customary; and that there be had printed also copies of the same letters, and in the hand of any public notary; and to those underwritten, and not without the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, that they be regarded the same undoubted faith in whatever nations and places, as the present letters are held, when they are displayed and/or exhibited.

Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam Nostrae permissionis, statuti, ordinationis, mandati, praecepti, concessionis, indulti, declarationis, voluntatis, decreti et inhibitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, anno Incarnationis Dominicae millesimo quingentesimo septuagesimo, pridie Idus Iulii, Pontificatus Nostri anno quinto.

Therefore, to no one among men let it be licit to infringe this page of Our permission, statute, ordinance, mandate, precept, concession, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition, and/or with darying temerity to contradict it. if, however, anyone will have presumed to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indigation of the Omnipotent God and of His blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord, 1570, on the first day of the ides of July, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

CAESAR GLORIERIUS.

H. CUMIN.

Anno a Nativitate Domini 1570, Indict. 13, die vero 19 mensis Iulii, Pontificatus sanctissimi in Christo Patris et D. N. Pii divina providentia Papae V anno eius quinto, retroscriptae litterae publicatae et affixae fuerunt ad valvas Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Florae, ut moris est, per nos loannem Andream Rogerium et Philibertum Cappuis Cursores.

In the year of the Nativity of the Lord, 1570, in the 13th indiction, but on the 19th day of the month of July, in the fifth year of the Pontificate of our most holy Father in Christ and our lord, Pius V, Pope by the divine providence, these letters transcribed were published and affixed to the folding-doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, and to the Apostolic Chancery, and in the piazza of the Campus Florae, as is the custom, by us Footmen, John Andrew Roger and Philibert Cappue .

SCIPIO DE OCTAVIANIS, Magister Cursorum.

Canon Law, News

Canonical Questions regarding the election of an antipope to the Papacy

February 1, 2023 Editor 17 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRANÇAIS

As I am getting priests and laity and religious from the world over asking me the same questions, I will now answer the more common questions in one article, so that all might have the answers.

The case here regards when an antipope, like Leo VIII or Bergoglio, who reigns for a time and posits various acts, magisterial and juridical, is elected the true pope, by the Faithful of Rome, in an assembly by apostolic right.

Q. Can a not yet condemned heretic or schismatic be elected to the Papacy?

A. Yes, because in canon law, no one who has NOT yet been deprived of his rights by the public sentence of Church authority, loses his rights. Even canon 1364 which imposes immediately the penalty of excommunication does not take away the rights to be elected by or to participate in a Conclave, as the Papal Law, Universi Domini Gregis states in n. 35.

Cardinals specifically can only be judged by the Roman Pontiff alone (canon 1405 §1, n. 2).

And since no one can arrogate to himself the right to judge anyone in the Church in such a way as to deprive him of his canonical rights (cf. Discernment vs. the Arrogation of Right), such a man can be elected pope.

Q. Does an antipope have to accept his election as true Pope?

A. Canon 331 requires a pope accept his election. But in natural law, when a man is already claiming the office, his consent to his election is presumed, for it is actual and habitual and manifest that he wants the office. Thus passive or tacit acceptance of his election, that is, without publicly renouncing it, suffices for him. And since the Canon does not require active verbal expression of acceptance, this suffices in elections by apostolic right where, in the absence of rules of acceptance, the natural law prevails. But it would not suffice in a Conclave, because there the Papal Law UDG requires active, verbal expression of acceptance.

Here many are confused, because they understand “accept his election” to mean, “accept the manner of his election”, or accept being the true pope, when it only means “accept being elected the pope”. Obviously, an antipope accepts being chosen the pope. To hold otherwise is madness.

Q. Do we have to accept all the previous acts of such a Pope while he was antipope, if we accept his new election as valid?

A. No, certainly not.

Q. Are the Cardinals he appointed before when he was antipope, valid cardinals now that he is elected as the true pope?

A. Yes. Because the only thing lacking for their validity was the will of one who held the petrine munus. That deficiency is now remedied. And so they are valid cardinals and can validly elect his successor.

Q. Are all the appointments of Bishops etc., which he made as antipope valid now?

A. Yes, for the same reason.

Q. Are all the magisterial acts which he did as antipope valid now?

A. No, none of them are valid. For he had no magisterium to exercise and thus they never were acts of the Apostolic See, nor can consent after the fact make them such, because they are in the past and juridically non existent. This differs from Cardinals and Bishops etc., because they are living beings and in the present.

Q. How about all the juridical penalties which were imposed by himself or the Roman Curia, while he was antipope: are they now valid now?

A. They must be all presumed to be invalid, for reasons of the fact that they are acts in the past which had no authority to be leveled.

Q. Should we continue to oppose the errors of the man when he was antipope? And if so, how, without incurring the penalty of attacking the Pope?

A. We should continue to oppose all the errors, sins, and scandal of the antipope, but when doing so we should distinguish them from the acts he now makes as pope. This is respectful and will help spread the knowledge that he was never from the beginning the true pope, but only after his election by apostolic right.

Q. What can we expect in him now that he has been validly elected and at last has the Petrine Munus?

A. We can expect that he will not teach error in matters of faith in morals, even though his politics may remain the same. We can expect that when asked or pressured to undo what he has done as antipope that he will concede to the pressure and to the requests. We can expect him not to condone his past errors which are contrary to the faith.

Q. Does his valid election absolve him of his past sins?

A. No, rather, it makes him more responsible before God to repent of them and to do so publicly. Without that he cannot be saved.

Q. How do we now show true loyalty to Pope Francis?

A. By continuing to denounce what he did as antipope, but praying for him as pope, trusting in the prayer of Jesus, “That his faith may not fail”.

Q. How should our position differ from Bergoglians, Recognize & Resist, Anti-Roncallian Sedevacantists and Anti-Bergoglian Sedevacantists?

A. We should not like Bergoglians approve of any of his errors, sins, scandals or crimes as antipope. We should resist his past errors but not attribute them to the Vicar of Christ, but only to his person, and thus act differently from the Recognize and Resist crowd who defame the Papacy. We should recognize him as the true Pope and refrain from arrogating the right to judge him as the Sedevacantists of old and of the new kind do.

Q. Who has the authority to sort all this out?

A. The present valid pope or any future valid successor.

Canon Law, Faith

Discernment vs. the Arrogation of Juridical right

February 1, 2023 Editor 12 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRANÇAIS

In the Catholic Church, the authority to judge comes from God alone. Catholics cannot maintain their status as Catholic for long, so long as they do not accept that principle.

Thus, by the Faith which comes from God we can, if we understand it well, discern who is teaching wrongly or not. And we can then discern whether a man be teaching contrary or apart from Christ, His Apostles or Prophets.

And this personal discernment is an ability, but not all have the capacity. Since though we all receive faith in Baptism, not all have faith, and not all understand the Faith. Faith is the virtue, the Faith is the sum of the doctrines of our holy religion. Both come from God. But having the knowledge of one does NOT guarantee the other.

Now in the Church, since the authority to judge for the community comes from God, God has given it to Bishops alone, and to the Bishop of Rome in its highest grade here on earth. These alone can take away the canonical rights of an individual or community.

The recognition of this is what separates and distinguishes Catholics from protestants and orthodox schismatics. These latter two refuse to accept the Pope as supreme judge in matters of faith and discipline. And protestants refuse also to accept bishops as judges in matters of discipline in their own dioceses.

And here is the pitfall of all those Catholics who take the first step on the road of Sedevacantism: they refuse to admit that while they have the ability by faith to discern who is a heretic, they have no juridical authority to declare anyone such, as to deny that accused of his canonical rights.

This is affirmed in the very important passage in Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 35. This rule echoes the long standing debate among canonists, which Pope Paul IV in 1559 spoke, of what is to be done with a Cardinal who deviated publicly from the faith prior to his election to the Pontificate. Paul IV wanted in his Constitution, Cum ex apostolatu officio, that his election be declared null and void. His constitution however was annulled by his successor. And the precedent of his opinion was refuted in the above manner in every subsequent Papal Law on elections.

The reason for this, is, if an undeclared person could be refused the canonical right to vote (active voice) or be elected (passive voice), then it would introduce into the election a doubt which could possibly render many or most elections doubtful and hence invalid.

And the theological justification for removing this doubt, is the Faith of the Church in the promise of Jesus Christ and His always efficacious power of impetration, when He declared, “Simon, Simon, Satan has desired to sift you all as wheat, but I have prayed for YOU, that your faith may not fail, and when you are converted, confirm your brethren.”

Note, our Lord says, “when” not “if”, because His is always efficacious in His prayer to the Father and obtains all that He asks for.

And since the man elected pope becomes the target of Christ’s prayer, thus promised, it matters not if he had deviated from the faith beforehand, so long as he was not declared by the Church to have done so. For if he was declared by the Church, then the word, of Christ would apply: “He who hears you hears Me.”

Those who become Sedevacantists do not avert to these words of Jesus Christ, and once they start on that path, out of pride they refuse to accept them, so as to justify the path already undertaken. And so they fall into heresy and schism, and go to perdition, because if you do not believe in every word of Jesus Christ, you cannot be saved.

And now, this is the temptation of those who refuse the juridically valid election of Bergoglio on Monday, and who are attempting to argue thus: that election cannot be valid, because it elected a man whom I consider a heretic.

To these I say: YOU are not the Church. YOU do not have the juridical authority to declare someone a heretic. Yes, you have by faith the ability to discern heresy, if you know your faith. But that is not the same thing. To presume that your judgement of heresy is equivalent to a juridical pronouncement is to arrogate to yourself a right which God has not given you. Even Cardinals in the Conclave do not have this right. How much more a bishop, priest, or layman anywhere else at any time, when the person to be judged is not even under their jurisdiction.

Perhaps, the ignorant confound the possibility that some tribunal or future pope might agree with their judgement as sufficient authorization, but they are confusing the ability to discern from the authority to issue a judgement binding on the community.

Have a little humility.

Have faith in Christ.

Only those who have both, can be saved.

ADDDENDUM

Only in certain cases, where the Church herself or the very nature of the act prescind from the necessity of a public judgement, can Catholics act on the basis of personal discernment. Such is the case of papal renunciations, which must be manifest in themselves, and when doubtful, can be considered invalid by all Catholics who thus discern them to be. This is because a renunciation of papal office cannot be judged or interpreted by anyone, since there is no one who can judge it. For if it was invalid, the pope would remain the pope yet hold it valid. And if it was valid, the man who was the pope could not longer judge it. This is why in such cases Catholics do not arrogate to themselves a right which belongs to others, as Sedevacantists do who refuse the validity of this or that papal election.

Canon Law, Debates

That the Right to Elect the Roman Pontiff belongs to the Roman Church

January 23, 2023 Editor 20 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

FRANÇAIS — ITALIANO

Contra factum non est argumentum, as the Latin adage goes: that is, “Against a fact, there is no argument”.

If there is any Catholic who doubts that the Catholics of Rome have the right to elect their own bishop, they need not believe anything I say, they need only to open up any book about the election of the Popes, or in this case, even see the List of Popes over at Wikipedia, to confirm this.

Deny this, and you deny the Apostolic Succession in the See of Rome, and make every pope after Peter a fake. But if you do that, you are anathematized by Vatican I, which declared infallibly that there will always be successors of St. Peter at Rome, until the coming of the Lord.

So, to those who are are reading this or that section of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, and understanding none of it, I make this reply.

Yes, there is a stricture in that law, that states that for the election of the Pope in a Conclave only Cardinal Electors can vote (n. 33). That stricture applies only to the manner of election in that Apostolic Constitution, for otherwise the Apostolic Succession would be in jeopardy. Indeed, in the final sentence of the preface, Pope John Paul states explicitly his intention, that the norms of the special law are to bind the Cardinals. He does not impose them on the whole Church.

Those who do not think so, are pretending that John Paul II or the scholars of jurisprudence who worked for more than 10 years on the new Code of Canon Law did not know about what happened in the Church for the previous 19 centuries, or how the Apostle Peter left this right to the whole Church.

For they pretend that John Paul II wants in all times and places, even outside of a conclave, that only Cardinal electors vote.

But if that were the case, then the enemies of God would only have to kill 120 men, to end the Apostolic Succession forever. — But, that would make the Gates of Hell prevail. Which is absurd.

So obviously neither the Pope nor his experts intended that.

Which means, that their argument is false.

And these experts show that this argument is false, because this stricture of n. 33 is placed in the special law UDG and not in canons 349 and 359, which regard the privileges of the College of Cardinals. By placing this in a special law, it removes the stricture from general application. And this is confirmed by canons 5 §1 and 5 §2, which affirms apostolic rights remain in force in special circumstances not provided for in law.

And this was necessary, because Canon Law depends upon Apostolic Right for its authority, not the other way around. Thus, no Pope can abolish anything in Apostolic Tradition, not even the right of the Roman Church to elect his successor.

And to the further argument, that in canon 349, it says the contrary, it is clear that that argument would be wrong, since the Latin says, that the election pertains to the College of Cardinals as to provide for it (provideat) according to norm (ad normam) of the special law on elections. It does not say they enjoy this right per se or semper nor does it use a verb which signifies or connotes that they can obstruct the election by violating the norms of that special law. Indeed, someone who has the right to provide for something which is needed, does not have the right to deny that something when needed, because the right to provide is the right of a servant not of a lord. Otherwise, a mother who has the right to provide for her children’s supper could rightfully starve them to death by not providing for it, and a father who attempted to do so, when she was starving them, could not rightfully act. Which is horribly absurd.

So there are a lot of laymen out there who cannot read Latin or who have not studied law or history, who are saying foolish things. That they do not pause to think what will happen to the Church before they speak, is incredible, after the 10 years of savage attacks on the Faith and the Mass.

And for those who argue against n. 76, I have already replied in a footnote to my article, How John Paul II determined the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor.

Canon Law

How John Paul II determined the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor.

January 21, 2023 Editor 20 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

AN EXPLANATION OF RECOURSE TO APOSTOLIC RIGHT TO ELECT THE ROMAN PONTIFF
WITH AN HISTORICAL EXAMPLE

FRANCAIS

When a law fails, one has recourse to the principles of right which are derived by greater authority. This is a general principle of jurisprudence, which alas, many moderns no longer understand.

This is because in modern times, we are afflicted with a theory of right which is called juridical positivism. This error was condemned by Pope Benedict XVI in his speech to the German Parliament in September 22, 2011 (News report here, full text here). The error of positivism consists in holding that there is no authority until authority acts, and that there is no authority among men, unless men put laws into writing. And that subsequently they can change moral principles and rights by making written or verbal declarations.

Juridical positivism is, as you can see, the atheist’s notion of jurisprudence.

But the Catholic notion of jurisprudence holds that there is a God, and that He is the supreme authority in all matters of jurisprudence not only in virtue of His teaching or pronouncements, recorded in Scripture, but also inasmuch as He is and acts, and in particular, in His act of creating and forming this world.

Thus in the Catholic Church law is not derived from Popes or Bishops first of all, but from Christ Jesus, the Living God, to whom all authority in Heaven and Earth has been given by the Eternal Father. Secondarily from the ordinances of the Apostles. And only after that from Popes and Bishops, individually or in Councils and Synods.

Now as regards the laws of the Roman Church, the Popes individually and often in Synods and even Councils have determined and legislated various things.

One of these regards the election of the Roman Pontiff.

Who holds the right to elect the Roman Pontiff?

But while the Popes have authority to determine this election by special or general laws, they are NOT the source of the right. That right comes to the Pope via Saint Peter whom the Pope succeeds. But the ability of the Pope by legislation to determine the exercise of that right, is limited by the ordinance of Peter to leave this right to the Roman Church.

In fact, the Pope himself does not have the right to elect his successor. Only the Church of Rome has that right. This is undisputed in the Catholic Church. And anyone who says otherwise, is simply totally ignorant of Church history and the jurisprudence of the Roman Church. Nor can the Pope make someone who is not a member of the Roman Church an elector for the Pope. This is why he incardinates all Cardinals, who are not Romans, into the Roman Church and gives them a parish to be their titular church. These parishes are found in the Dioceses of Roma, Ostia, Albano, Velletri-Seigni, Palestrina, Frascati, Sabina – Poggio Mirteto, and Porto Santa Rufina, because in St. Peter’s day the Church of Rome comprised all these territories, and these 7 Suburbican Dioceses were never detached from the Roman Church, as their name indicates (Suburbican = suburban, round about, near by).

Throughout 20 centuries the Roman Church has vindicated this right in various ways, but always in every election. At times this was done by all the Faithful of the Roman Church, such as it was in the first 7 centuries. At times, this was done under certain modalities, of having the clergy first discuss candidates and then in assembly with the faithful deciding.

By Roman Church, here, I mean all the faithful in these dioceses, whether clergy, religious, or lay, whether men or women, married or not, saints or sinners or mediocre, nobility and plebs, rich and poor. All these have the right to vote in a papal election by apostolic right.

Papal Laws for Papal Elections

However, with the passing of time, by certain papal laws, the Electorate was restricted.

That the Pope can restrict the electorate is undisputed. Because, though he is not the source of this right, he can determine its exercise, and part of that determination is delimiting who can vote. This does not damage the validity of the election, so long as who can vote is a member of the Roman Church.

The first such papal law was promulgated by Pope Stephen II in the Roman Synod of 769, when candidates for election were restricted to those men who were Cardinal priests and deacons, and when the electorate was restricted to “cunctis sacerdotibus atque proceribus Ecclesiae et cuncto clero”, that is, “to all the priests and mighty ones of the Church and the entire clergy”, that is, to the Bishops, priests, deacons, and those in minor orders.

Then, the next major Papal law came on April 13, 1059 A. D., with Pope Nicolas II’s In Nomine Domini, the Latin and English translation of which I have published here (2021 edition, 2020 edition here), which restricted the electorate to only the Bishops of the Roman Church.

In addition, those these previous laws did not contain them, in later centuries such papa laws contained specifications as to when the law went into effect and when those who exercise the rights it determines can exercise them.

The Strictures of John Paul II’s Papal Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis

The current Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, was promulgated by Pope John Paul II, in 1996 on Feb. 22, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter. — Only the Latin version is binding. (Translations should be used with caution therefore, only as an aid to understanding roughly what is being said).

That law specifies that it regards what is to be done after the death of a Roman Pontiff, or his valid renunciation, that is, when the Apostolic See is juridically vacant of a legitimate claimant to the supreme office.

The Cardinals are forbidden in n. 1 of exercising any power of the Roman Pontiff, when he is alive, and after his death, of doing anything not authorized by this law.

And here, in n. 1, the law expressly declares NULL AND VOID the exercise of any power not specified in this Constitution.

Thus if the Cardinals fail to observe its terms, they HAVE NO RIGHT to do otherwise.

And this is why, when the Cardinals fail to meet by the 20th day, as is specified in n. 37, or when they change the modality of the preparation of the Conclave in any matter, John Paul II in nn. 76 and 77 declares ANY ELECTION WHATSOEVER that they undertake to be NULL AND VOID. Here is the Vatican English translation of those passages, for your better information:

37. I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, the Cardinal electors who are present must wait fifteen full days for those who are absent; the College of Cardinals is also granted the faculty to defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election.

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.***

As of the hour of the death of Pope Benedict XVI, this morning, January 21, 2023 A. D., the Cardinal Deacon has not convened a conclave, the Cardinals have not begun a conclave, and no Cardinal anywhere in the world has announced that he is proceeding to elect the successor of Pope Benedict XVI.

Regarding the Claim that the Cardinals still can elect a Pope in Conclave, after January 21, 2023

Therefore, anyone who claims that the Cardinals can still proceed to validly elect the Roman Pontiff are simply uttering a massive falsehood, because there is no rational way to infer, that from a College which has DONE NOTHING, but is obliged TO DO EVERYTHING according to the law, that they retain any right to elect a Pope in a Conclave according to the terms of the law.

They have violated it completely.

Hence, they cannot claim to interpret it in any manner by which they could convene at a later time in conclave to elect the Pope.

HOW THE COLLEGE MIGHT COUNTER-CLAIM

Obviously their argument will be that Benedict XVI validly abdicated in accord with Canon 332 §2, and that with Bergoglio being elected, the papal law for electing Benedict XVI’s successor went into effect, in March 2013.

But as numerous studies have shown, Benedict XVI never abdicated in accord with Canon 332 §2. The text itself is only conform with a declaration of a decision to apply Canon 333 §2, by withdrawing into a life of prayer for the Church and laying down the active ministry.

Thus, Catholics rightly regard the death of Pope Benedict XVI as triggering the observance of the Papal Law Universi Domini Gregis. And since Canon Law in canon 15 affirms that laws which declare some act invalid, make these acts invalid, even in the case in which those acting are ignorant of facts or laws, the Cardinals cannot claim to have anymore, the right to elect a Roman Pontiff in Conclave.

THE CURRENT PAPAL LAW NO LONGER ALLOWS A CONCLAVE

This means that the Papal Law can no longer be observed. And since in Canon Law they do not have a habitual right to elect the Pope per se, but only those rights specified in special law (cf. canons 349 & 359), and since there is no other special law but the above cited Papal Law, Universi Dominic Gregis, at the promulgation of which Pope John Paul II expressly abrogated all customs and laws previously in force, as he states in its final promulgation, at the end of the Constitution:

As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.

Then, IF there were no other source of right, then the Catholic Church would never again have a legitimate Roman Pontiff, who holds the petrine munus via a legitimate and juridically valid election, in a Conclave.

That there must be another way to elect the Pope

But as Vatican I infallibly teaches, the Roman Church shall have in perpetuity, successors of Saint Peter as her bishops, (Fourth Session, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 2, n. 5),

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

there must be another perpetual source of right by which there can be a juridically valid election of Benedict XVI’s successor. And since Pope John Paul II, in his prefatory letter in the Papal Law, above mentioned, says expressly that a Conclave is not necessary for the valid election of the Pope:

It has been my wish to give particular attention to the age-old institution of the Conclave, the rules and procedures of which have been established and defined by the solemn ordinances of a number of my Predecessors. A careful historical examination confirms both the appropriateness of this institution, given the circumstances in which it originated and gradually took definitive shape, and its continued usefulness for the orderly, expeditious and proper functioning of the election itself, especially in times of tension and upheaval.

Precisely for this reason, while recognizing that theologians and canonists of all times agree that this institution is not of its nature necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff, I confirm by this Constitution that the Conclave is to continue in its essential structure; at the same time, I have made some modifications in order to adapt its procedures to present-day circumstances.

Then, there must be another valid way to elect him.

But there is none, but that established by the Apostolic Ordinance, by which Saint Peter gave this right to the entire Church, meeting in public assembly. And this alters the electorate from the small group with the exclusive right which can only be used in a specific time, to the entire group, without any restriction.

Confirmation of this by general principles of jurisprudence

And this is confirmed by the general principle of law, that when a specific law, which applies to specific circumstances only, can not be put into effect, because those conditions have been violated, or no longer exist, and it declares no action taken in accord with the special law can anymore be valid, then one has recourse to the general or higher source of right, which has not been abrogated by the human legislator, since one cannot assume that the human legislator no longer wants a juridically valid act to be posited.

Thus, one must conclude that John Paul II intended to forbid the Cardinals from electing the Pope in a Conclave, if they failed to elect one in a Conclave in the specified time, knowing, as he stated in his prefatory letter, that electing a pope outside of a Conclave has never been per se an invalid method.

This conclusion is especially true since the failure here is not in the text of the law, but in those to whom the law has granted special rights. Thus the law is not defective, but rightly punishes the Cardinals for not acting, with a deprivation of their exclusive right.

And this can be seen from an example. If you have rights to do something within a specified time, then if you do not do that within that specified time, you cannot claim that the one who wrote the law, would want you to have those rights still.

And thus, the only sane conclusion is that the legislator, knows that someone else has those rights in an undisputed manner, outside of that specified time, if the thing to be done MUST BE DONE. But the election of a new pope, must be done. Ergo, someone else has those rights and the Legislator knows it. And when those rights belong by Apostolic Ordinance to all the faithful in assembly — a fact attested to by the first 1000 years of the Papacy — then there the election must be had. And this is clear, that the exclusive rights of the Cardinals of the Roman Church, are only a specification of the rights of the entire Roman Church for a purpose, they do not deny the rights of the Church.

But only those with a thoroughly Catholic mind can see this, because they alone know AND accept the history of Papal Elections, and at the same time reject the concept of juridical positivism, and they too alone BELIEVE that there is a living God, that Jesus Christ is HIM, and that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail over His Church.

So let lawyers, nuns, and engineers, whether in Colombia, Brazil or Italy, who have never studied theology nor canon law, nor the philosophy of law, rail in the night. We Catholics of Rome know our rights and we will now use them to save the Papacy and the Church.

Finally, Pope Benedict XVI incited the entire Church to think about these things on Feb. 11, 2013, when he declared that his successor should be elected by those who are competent. To be competent in Latin means, in this context, to be capable of exercising a right.

ADDENDUM: the events of 964 A. D., at Rome prove the above interpretation of right

There is an historical example of the juridical principles I have explained above, in the election of Pope Benedict V in 964. In 963, the German Emperor deposed the true pope in an uncanonical action, and named Leo VIII as antipope. The emperor regarded Leo as the pope, because the Popes had granted him the right to nominate the candidate to be the pope. His election by the assembly of the Clergy would follow after that.

But as the deposition of pope John XII was uncanonical, the Roman Faithful regarded Pope John XII as the true pope until his death on May 14, 964. So on May 22, the Roman Faithful came together and elected Benedict V. They did this because clearly the German Emperor had no intention of getting Leo VIII re-elected, because by that act he would admit to having supported a usurper. That means there was no legal way to elect the Pope anymore, since you cannot elect a pope after the death of an antipope, only after the death of a true pope. — That is why the Pope is called the successor of St. Peter, because he succeeds in a juridically valid manner the previous successor who held that right. — So the Roman Faithful had recourse to the Apostolic Ordinance, and by apostolic right elected Benedict V, whom the Church has always recognized as the true pope.*

There are other cases in which the Apostolic Right of the Faithful was revived, as can be seen in the election of Pope John V, July 23, 685, as even Wikipedia admits:

John V was the first Pope of the Byzantine Papacy consecrated without the direct imperial approval. Emperor Constantine IV had done away with the requirement during the pontificate of Benedict II, John V’s predecessor, providing that “the one elected to the Apostolic See may be ordained pontiff from that moment and without delay”.^[7] In a return to the “ancient practice“, John V was elected in July 685 “by the general population” of Rome.^[7]^[8]

A case to compare, as a proof in reverse, occurred in 1058, where an papal enthronement took place without a free election by the Faithful. That enthronement created the antipope Benedict X, who was immediately opposed by St. Peter Damian and St. Hildebrand. Later that year Pope Nicholas II was elected, and he restricted the electorate to the Cardinals, by a papal law, In Nomine Domini, which however was abolished by subsequent popes, such as John Paul II, when they promulgated their own laws.

CONCLUSION

The Cardinals have not lost their right to vote, they have only lost their exclusive right to vote in a Conclave. They can also vote by apostolic right, but they have no more vote than any other Catholic in the Roman Church. Finally, the College of Cardinals can meet in conclave in the future and confirm the election of the man whom the Roman Faithful elect. That conclave would not be canonical, nor legal, nor legitimate, nor confer any right, but it would be a public and sane way to bring themselves and entire Church back into agreement as to who is the pope.

_________________________

** The end of Pope Benedict V was a tragic one, because the German Emperor in vengeance sent an army to Rome, captured the pope and demanded his renunciation on the condition that he would not put him to death. After Benedict V renounced, out of human weakness, the German Emperor had Leo VIII affirmed as pope by the Roman people, and with Benedict’s agreement. Benedict was then taken prisoner to Germany and starved to death on bread and water. His remains have been lost to history. Leo VIII in his second election is considered to be a true pope by the Church, since there was no pope at the time still reigning, Benedict V having validly abdicated by agreement.

*** The universal prohibition of n. 76 applies even to n. 37 and 77, as can be seen from the clause, “in a way other than this Constitution prescribes”. Those who say otherwise, read “Chapter” in place of “Constitution” and in addition do this in an exclusive way. This simply violates the rules of grammar and syntax in addition to imposing an illicit interpretation the text reserved to the Legislator alone. “Celebrata fuerit” also is a verb referring to an entire event, not any one action. Even the Latin “electio” does not mean only casting a ballot, but refers to the intention to select one rather than a multitude, and as such has a broad signification. Those who allege that a strict reading applies, but then want a strict reading to read the text in an inauthentic manner of referring only to balloting, are really saying, that everything in the Constitution could be violated, except chapter 5, and the election still would be valid. — I say, try that and see what happens in the Church. — Moreover, even if for the sake of argument, it was held that n. 76 does not make any other violations of UDG cause the election to be invalid, other than those in the chapter in which n. 76 is found, nevertheless, since Pope John Paul II has clearly in many other places commanded the Cardinals to do this or that, (e.g. in nns. 1 and 35 and 77) the election would be illicit, and hence illegal, if they violated any other part of the papal law during the Conclave. And hence the election would be without effect, because an illegal action is never held to have a canonical effect in law (canon 38). And to argue otherwise, is simply absurd, because it would be equivalent to saying that even without force majeur, the Cardinals could intentionally violate everything else in the law, and thus, that the law was no law at all. — Finally, since the Legislator never intended that the College obstruct the Apostolic Succession, by electing antipopes and refusing to elect legitimate popes, the same conclusion as I present here returns by referring to higher principles, because the Cardinals have failed entirely to elect a successor to the true Pope. And the law does not allow them to elect successors to false popes. In fact, never in the history of the Church, has the Apostolic See regarded the successor of an antipope to be the true pope. All true popes succeed immediately another true pope. That insurmountable fact of history makes their reading impossible, as it would imply the Legislator himself intended a notion of succession which was both a-historical and implicitly heretical.

Canon Law

The Canonical Tradition requires the renunciation of Munus not Ministerium

January 18, 2023 Editor 8 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In preparation for the juridically valid election of the Roman Pontiff by apostolic right, I have been reading some scholarly works on the renunciation of offices. And I have found confirmation for everything we Catholics, who recognize that Benedict XVI never abdicated, hold.

This is important, because there is advanced by many facetious authors, who have no training whatsoever in Canon Law, arguments about what munus and ministerium mean, which are wholly irrelevant and rarely valid.

Moreover, it is also important, because what true scholars say unmasks the advocates and defenders of the usurpation of the Apostolic Throne during the last 10 years.

Here I will share some significant citations taken from Valerio Gigliotti’s, La Tiara Deposta, (Leo S. Olsckhi Editore, Firenze, 2013). Gigliotti is a professor of the History of European Law, at the University of Turin, Italy. And his book is an encyclopedic jurisprudential review of the concept of papal abdication through the 20 centuries of Church History. A truly monumental work and treatment.

In Gigliotti’s final chapter 8, entitled, “The Mystical Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI” he sound loudly out for the fact that the renunciation had no juridical value, but was a spiritual decision to withdraw into a life of prayer for the good of the people of God.

And here it is that on p. 401, he cites weighty experts in Canon Law.

There is no abdication without renunciation of dignity

The first is Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, II, De personis, Rome 1928, §452, p. 436, who writes:

Quare sicut Romanus Pontifex per acceptationem liberam electionis primatum iurisdictionis actu consecutus est, ita per liberam et publice declaratam dimissionem dignitatis suae iurisdictionem papalem amittit.

Which in English would be:

Wherefore, just as the Roman Pontiff through a free acceptance of election acquires the primacy of jurisdiction in an act, so through a free and publicly declared laying-down of his own dignity does he lose the papal jurisdiction.

This is the first cruise missile against those who claim the renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI effected an abdication. Because it is clear to everyone, that neither in the text of his Declaratio of 2013, nor in his comportment after that through 10 years, nor even at his funeral, did he lack, forsake or was recognized by the Catholic world to have lost the Papal Dignity. Hence, he never lost the papal jurisdiction. This is a conclusion of law, which is derived from the truth which has nothing to do with intentions or opinions, but facts of history.

But as ecclesiastical dignity is a consequence of holding a title, office, or munus, let us proceed to the next authority

The renunciation of munus is the very essence of an act of renunciation of office

The next authority cited, is G. Chelodi, Ius de personis iuxta Codicem Iuris Canonici, praemisso tractatu De principiis et fontibus, Tridenti, 1922, §155, p. 256.

For the liceity of a renunciation of the papacy, there is required:

Romanum Pontificem se munere abdicari posse, valide etiam sine causa, certum est, licite tamen nonnise ex causa gravissima.

Which in English would be:

That the Roman Pontiff can by himself abdicate (his) munus, validly, even without a cause, is certain, however, licitly not but on account of the most gravest cause.

This is the second cruise missile totally destroying the claim of Bergoglian advocates, that the renunciation of Benedict XVI was effective of or equivalent to an abdication. Not because there is doubt about the gravest of causes, but because by definition an abdication requires the renunciation of his munus.

Both these sources were written in the Pontificate of Pope Pius IX, nearly 90 years before the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI. So it is impossible to impugn their objectivity and authority as regards the canonical tradition.

I have previously definitively demonstrated that the Code of Canon Law of 1983, read according to canon 17 therein, does not permit anyone to read munus as ministerium, here. My academic paper given in a public conference here at Rome in October of 2019 has been published on the internet for 3 years and has never been refuted in any of its assertions or claims. Canon 17 requires that canon 332 be read first in the light of the Code itself, then in that of canonical tradition. By this present article, which you have just read, I believe there is sufficiently demonstrated that both sources of authority are in total agreement.

Finally, for those who wish to dispute about words, here is my note on Munus and Ministerium in the Latin Language. My analysis of the Latin text of the Declaratio, can be found here. My Canonical Critique of it here. And My Scholastic Disputed question dealing with its interpretation here. And the weighty reasons, drawn from the treatise of St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, on the interpretation of law, why no one can interpret the Declaratio in any other way, here.

CREDITS: The featured image is from Gigliotti’s book, which can be ordered online here.

Canon Law, Editorials

L’Ammonimento solenne al Collegio dei Cardinali — Perché è stato necessario?

January 14, 2023 Editor 4 Comments

Per carità, diffonderlo con tutti i tuoi conoscenti, parenti ed amici nelle Diocesi di Roma, Albano, Osta, Velletri-Segni, Palestrina, Frascati, Sabina Poggio Mireto, e Porta Santa Rufina.

Summary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In this video, I explain in Italian, why it was juridically wise and useful for Roman Catholics at Rome to give the College of Cardinals a solemn public rebuke for not yet taking any move convening in Conclave. For just as in every legal dispute, one first notifies the transgressing party, that one’s rights are being transgressed, to warn them of impending legal action if they fail to cease in the transgression, so in this dispute, the College of Cardinals cannot simply omit their duty in silence, but must give a juridical explanation of why they are deciding to act or not to act. This is especially true, because since March 13, 2013 A. D., when they pretended to elect Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff, they have never responded as a body, nor even as individuals, with a canonical explanation of their position now that all the evidence for their fault has been published to all the world for 10 years, and especially here in Italy during the last 2 years.

Thus, the Solemn Admonishment (Text here in Italian and English translation) had to be given, just as in a disagreement among knights, one throws one’s glove down in front of the opponent to challenge him to a fight, to prove which party is in the right, so now, the College of Cardinals has been put on notice. They must respond verbally and they must take action. If they fail at both, then they have juridically conceded, that the Roman Catholic Faithful of the Church of Rome, that is, of the Dioceses of Roma, Albano, Osta, Velletri-Segni, Palestrina, Frascati, Sabina Poggio Mireto, and Porta Santa Rufina do in fact have the rights claimed in the Solemn Admonishment. Cardinal Re, Dean of the College, now has in hand 3 copies of the text.

The ball is now in his court.

He has been presented to a juridical fait accompli, as it were, he is now checkmated and failing to act, he loses the most important battle, and will concede the juridical legitimacy to us who are Catholics in communion with Pope Benedict XVI till the end.

APPENDIX: True Devotion to Saints Peter and Paul

Canon Law, News

Canonical Norms which touch upon the validity of the Election of the Roman Pontiff by Apostolic Right

January 9, 2023 Editor 18 Comments

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As the Catholic Faithful of the Church of Rome consider the election of the Roman Pontiff by Apostolic Right, there are some canonical norms which should be kept in mind to avoid that any doubt arise to the validity of the election. (Cf. previous articles on this matter, here, here and here)

While an election conducted by Apostolic Right, could be argued to be free from the requirement to observe all canonical norms per se, yet the better opinion is that since a papa dubius is a papal nullius, that those norms which pertain to natural law must be observed, and that those norms which pertain to ecclesiastical law should be taken into account.

Let’s review, then the norms of Canon Law regarding elections, and gather together the principles which should be observed for the election of the Roman Pontiff, in the extraordinary circumstance in which no Cardinal Elector enters into conclave to elect the Roman Pontiff, after the death of a validly elected, legitimate Roman Pontiff, that is, one who is elected to receive the petrine munus and who did in fact receive it.

First, it must be noted that no one can receive the petrine munus, if there is someone already holding it. And no one can cease holding it unless he dies or has in a juridical act expressly renounced it. Also, no one can be elected to receive it, while someone holds it, and after his death or renunciation of it, claim is prior election is sufficient to obtain it. Elections must be posterior in time to the conditions adapt for the validity of an election. Thus Jorge Mario Bergoglio has never held the petrine munus and by his 10 year pretense has no claim to it.

Second, the election of the Roman Pontiff in such extraordinary circumstances, requires that the electors be convoked to a specific place and time by the president of the college of electors, when that president is physically present in the place of convocation (cf. canon 166). This Pope Benedict XVI already did in his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013, when he declared an election of his successor it to take place by those who are competent.

Third, all the electors must be summoned to a public place. The election would be invalid, unless there is at least an attempt to do that. Thus, if some electors, without informing others, would meet together, in secret or public, the election will be invalid. Nor can they exclude any others by reason of any argument, since by the norms of law, no one is presumed to be ineligible unless they are so by failure to meet some canonical norm. Thus, any cleric incardinated in any diocese of the Roman Church (Rome or any of its suburbican dioceses), any religious of an institute of diocesan rite founded by any of these bishops in any of these dioceses and residing within them, and any layman. And this without regard as to any previous opinion they may have held, because, it is sufficient that in the present assembly they declare that Benedict XVI was the one and only Roman Pontiff until his death, because we all have been victims in some way or another of the false narrative, and there are very few among us, who from Feb. 11, 2013 were not fooled.

Fourth, the election will not be valid, if a non elector is allowed to vote (canon 169). Thus in the present case being considered, no one outside of the Church of Rome can be admitted to the assembly (those who are not members of the Church of Rome by at least 1 year of residency within the territory of the Diocese of Rome or a suburbican Diocese). But reasonably, since the gathering will be a large one, this restriction has to do with those who speak during the assembly and those who vote, since it would be neigh impossible humanly speaking to assure that no one in the assembly is a non-elector. But due diligence should be undertaken to exclude them, even though, no sane person would discount the election by a multitude on account of a small number of invalid votes.

Fifth, those assembling in the place of convocation cannot be under any coercion (canon 170), otherwise the election would be invalid. Among the causes invalidating the election are those which effectively impede their deliberation of action, that is, in my opinion, also inclusive of any psychological control of persons outside of the Church of Rome.*

Sixth, according to canon 171, the following cannot vote:

Those who are incapable of a human act (that is, without the use of reason), by reason of age or infirmity.
Those who are not electors.
Those who have been excommunicated by reason of a judicial, decretal sentences, that is one which is inflicted or announced.
Those who have notoriously separated themselves from the Catholic Church (by joining a group which refuses communion in principle with the Church or Her members)

The election of any particular candidate would be invalid, if as canon 171 states, the electors were induced beforehand, by fear or guile, directly or indirectly applied, to vote for a particular candidate, though natural law does not require the vote to be secret, by two thirds majority. I do believe the vote should be counted, and the manner of voting be determinate, that is, by personal votes being tallied.

Canon 173, thus, states that the first act of the electorate should be to designate the counters of the vote and the modality for presenting a vote, that is, where the voters are to present themselves, to declare their vote. I think that it would be best that each voter present himself before the counters and declare his candidate. Votes should not exceed electors, and thus, I think it would be necessary to only allow those who can vote,, withing a certain barrier, to prevent at the time of voting, extraneous persons from entering.

Canon 174, allows by natural law, that electors appoint one of their number to vote in their stead during the assembly. But this is problematic, because how could that be judicially verified without written documentation, which could be forged? For that reason, it would cause a doubt to arise and make the election invalid.

Canon 177 requires the one elected to be notified within 8 days of the election. If he does not accept, the assembly must meet again.

Canon 178, the one elected, who accepts, receives immediately the petrine munus. He must accept by means of words which naturally, clearly and customarily are used, such as, by saying, “I accept my election to the office of Roman Pontiff” etc..

Finally, the candidate to be elected, must be a man, a Catholic, and of at least the age of reason, having received the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. He must be celibate, that is, not currently bound by sacramental or civil marriage to any other person. He must have the free use of reason. Doubt about this, such as would occur from a person who has allowed nano-tech to be injected into his body, should exclude such candidates.

______________________

** That is moral coercion of the kind by which one would be told whom to vote for by someone who cannot vote, under threats of spiritual damnation. This would be the worst kind of spiritual abuse. Electors, that is those who can vote, are completely free and should not exercise their vote under constraint. If the cannot freely make a choice on their own, they are not eligible to vote, as per canon 171.

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Il Romano Pontefice, in quanto Pontefice, non può essere rimosso dall’ufficio dagli uomini

Il Romano Pontefice, in quanto uomo, può essere giudicato

Nessun uomo nella Chiesa può essere giudicato se non dalla legittima autorità

Un Concilio provinciale può giudicare tutti gli uomini della sua provincia

Un concilio provinciale nella provincia ecclesiastica di Roma può giudicare l’uomo che è il Romano Pontefice

Nei casi di eresia e di invalidità della rivendicazione d’ufficio, il Concilio Provinciale Romano può essere convocato dai Vescovi della Provincia senza e contro la volontà di colui che rivendica il papato

I Vescovi della Provincia Romana hanno il diritto di esigere la prova dell’affermazione di quell’uomo di essere Romano Pontefice

In mancanza di offerta probatoria spontanea, può essere convocato un concilio provinciale per richiedere prove speciali e straordinarie

Tale Concilio provinciale, convocato senza o contro la volontà di colui che è il Romano Pontefice, non può essere ostacolato da alcuna autorità

Tale concilio provinciale può legittimamente convocare colui che pretende di essere il Papa

Tale Concilio provinciale deve prima protestare contro l’uomo che sembra essere un eretico, scismatico o apostata, ma rivendica il papato

Tale concilio provinciale non impone alcuna pena né privazione d’ufficio, e quindi non ha bisogno che i suoi atti siano approvati dal Romano Pontefice

Colui che si dichiara Romano Pontefice e rifiuta di dare prove spontanee e solenni della legittimità della sua pretesa a ricoprire l’ufficio, può essere dichiarato ipso facto deposto se rifiuta di presenziare a tale Concilio Provinciale

That the Roman Pontiff, as Pontiff, cannot be removed from office by men

That the Roman Pontiff, as the man, can be judged

That no man in the Church can be judged except by legitimate authority

That a Provincial Council can judge all men within its province

That a Provincial Council in the ecclesiastical province of Rome can judge the man who is the Roman Pontiff

That a Roman Provincial Council can be convened by the Bishops of the Province without and against the will of the man who is the Roman Pontiff in cases of heresy and invalidity of claim to office

That the Bishops of the Roman Province have the right to demand the proof of the claim of the man to be the Roman Pontiff

Failing a spontaneous offer of proof, a Provincial Council can be convoked to request special and extraordinary proof

That such a Provincial Council, called without or against the will of the man who is the Roman Pontiff cannot be obstructed by any authority

That such a Provincial Council can legitimately summon the man who claims to be the Pope

That such a Provincial Council should first remonstrate with the man, who appears to be a heretic, schismatic or apostate, yet claims the papacy

That Such a Provincial Council imposes no sentence or deprivation of office, and therefore need not have its acts approved by the Roman Pontiff

That the man who claims to be Roman Pontiff and who refuses to give spontaneous and solemn proofs of the legitimacy of his claim to hold the office can be declared ipso facto deposed if he refuse to attend such a Provincial Council

JOIN THE MOVEMENT TO GET RID OF POPE FRANCIS BY HAVING HIM REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR HERESY, SCHISM AND APOSTASY

UPDATE: Canon Peters says Pope Francis has no canonical authority to remove Bishop Strickland without cause:

UPDATE: Cardinal Mueller: the sacking of Strickland is an abuse of divine right:

Proposed Letter

Proposed text:

A little background on the Synod of Sutri

Now, if you are not a Catholic you might find this very scandalous.

Upon receiving his letters, the German King gave no immediate response

So how is it, then, that at this Council of Sutri in 1046, 3 popes were deposed?

And so on December 20-23, 1046 A. D. 3 Popes were deposed

The value of the example of Sutri for the Church of today

Un po’ di storia del Sinodo di Sutri.

Commentary on the Alterations of Canons 295 and 296

CANON 295

My Remarks on changes to Canon 295 §1 §2

CANON 296

My remarks on changes to Canon 296

IN SUMMARY

A case example of the Alternate Church with its Alternate Canonical reality

The Pope is not whom Canon Law says is pope, but rather is he whom the MSM says is pope

The Church must conform Herself to the Masonic Agenda, not to Tradition

Obedience must be shown to non-existent documents made more restrictive by non-existent rescripts

PIUS EPISCOPUS

Q. Can a not yet condemned heretic or schismatic be elected to the Papacy?

Q. Does an antipope have to accept his election as true Pope?

Q. Do we have to accept all the previous acts of such a Pope while he was antipope, if we accept his new election as valid?

Q. Are the Cardinals he appointed before when he was antipope, valid cardinals now that he is elected as the true pope?

Q. Are all the appointments of Bishops etc., which he made as antipope valid now?

Q. Are all the magisterial acts which he did as antipope valid now?

Q. How about all the juridical penalties which were imposed by himself or the Roman Curia, while he was antipope: are they now valid now?

Q. Should we continue to oppose the errors of the man when he was antipope? And if so, how, without incurring the penalty of attacking the Pope?

Q. What can we expect in him now that he has been validly elected and at last has the Petrine Munus?

Q. Does his valid election absolve him of his past sins?

Q. How do we now show true loyalty to Pope Francis?

Q. How should our position differ from Bergoglians, Recognize & Resist, Anti-Roncallian Sedevacantists and Anti-Bergoglian Sedevacantists?

Q. Who has the authority to sort all this out?

Who holds the right to elect the Roman Pontiff?

Papal Laws for Papal Elections

The Strictures of John Paul II’s Papal Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis

Regarding the Claim that the Cardinals still can elect a Pope in Conclave, after January 21, 2023

HOW THE COLLEGE MIGHT COUNTER-CLAIM

THE CURRENT PAPAL LAW NO LONGER ALLOWS A CONCLAVE

That there must be another way to elect the Pope

Confirmation of this by general principles of jurisprudence

ADDENDUM: the events of 964 A. D., at Rome prove the above interpretation of right

CONCLUSION

There is no abdication without renunciation of dignity

The renunciation of munus is the very essence of an act of renunciation of office

News and Commentary on the Catholic Church