As I have reported before, in February 2013 there was a de facto coup d’etat at the Vatican, the result of which was the imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI, and the convocation of an illegal, illicit and invalid Conclave, which resulted in the illegal, illicit and invalid election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Now, I invite the entire Church to examine more carefully what happened in the 58 minutes after the Consistory of February 11, 2013, which ended just before noon, Rome time, on that day.
According to Canon Law, it was the grave and solemn duty of the Dean of the College of Cardinals to approach Pope Benedict and ask for a written copy of his act of Renunciation.
Here are the relevant Canons of the Code of 1983 which regulate what should have been done:
Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.
Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.
Needless to say, I have added some color to the letters of the text to make it clear that, in the very 2 Canons which Cardinal Sodano should have carefully read and acted upon, there is made by the Code itself the distinction between munus and ministerium. And yet for 6 years, and especially during the last 12 months, those who have sustained that the renunciation was valid, dared use the argument that there no distinction between the terms!
It seems so true, that it is almost a law, that whatever one investigates about the Pontificate of Bergoglio, one uncovers nothing but lies and frauds. This is clearly the greatest.
The Laws which governed what Cardinal Sodano should have done
Because in that key moment, before Sodano through Father Lombardi gave the Sig.ra Chirri the go ahead to publish to the world that Benedict had resigned, He will leave the Pontificate on Feb. 28 (B16 è dimesso. Lascia il Pontificato Feb 28), he HAD TO read these 2 canons, or at least recall them.
Let us therefore take a closer look at these 2 canons, which regard what is to be done when someone, with mere Executive authority, receives notice from someone, with the jurisdiction to posit an adminstrative act, that he is to take an action.
My English translation of the Canons:
Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his office (suo munero), before he receives the documents (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) their integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of them has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.
Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.
What Cardinal Sodano did
First, as Canon 40 states, Cardinal Sodano’s first duty was to ask Pope Benedict XVI for a written copy of the Act of Renunciation. This is because, as read out-loud, anyone fluent in Latin, as Cardinal Sodano is reputed to be, would have noticed multiple errors in the Latin, most grievous of which was the enunciation of commisum not commiso by the Holy Father. This touched upon the integrity of the act.
Second, in receiving the Act of Renunciation in the authentic Latin Text, and finding that it was as it was intended to be read, he was obliged to examine if the act was in conformity with Canon 332 §2, which reads:
Canon 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
Canon 332 §2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his office (muneri suo), for validity there is required that the renunciation be done freely and duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.
And thus, in this examination, the Cardinal had to confront the very Distinction between munus and ministerium that was founded in the Act of Renunciation, which contains the terms munus and ministerium, but renounces only the ministerium!
Clearly anyone reading Canon 40, would see that munus means office or charge! And in reading canon 41 that ministerium means execution of the duties of the office. Clearly he would as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals realize that it is one thing to have a munus to do something, quite another to put into motion his ministerium to execute it. — He was acting on the very basis of that distinction, because before he acted, he held the munus to act, and in acting he executed the ministerium to act!
For this reason, Cardinal Sodano must be questioned if not publicly accused of having closed his eyes! That is, of having ignored the distinction and his own grave duty and invalidly executed his office, by declaring the act a valid act of renunciation of the papal office!
This is especially true, because Canon 41 forbids (“let him omit the execution“) and Canon 40 invalidates the action of the executor to proceed to any action, not only because the core act of renunciation was invalid, as per canon 188 (for substantial error), to effect the loss of papal office, but also because, being invalid, the Cardinal Dean could NOT recognize that the command to call a conclave was opportune.
There are other anomalies in the Act of Renunciation which also should have caused the Cardinal to stop and refer to Pope Benedict, namely:
The Act of Renunciation is not an act of renunciation, but the declaration of an act of renunciation. As such it lacks the formal quality of a canonical act per se, since it is one thing to announce, another to enact!
The Act of Renunciation contains what appears to be a command to call a conclave. But this command is NOT a command, because it is a declaration not a command, and it is made in the First Person singular, which signifies the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, NOT the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the pope. But the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, whether he has renounced or not cannot call a Conclave, since he has no authority to do so!
The Act of Renunciation contains no derogation of any terms of canon law which it violates as is required by canon 38.
The errors in the Latin demonstrated clearly that the Holy Father had prepared the Act in secret without the counsel of canon lawyers and Latinists, and that therefore, it may lack formal interior consent or be based on other errors of fact or law or comprehension of Latin.
Thus, for Cardinal Sodano to proceed to act as if the renunciation were valid, violated the general principle of law, that the validity of the renunciation of power or right is NOT to be presumed.
This is a general principle of jurisprudence and is even found in Canon Law, in an applied form, in Canon 21:
Can. 21 — In dubio revocatio legis praeexistentis non praesumitur, sed leges posteriores ad priores trahendae sunt et his, quantum fieri potest, conciliandae.
Canon 21 — In doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws are to be compared with prior ones, as much as can be done, be reconciled to them.
In a word, Cardinal Sodano by acting was claiming a munus to act (Canon 40) and using that authority to exercise a ministry (Canon 41) to deny that the Pope had a munus which had to be renounced (Canon 332 §2)!
Thus the Act of Renunciation appeared to be null from MANY manifest aspects of the terminology and grammatical structure. Canon 41 therefore required that he confer with the Pope to have them corrected! Canon 40 invalidated any action he took prior to recognizing the act as authentic and integral, that is, not canonically invalid, irritus or null. — And in Canon Law, as per canon 17, to recognize something as valid, does NOT mean insisting it is valid, when it is not! That is fraud.
By omitting the honest fulfillment of his duties, he acted with reckless disregard for his own office as Dean. He exploited the canonical defects in the Act to perpetrate a horrible crime of misrepresentation. This was tantamount to robbing the Roman Pontiff of his office by exploiting his authority, so as to declare valid what was invalid to produce a papal resignation!
Thus, according to the terms of Canon 40 and 41, Cardinal Sodano should have acted differently. The act of renunciation was of ministry, not of munus, and therefore was NOT an act of resignation. Therefore the declaration of a resignation, which had to have emanated from Cardinal Sodano’s desk, was a canonical lie and fraud! And since, ignorance of the law in those who should know the law is not presumed, Cardinal Sodano cannot be excused from an abuse of his office (munus).
What Cardinal Sodano should have done!
Upon receiving the document of Renunciation, and noticing that the renunciation of ministerium was not the act specified by Canon 332 §2, he should have spoken with Pope Benedict in the presence of 2 credible witnesses and brought this to his attention, as Canon 41 requires. Then he should have asked whether it was his intention to renounce the Petrine munus or simply to renounce the Petrine Ministerium. In the latter case, he should have (1) asked the Holy Father to issue a Motu Proprio naming someone to be his Vicar extraordinaire who would have the potestas executionis but not the office of the Pope, during the remainder of his life, OR, (2) in the case that he indicated that it was his intention to resign the papal office, he then should have asked him to sign a corrected copy of the act, containing the word muneri instead of ministerio and correcting all the other errors, whether of form, of Latin, or grammatical structure etc.. To have done anything less would be a grave sin of disrespect for the Office of the Successor of St. Peter, to which the Cardinal was bound by solemn vow to protect and defend.
Simple. Easy. Legal, Legit. By failing to do that, he convened an illicit, illegal and invalid Conclave, and made Bergoglio an Antipope, not the Pope!
Rome, October 8, 2019: The much beloved and respected Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, gave an interview to the notorious Marxist Newspaper, here in Italy, the Corriere della Sera. (The very same paper which was asked by the Vatican Secretary of State to attempt to get Pope Benedict to deny his tacit acceptance that he was still the pope).
In his interview, Cardinal Sarah made this shameful confession of impiety:
First, just three days after the Apostasy in the Vatican Gardens, in which Bergoglio presided over the adoration of the idol of Pachamama (the Andean equivalent of Astaroth), the Cardinal made this outrageous statement, in reference to Bergoglio:
«Chi è contro il Papa è ipso facto fuori dalla Chiesa. La Provvidenza ci vede benissimo, sa?».
He who is against the Pope is by that very fact outside the Church. The (Divine) Providence sees us very well, you know?”
In all my years as a Catholic I have never heard such an absurd form of papolatry stated. There have been many Saints who argued or disagreed with the pope. They are now in Heaven. Saint Paul, the first of them, and his opposition is approved of by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.
Arguably, then, What Cardinal Sarah has said is pure heresy. It is in the very least a false and gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith.
But the Cardinal, to utter this just after the wicked deed in the Vatican, is incredible. That he uttered it at all, after 6 years of Bergoglio’s daily heresies and opposition from many Cardinals and Bishops, is incredible. IS THE CARDINAL SAYING THAT BURKE, SCHNEIDER, BRANDMULLER, ETC. are OUTSIDE of the Church?
But Cardinal Sarah’s impiety does not stop there. In the same interview he says, immediately before the above statement:
« La verità è che la Chiesa è rappresentata sulla terra dal Vicario di Cristo, cioè il Papa ».
The truth is that the Church is represented on earth by the Vicar of Christ, that is, the Pope.
One wonders if the Cardinal has ever been to seminary. Because for more than a thousand years the Church has taught:
That Christ Jesus is represented on earth by His Sacred Ministers who receive valid ordination and jurisdiction in the Apostolic Succession.
To say that the Church is represented by the Pope, is to make the Pope the Vicar of the Church, not the Vicar of Christ. It also excludes that anyone else represents the Church.
But when you add both these errors of the Cardinal together, what he is really saying seems to be:
The Church of Apostasy, which is the New Christ to be worshiped, is represented on Earth solely by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, its Pope
I think if you ever thought that Cardinal Sarah is papabile, that you better think again.
If he wants to retract these words, now that he realized what was done on Friday, then he now has the grave obligation to do so!
What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.
First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:
As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus. Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter. I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.
Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.org for more information.)
Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.
Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.
Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.
One of the most common canards used to discount that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope is that, regardless of all the Canonical Evidence that he did not, He has never publicly affirmed that he did anything other than resign the papacy.
This bold assertion is the kind of propaganda used by intelligence agencies to confuse the Enemy. And if you have not yet considered the evidence, you should take note not to be led astray.
In propaganda of the kind which is used in psychological manipulation, the first characteristic sought is to lie and lie boldly. As Rousseau affirmed, “Lie, Lie and Lie, and something will come of it”, or as Adolf Hitler said, the biggest lie is the most effective:
All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
The Big Lie operative in the Church today says that “Benedict resigned”. As I pointed out in my previous post on the Vatican Coup d’etat of Feb. 11, 2013 (see link here), the Vatican has NEVER affirmed by a canonical document or press release that Pope Benedict resigned or renounced the Papacy. They merely confirmed a TWEET by a pool reporter, who knew some Latin.
This contradicts the expressed obligation of the Papal Law on Elections. Because in Pope John Paul II’s Law, Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 37, the Cardinals are obliged not to act if there has been no lawful vacancy of the apostolic see:
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.
And, thus, obviously, to observe that norm, the Cardinals MUST VERIFY whether there is in fact a lawful or canonical sede vacante.
In the present case, therefore, that means that they must verify that the norm of Canon 332 §2 was fulfilled. But, again, as I have said before, the Vatican has never publicly affirmed that the resignation was canonically in conformity to Canon 332 §2, which is the only canon on papal resignations.
That Pope Benedict never resigned the petrine munus, as Canon 332 §2 requires, is a fact of history. Just read the Latin text of his renunciation and follow the norms of Canon Law on how to read it (see link here, and a discussion here; see an analysis of all the official Vatican translations, all fraudulent, which have attempted to present the Big Lie, here)
But, before we consider the testimonies from our Holy Father, let us first unpack the propaganda, of the Big lie, which is employed by nearly the entire Hierarchy, except Bishop Gracida.
Exposing the Fallacy of Resorting to the Big Lie
Therefore, the canard, that Benedict needs to affirm that he has not resigned the Papacy, before anyone can take seriously the canonical arguments that he did not do so validly are to be accepted — is a complete absurdity! It’s propaganda to support the Big Lie, because it takes as its first premise (though implicit) that the assertion that Benedict did resign has the pride of place, that is, the greater authority.
The international Association of Catholics, which is opposed to the Kasperites, and called Veri Catholici, recently un-packaged the fallacy of resorting to the Big Lie, thus:
THE INSANITY IS UNENDING! — A supporter of Cardinal Burke told VC HQ that so long as Benedict does not confirm that he meant what he said, there is no evidence that what Cardinal Burke THINKS B16 meant is FALSE. Thus VC will discredit its own organization with #PPBXVI truth!
The correct forensic principle, which a canonist SHOULD know, is that what someone says is prima facie what he means, and he who claims that the intention was such as to make it other than prima facie IS REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS INTERPRETATION by a first hand DENIAL of the prima facie.
THUS there is no necessity AT ALL that Benedict confirm that he resigned the ministry not the office, NAY there is the necessity for the Cardinals to obtain from Benedict the statement THAT HE NEVER INTENDED TO RENOUNCE THE MINISTRY BUT RATHER THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY.
But this is impossible and contra factum, because FOR SIX YEARS BENEDICT HAS DRESSED LIKE THE POPE, SIGNED AS THE POPE, GIVEN BLESSINGS AS THE POPE DOES, AND ACCEPTED THE HONORS AND DIGNITY OF THE POPE! If that aint confirmatin of PPBXVI.org nothing is!
And if anyone should claim that he calls Bergoglio the pope and lets him run the church as a pope, nevertheless, though that could put in doubt the 6 year testimony, IT DOES NOT FORENSICALLY INVALIDATE THE PRIMA FACIE rather it argues for coercion or insanity, not validity!
Because FOR THE VALIDITY OF A PAPAL RESIGNATION there is required nothing but the DUE MANIFESTATION OF THE FORMAL SIGNIFICATION OF AN ACT OF RENUNCIATION OF THE PAPAL OFFICE: intentions not expressed are praeter rem!
though (a corruption of) liberty, (or) freedom (as can arise) from coercion or simony can corrupt a valid formal signification, cf canon 332.2 and 188.
(In this quotation I have corrected some typographic errors and elipsees in Italics)
With this preliminary introduction, let us proceed to the main subject then.
Pope Benedict’s Testimonies that He has not Resigned the Papacy
There are several things Pope Benedict did to signify that he never had the intention to resign and that he never did resign.
1. Normas nonnullas
First of all on Feb 22, 2013, he issued certain modifications of Pope John Paul II’s law on Papal Elections. In that Apostolic Letter, entitled Normas nonnullas (see link here), Pope Benedict did NOT make any changes to suit the occasion of a Papal resignation!
This is significant, because the Papal Law only tangentially refers to a sede vacante arising from a papal resignation, and clearly, if He had resigned the Papacy, he should have addressed that error in the Papal Law modifications which he enacted into law on Feb. 22, 2013! Not only did he NOT do that, but he modified a section of the law regarding PAPAL FUNERALS (n. 49). In this way he was giving a big sign that he was going to hold out as the Pope until death.
2. Final Audience of Wednesday, February 27, 2013: in Saint Peter’s Square
Next, In His Holiness’ final public audience to the Faithful, he confirmed this in extraordinary terms which cannot be reconciled with a papal resignation:
Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.
The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministrydoes not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.
(In this quotation I have added color to the text)
The Pope could not be more clear, he had resigned the active ministry of the office, not the office. He was resigning the power of governance, but remaining the pope.
All this refers not to a resignation, but a forced abdication or a voluntary retirement of someone who still retains the Papal dignity and office.
3. Pope Benedict leaves Vatican on Feb 28, 2013, as the Pope, not as Cardinal Ratzinger
The Final and loudest visible message was sent by the Pope on the following day, when he left the Vatican, but did NOT lay aside the symbols of the office of the Pope:
He is given official escort as a Head of State by the Italian Republic
He flies, not to Munich, where his brother lives, but to Castel Gandolfo, the private residence of THE POPE.
Any objective observer must therefore conclude, that he remains the Pope, and is signaling that he remains the Pope. Because he is acting as the Pope, retiring from a Vatican that no longer wants him, but NOT as a Pope who has just resigned the Papacy.
NOTA BENE: Someone may say, But Pope Benedict recently said in June, 2019, that “There is only one Pope, and he is Francis”… That report was entirely false, and intentionally so. Here is more about that from Veri Catholici. Click on both links to read the two stories, the false claim by the Catholic Herald, and the debunking of the false claim by Life Site News:
Yesterday, Ann Barhnhardt posted her second Magisterial Study of Pope Benedict’s Invalid Resignation and the theological currents behind it. See here. You have to listen to this entire video to understand anything about what is going on in the Vatican today.*
*There is only one small factual error in what Mrs. Barnhardt says in this video, namely, when she says that all the vernacular translations of Benedict’s Act of Renunciation were made from the Italian translation, that is not true, the German is unique, as I have shown previously.
It’s rationally impossible to exclude, after Barnhardt’s marshalling of evidence, that Pope Benedict did not have a vicious and malign intention in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry, and not simply a substantial error of saying ministerium instead of munus.
This being the case, I can now offer a reasonable explanation of Why the Pope did NOT contest ANY of the 39 arguments I sent him?, which argue his resignation of ministerium did not effect a resignation of munus: The surprising answer is that Benedict acknowledges that it was NEVER his intention to resign the petrine munus, and was in fact his intention to resign only the petrine ministerium. — If you recall, in my Scholastic Question, which I sent him, I openly stated that I did not dispute the act effected a renunciation of ministerium.
There are 2 conclusions from this inference, which I say has sound probability on the basis of the 55 year history of Joseph Ratzinger in the speculations regarding transforming the papacy.
The first is that, if asked, Pope Benedict will admit openly and candidly before witnesses that he retains the Petrine Munus. He will however, on account of his error, say he does not hold the Petrine Office or the Papacy. This will seem to be an illogical self-contradiction, since it does not accord with the Latin text of Canon 145 §1: but in the Germanic School of theology to which Ratzinger belongs, the office of the Papacy is conceived as pertaining to the Petrine Ministry, that is, the active exercise of grace and vocation.
The second conclusion is, that every Catholic who accepts the teaching of Vatican I, will see that there are now 2 reasons for the renunciation of Benedict being null and void:* namely, not only substantial error, but malign intention. The malign intention (dolus) being to split the Papal Office. Both causes are causes of the act being null and void in canon 188.*
If these 2 considerations are true, then it will be difficult to understand from speaking with Benedict at any time, for a direct answer which indicates the renunciation was invalid to effect his no longer being the Pope.
The solution of the problem, therefore, must come solely from a canonical analysis, because neither as a private theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, nor as the Pope, does he have any authority to split the Papal Office from the Papal Ministry, nor to ascribe the office of the Papacy to the one who has the Papal Ministry, but not the Papal Munus.
Finally, I wish to praise Mrs. Barnhardt for her correct theological and moral characterization of those who have contested that the renunciation was invalid, arguing instead with a faulty notion of “universal acceptance”, as “demonic”, “satanic” and “free-masonic”.
For the Good of the Church, I will close by calling on all the Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, Religious and Laity, especially of the Roman Church, to return to the norm of Canon 332 §2 and recognize that
Pope Benedict is still the Pope, Bergoglio was never the Pope.
His renunciation of ministry effects nothing in Canon Law.
He is theologically confused as regards holding that the Papal Office is constituted by the one who exercises the Petrine Ministry, not the One who holds the Petrine Munus.
His deliberate intention to renounce only the Petrine Ministry was morally reprehensible and should be reprehended.
Anyone who speaks with Pope Benedict must resort to correcting him, because he not only committed a juridical error, but also a moral error, in renouncing only the Petrine Ministry.
* Barnhardt and myself, as well as nearly all the other commentators on this controversy, have been saying that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. The correct Canonical phrase, however, is that Benedict never renounced the Papal Office. Because, Benedict resigned nothing, in that he never used the verb resign. (The English translation of Canon 332 §2 has “resign” in the place of the Latin “renounce”.) Also, Canon 188 does not declare acts of renunciation invalid, it declares them “irrita“, that is, not properly done, or in other words, never done at all.
Can. 188 — Renuntiatio ex metu gravi, iniuste incusso, dolo vel errore substantiali aut simoniace facta, ipso iure irrita est.
The importance of the distinction in Canon Law regarding juridical acts which are invalid and juridical acts which are irrita is that, if a juridical act of the pope be in question, since one cannot dispute the legitimacy of papal acts, you cannot judge them valid or invalid. But if they were never done, never existed, that is, if they were irriti, then they never happened. And it’s no sin or crime, but true justice to say that they are such.
As is now notorious, Pope Benedict’s act of resignation of February 11, 2013 was invalid on account of not being in conformity with Canon 332 §2. Here at, the From Rome Blog, I have written about this extensively and subjected the text to a Scholastic analysis, demonstrating, I believe, conclusively, that the signification of the text can not be rationally said to conform to the norm of the law.
As a Latin translator of Ecclesiastical texts, I have wondered daily for six months how a mind such as that of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, could fall into such a grievous substantial error of mistaking the very object (cf. 126) of the act of a papal resignation, which is a renunciation of the Petrine Munus, to be rather a renunciation of the Petrine Ministry.
Ann Barnhardt sees malice in this, in an attempt to bifurcate the papacy. Her collaborators in Germany have found much evidence to this effect. But as a Franciscan, who is obligated by the Rule of Saint Francis to recognize the canonically elected popes and show them respect, I consider it my duty to investigate other causes which involve less or no culpability. I take the position of the international Association, Veri Catholici, that we need not presume malice, ignorance suffices, if ignorance can be demonstrated.
In that study, however, it was evident that the German translation was anomalous, that is, that it had entirely different errors than the other translations. These anomalies led me to today’s investigation.
Archbishop Gänswein and the German Translation of the Code of Canon Law
In the German translation of the Act of Renunciation, the anomalies are as follows:
The Latin word, munus, is translated as Dienst.
The Latin word, ministerium, is translated sometimes as Amt, sometimes as Dienst.
The syntactical association of the act of renunciation is followed by the correct translation of ita ut.
Following the forensic principle of Aristotle, that where there are 2 differing consequences there are 2 different causes, but when there is the same consequence, there is a unity among causes, I am led by comparison to conjecture why this may be the case.
Recall, if you may, the speech given by Archbishop Georg Ganswein at the Pontifical University of St Gregory the Great, in 2016, which sparked so much amazement, because in it, he said that Pope Benedict still shared in the Petrine Ministry and held the Papal Office.
Recently, however, Archbishop Gänswein, to both a German journalist and a journalist working for Life Site News, withdrew his assertions, claiming that he had misused the words for office and munus, in his German text.
Now, supposing that the Act of Renunciation, in the German translation, was overseen by Archbishop Gänswein, we might conclude that he has something to do with the anomalies it contains
This consideration alone, however, did not satisfy me, so I examined the causes for the Archbishop’s errors in German. Naturally, therefore, I went back to the Code of Canon Law in the Latin (the official text) and to the Vatican’s German translation (unofficial, but in practice used by German Speakers).
At the Vatican Website, you notice immediately that the German translation of Pope John Paul II’s Code of Canon Law is better linked than the English. In the German, the index contains links from each line of text, but in the English, the index contains links only in the titles to the books. This gives one to think that some German speaker was using the German translation of the Code quite frequently and has the authority to get the Vatican webmaster to add all the referential URLs, to make that edition more facile in its use.
This argues that Archbishop Gänswein, if not Benedict himself, frequently used the German translation.
O.K., that appears to be an obvious assumption, but there is a problem. THE GERMAN TEXT IS ERRONEOUS. And not in a small way! In a very crucial manner: it gets the translation of Munus WRONG! And that in a way that anyone using it, as a guide on how to Renounce the Papal Office, would write an invalid formula of resignation!
Let me explain, therefore, Why and How, Perhaps, Pope Benedict got his Act of Renunciation wrong in the Latin, and thus never in fact or before God resigned.
The key Canons which one must consult regarding how to write a valid act of renunciation of the papal office are canon 332 §2 and canon 145 §1. This is because in the former, the conditions for a valid resignation are stated, and in the latter, the nature of every ecclesiastical office are defined.
Let’s look at each in the German:
Can. 332 — 2. Falls der Papst auf sein Amt verzichten sollte, ist zur Gültigkeit verlangt, daß der Verzicht frei geschieht und hinreichend kundgemacht, nicht jedoch, daß er von irgendwem angenommen wird.
The error in this German translation is minor: it renders the Latin, Pontifex Romanus (Roman Pontiff) with the German, Papst, (Pope). However, it correctly translates the sense of the Latin, munus, as Amt. Because, in this canon, the Latin, Munus, has the sense of office, which is what the German, Amt, means.
It must be noted, here, that in the German translation of the Act of Renunciation, the author of that text in the crucial act of renunciation uses the correct German word for a VALID renunciation, Amt! — The only problem is, Pope Benedict XVI did NOT resign in German, he resigned in Latin!
But this anomaly of the German translation of the Act of renunciation does reveal, that at least ONE German speaker, the author of the translation, THOUGHT the act was a renunciation of the Papal MUNUS.
Now, let’s look at the other canon:
Can. 145 — § 1. Kirchenamt ist jedweder Dienst, der durch göttliche oder kirchliche Anordnung auf Dauer eingerichtet ist und der Wahrnehmung eines geistlichen Zweckes dient.
The importance of canon 145 §1 in the Code of Canon Law is this, that it DEFINES the nature of an ecclesiastical office (officium) as a munus. As I have discussed in my commentary on Boniface VIII’s Quoniam, the Latin word, munus, is the perfect word for an ecclesiastical office, since it signifies both that the office is a dignity, a charge or burden, and a gift, which upbuilds the one who receives it with grace. There is no 1 word in any modern language, to my knowledge, which has all the senses of the Latin word, munus.
For this reason, its difficult to translate munus properly, which is why I use the Latin word even in English prose. (The German Translation of the Code, which appears on the Vatican Website, seems to be that by Father Winfried Aymans, JCD, an eminent doctor of Canon Law from the Diocese of Bonn, Germany. Who however, does not seem to be a Latinist per se, though, to his merit, he be a signer of the Correctio Filialis)
So in this German translation, we see the TERRIBLE error: Every ecclesiastical office (Kirchenamt) is defined as a Dienst! But Dienst as every German speaker knows, means what we in English mean by service, and what every Latin speaker means by ministerium. So the German translation of canon 145 says: Every ecclesiastical office is a ministry! When the Code of Canon Law in Latin actually says: Every ecclesiastical office is a munus!
In fact, in the code of Canon Law, in the Latin, Pope John Paul II never speaks of any ecclesiastical office as a ministry (ministerium), but always as an office (officium) or munus.
This means, that if any German speaker read canon 145 §1 in the German, as found on the Vatican Website, and probably in most German translations of the Code of Canon Law, he would be mislead into thinking that to resign an ecclesiastical office its sufficient to renounce the ministry of that office! — But this is precisely the error in the Papal Resignation!
If we go back to the other vernacular translations of the Act of Renunciation, which I analyzed in my previous post, we see that all of them follow the erroneous German translation of munus in the German Translation of the Code of Canon Law! But, illogically and inconsistently, also follow the erroneous Latin text of Pope Benedict when he says ministerium in the Act of resignation. Thus the vernacular translations (excepting the German) are reading in some places the Latin original of the renunciation, in other places, the German translation of the Code and Act of resignation! This is the scientific reason why the vernacular translations are worthless if not maliciously contrived.
The error in canon 145 §1 might also explain why Pope Benedict thought that in writing ministerio in the Latin text of his renunciation, he thought he was writing munus, because the erroneous translation makes it appear that the German for munus is the same as the Latin, ministerium. For the German of Canon 145 §1 says that every Amt is a Dienst (which in Latin is a ministerium, but in canon 145 §1 is the German translation for munus), and the German of Canon 332 §2, says a Pope resigns when he renounces his Amt. So it appears that Benedict was mislead into thinking that in Latin, if he renounced his Amt, he could sufficient signify that by renouncing his ministerium!
I pray to God, therefore, that SOMEONE in the Church, who can speak with Pope Benedict XVI in person, makes this known to him!
As my faithful readers may know, I began the From Rome Blog, on September 7, 2013 A.D. with a book Review of Enrico Maria Radaelli’s book, Il Domani Terribile o Radioso? del Dogma, which was a profound medication on the importance of recognizing Beauty as as one of the transcendentals of being. I remain ever thankful that my review so pleased Professor Radaelli that I had the honor of dining with him about a week thereafter.
I met him only on another occasion or two, and he urged me on in my proposal to blog, taking up the more profound questions of the day. I was at the time much immersed in my preparation of the English translation of the Commentaries of Saint Bonaventure, but I took heed of his encouragement.
Often it happens, that a chance meeting or reading will lead to greater things, of which one has not the foggiest notion or daring imagination to foresee. And at other times a slight negligence or carelessness about a chance reading or meeting can be the cause of grave omissions.
I see this now, more than 6 years after the events of February, 2013. At that time I was a student in the Faculty of Theology of Saint Bonaventure, at Rome, and I was given a copy of Professor Radaelli’s Supplica to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, in which he urges the Pope to take back his renunciation. He published this on Feb. 18, 2013.
At the time my mind focused only on one part of his argument: namely the faulty notion that whereas a pope could lawfully resign, it was metaphysically unsound to do so. Reading Professor Radaelli’s paper in Italian, which you can read from this link, today, here, I had the difficulty of thinking about his entire argument and the problem he was addressing, since I think in English. I saw that the Professor had written with the most profound emotion and philosophical sense, but I dismissed what he warned of, summarily, since I was given to the same fault of many Catholics, namely of holding that papal power is such that there can be no question of immorality or defect in anything a Pope could lawfully do.
An acquaintance who had served several Bishops in Italy as their private secretary also in those days approached me to ask my opinion of the resignation. He told me that there was an article in the Corriere della Sera about clamorous errors in the text of the resignation, which would make it invalid. I remarked curtly, that how could the Vatican be ignorant of Latin, after all. And upon reading Canon 332 §2 in the English and Italian found nothing to object to. — Though I remained unsatisfied that there was not yet an English translation of the act of renunciation, which, if I remember correctly, only appeared in March after Bergoglio took the name “Francis.”
Professor Radaelli’s work is entitled, Why Pope Benedict XVI should withdraw his resignation: it is not yet time for a new Pope, because if there is one, he will be an Anti-Pope. (This English translation of the Title, is my own). The Italian is:
Now, I can see that Professor Radaelli had a profund metaphysical sense which went way beyond my grasp at the time. He was warning the world that a papal resignation had to be in conformity with the metaphysical nature of the Papacy, as an office and gift of grace originating and bestowed by the Living God, Who is Being and Existence Himself. Not being a native speaker of Italian I did not at that time see what was motivating him so strongly to object. I see now that it was that the resignation, in Italian, was being called a dimissione, that is a letting-go of office. This is the secular term for leaving office. It implies that the office is entirely in the power of the one holding it, is something secular, and has no metaphysical realty of itself other than a relation to those served.
But this is precisely the nature of a ministerium in Latin, when considered in of itself. Thus, the metaphysical sense of Professor Radaelli was giving off a loud alarm. He did not express this alarm in terms of canonical invalidity but of moral non conformity.
Though no one at the time was discussing the issue of ministerium vs. munus — because nearly everyone was reading a faulty Italian translation of the act of renunciation (prepared by the Vatican) and no one was reading the Code of Canon Law in Latin — the Professor was speaking prophetically in a true sense to warn the Church of Rome of the dire consequences to come.
For this reason, because of my own cavalier attitude to Professor Radaelli’s work, I owe him an apology. And I think the whole Church does also.
I only awoke to the problem when I actually looked at the Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2 in the Latin, and the text of the renunciation in Latin. Then I saw immediately the problem. Further investigation of what Canon 17 required confirmed it.
Today, I know by acquired human reason and by divine faith that Pope Benedict never validly resigned, because to affirm the opposite would require that one reject the entire Catholic Faith, right reason and human language itself. The inherent perfection of Beauty, as a transcendental of being which is inscribed in all things, a perfection which is expressed in the balance of good and truth and unity in a perfect harmony and order, preaches most loudly to all who will hear Her, that such is the case.
In his recent article at Rorate Caeli, Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider writes a long article to quell the raging doubts Catholics now have regarding Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy.
But in that Article the learned Bishop gets his history lesson wrong, when he writes:
Popes were deposed several times by secular powers or by criminal clans. This occurred especially during the so-called dark ages (10th and 11th centuries), when the German Emperors deposed several unworthy popes, not because of their heresy, but because of their scandalous immoral life and their abuse of power. However, they were never deposed according to a canonical procedure, since that is impossible because of the Divine structure of the Church. The pope gets his authority directly from God and not from the Church; therefore, the Church cannot depose him, for any reason whatsoever.
As I recited in my article, Yes a Pope can be canonically deposed, the history of the Papacy contradicts the Bishop’s assertion, for the Church does recognize as legitimate a Synod which canonically deposed 3 claimants to the papacy, one of which had to be the legitimate pope.
I quote my own article:
The events are summarized by John Cardinal Newman, and summarized in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the events:
The proceedings of the Synod of Sutri, 20 December, are well summarized by Cardinal Newman in his “Essays Critical and Historical” (II, 262 sqq.). Of the three papal claimants, Benedict refused to appear; he was again summoned and afterwards pronounced deposed at Rome. Sylvester was “stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery”. Gregory showed himself to be, if not an idiota, at least a man miræ simplicitatis, by explaining in straightforward speech his compact with Benedict, and he made no other defence than his good intentions, and deposed himself (Watterich, Vitæ Rom. Pont., I, 76); an act by some interpreted as a voluntary resignation, by others (Hefele), in keeping with the contemporary annals, as a deposition by the synod. The Synod of Sutri adjourned to meet again in Rome 23 and 24 December. Benedict, failing to appear, was condemned and deposed in contumaciam, and the papal chair was declared vacant. As King Henry was not yet crowned emperor, he had no canonical right to take part in the new election; but the Romans had no candidate to propose and begged the monarch to suggest a worthy subject.
Now, its not heresy to say that something happened, even if nutty Sedevacantists fell off their toilets when I wrote my article in September, accusing me of heresy. If the Church did depose a Pope canonically, its clearly not heresy to say that they did, or that the Church holds in practice that the Church can. Why since 2 of the deposed popes are depicted on the frieze of the Lateran (constructed in the 19th century), you could even argue the Vatican endorses both their papacies and their deposition, since Pope Clement II is also depicted there, who replaced all three.
Whether the Divine Constitution of the Church opposes such a notion or not, I think, is a concept of the constitution of the Church which excludes her history. Because if the Divine Constitution of the Church does make that impossible, then it’s also illicit, and thus immoral. But the Church has recognized the validity of the Synod of Sutri for 10 centuries, and the validity of the election of Pope Clement II for 10 centuries. So if anyone can quote a theologian or canonist after Sutri who said otherwise, quote him. But can we rely on his authority and not that of the Church by Her tacit acceptance? If we rely on such an opinion, are we not constrained to say the Church was in error for 10 centuries? And if we say that, are we not heretics?
As I said before, if Benedict IX did sell the papacy to Gregory VI, then the sale effected nothing, since you cannot validly sell an ecclesiastical office. That means that Benedict IX was the true Pope, because even if he did resign after the sale thinking he did sell the office, he was in substantial error and therefore his resignation was invalid. I suppose one could argue the Synod was in substantial error thinking it could depose Benedict or anyone for that matter, and that therefore Clement II’s election was invalid on account of substantial error, but the Church has never said that. The Frieze above the interior columns of the Lateran sill show Clement II as the one true valid Pope during the years of his reign.
I think its more probable, that whereas the Pope cannot be deposed as pope or for being pope, the man who is pope, who sins against the office by Simony or Heresy, can be deposed. But I admit that is my private fallible opinion. The Church’s Magisterium has not addressed such a specific case, to my knowledge, to handle the Synod of Sutri. The probability which causes me to hold such an opinion is that such an opinion avoids contradicting defined dogma and canons, by admitting an exceptional case in which the Law Maker Himself would not want otherwise unbending laws to prevail.
Pope Boniface VIII, Quoniam (Sexti Decretalium Liber. I, Tit. VII, chapter 1):
Quoniam aliqui curiosi disceptatores de his, quae non multum expediunt, et plura sapere, quam oporteat, contra doctrinam Apostoli, temere appetentes, in dubitationem sollicitam, an Romanus Pontifex (maxime cum se insufficientem agnoscit ad regendam universalem Ecclesiam, et summi Pontificatus onera supportanda) renunciare valeat Papatui, eiusque oneri, et honori, deducere minus provide videbantur: Celestinus Papa quintus praedecessor noster, dum eiusdem ecclesiae regimini praesidebat, volens super hoc haestitationis cuiuslibet materiam amputare, deliberatione habita cum suis fratribus Ecclesiae Romanae Cardinalibus (de quorum numero tunc eramus) de nostro, et ipsorum omnium concordi consilio et assensu, auctoritate Apostolica statuit, et decrevit: Romanum Pontificem posse libere resignare.
Nos igitur ne statutum huiusmodi per ipsis cursum oblivioni dari aut dubitationem eandem in recidivam disceptionem ulterius deduci contingat: ipsum inter constitutiones alias, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, de fratrum nostrorum consilio duximus redigendum.
My English Translation:
Since some debaters curious about those things, which are not very expedient, and desiring rashly to know more than is opportune, against the teaching of the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:4), have seemed to draw forth less cautiously a solicitous doubt, whether the Roman Pontiff (most of all when he acknowledges himself (to be) insufficient to rule the universal Church, and to support the burdens (onera) of the Supreme Pontificate) be able [valeat] to renounce the Papacy [Papatui], and its charge [oneri], and honor [honori]: Pope Celestine V, Our predecessor, when he presided over the government of the same Church, willing to cut off the matter of any hesitation over this, having held a deliberation with His brothers, the Cardinals of the Roman Church (of whose number We were at that time), established and decreed by (his) Apostolic Authority, from the concordant counsel and assent of Ourselves, and of the same: that the Roman Pontiff can freely resign.
We, therefore, lest a statute of this kind, enacted through the same, be given up to oblivion or the same doubt be drawn forth furthermore in a repeated debate: judge that the same is to be registered among the other constitutions, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, (drawn) from the council of our brother (Cardinals).
Many thanks to Dr. Cyrille Dounot, Professor of Law in the Faculté de Droit et de Science Politique, at the Université d’Auvergne, France, for making the Latin text of Boniface’s decree, Quoniam (VI, 1, 7, 1), available to me, from the Corpus Iuris Canonici, Vol II, Liber Sextus, Clementinae and Extravagantes, cum glossis, Lyons, France, 1584, cols. 197-199.
+ + + + + +
Benedetto Caetani, the future Pope Boniface VIII, was born around 1235 A. D., of an ancient Roman family. He studied jurisprudence at the University of Bologna and served in the papal government during his long career. Pope Martin IV made him Cardinal Deacon of Saint Nicholas in Carcere, in 1281 A. D., and Pope Nicholas IV, Cardinal Priest of St. Martin in Montibus ten years later. He succeeded Pope Celestine V in 1294, after the former renounced the papacy.
Pope Boniface studied canon law in an age in which its study was confined to gathering the canons of the ancient Church and those decreed in historic synods and commenting on them to deduce the fundamental principles of law by which the Church would be rightly governed. His decree, Quoniam, must be seen in this light, as we can see from the text.
There are two motives for Pope Boniface in writing Quoniam. The historical and the ecclesiological. Historically, inasmuch as he was elected following the resignation of Pope Celestine V, and on account of his untimely demise shortly after being sequestered by Boniface to the Castle of Fumone, Italy, Boniface had good reason to enshrine in Church Law the affirmation that a pope can freely resign. Second, ecclesiologically, Boniface wanted to put to rest doubts that swirled around the nature of the papal office, whether it was a vocation which could only be accepted, and never rejected, or whether it was an office, in the sense of a duty or charge, which could be lain down just as much as taken up.
In its form, Quoniam, is a memorial rescript, that is, its a written document which records what was said and decided in consistory by his predecessor, Pope Celestine V, with the Cardinals. Pope Boniface’s authority to issue the rescript, therefore, is twofold: he was both an eye witness participant in the discussions and as Roman Pontiff he had the authority to determinatively decide upon questions of canon law.
While Boniface’s central purpose was merely to affirm a point of papal power, the matter of his rescript touches upon the nature of the papal office as it was conceived in the minds of Pope Celestine V and his cardinals: as an office, as a duty, as a dignity. The office is that of the papacy (papatus), a Late Medieval term derived from the popular address of the Roman Pontiff, pope, in Greek (papas). The duty is a charge or burden (onus), not only a sober term for the magnitude and importance of the affairs it must conduct, but also a term which implies that this duty is bestowed from on high, a reference to Our Lord’s creation of the office in Matthew 16:18. Finally, the papal office is a dignity (honor), which distinguishes and elevates the one who accepts his canonical election above all others in the Church.
From Boniface’s rescript, by which he establishes Quoniam among the perpetual constitutions of the Church, we can see a direct and faithful reflection in the present Code of Canon Law, in Canon 332 §2, which terms the papal office a munus, affirms that a renunciation of munus is validly effected when the Pope acts freely, and requires a public act. In its final clause, Canon 332 §2 reaffirms that the power of renunciation lies solely in the papal office by denying that its validity arises from the act of renunciation being accepted by anyone at all.
Its clear, then, from the magisterial teaching of Pope Boniface VIII, that the papal office is not a ministry, but rather a unique dignity, office and duty, which in being renounced, must be renounced in its own nature according to what it is. That even those who doubted that a pope had such power, in Boniface’s day, affirmed these things are contained in the context of the doubt they raised, namely, whether a pope could renounce the papacy, its charge, and its honor.
Contrariwise, inasmuch as Pope Boniface affirms that a pope can renounce these things, he affirms that all three must be renounced to effect a papal renunciation, on this account, that in affirming the papal power extends over these, he implicitly asserts that if the papal power does NOT extend over each of these, then the renunciation has not taken place.
This follows from the rules of the science of Logic, which teaches that every negation must be understood strictly. Thus, since a renunciation is a form of negation, a renunciation of the papacy must renounce the office, the charge and the dignity. If one renounced only the exercise of the office and continued to exercise the passive ministry, retain the dignity of being called Your Holiness, giving the Apostolic Blessing, wearing the clothing which only the Pope can wear, it would be clear that one’s resignation had not occurred, because there is no renunciation of all right, unless all right be renounced.
Pope Boniface VIII, eminent legal scholar that he was, obviates these problems which arise from renunciation-law by using the intransitive form of the verb to resign [resignare] in his final affirmation of papal power. This is because, unlike “to renounce” [renuntiare], to resign implies of itself the renunciation of office and all its right, on account of its original meaning to re-signare, or undo the seal which enacted or approved a thing. In Latin, resignare, thus, has the meaning of annul or cancel, as well as resign, and recalls the powers invested in the office of Saint Peter, when Our Lord said: whatsoever you loose ….
The present Code of Canon Law by employing the verb to renounce [renunciare], thus requires that the object of the act munus, be a word which is full of meaning, rich in meaning, and encompassing all that is essential to an act of renunciation of papal office: the office, the charge and the dignity. The brilliance of the Latinity of those who prepared the New Code under Pope John Paul II is seen in this one word, munus, which means both gift [munus in Latin means gift, its used in the Liturgy for the gifts of the Magi], and office [canon 145 terms every ecclesiastical office a munus], charge [munus and onus in Latin share this meaning] and that which up-builds a person [munire in Latin means to build up, or fortify]. In English we see this in the words ammunition and munificence. On this account, if one were to renounce the papal office with any term which is not co-extensive with all three aspects of the Papal office, its clear that the renunciation would be incomplete, and therefore of no effect in law. Nay, since we men are creatures whose understanding is bound up with the words we use to express ourselves, its clear that if one were to use another term with deliberation, his consequent actions would reflect that partial renunciation and incomplete resignation. This should be now obvious to all, who have eyes to see.
UPDATE Dec. 5, 2022 A. D. : FromRome.Info has now published chapter II and offers for download the entire Sixth Tome of Decretals. See here.
La realidad más decepcionante en la Iglesia católica actual no es la perversión sexual, por muy asquerosa que sea. Porque mientras que los actos de perversión sexual son moralmente incorrectos, si un hombre conserva la verdad de la Fe, todavía existe la posibilidad de su arrepentimiento.
Entonces, la tragedia más grande es, pues, la pérdida de la Fe, la pérdida de la verdad. Cuando una mente llega a amar mentiras, a amar mentir, a vivir en la mendacidad y a defender y promover la mendacidad, el alma del hombre ha descendido a regiones infernales.
Tal alma no tiene nada de sí misma o en sí misma para disponerla para que se arrepienta, porque ha dado la espalda a la verdad.
Por eso, en cuanto a la controversia sobre la renuncia de Benedicto, los que dicen que renunció válidamente, no tienen excusa ante Dios o la Iglesia.
Debido a que, como el Vicario de Jesucristo, Juan Pablo II decreta en el Canon 332 §2, la validez de una renuncia papal surge solo de causas objetivas, no depende de que usted o yo digamos si es válida o no.
De hecho, por lo que ese canon declara en su cláusula final, NADIE EN LA IGLESIA tiene el derecho o la autoridad de decir que una renuncia que no esté en conformidad con ese Canon es válida.
Canon 332 §2 – Si el Romano Pontífice renunciase a su MUNUS, se requiere para la validez que la renuncia sea libre y se manifieste formalmente, pero no que sea aceptada por nadie.
Así, EL ÚNICO CRITERIO para juzgar la validez de una renuncia papal está en los hechos objetivos del acto de renuncia:
Hay una renuncia del MUNUS papal.
Esa renuncia se hace libremente, sin la imposición de fuerza injusta.
Esa renuncia se manifiesta debidamente de acuerdo con las normas de la ley por un acto verbal público.
Eso significa que NADIE tiene el derecho de especular si la renuncia es válida o no: solo es válida si cumple con las TRES condiciones simultáneamente. NO ES VÁLIDA, de lo contrario, es decir, si no cumple alguna de estas condiciones.
Por lo tanto, cada cardenal, obispo, sacerdote o cualquier cabeza habladora que sale en las redes sociales, cada periodista, laico, laico o religioso consagrado, ESTÁN OBLIGADOS POR LA FE CATÓLICA para juzgar la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI como INVÁLIDA, PORQUE
EL PAPA BENEDICTO NUNCA RENUNCIÓ a su MUNUS.
de hecho, el 11 de febrero de 2013, dijo explícitamente, renuncio al ministerio que recibí …
Eso hace que su acto de renuncia sea NULO Y ANULADO, porque no está en conformidad con la obligación de renunciar al MUNUS papal.
Por lo tanto, todos los argumentos a favor de la validez, todas las racionalizaciones, todas las especulaciones acerca de la intención de renunciar a la oficina, NO TIENEN SENTIDO. Aquellos que realizan tales actos intelectuales o verbales NO TIENEN DERECHO A HABLAR Y NINGUNA AUTORIDAD PARA JUZGAR EL ASUNTO.
Por lo tanto, ruego a todos los católicos: no sigan el camino de Lucifer, quien se rebeló al principio de los tiempos, porque quería su propia voluntad, no la de Dios. No siga el camino de Adán y Eva, que no escucharon a Dios y no mortificaron sus mentes y su corazón, sino que se rebelaron y le dijeron a Dios lo que estaba bien y lo que estaba mal. No sigan a los judíos sin fe, que habiendo visto todos los milagros de Jesús y su inmaculada santidad e integridad, eligieron rechazarlo por hacer su propia voluntad y seguir a las elites de su propio tiempo.
Le pongo en aviso. Rechace el significado claro del Canon 332 §2 y trate de obviarlo con especulaciones y excusas, y será condenado de manera que Dios lo privará de la Luz y de toda gracia.
Porque al hacer eso, NO TIENE EXCUSA ANTES DE DIOS O LA IGLESIA.
#PPBXVI Its clear now by 4 polls that the CARDINALS are in SCHISM with the vast majority of the Lay Faithful. For while they unanimously accept B16's resignation as valid, the Laity hold that NO, #Benedictxvi is the true pope by 60 to 95% pic.twitter.com/P9N7pAQm8k
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) February 23, 2019
#PPBXVI Our recent poll found that 99% of all those who read the canonical evidence that Pope Benedict's resignation was INVALID are convinced that it was invalid. That argues strongly that all Voices who hold that it is valid, are intentionally lying and/or refuse the evidence. pic.twitter.com/wPe5ZZ8aKV
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) February 24, 2019
The most disappointing reality in the Catholic Church today is not sexual perversion, however gross that is. Because while acts of sexual perversion are morally wrong, if a man retains the truth of the Faith, there is still a possibility of his repentance.
So, the greatest tragedy is, then, the loss of the Faith, the loss of truth. When a mind comes to love lies, to love to lie, to live in mendacity and to defend and promote mendacity, the soul of the man has descended to infernal regions.
Such a soul has nothing of itself or in itself to dispose it to repent, for it has turned its back on truth.
This is why in the Controversy over Benedict’s resignation, those who say he validly resigned, have no excuse before God or the Church.
Because, as the Vicar of Jesus Christ, John Paul II decrees in Canon 332 §2, the validity of a papal resignation arises from only objective causes, it does not depend on you or me saying its valid or not.
Indeed, as that canon declares in its final clause, NO ONE IN THE CHURCH has the right or authority to say that a resignation which is not in conformity with that Canon is valid.
Canon 332 §2 — If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his MUNUS (office), there is required for validity that the resignation be made freely and duly manifested but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.
Thus THE SOLE CRITERION for judging the validity of a papal resignation is in the objective facts of the act of resignation:
There is a renunciation of the papal MUNUS.
That renunciation is made freely, without the imposition of unjust force.
That renunciation is manifested duly in accord with the norms of law by a public verbal act.
That means that NO ONE has the right to speculate WHETHER OR NOT a resignation is valid or not: it is only valid if it meets all THREE conditions simultaneously. It is NOT VALID, otherwise, that is if it fails to meet any one of those conditions.
Thus, every Cardinal, Bishop, priest, or talking head on Social Media, every journalist, layman, laywoman or consecrated religious, ARE BOUND BY THE CATHOLIC FAITH to judge the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI INVALID, BECAUSE
POPE BENEDICT NEVER RENOUNCED his MUNUS.
in fact, on Feb. 11, 2013, he said explicitly, I renounce the ministry which I received….
That makes his act of resignation NULL AND VOID, because its not in conformity with the obligation to renounce the papal MUNUS. Indeed, in accord with Canon 38, every juridical act which is NOT in conformity with the norm of law is presumed to be INVALID, unless there is added expressly a clause which derogates from the obligations of the law. — There is no wiggle room here!
Thus, all the arguments in favor of the validity, all the rationalizations, all the speculations about intention to resign the office, ARE POINTLESS. Those making such intellectual or verbal acts HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK, NO AUTHORITY TO JUDGE THE MATTER.
I therefore plead with all Catholics: do not go the way of Lucifer who rebelled in the beginning of time, because he wanted his own will, not that of God. Do not go the way of Adam and Eve who would not listen to God and would not mortify their minds and heart, but chose to rebel and tell God what was right and wrong. Do not follow the faithless Jews, who having seen all the miracles of Jesus and His immaculate Holiness and integrity, chose to reject Him for the sake of doing their own will and following the elites of their own day.
I put you on notice. Reject the plain meaning of Canon 332 §2 and try to obviate it by speculations and excuses, and you will be damned, God will deprive you of the Light and every grace.
Because in doing such, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE BEFORE GOD OR THE CHURCH.
#PPBXVI Its clear now by 4 polls that the CARDINALS are in SCHISM with the vast majority of the Lay Faithful. For while they unanimously accept B16's resignation as valid, the Laity hold that NO, #Benedictxvi is the true pope by 60 to 95% pic.twitter.com/P9N7pAQm8k
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) February 23, 2019
#PPBXVI Our recent poll found that 99% of all those who read the canonical evidence that Pope Benedict's resignation was INVALID are convinced that it was invalid. That argues strongly that all Voices who hold that it is valid, are intentionally lying and/or refuse the evidence. pic.twitter.com/wPe5ZZ8aKV
— Veri Catholici: Benedetto 16 il Papa unico rimasto (@VeriCatholici) February 24, 2019
Since, I intend to respond to the charges brought against my position, I recommend that all readers first read both articles, in chronological order. — Since the commentator is anonymous, I will refer to him by the initials of his nome du plume: CC.
The argument marshaled against my position contains a list of ridiculous errors. The first of which is derived from juridical positivism, which holds that nothing is certain in reality unless it be judged by a competent court of law, holding constitutional authority to judge the matter. This is the kind of error no one but a Canonist or Lawyer would fall into, because it reduces the realm of epistemological truth to that of what a court recognizes as facts. Now, its quite understandable that someone exercising the profession of a lawyer or canonist, who must prove everything to the level of certitude had in the courts before whom he appears, to have such a habit of mind, but is quite a grand moral and philosophical error to hold that such a criterion is validly applied to the whole of reality.
On the contrary, the human mind can know truth with certitude. This is a fundamental presupposition of all human endeavor, because if it be denied, then there could be no faith given by one man to another on the basis of human judgements. Now just as the human mind can exist outside the mind of a lawyer before a court, so the human mind can know truth with certitude outside of the court of law. To say otherwise, would be psychotic, that is divorced from reality.
I say this to preface the notion of latae sententiae excommunication as a canonical penalty in the new code of Canon law. Many canonists, proceeding from the mindset of juridical positivism hold that whereas such penalties are published in the Code, they are either never incurred or that they can never with certainty be known to be incurred, until, in both cases, a competent authority declares them.
The fundamental error of this position, is that the very Latin of the penalty contradicts their position: “latae sententiae” in Latin means, without the necessity of a juridical sentence being handed down. This means, that the one who violates the law which bears this penalty for violation, is penalized BEFORE and WITHOUT any public declaration of the penalty being inferred. This being the case, a human mind can know of it with certitude. The certitude I speak of here is the certitude of natural reason which from facts which are in the external forum and known by documented evidence or eye-witness testimony, can be with seen as fulfilling the conditions for the excommunication to be incurred.
What CC attempts in criticizing me is a sophistic error: For first he argues that such excommunications cannot be known with certitude, and then asserts that such certitude can only be had in a court of law, from which he infers that I am wrong in saying that Cardinals are excommunicated. — As an aside, no where in my article do I say that any Cardinal is excommunicated; I merely said that Cardinals and Bishops are subject to the penalty.
While it it true, that in the Catholic Church, the incurring of any ecclesiastical penalty, whether declared or not, should be made known by ecclesiastical authority for the sake of the unity of the Church, it is not true, that all of them are NOT incurred if ecclesiastical authority through corruption, fear, sloth or some other vice, fails to declare that they are incurred. For excommunications latae sententiae are incurred by the law itself. Those who say otherwise are simply ignorant of Latin. To say this idea of excommunication as “automatic” is merely a canard, since as is clear it depends not upon the private individual or merely the act of violation, BUT by the imposition before the fact by the Supreme Legislator, the Pope, of a penalty which applies to all future violations ipso facto.
He extends this error of juridical positivism in the most clericalist manner by denying that a Catholic can know with certitude if a Conclave be valid or not, when a Conclave is called to elect another pope, while the first pope is still alive! — This is pure insanity! That is like saying a layman cannot know the Moon is eclipsing the Sun, just because he saw the Moon blot out the Sun! — You have to be totally psychotic to even say such a thing.
The truth is, the certitude that a Conclave is invalid is had from the certitude of the facts according to which it would not be licit to convene the Conclave. In the case in question, this certitude derives from the certitude that Pope Benedict XVI never resigned the petrine munus. Which certitude is objective, real, verifiable, documented and testified to by 2 things: the document Non solum propter, which only renounces the ministerium, and canon 332 §2 which says a Pope resigns when he resigns the munus. Since every Latinist knows that ministerium and munus are not only different words, but which do not share the same significations in ecclesiastical usage, the certitude that Pope Benedict XVI never resigned the Papal Office is both prima facie and a necessary consequent of the law (especially since canon 38 required that if Benedict wanted to signify munus by ministerium, he would have had to explicitly derogate the obligation of canon 332 §2 in its fundamental conditional clause).
Those who have studied and understood philosophy know that both in logic and in moral and legal affairs, the certitude of principles and causes extends and flows down through to conclusions and effects. A Canonist who is expert in the procedural rules of declared and imposed penalties which are not latae sententiae, might think differently, since he moves in a world of courts, but that is not the whole of reality. Thus to discount canon 359, the canon which forbids Cardinals to convene a conclave when there is no sede vacante, is not only absurd but should make anyone who knows Canon Law doubt whether CC has ever read the law.
Next, in regard to his attempt to fault me for misreading 1382, he seems never to have read the Code of Canon Law of 1983, which specifically obrogates the old code and makes recourse to its terms unauthentic when the new code establishes a greater penalty, which is true in the case of episcopal consecrations. And no, contrary to CC’s assertion, when I said, “ordain” I mean “consecrate” because the consecration of Bishops is a species of the power of ordination, a thing everyone who knows his theology of the Sacraments knows well enough. CC furthermore goes off into the fog, by saying in effect that an AntiPope consecrating Bishops or nominating Bishops is only guilty if he is feigning to have the authority of the Pope to confer jurisdiction. What kind of argument he is trying to make by moving this against the case in question, I do not know, because that is what an Anti-Pope objectively does!!!
The appeal to canon 1405 §1, 2°, namely, that the Pope alone judges the Cardinals, is praeter rem, because in legislating canonical penalties which apply to everyone in the Church, without exception, Pope John Paul II did judge the Cardinals beforehand. Those who have studied Canon Law and understand its nature know this well.
Finally, all CC’s other assertions saying things cannot be known or known with certitude, by anyone but the Canonist or Judge in a court of Canon Law, or by the Pope alone, is merely an extension of juridical positivism, an absurd professional error of snobbery among poorly schooled lawyers. Canonists who know the Faith understand well that Canon Law’s fundamental context is the Catholic Faith and that it must be understood in a manner which does not conflict with objective reality and epistemology. Like the Catholic Faith, it is not a gnostic science in which the truth is only known by the initiates who study at Pontifical Universities.
I invite all those who have not yet done so, to read my original article on the Excommunication of Cardinals and Bishops who participate in the usurpation of the Papal Office more carefully, and they will see how I speak of moral causes and the terms of the law, and how I never said anyone was excommunicated, only that if they know what they did, they merit to have incurred the penalty. This is perfectly Catholic.
As a Postscript, I add, that I am not in the least offended by the publication of CC’s critique. I appreciate the occasion to manifest the truth better through the clash of mental swords. — I would also note that, what really irks Canonists and Bishops about my article is that I have put them on notice that their offices and privileges be derived from a true Pope, not a fake pope; in other words, I am reminding the malicious ones that their entire project is null and void, and that they are risking losing communion with Christ, canonically speaking, if they have not already done so.
Canon 359 expressly withdraws authority from the College of Cardinals to elect a Pope, when the Papal Office is still retained by another: there being no sede vacante. To call a conclave when there is still a true Pope, thus, is illicit. To elect another is to participate actively and immediately in the crime of the usurpation of the Papal Office.
Usurpation is the crime whereby someone without a legitimate claim, lays hold upon or claims an office which is not his. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Usurpation is discussed under several canons, usurpation of office in canon 1381.
Though the crime of usurping the papacy is not named in the code expressly — since it has not occurred for centuries, those participating in such a crime can still be excommunicated latae sententiae out of the consequences of such an act, and this in two ways: 1) by the Anti-Pope ordaining bishops and collaborating with him in that, 2) by the crime of schism.
The first regards the crime of usurpation itself in the act of ordaining Bishops.
The worse crime of usurpation mentioned explicitly in the code is in canon 1382:
Can. 1382 — A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Pope John Paul II cited this canon to declare that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, was excommunicate on account of his ordination of their 4 Bishops. Bergoglio cited this same canon to “excommunicate” Bishop Williamson, after he was reconciled by Pope Benedict XVI, who undid John Paul II’s excommunication.
This applies to Anti-Popes, inasmuch as not being the legitimate successors of Saint Peter, their ordaining of Bishops is without true pontifical mandate. It also applies to Bishops who ordain those nominated by Bergoglio, since they too have no true pontifical mandate to act.
Accomplices of both are also punished by the same punishment, as is clear from canon 1329.
Can. 1329 — §1. If ferendae sententiae penalties are established for the principal perpetrator, those who conspire together to commit a delict and are not expressly named in a law or precept are subject to the same penalties or to others of the same or lesser gravity.
§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.
Since the excommunication leveled in canon 1382 takes place immediately without the necessity of any public declaration by any authority, in accord with Canon 1329 §2 all the Cardinals involved in the uncanonical election of an Anti-Pope are also ipso facto excommunicated, since they participate intimately and immediately in his claim to exercise the pontifical mandate.
While it can be argued that those in substantial error as to the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation ought not be excommunicated, because they had good will, they must confront canon 15, which says in § 2: Ignorance or error about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another is not presumed. Thus, as soon as any Cardinal Elector sees that Benedict resigned the ministerium, not the munus, and that Canon 322 §2 requires the resignation munus — all the while refusing to repudiate the validity of that resignation — he becomes indisputably culpable of the usurpation of the Papal office by way of consent to uphold Bergoglio’s claim to exercise the pontifical mandate, and as such, merits punishment under canons 1382 and 1329 §2.
The second way to excommunication latae sententiae, is through the crime of schism.
Cardinals and Bishops participating in supporting an Anti-Pope are also involved in the crime of schism, since they formally separate themselves from communion to the true Pope. Thus they are also subject to excommunication from canon
Can. 1364 — §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs alatae sententiaeexcommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
Thus, the controversy over the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s resignation becomes one of the greatest import for Catholics, to know who is truly their pastors and who are truly schismatics and excommunicates. This is not a joking matter, and any Cardinal or Bishop who treats it as such, should be sternly reminded of such.
Presumption and Silence
Finally, it needs to be pointed out, that whereas there is a presumption of validity of every Conclave, in the event of the death of the Roman Pontiff, however, in the case of a papal resignation, there is no such presumption, and since it is the grave duty of the Cardinals to act in accord with Canon Law in the election of the Roman Pontiff, they had the grave and solemn duty to verify that the resignation of Pope Benedict was in conformity with Canon 332 §2. If they did verify that, why have they never admitted to having verified it? And if they did not, they ostensibly become culpable of usurpation out of negligence in so grave a duty.
Indeed, the Vatican is full of Doctors of Canon Law, but to my knowledge neither in February of 2013 nor in the following six years, as any Canon Lawyer from the Vatican published any study showing that Non solum propter effects a valid resignation in conformity to canon 322 §2. Nor does it seem that anyone in the Diplomatic Corps asked the Vatican for such a verification.* Nor does it seem that the Italian Government, bound by the Lateran Treaty to uphold only constitutional governments in the Vatican, ever asked for such a verification or explanation. — If this be true, its of the gravest indications that the resignation was never put to any kind of rational scrutiny, but was presumed to be valid by a bunch of giddy men who wanted Benedict out of the way.
Image Credits: Getty Images, Conclave of March 2013.
* For example, Eduard Hapsburg, the Ambassador of Hungary to the Vatican, recently insulted Catholics who question the validity of the resignation. But when asked for a verification of the resignation, remained utterly silent.
En el artículo anterior titulado LavalidezdelarenunciadeBenedictodebesercuestionada, ParteI, recité la historia de la controversia sobre la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI sobre el tema del error sustancial en la renuncia y luego procedí a explicar más de 20 argumentos en contra de validez.
Aquí, enumeraré los argumentos para la validez, en la medida en que los encuentre y los entienda. Si usted conoce sobre más argumentos, favor de avisarme en la sección de comentarios a continuación. Después de cada argumento a favor de la Validez, publicaré, para conveniencia del lector, el argumento en contra, que se desvía de esta pequeña manera de la forma escolástica adecuada. No hay un orden particular entre los argumentos, pero los más fuertes están al final.
¿Ya sea que el Papa Benedicto XVI, mediante el acto expresado en su discurso “Non solum propter”, renunció a la oficina del Obispo de Roma?
Y parece que lo hizo:
Porque, el Papa Benedicto XVI como Papa está por encima del Derecho Canónico. Por lo tanto, no necesita renunciar según la forma del Canon 332 §2. Por lo tanto, renunció válidamente.
Ad obj. 1: Argumentar que el Papa está por encima de la Ley Canónica, y por lo tanto la renuncia es válida, es un sofismo, que cuando se examina es equivalente a otras 2 proposiciones erróneas, a saber: “El Papa como Papa está por encima de la ley canónica, ergo etc.” y “El Papa como el hombre que está por encima de la ley, ergo etc.” A la primera, le diré: En primer caso, es verdad que el Papa está por encima del Derecho Canónico. Sin embargo, el Papa, al renunciar a su cargo, no renuncia como Papa, sino como el hombre que es el Papa. Por lo tanto el argumento es praeter rem. Al segundo, digo: es falso decir que el Papa como el hombre que es papa está por encima de la Ley Canónica, porque la mente del Legislador del Código de Derecho Canónico, el Papa Juan Pablo II, en el canon 332 §2, expresamente declara cuándo una renuncia papal es tal y debe considerarse válida. Por lo tanto, si un Papa renunciara de una manera que fuera válida, pero que los Fieles tuvieran que considerar como inválida según la norma de ese Canon, habría caos en la Iglesia. Sin embargo, al interpretar la mente de un legislador, no se puede suponer ninguna tesis que haga que la ley sea defectuosa. Por lo tanto, el Papa Juan Pablo II tuvo la intención de atar al hombre que es papa, en una resignación papal. Por lo tanto, el segundo es falso también.
Porque está claro que el papa Benedicto quiso renunciar. Por lo tanto, él renunció. Por lo tanto, su renuncia es válida.
Ad obj. 2: Argumentar que el Papa quiso renunciar, por lo tanto renunció, es emplear un sofismo que oculta un término medio no distribuido. Porque si el Papa quería renunciar al ministerio del oficio, entonces renunció al ministerium. Pero tal renuncia no se conforma con el Canon 332 §2, ya que el canon no renuncia al munus. Por lo tanto, no es válida. Del mismo modo, si el Papa quería renunciar al munus, entonces NO renunció al munus si es que dijo ministerium. E incluso aunque él creyó haberlo hecho, es inválido, según el canon 332 §2 de acuerdo con el acto, y de acuerdo con el canon 188 debido a un error sustancial.
Debido a que el Papa Benedicto, después de su renuncia, declaró públicamente que renunció válidamente, entonces renunció válidamente.
Ad obj 3: Argumentar que el Papa renunció válidamente porque después de su renuncia declaró públicamente que renunció válidamente, es emplear un subterfugio. Porque en esa declaración pública declara que renunció válidamente al ministerio petrino. Que renunció válidamente al ministerio petrino, no se disputa. Pero si eso es lo que él renunció, entonces no renunció al munus. Por lo tanto, ese acto no efectuó una renuncia al oficio. Por lo tanto, si se afirma que es una renuncia papal válida, la afirmación es falsa según el canon 332 §2.
Porque, el Papa Benedicto, después de su renuncia, declaró públicamente que renunció libremente, por lo tanto renunció.
Ad obj. 4: Es cierto que la libertad en una renuncia es una de las condiciones necesarias para una renuncia papal según el Canon 332 §2, pero no es cierto que sea la única condición. La primera condición es que sea una renuncia de munus. No era. Por lo tanto, este argumento es praeter rem.
Porque el Cardenal Sodano, como Decano del Colegio de Cardenales, al convocar al Colegio, actuó como si fuera válido, por lo tanto, es válido.
Ad obj. 5: No hay un Canon de la Iglesia o una delegación especial del Romano Pontífice que tome la decisión del Cardenal Diácono de llamar a un cónclave eficaz de la validez de una renuncia inválida, o autoritativamente determinante de la validez de una renuncia. Por lo tanto, que lo haya hecho, no prueba nada. No, el canon 332 §2 lo niega expresamente.
Debido a que el Colegio de Cardenales se reunió para elegir un Sucesor del Papa Benedicto, por lo tanto, mediante ese acto declarado o hecho, la renuncia fue válida.
Ad obj. 6: No existe un Canon de la Iglesia o una delegación especial del Romano Pontífice que tome la decisión del Colegio de Cardenales de conciliar o elegir a un Papa, eficaz de la validez de una renuncia inválida, o autoritativamente determinante de la validez de una renuncia. Por lo tanto, que lo hayan hecho, no prueba nada. No, el canon 332 §2 lo niega expresamente.
Porque todo el Colegio de Cardenales después de la renuncia y después del Cónclave de 2013 actúa y sostiene que Jorge Mario Bergoglio es el verdadero y válido Papa.
Ad obj. 7: Respondo lo mismo que para obj. 7.
Porque todo el mundo acepta que Jorge Mario Bergoglio es el Papa Francisco.
Ad obj. 8: El canon 332 §2 al decir, “y no que sea aceptado o no por nadie” en su frase final, lo niega expresamente. Por lo tanto, es falso.
Porque, un católico debe sostener como papa, a quienquiera que los cardenales, o los obispos, o el clero de Roma, sean el papa.
Ad obj. 9: Respondo lo mismo que para obj. 8.
Porque la elección de un Papa por los Cardenales es un hecho dogmático, que todos los católicos deben aceptar.
Ad obj. 10: Si bien es cierto que la elección válida de un Papa por parte de los Cardenales es un hecho dogmático que todos los católicos deben aceptar, no es cierto si la elección no fue válida. Pero una elección no es válida si el Papa anterior aún vive y aún no ha renunciado válidamente. Por lo tanto, esta objeción no es válida, en la medida en que la renuncia sea inválida. Por lo tanto, de su propio ser es insuficiente para probar el punto argumentado.
Debido a que la renuncia del papa Benedicto XVI es un acto papal, que no puede ser cuestionado, según el anexo: prima sedes a nemini iudicatur.
Ad obj. 11: Si bien es cierto que los actos del Romano Pontífice son actos jurídicos que no pueden ser cuestionados, no es verdad que las declaraciones hechas en primera persona por el hombre que es Papa, que son la materia de tales actos o declaraciones, no pueden ser juzgadas. El canon 332 §2 demuestra que tal acto puede ser juzgado ya que el canon juzga tales actos. Que tal materia del acto papal no es un acto del papa como papa, ya se ha demostrado anteriormente. — Si dice que el acto de declaración es un acto papal, no el acto del hombre, por lo tanto, debe considerarse válido, ya que el Papa es el legislador supremo y el árbitro del significado de los actos canónicos, debe responderse que la declaración (“Yo declaro”) se hace en la primera persona del singular, no en la primera persona del plural, por lo que el legislador supremo ya ha renunciado explícitamente a su papel en la declaración de renuncia.
Porque, un católico con buena conciencia debe suponer que si la renuncia no era válida debido al uso de la palabra ministerium no munus en la frase clave del acto, los Cardenales, de acuerdo con el canon 17, se demostraron a sí mismos que el Santo Padre, El Papa Benedicto renunció lo suficiente al papado, o que celebraron un consejo privado con el para conocer su sentido y significado, momento en el que significó en privado que había renunciado al papado al renunciar al ministerio del papado.
Ad obj. 12: Si bien es cierto que un católico debe estar dispuesto a presumir tal cosa, tal presunción no hace válida una renuncia inválida. No, de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, se debe tener en cuenta que la causa final de una renuncia inválida es que no se manifiesta de acuerdo con la norma de la ley (rite manifestatur). Cuya norma requiere un acto público que es un acto presenciado por lo menos con 2 testigos y hecho verbalmente. Tal acto nunca ha sido publicado. Entonces, incluso si se hiciera, es un acto secreto y no haría una renuncia inválida, válida.
Debido a que el Papa Benedicto dijo: “declaro que renuncio al ministerio, …que me fue confiado por medio de los Cardenales, … , asi que la Sede de San Pedro quedará vacante en”, indicó claramente que su renuncia era para efectuar una perdida al oficio (munus). Por lo tanto, su renuncia estuvo de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, a pesar de no usar explícitamente la palabra munus, ya que ese Canon requiere su validez. Por los tanto, la renuncia fue válida.
Ad obj. 13: Esta objeción fue refutada en los argumentos de la Primera Parte, pero su complejidad merece una respuesta más completa para aquellas mentes que no pueden entender cómo es inválida. Primero, como se demuestra en la Primera Parte de este Artículo, una renuncia es válida si incluye una renuncia de munus, no es válida si no lo hace. Y de acuerdo con Canon 17, si hay alguna duda sobre si munus está incluido en el Canon 332 §2 como una condición sine qua non o de acuerdo a su significado en un sentido más amplio, uno debe tener recurso a otras partes de del Derecho, la tradición canónica, y a la mente del Legislador (Juan Pablo II) del Código. Como se ha mostrado en otraparte, no hay base para un argumento del canon 17 de que ministerium puede significar munus. Sin embargo, como ministerium es seguido por 2 cláusulas subordinadas, el argumento de que no es válido, debe responder a esa condición. En latín, algunas cláusulas subordinadas pueden alterar el significado de la cláusula principal. Y es cierto que hay una forma poética, en la que parte de una cosa puede sustituir al todo, como cuando en la Misa en el Rito Latino decimos: “Entres a mi casa” para que signifique “Vengas a mi alma”. Sin embargo, con respecto al latín del texto de la renuncia, decir, “que recibí de las manos de los Cardenales” no impone ninguna necesidad de referencia al Ministerio Petrino per se, porque Ratzinger también en ese momento recibió el ministerio Episcopal y Pastoral de la Diócesis de Roma. La segunda cláusula, “asi que la Sede de San Pedro quedará vacante”, se ha demostrado en la Parte I que no requiere ninguna necesidad. Para aquellos que no entienden la gramática latina, esto necesita ser explicado. Porque, en una cláusula subordinada como “asi que … quedará vacante”, la cláusula es una cláusula de propósito del tipo que comienza con la partícula “ut“, y por lo tanto es una cláusula pura de propósito que indica solo una meta. Si la clausula subordinada de propósito hubiera comenzado “de tal manera que” (quomodo) o “de tal manera como para” (in tali modo quod) hubiera sido una cláusula de propósito de tal característica que tuviera el poder de alterar la manera de significado en la clausula primaria, y permitir el uso de significado metonímico, eso es, cuando una parte refiere al todo. Como el Papa Benedicto no dijo nada de ese tipo, esta forma de leer la cláusula subordinada no es posible. Por lo tanto, sigue siendo inválido. Sin embargo, incluso si se tuviera un significado metonímico, sigue siendo inválido según el Canon 332 §2, ya que no se manifestaría debidamente. Porque como si alguien pronunciara los votos matrimoniales diciendo: “Te tomo como mi empanada vienesa”en lugar de decir “Te tomo como mi esposa”, sería necesario recurrir a una interpretación para hacer que la frase signifique tomar una esposa, por lo que en un acto de renuncia, cualquier forma de significado metonímico rendiría inválido el acto porque públicamente no manifiesta la intención debidamente.
En su acto de renuncia, el Papa Benedicto XVI declaró dos cosas. El primero con respecto a su renuncia, el segundo con respecto a la convocación de un cónclave “que un cónclave para elegir a un nuevo Sumo Pontífice sea convocado por aquellos cuyo deber es”. No habría dicho esto si su intención no fuera renunciar a la oficina del papado. Por lo tanto, renunció a la oficina del papado.
Ad obj. 14: Este argumento es una combinación de dos argumentos, uno de los cuales se ha refutado previamente, a saber, aquel que se refiere a su intención, que fue refutado en Ad obj. 2. Aquí responderé al otro que se refiere al comando papal de convocar un cónclave. Dado que el Papa declaró que se convocaría un cónclave para elegir a un nuevo Romano Pontífice constituye la segunda cláusula independiente de su verbo, “Yo declaro”. Por lo tanto, es lógicamente independiente y no tiene ninguna necesidad en la alteración del significado de la primera cláusula, que se refiere a la renuncia. Por lo tanto, si la renuncia no se manifiesta debidamente de acuerdo con el Canon 332 §2, que el Papa declara que se debe llamar cónclave es una declaración papal que está totalmente viciada por el error sustancial en su primera declaración. Así, el canon 188 invalida la ejecución de este mando. Esto es especialmente cierto, ya que en la declaración de convocatoria, no requiere que la convocatoria se realice antes o después de que el Papa deje de ser, ni en una fecha específica o incluso durante su vida. Para ver esto más claramente, recuerde el ejemplo de los argumentos en contra de la validez, en donde un papa hipotético declara: “Renuncio a los plátanos para que el 28 de febrero, a las 8 p. M., Hora romana, La Sede esté vacía” y simplemente agregue “y que se convoque un cónclave para elegir un nuevo pontífice romano”. Como se puede ver en esta hipotética, la segunda declaración no hace válida la primera, simplemente continúa con el error sustancial: un error sustancial que también hace que el Cónclave de 2013 y todos los actos de Bergoglio como Papa sean inválidos.
Canon 332 §2 requiere la renuncia del oficio. Pero ministerium también significa oficio. Por lo tanto, cuando el Papa Benedicto renunció al ministerium, renunció al munus.
Ad obj. 15 : Canon 332 §2 lee de la siguiente manera: “Si el Romano Pontífice renunciase a su munus, se requiere para la validez que la renuncia sea libre y se manifieste rite, pero no que sea aceptada por nadie.” Como se puede ver en este Canon, que es el único que se ocupa de las renuncias papales, la condición fundamental es que el Papa renuncie a su “munus“. Ahora, mientras que algunas traducciones modernas lo traducen como oficina (inglés), otras como cargo (español), otras como función (italiano), está claro en el Código de Derecho Canónico que su significado canónico principal es oficio. Esto se puede ver en su uso en los Encabezados del Nuevo Código para los capítulos sobre las Oficinas eclesiásticas.Esto se confirma mediante una cita directa del canon 145 §1, donde cada oficio eclesiástico es llamado un “munus“, no un “ministerium”. Un examen del Código también revela que un ministerium nunca se llama una “oficio”. Ahora, como el Código de Derecho Canónico requiere en el Canon 17, que el Código mismo se lea de acuerdo con la tradición de los textos canónicos, las fuentes del derecho canónico y la mente de su legislador (el Papa Juan Pablo II), estos hechos deberían ser suficientes pruebas para excluir la posibilidad de que “ministerium” se pueda leer como munus. Esto se confirma mediante la comparación del Canon 332 §2 con el canon correspondiente en el Código de Derecho Canónico promulgado bajo el Papa Benedicto XV, donde se habla de un Papa que renuncia, pero no dice a qué renuncia. Es evidente y significativo que el Papa Juan Pablo II en el código de 1983 agregó la palabra “munus” para especificar a qué se debe renunciar para efectuar una renuncia papal. También es evidente que en ese Código de Derecho Canónico “ministerium” se refiere al ejercicio de una oficio. Además, si uno examina todas las renuncias papales anteriores para las cuales hay evidencia textual de la fórmula de renuncia, siempre se encuentran las palabras que significan oficio:onus, munus. No se encuentra ministerium. Los nombres propios para los oficios se encuentran como epicopatus y papatus. O la dignidad que resulta de la oficina se nombra con las palabras honor o dignitas. Así, de acuerdo con el Canon 17, todas las fuentes de interpretación autorizada concluyen sobre 1 resultado: que un Papa solo renuncia cuando renuncia al munus, al oficio, no a la ejecución del oficio, ministerium. Por lo tanto, incluso si el Papa Benedicto pretendía, y en privado después afirmó, afirmaba o afirmaría, que pretendía usar “ministerium” para munus, su acto de renuncia no es válido debido a ese error sustancial, en virtud del canon 188, y no puede hacerse válido por ningún acto posterior. Tendría que ser rehecho con la palabra, “munus“. Entonces, el argumento es inválido por un sofismo, de leer “munus” en su mayor según su significado en latín, pero leer “ministerium” en el menor de acuerdo con su uso vernáculo. Por lo tanto, su conclusión se alcanza a través de un término medio no distribuido, y por lo tanto también es inválida.
No hay ministerium petrino sin un oficio petrino, ya que los dos son inseparables en cuanto a su derecho y ser [secundum ius et esse], según el Derecho Canónico. Por lo tanto, aunque el Canon 332 §2 requiere que un Papa renuncie a su munus para que renuncie válidamente, sin embargo, una renuncia a su ministerium es suficiente para efectuar esto porque aunque “munus” nombra el oficio papal en relación al don de Dios de gracia y deber, “ministerium” nombra el mismo oficio de acuerdo a su relación con la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, renunciar al ministerium petrino, es renunciar al munus petrino.
Ad obj. 16 : Debe decirse que este argumento debe ser respondido mediante un interemptio (eso es una refutación completa de las premisas en un silogismo), ya que es falso en sus proposiciones principales y secundarias. En su versión menor, es falso al estar basado en un error de interpretación de las obligaciones del Canon 332 §2 de acuerdo con la costumbre general de la ciencia de la teología, y no de acuerdo con la norma de ley. En su principal, o premisa, es además falso afirmar que el ministerium no es separable de su oficio de acuerdo con el derecho en cuanto a derecho y el hecho de ser [secundum ius et esse]. Con respecto a lo primero, uno debe responder así: Porque en la ciencia de la teología, las palabras pueden tener significados diferentes con respecto a cosas iguales o disímiles. Pero todo esto es praeter rem (irrelevante) en cuanto a una discusión del significado canónico de un acto de renuncia de un oficio eclesiástico, aún más, en cuanto a un oficio establecido por el Verbo Encarnado de Dios. En tal asunto, el argumento debe centrarse en el oficio según su ser en la Divina Voluntad e intención, no como oficio según se entienda de acuerdo a la teología personal del hombre que es romano pontífice. Esto también es cierto con respecto a la Iglesia Romana, cuyo Novio no es el Romano Pontífice, sino el mismo Cristo Jesús, que ahora reina en la Gloria. Por esa razón, no solo está obligada a dar el consentimiento de Su voluntad al Redentor, sino también a la aprobación de Su mente. Por lo tanto, uno propondría una manera de observar la ley canónica que sería equivalente al adulterio, si uno sostuviera que era lícito que la Iglesia Romana considerara el significado de un acto canónico según la manera del mundo, la carne o incluso interpretación privada. Por lo tanto, no solo Cristo, por Su promesa a San Pedro, está obligado por el canon 332 §2, promulgado por Su Vicario, el Papa Juan Pablo II, a no retirar la gracia y el oficio [munus] a menos que se renuncie explícitamente, así también a la Iglesia Romana, que es su novia virgen más fiel y su esposa virgen. Por lo tanto, la Iglesia debe considerar que las obligaciones del canon 332 §2 requieren una renuncia al munus, en tanto que el Canon 17 requiere que ese término se entienda en el canon 145 §1. En ninguna parte del Código de Derecho Canónico se encuentra que un ministerium considerado como el oficio en sí. Entonces, si bien fue la intención del autor de Non Solum Propter, en tanto que era hombre, significar la Oficina Papal en su relación con el servicio que presta, no por ese solo hecho se convierte en un acto que la Iglesia pueda aceptar como rite manifestatum, pues se tendría que recurrir a una interpretación y a una lectura del texto fuera del marco de reglas de significado del Código de Derecho Canónico que tendrían que ser empleadas. Y como tal, no sería canónicamente válido, incluso si uno pudiera sostener que era teológicamente suficiente. Sin embargo, incluso si uno fuera a conceder que las palabras ministerium …. commissum habló del munus petrinum en su relación con la Iglesia, ya que no se renuncia a nada más que a lo que se renuncia explícitamente, el acto no haría nada más canónicamente que una renuncia al ministerio en la medida en que se encuentra en tal relación, mas no del oficio en sí mismo. Y, por lo tanto, no sería eficaz renunciar, ni suficiente el dar a entender la renuncia al oficio en su relación a Dios y Su don de la gracia. Pero dado que esta misma relación se refiere a ello según su principio de ser [secundum essendi principium] – ya que es un regalo inmediato de Cristo y se establece mediante un acto de Su voluntad, tal renuncia no afecta lo que es esencial para ello. — El acto permanece, por lo tanto, viciado por un error sustancial en su forma de significación, y por lo tanto no es válido ipso iure, por el canon 188. — Finalmente, con respecto a la premisa del argumento, a saber, que el ministerium no se puede separar de la oficina secundum ius et esse, debe decirse que esto está falsificado por el derecho litúrgico y canónico. Porque desde la supresión de las órdenes menores, el estado del acólito y el lector se denominan “ministerios” [Canon 230 §1], sin embargo, tales ministerios no confieren el derecho de ejercer dicho servicio en ningún momento, sino solo la idoneidad de hacerlo a petición del celebrante de un acto litúrgico. Por lo tanto, ministeria son separables en cuanto a derecho y el hecho de ser, del munus. – Por tanto en conclusión, parece ser obvio que el argumento entero es falso, ya que una conclusión que es deducida de una premisa falsa y un menor falso es enteramente falsificada.
17. La aceptación pacífica y universal de un Papa es causada por y es el efecto de una elección papal válida. Por lo tanto, después de 6 años, incluso si la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI fuera inválida, su silencio de facto en la usurpación de la Oficina Papal por parte de Bergoglio es equivalente a una renuncia. Por lo tanto, ya sea que la renuncia sea inválida o no, ahora debe considerarse válida.
Ad obj. 17: Aunque, en el derecho común, la posesión es nueve décimas de derecho, y por lo tanto, la usurpación puede llevar a la adquisición del derecho y en la Ley Romana usucapióne puede obtener el derecho legal a la propiedad después de un largo tiempo, tal principio no es válido por dos razones. Primero, no es válido teológicamente con respecto a un oficio eclesiástico que fue establecido por Jesucristo, el Verbo Encarnado, por un acto personal inmediato. Del cual tipo es el oficio de Papa. La razón teológica es esta: que nadie puede arrebatar nada de la Mano del Dios viviente (Juan 10:28). Y, por lo tanto, ninguna usurpación del oficio papal puede restringir a la Deidad, que es la justicia infinita y la omnipotencia misma, para transferir la gracia del munus papal a otro.Sostener lo contrario, sería una imposibilidad teológica y absurda. Segundo, no es válido canónicamente, debido al Canon 359, que especifica que el Colegio Cardenalicio tiene autoridad para elegir un Pontífice Romano solo durante una sede vacante. — Por lo tanto, si la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI no fue válida, no había una sede vacante y, por lo tanto, el Colegio no tenía autoridad para elegir un sucesor. — En cuanto a la aquiescencia tácita: de la Historia de la Iglesia se desprende claramente que, en contra de las afirmaciones de un antipapa, no se consideró que ningún legítimo reclamante de la Sede apostólica cediera simplemente por no perseguir su derecho. Sin embargo, el argumento de la aquiescencia tácita, sin embargo, no aplica en el caso en disputa, porque el hecho de que uno actué en error sustancial no constituye una aquiescencia tácita, ya que la aquiescencia tácita requiere la capacidad de consentimiento, cosa que es imposible por ignorancia invencible en el caso de error sustancial. — Finalmente, con respecto a la aceptación universal y pacífica de una elección papal: mientras que este principio es ciertamente un principio reflejo válido para las conciencias preocupadas en el caso de una elección válida, no hay posibilidad de una elección válida cuando el Colegio no tiene derecho a actuar, ya que es contrario no solo a la Ley Canónica sino a la Ley Divina para elegir a otro Romano Pontífice mientras el Papa aún vive y no ha renunciado válidamente. Tampoco es válido, en cuanto a su menor implícito: a saber, que ha habido una aceptación pacífica y universal de la renuncia papal. No ha habido, como demuestra el prefacio a esta pregunta en disputa. Por lo tanto, la aplicación de este principio reflejo en el presente caso es, en el mejor de los casos, praeter rem (irrelevante), peor aún, un subterfugio
18. La renuncia de Benedicto a ministerium efectúa válidamente una renuncia al oficio porque, debido al Canon 10, que dice expresamente que solo las condiciones de invalidez hacen que un acto sea inválido, ya que el Canon 332 §2 habla de invalidez solo en relación con la libertad de coerción y manifestación debida, no del nombramiento del oficio, ya que Benedicto tenía la intención de nombrar el oficio papal, como se desprende de su aceptación del título de Papa Emérito, el nombramiento del ministerium en lugar del munus no invalida el acto de renuncia. Además, Benedicto como papa es el legislador supremo, por lo tanto, interpreta oficialmente la ley (cf. Canon 16 §1), por lo que puede renunciar al munus petrino renunciando al ministerium petrino.
Adj. obj. 18: Si bien es cierto que el canon 332 §2 habla de invalidez pero solo en relación con las condiciones del acto, no obstante, el canon 188 habla expresamente de invalidez de renuncias que están viciadas por un error sustancial. Ahora, no hay un error más sustancial en renunciar a un oficio eclesiástico, que renunciar a un accidente del mismo o su segundo acto de ser (ministerium) y creer que al hacerlo, una suficiencia significa el oficio (munus). Además, el canon 18 requiere que los términos del canon 332 §2 se entiendan estrictamente, ya que el último canon restringen al que renuncia. Por lo tanto, la renuncia debe considerar explícitamente el munus del oficio papal, que en ese canon y en el canon 749 §1, como todas los oficios episcopales (cf. Paul VI, Christus Dominus) en todo el Código, se refiere exclusivamente como munus, porque no es meramente un cargo u oficio eclesiástico (officium) o servicio (ministerium) establecido por costumbre o la Iglesia, sino que es un don de gracia y oficio (munus) establecido por el Dios vivo por un acto personal e inmediato (cf. Mateo 16:18). Que cada oficio (munus) pueda ejercer uno o más ministeria (ministerios) no soloNOes un argumento para la validez de la renuncia de Benedicto sino más bien un argumento en contra de la validez, a causa del canon 188, canon 17 y canon 41 (en latín), el último de los cuales asocia expresamente ministerium con la mera ejecución de un oficio eclesiástico y esto, porque el enfermo puede renunciar a la ejecución de un oficio o sus servicios, quien todavía desea conservar la dignidad del oficio, como lo demuestra la historia de la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, en virtud del canon 17, que requiere explícitamente que los textos de cada Canon se entiendan de acuerdo con el significado apropiado de las palabras que contienen, ya que el contexto del Código de Derecho Canónico los usa, el argumento extraído del Canon 10, aquí, no es válido porque es praeter rem, es decir, aplicable solo a las condiciones de invalidez en el Canon 332 §2, no del canon 188. — Si dice, si, el Canon 10 se aplica solo a los términos expresados en el Canon 332 §2 y así permite una interpretación amplia de la cláusula condicional que habla de una renuncia del munus petrino, entonces debe responderse, que tal lectura del canon 10 anularía los requisitos del canon 17, que los términos deben ser entendidos correctamente, o al menos fallan por insuficiencia, ya que el significado amplio de munus en el Código de Derecho Canónico es officium no ministerium; qué sentido de officium se refiere a oficio, no a la ejecución de un ministerio. — Respecto al Canon 16 § 1, hay que decir, que sí, el Papa Benedicto como Papa es el legislador supremo e intérprete del derecho canónico. Pero él es sólo legislador, cuando legisla; mientras que el canon 332 §2 fue legislado por el papa Juan Pablo II. Además, aunque cualquier Papa puede interpretar oficialmente el derecho canónico, debe hacerlo por un acto papal, no por un error sustancial.Por lo tanto, el canon 16 no se aplica en tal caso. Más bien, más bien, el Canon 38 gobierna expresamente en este caso, cuando dice: Un acto administrativo, incluso si es promulgado por un rescripto dado Motu Proprio, carece de efecto en la medida en que perjudica los derechos de otro o es contrario a la ley o costumbre comprobada, a menos que la autoridad competente haya agregado expresamente una cláusula de derogación. — Finalmente, con respecto a la intención manifiesta del Papa de renunciar al munus papal, he respondido a esto arriba en la respuesta a las objeciones 2, 3 y 4.
19. Como sostiene el Dr. Taylor Marshall en su video, “La renuncia del Papa Benedicto: un análisis”, “ministerium” y “munus” nombran lo mismo: el oficio papal. Por lo tanto, renunciar a uno es renunciar al otro. Por lo tanto, la renuncia es válida.
Ad obj. 19: A una afirmación gratuita, no es necesario responder, porque no es un argumento. Sin embargo, contra esta afirmación, uno debe responder, ya que ataca la naturaleza de la realidad misma. Porque las palabras tienen significado, de lo contrario no serían signos de comunicación. Y diferentes palabras pueden tener un significado diferente, o no habría ninguna razón para usarlas. Así, el lenguaje humano por necesidad sostiene la afirmación de que ministerium y munus pueden tener diferentes significados. Cualquier diccionario de latín también lo sostiene, como cualquiera que tenga uno puede demostrar. Pero que ministerium y munus en el derecho canónico significan lo mismo, es totalmente falso, como se ha demostrado anteriormente al referirse, de acuerdo con los requisitos del canon 17, al Código mismo que en el canon 41 asocia “ministerium” con el mero ejercicio de oficio, y canon 145 §1 que define un oficio eclesiástico como un “munus”, no un ministerium. Por lo tanto, el propio Código de Ley Canónica utiliza los términos en diferentes sentidos, y no equipara sus significados como refiriéndose a un oficio eclesiástico, en el sentido de que “obispado” o “papado” se refieren a un oficio. — Esta es una refutación suficiente de acuerdo con la norma del derecho canónico. Pero como la afirmación oculta un grave error del tipo de Nominalismo promovido en Tübingen, merece ser refutado de acuerdo con la ciencia de la filosofía. Porque así como hay 10 categorías de ser de acuerdo con el Filósofo en su Praedicamenta, las palabras se pueden decir en referencia a una o más categorías de ser. Ahora, en el canon 145 §1, el Legislador Supremo predice munus de cada oficio eclesiástico. Pero en ninguna parte del Código predica el ministerium de cualquier oficio eclesiástico, solo de los roles o servicios prestados por alguien que ocupa un oficio o en su lugar. Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el canon 17, queda claro que esto representa en la mente del Legislador que munus significa el ser de algo real, a saber, un oficio, pero ministerium significa la acción o el servicio prestado por alguien que tiene dicho oficio. Por lo tanto, se dice que munus es una sustancia en sí misma, y se dice ministerium de una sustancia en acto. Pero esta es la distinción de ser y acto, de sustancia y accidente, según la Praedicamenta. Por lo tanto, existe una distinción real entre munus y ministerium, en los sentidos utilizados en Canon 332 §2, 145 §1 y canon 41, así como existe una distinción real entre cualquier agente y las acciones del agente, aunque este último es inherente al anterior. Si esto se niega, entonces el andar de Pedro, que en Pedro es Pedro, cuando Pablo lo imita perfectamente sería tanto Pedro en Pablo como Pedro en Pedro, lo cual es absurdo. Por lo tanto, el andar de Pedro en Pedro no es una sustancia sino un accidente, como el color de la piel de Pedro o el acento de su voz, que se puede duplicar en otras cosas, sin tener que hacerlos Pedro. Del mismo modo, el ministerio petrino, que es la acción o servicio que el que tiene el oficio petrino debe y puede prestar, puede ser perfectamente imitado en otro, sin que ese otro sea el Papa. Esta es la base completa de la colaboración de la Curia romana con cada verdadero Papa, cuando Él delega la ejecución de una parte de su Munus Petrino a cardenales y obispos y sacerdotes en el Vaticano o en cualquier otro lugar. Por lo tanto, para nombrar al Munus Petrino no basta con nombrar al Ministerio Petrino (incluso si se reconoce que Benedict hizo esto, lo cual he demostrado no es el caso en los argumentos de la primera parte), porque al igual que cuando Pedro renuncia a su andar, sigue siendo Pedro, así que cuando el Papa renuncia a su ministerio, sigue siendo el Papa. La racionalidad semiótica o ratio significandi para esto es que, al igual que la sustancia y el accidente son separables, su unidad no es necesaria; por lo tanto, el significado del que es el accidente en el otro no muestra una referencia necesaria o determinante al que es la sustancia. Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el canon 332 §2, que requiere una manifestación de libertad e intención que esté de acuerdo con la norma de la ley, tal forma de significado no es válido, porque requiere una interpretación que la Ley no sostiene como algo posible de acuerdo con canon 17.
Recientemente, el destacado teólogo del vaticano y ex miembro de la Congregación para la fe, Mons. Nicola Buxopinópúblicamente que la validez de la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI debería estudiarse con respecto a la cuestión de lo que parece ser un error sustancial en la fórmuladerenuncia.
Mons. Bux no fue el único en plantear este tema. De hecho, las dudas sobre la validez del acto de renuncia fueron planteadas inmediatamente después de que se conoció la noticia. Flavien Blanchon, un periodista francés que trabaja en Roma, escribiendo solo 2 días después, citóauneminenteeruditolatino que señaló errores en el texto de abdicación y señaló que la presencia de cualquier error, de acuerdo a la tradición canónica, se consideraba un signo de falta de deliberación, rindiendo el acto nulo y sin efecto.
Luego un año después, Antonio Socci especuló abiertamente que la renuncia pudo haber sido inválida a la falta de voluntad interior otorgada por Benedicto. En el mismo año, un estudio muy notable publicado por un profesor en derecho canónico en el Instituto Teológico de Legano, Suiza, en 2014 por el P. Stefano Violi, que discutió canónicamente la renuncia: LaRenunciadelPapaBenedictoXVIentrehistoria, leyyconciencia, sin embargo, sin levantar la cuestión de su invalidez. (Es obligatorio leerlo debido a su rica cita de la historia canónica de las renuncias papales) Sin embargo, el estudio, al identificar el asunto de la renuncia a considerar el ministerio activo, no al munus, dejó en claro que la cuestión de El error sustancial que invalidaba la renuncia, fue una cuestión real, fundamentada en el texto del acto mismo.
Sin embargo, el 19 de junio de 2016, Ann Barnhardt planteó específicamente la cuestión de una duda derivada del canon 188, que cita error sustancial como fundamento suficiente para establecer motivo para una determinación canónica de invalidez en cualquier renuncia. Lo hizo después de los notables comentarios del secretario personal del Papa Benedicto más temprano el 20 de mayo, en los que afirmó que Benedicto todavía ocupaba la Oficina Papal. (Textocompletotraducidoalinglés)
Mons. Henry Gracida, obispo emérito de Corpus Christi, Texas, en los Estados Unidos, y ex miembro del Opus Dei, también ha sostenido esta misma duda y otras en relación con la validez de la renuncia. Entiendo que el Obispo ha escrito a muchos miembros de la Jerarquía Sagrada y la Curia sobre estos asuntos para instar a que se tomen medidas. (cfr. abyssum.org : Sugiere una declaración pública de 12 Cardenales pre Bergoglio)
SegúnAnnBarnhart, en el año siguiente, el abogado Chris Ferrara y la señora Anne Kreitzer también sostuvieron esta misma duda. El historiador RichardCowdenGuido opinó lo mismo el 11 de mayo de 2017. Y, el famoso controversialita italiano, AntonioSocci, citóaVioli detenidamente el 31 de mayo de 2017 y sostuvo la misma tesis.
El 11 de agosto de 2017, el popular programa de televisión católica, CaféconGalat, en una edición en inglés, discutió por qué el Papa Benedicto XVI sigue siendo el verdadero papa. Si bien este programa enfatiza la falta de libertad en el acto, incluye el asunto relacionado con la falta de conformidad con el Canon 332 §2 y el canon 188.
En algún momento antes de marzodeesteaño, el Padre Paul Kramer sostuvo también que el canon 188 anuló la renuncia, debido a la falta de conformidad de las renuncias al canon 332 §2 al mencionar ministerium en lugar de munus.
En mayo de este año, a más tardar, el P.Juan Juárez Falcón expuso la razón canónica de la invalidez de la renuncia, sobre la base de un error sustancial, en un artículo titulado “DosGravesRazones”. El Dr. José Alberto Villasana Munguía lo siguió el 27 de junio, coincidiendo con su opinión.
Finalmente, el Papa Benedicto XVI en sus cartas privadasalcardenalBrandmüller, publicadas en el verano de 2018, solicita abiertamente sugerencias para una mejor manera de renunciar, si no lo hizo correctamente.
Hay una serie de católicos notables que sostienen esta duda, y desde que Mons. Bux solicitó una investigación de este asunto, agregaré aquí en forma escolástica, algunos argumentos a favor de sostenerlo, en el curso de los cuales se refutarán todos los argumentos sustanciales en contra. En el transcurso del tiempo, a medida que los encuentre, o piense en otros nuevos, los agregaré a esta lista.
Acerca de que si el Papa Benedicto XVI, mediante el acto expresado en su discurso “Non solum propter”, renunció al cargo del Obispo de Roma?
Y parece que no lo hizo:
Primero, porque un error sustancial, en un acto de resignación, se refiere al vis verborum, o significado de las palabras, en cuanto a la forma y la materia del acto. Pero el acto de renunciar a un ministerio se refiere a uno de los accidentes propios del cargo (cfr. canon 41) por el cual ese ministerio puede ser ejercido correctamente. Por lo tanto, si uno renuncia a un ministerio, no renuncia a el cargo. Y si cree haber renunciado al cargo, al renunciar a uno de los ministerios, está en un error sustancial en cuanto al significado de las palabras que ha usado. Pero en el texto, NonSolumPropter, Benedicto XVI renuncia al ministerio que recibió como obispo de Roma, cuando fue elegido. Por lo tanto, entender que actuar como una renuncia al cargo es cometer un error sustancial en cuanto al efecto del acto. Por lo tanto, según el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida.
San Pedro Apóstol ejerció muchos ministerios en muchos lugares. Pero nadie es el verdadero sucesor de San Pedro, excepto el obispo de Roma (canon 331). Por lo tanto, si uno renuncia a un ministerio petrino, no renuncia al cargi de Obispado de Roma (cf. cánones 331 y 332), que tiene otros ministerios en virtud de su cargo. Por lo tanto, si uno cree que ha renunciado al Obispado de Roma al renunciar a un ministerio petrino, está en un error sustancial y, por lo tanto, según el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida.
Según San Pablo (1 Corintios 12), existen diversas gracias, ministerios y cargos en la Iglesia, ya que la Iglesia es el Cuerpo de Cristo. Por lo tanto, como el obispo de Roma puede ejercer varios de estos ministerios, se deduce que uno no renuncia al Obispado de Roma si renuncia a uno de estos ministerios, ya que ningún ministerio es coextendido con el Obispado de Roma. Ergo en tal renuncia, si uno cree que ha significado suficientemente la renuncia al Obispado de Roma, está en un error sustancial. Por lo tanto, según el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida.
Según Seneca (Moral Essays, volumen 3, John W. Basore, Heineman, 1935), hay que distinguir entre los beneficios, las oficinas y los ministerios. Los beneficios son los que son otorgados por un desconocido, los oficios por los hijos, las madres y otras personas con las relaciones necesarias, y los ministerios por los funcionarios que hacen lo que los superiores no hacen. El Ministerio Petrino es un servicio a la Iglesia. Pero el oficio del obispo de Roma es un deber para Cristo. Si uno renuncia al ministerio de un sirviente, no renuncia al oficio de un hijo. Ergo en tal renuncia etc..
La validez de un acto de renuncia no puede basarse en la definición subjetiva de las palabras, o la mera intención del que renuncia. Si ese fuera el caso, la interpretación haría del acto un acto de renuncia. El acto en sí no lo declararía. Pero la Iglesia es una sociedad pública fundada por el Dios vivo encarnado. Por lo tanto, la renuncia a los oficios debe ser no solo intencional sino también pública, para dar testimonio del hecho de que el oficio fue establecido por el Dios vivo y encarnado. Pero la oficina del obispo de Roma es tal oficina. Ergo en tal renunciación etc.
Como Msgr. Henry Gracida argumenta en su blog, abyssum.org: Si Cristo no aceptó la renuncia de Benedicto como válida, porque el acto en sí no era canónicamente válido por el canon 188, entonces Cristo estaría obligado en justicia a privar a Bergoglio de la gracia, de modo que Su falta al no ser papa sea MÁS EVIDENTE para todos con fe, esperanza y caridad. Pero es MÁS EVIDENTE para todos, incluso los no católicos, que NO tiene la gracia de Dios en él ni en sus acciones. Ergo, o Cristo es injusto, o Cristo es justo. Él no puede ser injusto. ¡Ergo, Bergoglio no es papa!
Del mismo modo, Cristo oró por Pedro para que su fe no fracasara, y para que pudiera confirmar a sus hermanos en el Colegio Apostólico. Ahora, esta oración de Cristo debe ser eficaz, ya que Cristo es Dios y el Hijo Amado del Padre Eterno, y debido al oficio de San Pedro no es algo meramente útil para el Cuerpo de Cristo, sino necesario en asuntos de fe y unidad. Por lo tanto, la oración de Cristo por los sucesores de San Pedro debe ser eficaz de alguna manera con respecto a la fe y la unidad de la Iglesia. Pero Bergoglio ataca manifiestamente tanto la fe como la unidad de la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, lejos de juzgar que en este hombre la oración de Cristo no tenía la intención de ser efectiva. ¡Ergo, Bergoglio no es un sucesor válido de San Pedro!
Del textodelactoderenuncia. El papa Benedicto admite en la primera oración que posee el munus petrinum. Pero más abajo, dice que renuncia al ministerio que había recibido como obispo de Roma. Por lo tanto, no ha renunciado al munus. Pero munus significa oficio y don de gracia (cf. Canon 145 §1 y Pablo VI, ChristusDominus). Por lo tanto, no ha declarado que ha renunciado al cargo y al don de la gracia. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
Desde el sentido de la lengua latina, que carece del artículo definido e indefinido. Cuando dices: Renuntio ministerio, no dices si has renunciado al ministerio o a un ministerio. Por lo tanto, dejas sin decir a qué ministerio has renunciado. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
De la ley papal UniversiDominiciGregis, sobre las elecciones papales: Uno no es elegido para el Ministerio Petrino, sino para ser el Obispo de Roma. Por lo tanto, a menos que uno renuncie al Obispado de Roma, uno no ha desocupado la Sede de San Pedro. Pero en declaracionespúblicas, el Papa Benedicto XVI, después de marzo de 2013, se limita a decir que ha renunciado al ministerio. Por lo tanto, se encuentra en un grave error habitual con respecto a lo que se requiere en un acto de renuncia del cargo del Obispado de Roma. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
Del Código de Derecho Canónico: las renuncias canónicas son válidas si 3 cosas son válidas: libertad de coerción, recta intención, significado inequívoco. Esto se confirma en el canon 332, § 2, que niega expresamente que la aceptación de una renuncia afecte a su validez o no validez. Pero el PapaBenedictoadmiteensuscartasalCardenalBrandmüller que su intención era conservar algo de la Dignidad Pontificia. Su secretario privado también ha afirmado públicamente que él ocupa la sede de la Sede de Pedro, pero aún comparte el Ministerio Petrino. Esta es una evidencia incontrovertible de que el acto de renuncia es ambiguo. Para cualquiera de los dos significa que ha renunciado a la Sede o que no ha renunciado a la Sede, que ha renunciado al ministerio o que no ha renunciado al ministerio. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
De la neumetología, es decir, de la teología del Espíritu Santo. Después de febrero de 2013, toda la Iglesia aún reconoce y acepta al Papa Benedicto XVI con el título de papa y con prerrogativas papales. Todos lo llaman Benedicto, no Ratzinger o Joseph. Pero toda la Iglesia no puede ser engañada. Sin embargo, según la institución divina, el papado no puede ser ocupado por más de una persona a la vez. Y el que lo sostiene primero, tiene el reclamo válido al oficio. Por lo tanto, la Iglesia no entiende el acto como uno que renuncia al oficio. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
Por insuficiencia de intención: si un Papa renuncia a comer plátanos, no ha renunciado al cargo de Obispado de Roma. Por lo tanto, si él dice: “He renunciado a comer plátanos para desocupar la Sede de Roma“, está en un error sustancial en cuanto al efecto de su acto. Pero en su texto de renuncia, dice que ha renunciado al ministerio para desocupar la sede de San Pedro [ut sedes Sancti Petri vacet]. Pero ese es un error sustancial, ya que el ministerio es solo un accidente propio del Obispado de Roma, porque ser el Obispo de Roma es el primer acto de su existencia. [esse primum], Ejercer los ministerios del Obispado de Roma es el segundo acto de su ser. [esse secundum]. Por lo tanto, dado que el segundo acto de ser es en potencia al primer acto, y la potencia se divide de acto en accidente a sustancia, renunciar a uno o todos los ministerios de un oficio es un acto relacionado con los accidentes, no la sustancia del oficio. Por lo tanto, uno podría igualmente renunciar a cualquiera o todos sus ministerios y retener el oficio. Por lo tanto, al renunciar a uno o al ministerio, no renuncia al cargo. De hecho, en declaraciones públicas, explícitamente afirma haber renunciado al ministerio. Por lo tanto, su insuficiencia de la intención expresada no salva el acto de un error sustancial. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
El Papa no es más poderoso que Dios Hijo. Pero Dios Hijo, al convertirse en el Santísimo Sacramento del Altar, en el momento de la Consagración, renuncia a todos los accidentes y acciones de Su Sagrada Humanidad, sin embargo, sigue siendo Dios y Hombre. Por lo tanto, incluso si un Papa renunciara a todas sus acciones y ministerios como Papa, él sigue siendo el Papa. Pero el Papa Benedicto XVI, en su declaración del 11 de febrero de 2013, solo renuncia al ministerio de su oficio, no al oficio. Por lo tanto, sigue siendo el Papa.
Si usted se levanta de su silla, pero no le concede la silla a otro, la silla queda vacante pero sigue siendo su propiedad. Ahora el oficio del Sucesor de San Pedro es para el Sucesor de San Pedro, mientras que el trono es para el que está entronizado. Entonces, si un Papa renuncia al ministerio de su oficio, pero no al oficio, aunque tenga la intención de renunciar al Trono de San Pedro, no cede su derecho y la posesión del oficio. Entonces, cuando el Papa Benedicto escribe declaro me ministerio … renuntiare ita ut Sedes Petri vacet deja claro que, si bien renuncia a servir como Papa, no renuncia al Papado.
Si algún presidente, primer ministro o padre de familia renuncia a cumplir con los deberes de su cargo, no obstante, no ha dejado de ser presidente, primer ministro o padre. Del mismo modo, con el Papa, si solo renuncia textualmente al ministerio de su cargo, no ha perdido su cargo.
Dios, que es Ser como instituidor de la Oficina de Pedro, no puede considerar como dimitido de la oficina del Sucesor de San Pedro, cualquier Romano Pontífice, elegido válidamente, que solo renuncia a los accidentes o los segundos actos del ser de esa oficina. Pero el Papa Benedicto XVI renunció solo al ministerium, o ejercicio del oficio, el cual había recibido, más no el munus, que es el oficio mismo [cf. canones 332 §2 and 749 §1]. Por lo tanto, ya que el ejercicio del cargo es el segundo acto del ser del cargo, Dios no puede reconocer tal renuncia como válida. Y si Dios no la reconoce como válida, tampoco lo puede hacer la Iglesia. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia, etc..
La esencia de ‘ser el Papa’ es la dignidad de la oficina que ocupa. La esencia de un ministerio es el servicio prestado. Por lo tanto, así como la renuncia a un servicio no causa la pérdida de dignidad, de igual manera la renuncia al Ministerio Petrino no causa la pérdida del cargo papal. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia, etc.
En derecho canónico, ministerium no es el lugar de derecho (ius) que es encontrado solo en los sacramentos (sacramenta) y oficios (munera). Por lo tanto, aquel que renuncia ministerium, no renuncia a ningún derecho. Pero el Papa Benedicto XVI en su renuncia, Non solum propter, renuncia el ministerium que recibió de las manos de los cardenales. Por lo tanto, el no renuncia a ningún derecho. Si se objetara que el renunció al ministerio para desocupar la sede de San Pedro (ita ut Sedes S Petri vacet), Se debe responder que, dado que vacare, en latín tiene dos sentidos: el de conceder el derecho y el de simplemente irse, como en vacaciones, la afirmación de renuncia al ministerium como para vacet a la Sede romana no implica la necesidad de significar una renuncia a ningún derecho. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia etc..
Como argumenta el sabio canonista, Juan Juárez Falcó: el Canon 332, que es el único canon con respecto a las renuncias papales, habla de la renuncia del munus, no del ministerium. Pero Benedicto XVI habla solo de renunciar al ministerio, no al munus. Ergo mediante el canon 188, la renuncia es inválida para efectuar una renuncia de munus. Pero según el canon 145, el munus es la oficina. Por lo tanto, en tal renuncia, etc..
Para los argumentos, al contrario, y sus refutaciones, ver parte II
Como el eminente abogado canónico, el p. Juan Ignacio Arrieta, dice al comentar sobre el Canon 126: Cuando la ignorancia o el error se refieren al objeto esencial del acto, … el acto debe considerarse como nunca habiendo sido presentado, inválido. (Codice di Diritto Canonico, e Leggi Complementari: Commentato, Coletti a San Pietro, 2004, comentario sobre el canon 126).
Por lo tanto, parece que si un Papa tuviera la intención de retirarse del ministerio activo, pero conservara la Oficina Papal en toda su plenitud, podría leer en voz alta la declaración hecha por el Papa Benedicto XVI, Non solum propter, ya que el vis verborum de ese texto es que renunció al ministerio del oficio de Obispo de Roma, pero no al oficio. Aquí se encuentra el error sustancial y, por lo tanto, ese acto de Benedicto XVI el 11 de febrero de 2013 debe considerarse inválido, según el canon 188, si se afirma que es un acto de renuncia del cargo de obispo de Roma. Sin embargo, si uno afirmara que es solo el acto de renunciar al ministerio activo, no al cargo, entonces sí, debería decirse que es un acto válido, que no contiene ningún error sustancial.
En conclusión, razón filosófica
Si bien puede haber muchos tipos de errores sustanciales en un acto de renuncia, NO hay NINGUNA MÁS SUSTANCIAL que la que implica confundir los accidentes de la oficina con la resignación como términos suficientes para indicar la sustancia de la oficina en sí. Ahora, según el canon 188, donde un error sustancial está presente en tal acto, el acto es inválido en su efecto “por la ley misma”. Por lo tanto, el texto de Non solum propter, de Benedicto XVI, no efectúa válidamente su renuncia al cargo de obispado de Roma.
En conclusión, razón canónica
Esto es corroborado por hechos legales indiscutibles, a saber, que el único Canon en el Código de Derecho Canónico, Canon 32 §2, que habla expresamente de una renuncia papal, requiere que el hombre que es Papa renuncie al munus y de hacerlo de manera rite (es decir, adecuadamente de acuerdo con las normas de la ley). Pero el texto de la renuncia de Benedicto habla solo de una renuncia al ministerio. Por lo tanto, dado que se trata de un acto totalmente fuera del significado del Canon 332 §2, el acto no es válido para efectuar una renuncia papal. Así también es inválido efectuar un acto de renuncia que contiene error sustancial, según el Canon 188, y el Canon 126.
De hecho, la separabilidad inherente de ministerium de munus en la historia eclesiástica y la tradición canónica es la razón fundamental por la cual ninguna renuncia a ministerium puede equipararse en la ley como una manifestación debida de la renuncia de un oficio. Por esa razón, la renuncia del Papa Benedicto XVI hecha mediante el acto, Non solum propter, del 11 de febrero de 2013 a. C., no tiene un efecto canónico válido con respecto a la oficina del Papado. Sigue siendo el Papa, por tanto, con todos los derechos y privilegios.
Por lo cual, como ciudadano católico bautizado, ciudadano italiano y residente legal de la ciudad de Roma, pido al Gobierno italiano que invoque su derecho, como parte del Pacto de Letrán y sus acuerdos posteriores, a convocar a todo el clero de la Diócesis de Roma, para juzgar en el tribunal, tal como lo hicieron en AD 1046 en Sutri, al mando del rey Enrique III de Alemania, la validez de la reclamación al cargo de los Papas Benedicto y Francisco, a saber, si el acto de renuncia de Benedicto XVI fue válido en cuanto a una renuncia al oficio, y si no, a declarar el Cónclave de 2013 canónicamente inválido ex radicibus.
In High Scholasticism, the Catholic Theologians, Saints and Doctors of the Church often considered many questions which were speculative, either in regard to what was true but unknowable by man (being hid in the mystery of God) or what could be in a special circumstance which may or may not ever come to be. As founder of The Scholasticum, an Italian non profit dedicated to the revival of the Scholastic Method, I believe that the Scholastic Method can greatly assist the Church even in Her most pressing needs and extraordinary crises. For that reason, I present here a Disputed Question, the import of which may arise, if His Holiness Benedict XVI pass to the Lord before Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and then only if, at such a time, the Cardinals holding fast to the faulty notion that Benedict’s resignation was valid, fail to convene within 20 days to elect his successor. For in accord with the current law on Papal Elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, n.37 Cardinals who do not attend a Conclave with that period no longer have their votes counted. (All references are to the new Code of Canon Law, Latin text; and the papal law on electing the Pope, Latin test.)
Whether, with all Cardinal electors defecting, the Roman Church has the right to elect the Pope?
And it seems that she does not:
1. For only the Cardinals of the Roman Church have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff, according to what is stated in Canon 349, where it says cui competit ut electioni Romani Pontificis provideat ad normam iuris peculiaris. Therefore, since the Roman Church includes those Cardinals, Bishops and Clergy who are not Cardinal Electors, they have no such right. Therefore, the Church of Rome has no right to elect a Pope, even if all the Cardinal Electors fail to elect one.
2. Likewise, since the College of Cardinals has no authority during a Sede Vacante to act other than what is provided for in special law, namely, in the Law for Papal Elections, Universi Dominici Gregis, and this according to Canon 359, which reads: Sede Apostolica vacante, Cardinalium Collegium ea tantum in Ecclesia gaudet potestate, quae in peculiari lege eidem tribuitur; It follows that neither does the Roman Church, because what is denied a superior, is denied also to the inferior. But the College of Cardinals is denied license to act in any other way that what is proscribed in law, therefore also the entire Church of Rome which is inferior to the College.
3. Likewise, since the papal law, Universi Dominici Gregis, n.4, expressly forbids any variation or alteration in law during a Sede Vacante, when it says: Sede Apostolica vacante, leges a Romanis Pontificibus latas non licet ullo modo corrigi vel immutari, neque quidquam detrahi iis sive addi vel dispensari circa partes earum, maxime eas, quae ad ordinandum negotium electionis Summi Pontificis pertinent. Si quid contra hoc praescriptum fieri vel attentari contigerit, id suprema Nostra auctoritate nullum et irritum declaramus; there is nothing which the Roman Church can do, even if all the Cardinals defect, since there is no provision in Canon Law for such action.
4. Likewise, the ancient right of the Roman Church to elect the Roman Pontiff was abrogated when that right was restricted to the Roman Clergy, and again, when that right was further restricted to the Cardinals of the Roman Church. Therefore, no such right exists.
5. Likewise, the ancient right of the Roman Church to elect the Pope was no more than a custom of the Roman Church. But laws of custom have no force if they have not been observed for 1300 years (cf. Canon 26). Therefore, the Roman Church has no such right.
ON THE CONTRARY:
It seems that she does:
1. By Apostolic Institution of the Apostle Saint Peter, the Roman Church undubitably enjoyed the right to elect the Roman Pontiff. This right was restricted by special degree in the 7th century to the Roman Clergy, and in 11th century to the Cardinals of the Roman Church. Yet such a restriction which was prudential and a benefice cannot extinguish the apostolic right, in accord with the principle of law, which states that general prescriptions take precedence to special benefices: Generale praescriptum beneficio speciali anteferendum est (Theodosian Code: DEM AAA. VICTORIO P(RO)C(ONSULI) ASIAE). Therefore, in the case that there are no Cardinal Electors, whether in fact or by defection to an Anti-Pope, or to a Heretical or Schismatic Church, the apostolic right of the Roman Church revives. Therefore, the Roman Church has such a right in their absence.
2. Likewise, by the Code of Canon Law, which declares that all rights which have never been revoked remain in force, according to canon 4, which reads: Iura quaesita, itemque privilegia quae, ab Apostolica Sede ad haec usque tempora personis sive physicis sive iuridicis concessa, in usu sunt nec revocata, integra manent, nisi huius Codicis canonibus expresse revocentur; but the right to elect the Roman Pontiff was indubitably granted by the Apostle Saint Peter to the Roman Church, and that right has never been revoked. Nay, it is the very justification and inherent principle maintained when the Roman Synod in the 7th century restricted the exercise of that right to the Clergy, and when the Pope in the 11th century restricted it further to the College of Cardinals. This is confirmed by canon 6 §4, which restricts the abrogation of previous laws and rights to those things which are integrally expressed in the New Code. But such case, of having no Cardinal Electors, is not provided for. Therefore, it is not integrally included. Therefore, the rights to be referred to in such a case are NOT obrogated. Therefore, that right remains in force always to be revived.
3. Likewise, the ancient right of the Roman Church to elect the Roman Pontiff was ever held to have the force of law. This is self evident from history. But as canon 25, teaches: Nulla consuetudo vim legis obtinet, nisi a communitate legis saltem recipiendae capaci cum animo iuris inducendi servata fuerit. But, such is the case with the ancient right of the Roman Church, especially since when this right was restricted, the ancient reason for it was never denied or explicitly abrogated. This is proven by the fact that the Cardinals are still called Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. Therefore, in the absence of all Cardinals, whether by bad will or substantial error, the right returns to the Roman Church.
4. Likewise, custom is the best interpreter of law (Canon 27). But, when Pope John Paul II was near death, the Cardinals and Bishops in his presence presumed his consent to use his signet ring to appoint Bishops which he had already considered for nomination. And no one in the Church objected to this. Therefore, it is right to presume the consent of a lawgiver, in cases in which he never foresaw. But such is the case of a substantial error in a papal resignation, when all the Cardinals fail to notice that substantial error and are consequently led not to convene in Conclave to elect a successor, but cleave instead to an Anti-Pope which they elected uncanonically during the lifetime of the Pope. Therefore, in such an unforseen and extraordinary case, the Roman Church has a right to have recourse to the ancient law.
5. Likewise, from the principle of subsidiarity, that, namely, when a higher or more dignified part of the body politic fail, the right to act passes to the subordinate authority. This is based on the teaching of Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. It is also supported by Pope John Paul II’s Papal Law on Elections, Universi Domini Gregis, where in the Prologue, the Holy Father says expressly that the College of Cardinals is “not necessary” as an institution “for a valid papal election”. — Thus, with all the Cardinals failing, it would be wrong to deny what the lesser and subordinate organization, the Roman Church, can do. Therefore, if all the Cardinal Electors fail to act on account of an obstruction which they themselves cannot or fail to remove, the Roman Church, as the entity to which they belong by incardination, receives license to resort to the Apostolic right which it has ever enjoyed, in part or whole, of electing the Roman Pontiff.
6. Likewise, from the Code of Canon Law itself, in canon 28: nisi expressam de iis mentionem faciat, lex non revocat consuetudines centenarias aut immemorabiles; hence, since the apostolic right of the Roman Church is of time immemorial, and since that right is not expressly revoked in the present Code, it remains in force, in due circumstances. But the absence of all Cardinals Electors is not only a due circumstance, but one which puts the very constitution of the Church in the gravest danger, since the Office of Saint Peter is not only useful but necessary for the salvation of souls. Therefore, such a right cannot be considered abrogated by the new Code nor by the papal law on the Election of the Roman Pontiff, even if it seems to be expressly abrogated. Therefore, the Roman Church has such a right, in such circumstances.
I RESPOND: It must be said, that whether by good will or bad, the act of electing a Roman Pontiff during the life time of a validly elected Roman Pontiff is both a crime against God and against the unity of the Church. It is a crime against God, since Christ has ordained only one man to be pope at any given time. Its a crime against the unity of the Church, since it causes a de facto schism between those who adhere to the true Pope and those who adhere to usurper and false pretender. Now, even if the Cardinals who do this, do so without malice, but operate under substantial error, nevertheless before the law they must be held to be guilty of the sin and crime of schism, whereby they lose every office and privilege in the Church.
Now the Roman Church, which has ever held the right by apostolic privilege of electing the Roman Pontiff, enjoys in a special way the promise and right granted by Our Lord when He declares that “the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against My Church.” But the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Roman Church if she were deprived of a validly elected Pope and forced to submit to a pertinacious public heretic, apostate or Freemason. Therefore, the Church of Rome has the right to elect the Roman Pontiff, in the special case wherein all the Cardinal Electors fail to exercise their right to do so. But in accord with the papal law, Universi Dominici Gregis, this right must be exercised within 20 days after the death of the Roman Pontiff.
Therefore, if Pope Benedict XVI dies before Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and after 20 days no Cardinal Elector convenes in Conclave to elect his successor, the Roman Church, composed of all the Cardinals, Bishops and Clergy, incardinated in the Diocese of Rome, excluding those who adhere to the de facto schism, have the right to elect the Roman Pontiff.
For this reason, the arguments to the contrary are to be accepted, which sufficiently refute the arguments which contradict them.
In controversies, we often forget the higher principles and end up disputing only in regard to the minutiae. This is dangerous, because the chief motives, especially in controversies in the Church, should depend upon Eternal and Divine principles.
For this reason, it is important for us to remember that Christ Jesus founded the Catholic Church and is the Author and Grantor of all ecclesiastical offices: offices, which are of supernatural origin and to which He has affixed a gift of grace (munus) which cannot be alienated except by explicit renunciation.
We know this by Divine Revelation. For when He asked Simon bar Johan what men thought of Himself, Peter responded: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
To which Our Lord, Messiah and Redeemer responded: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Gospel of Saint Matthew, Chapter 16)
We often fail to recognize, that by a Divine Promise God, who cannot be bound and obligated to man, has nevertheless bound and obligated Himself to man in what He has promised. In regard to the Petrine Office (munus petrinum), Christ has actually bound HIMSELF to the official acts of the Roman Pontiff and to the words thereof. He has thus WILLED as GOD not to act, if the Roman Pontiff does not allow Him to act, and to act when the Roman Pontiff allows Him to act.
While this binding of God to Peter is not universal, it nevertheless does regards Papal Acts, where the man who is Pope acts as pope. It also regards the man who is pope, inasmuch as he is a man, in the matter of accepting and renouncing the Papal Office (munus petrinum). For when a man accepts his election or acclamation as Pope, Christ bestows on the man the office and gift of grace (munus) which he gave Saint Peter to be passed on to the Bishops of Rome until the end of time. The Church in Her wisdom has signified this office and gift of grace with the only Latin word which means both office and gift, “munus”.
No other Latin word having such a meaning, Pope John Paul II, as legislator of the New Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, added munus to Canon 322 §2, as the fundamental condition to spark, as it were, the recognition of a papal resignation.
While men can ignore that word in canon 332 §2, Christ cannot.
This is no exaggeration, no mere human opinion. Because since it is of Divine Faith that Christ promised to bind and loose according to the word of His Vicar. His vicar in adding that word to the canon regarding papal resignation, did bind Christ Himself not to withdraw the office and gift of grace (munus), if the munus were NOT renounced.
The Sacred Hierarchy, and especially the College of Cardinals, need to recognize this fundamental theological truth of Christology and Ecclesiology, and return to a correct recognition of the facts of the case. They must ignore what men say about what happened on February 11, 2013 on the basis of what a pool reporter, with little knowledge of Latin thought Benedict signified. They must ignore what all who think what that act signified. They must attend solely to Canon 332 §2 according to what that canon says in its Latin official text. They must read it in accord with canon 17 and the text Non solum propter.
They must recognize, that when the Vicar of Christ does not renounce the office and gift of grace which Christ gave to him alone, Christ cannot transfer it to another, even if the whole Church wants Him to transfer it. He cannot act, until His Vicar acts. And even if His vicar is confused due to old age, He cannot act.
Thus, it’s indubitably true that Pope Benedict XVI is still the Pope, and that Christ Himself regards Benedict alone as His Vicar on Earth. God Himself can do no other. He cannot break His promise to Peter.
This canonical argument is supported by 35 reasons, debated in Scholastic form, in the article, “The Validity of Benedict’s Resignation must be questioned“, Parts I and II”, why a renunciation of ministerium, in the form had in the papal declarations of Feb. 11, 2013, cannot signify a renunciation of munus as per Canon 332 §2, Canon 188 etc..
Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI remains the one and only true Pope of the Catholic Church with all the powers and prerogatives of that office.
As I pointed out in my rebuttal of Roberto de Mattei, canon 359 guarantees that the College of Cardinals has no authority to convene to elect a pope, when there has been an invalid papal resignation.
Therefore, the Conclave of 2013 is without any right in Canon Law to elect a successor to Pope Benedict. Therefore, the one it claimed to elect, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no authority whatsoever conferred upon him by accepting that election. He is in truth a usurper of the papal office, and must be punished in accord with Canon 1381 §1 for that crime (if he knowingly has done this, otherwise upon demonstration of the delict, he must publicly disavow his claim to the office).
Since Bergoglio never had any canonical authority as Pope, all his nominations to the Roman Curia are null and void. Therefore, all actions taken by the Congregation of Religious against religious communities, or by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against anyone, or the Secretary of State vis-a-vis treaties with nations, such as China, or appointments of Bishops, etc. etc. are NULL AND VOID.
Since the papal resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is invalid, among other reasons, in virtue of containing a substantial error (canon 188) regarding what words must be expressed to conform to canon 322 §2, that resignation is invalid by the law itself (lege ipso). That invalidation spreads to the Conclave and all acts of Bergoglio as Francis, which are canonical, because they too are founded upon the same substantial error, though compounded.
Therefore, since the invalidity of Bergoglio’s papacy depends upon the law of the Church itself (canon 188), there is no need for a judgement of any ecclesiastical office to intervene to establish that it is so. And thus, Catholics may and indeed are obliged BY DIVINE FAITH and OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See and to Canon Law to hold Bergoglio to be an Anti-Pope and to insist to Cardinals and Bishops and civil authorities that he be driven from the Vatican as a usurper.
Let all Catholics who love Christ, who are obedient to the Code of Canon Law and who seek the salvation of souls act now and today. Write your Bishop and the Cardinals. Write the Italian Government, which is bound to uphold only the canonically elected governments of the Vatican. Insist with all that the fact of Bergoglio’s invalidity be publicly affirmed and his usurpation denounced.
Its either that, or the end of the Vatican as we know it, as being part of the Catholic Church.
Here, I will list the arguments for the validity, inasmuch as I find and understand them. If you know of more, let me know in the comments section below. After each argument pro-Validity, I will post, for the reader’s convenience the argument against it — deviating in this small manner from proper Scholastic form. There is no particular order among the arguments, but the strongest ones are at the end.
Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?
And it seems that he did:
1. Because, Pope Benedict XVI as pope is above Canon Law. Therefore, he does not need to resign according to the form of Canon 332 §2. Therefore, he resigned validly.
Ad obj. 1: To argue that the Pope is above Canon Law, and therefore the resignation is valid, is a sophism, which when examined is equivalent to 2 other erroneous propositions, namely: “The Pope as pope is above canon law, ergo etc.”, and “The Pope as the man who is the pope is above the Law, ergo etc.”To the first, I say: In the first case it is true that the Pope as pope is above canon law. However, the Pope when renouncing his office, does not renounce as Pope, but as the man who is the pope. Therefore the argument is praeter rem. To the second, I say: It is false to say the Pope as the man who is pope is above Canon Law, because the mind of the Legislator of the Code of Canon law, Pope John Paul II, in canon 332 §2, expressly declares when a papal resignation is such and is to be regarded as valid. Therefore, if a pope resigned in a way which was valid, but which the Faithful had to regard as invalid according to the norm of that Canon, there would be chaos in the Church. However, in interpreting the mind of a legislator, one cannot presume any thesis which would make the law defective. Therefore, Pope John Paul II did intend to bind the man who is pope, in a papal resignation. Therefore, the second is false also.
2. Because it is clear that Pope Benedict wanted to resign. Therefore, he did resign. Therefore, his resignation is valid.
Ad obj. 2.: To argue that the Pope wanted to resign, therefore he did resign, is to employ a sophism which conceals an undistributed middle term. For if the pope wanted to resign the ministerium of the office, then he did resign the ministerium. But such a resignation is not conform with Canon 332 §2, since it does not resign the munus. Therefore, it is invalid. Likewise, if the pope wanted to resign the munus, then he did NOT resign the munus if he said ministerium. And then even if he thought he did, its invalid, per canon 332 §2 according to the act, and according to canon 188 on account of substantial error.
3. Because Pope Benedict, after his resignation, publicly declared that he validly resigned. Therefore, he validly resigned.
Ad obj. 3.: To argue that the Pope resigned validly because after his resignation he publicly declared that he resigned validly, is to employ a subterfuge. Because in that public declaration he declares that he resigned the Petrine ministry validly. That he resigned the Petrine ministry validly, is not disputed. But if that is what he resigned, then he did not resign the munus. Therefore, that act did not effect a resignation of the office. Therefore if it be asserted to be a valid papal resignation, the assertion is false according to canon 332 §2.
4. Because, Pope Benedict, after his resignation, publicly declared that he freely resigned, therefore he resigned.
Ad obj. 4.: It is true that liberty in a resignation is one of the necessary conditions of a papal resignation according to Canon 332 §2, but it is not true that it is the only condition. The first condition is that it be a resignation of munus. It was not. Therefore, this argument is praeter rem.
5. Because, Cardinal Sodano, as Dean of the College of Cardinals, in convoking the College, acted as if it were valid, therefore it is valid.
Ad obj. 5: There is no Canon of the Church or special delegation by the Roman Pontiff which makes the decision of the Cardinal Deacon to call a conclave efficacious of the validity of an invalid resignation, or authoritatively determinative of the validity of a resignation. Therefore, that he did so, proves nothing. Nay, canon 332 §2 expressly denies this.
6. Because the College of Cardinals convened to elect a Successor of Pope Benedict, therefore by that act declared or made the resignation valid.
Ad obj. 6.: There is no Canon of the Church or special delegation by the Roman Pontiff which makes the decision of the College of Cardinals to conclave or elect a Pope, efficacious of the validity of an invalid resignation, or authoritatively determinative of the validity of a resignation. Therefore, that they did so, proves nothing. Nay, canon 332 §2 expressly denies this.
7. Because the whole College of Cardinals after the resignation and after the Conclave of 2013 acts and holds that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the true and valid pope.
Ad obj. 7: I reply the same as for obj. 6.
8. Because the whole world accepts that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Pope Francis.
Ad obj. 8: Canon 332 §2 in saying, “and not whether it be accepted or not by anyone whomsoever” in its final phrase, expressly denies this. Therefore, it is false.
9. Because, a Catholic must hold as Pope, whomsoever the Cardinals, or the Bishops, or the Clergy of Rome, hold to be the Pope.
Ad obj. 9.: I reply the same, as to obj. 8.
10. Because the election of a Pope by the Cardinals is a dogmatic fact, which all Catholics must accept.
Ad obj. 10.: While it be true that the valid election of a Pope by the Cardinals is a dogmatic fact which all Catholics must accept, it is not true if the election were invalid. But an election is invalid if the previous pope is still living and has not yet validly resigned. Therefore, this objection is invalid, inasmuch as the resignation be invalid. Therefore, of its self it is insufficient to prove the point argued.
11. Because the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is a papal act, which cannot be questioned, according to the addage: prima sedes a nemini iudicatur.
Ad obj. 11.: While it is true that the acts of the Roman Pontiff are juridical acts which cannot be questioned, it is not true that declarations made in the first person by the man who is pope, which are the matter of such acts or declarations, cannot be judged. That such an act can be judged is proven by Canon 332 §2 which judges such acts. That such matter of the papal act is not an act of the pope as pope, has already been proven above. — If you say, that the act of declaration (“I declare”) is a papal act, not the act of the man, therefore it must be held to be valid, since the Pope is the supreme legislator and arbiter of the meaning of canonical acts, it must be responded that the declaration is made in the first person singular, not the first person plural, so the supreme legislator has already explicitly renounced his role in the declaration of the resignation.
12. Because, a Catholic in good conscience must presume, that if the resignation were not valid on account of the use of the word ministerium not munus in the key phrase of the act, that the Cardinals, in accord with canon 17, either demonstrated to themselves that he sufficiently resigned the papacy, or held private council with the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, to know his mind and meaning, at which time he privately signified that he had resigned the papacy in resigning the ministry of the Papacy.
Ad obj. 12.: While it is true that a Catholic should be disposed to presume such, such presumption does not make an invalid resignation valid. Nay, in accord with Canon 332 §2, one must note that the final cause of an invalid resignation is that it not be manifested according to the norm of law (rite manifestastur). Which norm requires a public act, that is, an act witnessed by at least 2 witnesses and made verbally. Such an act has never been published. So even if it were made, its a secret act, and it would not make an invalid resignation, valid.
13. Because Pope Benedict said, “I declare that I renounce the ministry which I had received from the hands of the Cardinals, … so that the See of St. Peter be vacant on …”, he clearly indicated that his renunciation was to effect a loss of office (munus), therefore his resignation was in accord with Canon 332 §2, despite not explicitly using the word munus, as that Canon requires for validity. Therefore, the resignation was valid.
Ad obj. 13.: This objection was refuted in the arguments of the First Part, but its complexity deserves a fuller answer for those minds which cannot understand how it is invalid. First, as demonstrated in the First Part of this Disputed Question, a resignation is valid if it includes a resignation of munus; it is not valid if it does not. And according to Canon 17, if there is any doubt as to whether munus is included in canon 332 §2 as a sine non qua condition or according to its signification in a broader sense, one must have recourse to other parts of the Law, the canonical tradition, and to the mind of the Legislator (John Paul II) of the Code. As has been shown elsewhere, there is no basis for an argument from canon 17 that ministerium can mean munus. However, since ministerium is followed by 2 subordinate clauses, the argument that it is invalid, must respond to that condition. For in Latin, some subordinate clauses can alter the signification of the main clause. And it is true that there is a poetical form, in which part of a thing can substitute for the whole, as when at Mass in the Latin Rite we say, “Come under my roof” to mean “come into my soul”. However, as regards the Latin of the text of the renunciation, to say, “which I received from the hands of the Cardinals” imposes no necessity of reference to the Petrine Ministry per se, because Ratzinger also at that time received the Episcopal and Pastoral Ministry for the Diocese of Rome. The second clause, “so that the See of St Peter be vacant”, has been shown in Part I to necessitate no necessity. For those who do not understand Latin grammar, this needs to be explained. Because, in a subordinate clause such as “so that … be vacant”, the clause is a clause of purpose of the kind which begins with the particle “ut”, and thus is a pure clause of purpose which indicates only a goal. If the subordinate clause of purpose had begun with “in the kind of way which” (quomodo) or “in such a way as to” (in tali modo quod) it would have been a purpose clause of characteristic which has the power to alter the manner of signification in the main clause, and allow the use of metynomic signification, that is, when a part refers to the whole. Since Pope Benedict did not say anything of that kind, this way of reading the subordinate clause is not possible. Hence it remains invalid. However, even if a metonymic signification was had, it remains invalid per canon 332 §2, since it would not be duly manifested. Because just as if one were to pronounce marriage vows by saying, “I take you to be my Viennese strudel” instead of saying “I take you to be my wife”, an interpretation would be necessary to be resorted to, to make the phrase signify taking a wife, so in an act of resignation a metonymic manner of signification renders the act invalid because it publicly does not duly manifest the intention.
14. In his act of resignation Pope Benedict XVI declared two things. The First regarding his resignation, the second regarding the convocation of a Conclave “that a Conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff be convoked by those whose duty it is”. He would not have said this, if his intention was not to resign the office of the Papacy. Therefore, he did resign the office of the papacy.
Ad obj. 14.: This argument is a conflation of two arguments, one of which has previously been refuted, viz. that one which regards his intention, which was refuted in Ad obj. 2. Here I will respond to the other, that which regards the papal command to convene a Conclave. That the Pope declared that a conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff forms the second independent clause of his verb, “I declare”. Thus, it is logically independent and bears no necessity in the alteration of the signification of the first clause, which regards the resignation. Thus, if the resignation not be duly manifested in accord with Canon 332 §2, that the Pope declares a Conclave be called is a papal declaration which is totally vitiated by the substantial error in his first declaration. Thus canon 188 invalidates the execution of this command. This is especially true, because in the declaration of convocation he does not require the convocation to take place before or after he ceases to be pope, or on a specific date or even during his life time. To see this more clearly, recall the example from the arguments against the validity, wherein a hypothetical pope declares, “I renounce bananas so that on Feb. 28, at 8 PM, Roman Time, the see be vacant” and simply add, “and that a Conclave be convened to elect a new Roman Pontiff”. As can be seen in this hypothetical, the second declaration does not make the first valid, it just continues the substantial error: a substantial error which also makes the Conclave of 2013 and all the acts of Bergoglio as pope invalid.
15. Canon 332 §2 does require the resignation of office. But ministerium also means office. Therefore, when Pope Benedict renounced the ministerium, he renounced the munus.
Ad obj. 15.: Canon 332 §2 reads as follows: If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus, there is required for its validity alone that it be freely made and manifested rite, and not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever. As can be seen from this Canon — which is the only one dealing with papal resignations — the fundamental condition is that the Pope resign his “munus”. Now while some modern translations translate that as office (English), others as charge (Spanish), others as function (Italian), its clear from the Code of Canon Law that its primary canonical meaning is office. This can be seen from its use in the headings of the New Code for chapters on ecclesiastical offices. This is confirmed by a direct citation of canon 145 §1, where every ecclesiastical office is called a “munus”, not a “ministerium”. An examination of the Code also reveals that a ministerium is never called an “office”. Now since the Code of Canon Law requires in Canon 17, that the Code itself be read in accord with the tradition of canonical texts, the sources of canon law and the mind of its legislator (Pope John Paul II), these facts should be sufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that “ministerium” can be read as munus. This is confirmed by the comparison of Canon 332 §2 with the corresponding canon in the Code of Canon Law promulgated under Pope Benedict XV, where it speaks of a Pope renouncing, but does not say what he renounces. Its evident and significant that Pope John Paul II in the 1983 code added the word “munus” to specify what must be renounced to effect a papal resignation. Its also evident that in that Code of Canon Law “ministerium” refers to the exercise of an office. Furthermore, if one examines all previous papal resignations for which there is textual evidence of the formula of resignation, the words which signify office are always found: onus, munus. Ministerium is not found. Proper names for the office are found, such as episcopatus or papatus. Or the dignity resulting from the office is named with the words honor or dignitas. Thus, in accord with Canon 17, all the sources of authoritative interpretation conclude upon 1 result: that a Pope only resigns when he resigns the munus, the office, not the execution of the office, ministerium. Therefore, even if Pope Benedict intended, and in private afterwards asserted or asserts or will assert, that he intended to use “ministerium” for munus, his act of renunciation is invalid on account of that substantial error, in virtue of canon 188, and it cannot be made valid by any subsequent act. It would have to be redone with the word, “munus”. So the argument is invalid by a sophistry, of reading “munus” in its major according to its Latin signification, but reading “ministerium” in the minor according to its vernacular usage. Thus, its conclusion is reached through an undistributed middle term, and thus is invalid also.
16. There is no petrine ministerium without a petrine office, for the two are inseparable according to right and being [secundum ius et esse]. Therefore, although Canon 332 §2 does require that a Pope renounce his munus to validly resign, nevertheless, a renunciation of ministerium is sufficient to effect this, because though “munus” names the papal office in relation to God’s gift of grace and duty, “ministerium” names the same office according to its relation to the Church. Therefore, to renounce the petrine ministerium, is to renounce the petrine munus.
Ad. obj. 16.: It must be said, that this argument must be responded to by interemption, for it is false in both its major and minor propositions. In its minor, it is false in being founded upon an error of interpreting the obligations of Canon 332 §2 according to the general custom of the science of theology, and not according to the norm of law. In its major, or premise, it is furthermore false in asserting that ministerium is not separable from office according to right and being [secundum ius et esse]. — In regard to the first, one must respond thus: For in the science of theology, words can have differing significations in respect of the same or dissimilar things. But all this is praeter rem in regard to a discussion of the canonical signification of an act of resignation of ecclesiastical office, even more so, in regard to an office established by the Incarnate Word of God. For in such a matter, the argument must turn upon the office according to its being in the Divine Will and Intention, not upon the office as it is understood according to the personal theology of the man who is Roman pontiff. This is also true in regard to the Roman Church, whose Bridegroom is not the Roman Pontiff, but Christ Jesus Himself, now reigning in Glory. For that reason, not only is She bound to give the consent of Her will to the Redeemer, but also the assent of Her mind. Therefore, one would propose a manner of observing canon law which would be tantamount to adultery, if one held that it was licit for the Roman Church to regard the signification of a canonical act after the manner of the world, the flesh, or even private interpretation. Thus, not only is Christ by His promise to Saint Peter bound by canon 332 §2, promulgated by His Vicar, Pope John Paul II, to not withdraw the grace and office [munus] unless it be explicitly renounced, so also the Roman Church, which is His most faithful virgin Bride and virgin Spouse. Therefore, the Church must regard the obligations of canon 332 §2 as requiring a renunciation of munus, inasmuch as canon 17 requires that term to be understood in canon 145 §1. Nowhere in the Code of Canon law is a ministerium regarded as the office itself. So even if it was the intention of the author of Non Solum Propter, inasmuch as he was man, to signify the Papal Office in its relation to the service it renders, it does not by that fact alone become an act which the Church can accept as rite manifestatum, for an interpretation would have to be resorted to, and a reading of the text, outside the rules of signification of the Code of Canon law would have to be employed. And as such, it would not be canonically valid, even if one could sustain that it was theologically sufficient. Nevertheless, even if one were to grant that the words ministerium …. commissum spoke of the munus petrinum in its relation to the Church, since nothing is renounced but what is explicitly renounced, the act would effect nothing more canonically speaking than a renunciation of the office inasmuch as it is in such a relation, not of the office itself. And thus it would not be efficacious to renounce nor sufficient to signify the renunciation of the office in its relation to God and His gift of grace. But since this very relation refers to it according to its principle of being [secundum essendi principium] – for it is a gift immediately from Christ and established by an act of His will – such a renunciation does not effect what is essential to it. The act remains, therefore, vitiated by substantial error in its manner of signification, and thus is invalid ipso iure, by canon 188. — Finally, in regard to the premise of the argument, namely, that ministerium is not separable from office secundum ius et esse, it must be said that this is falsified by liturgical and canonical law. For since the suppression of minor orders, the state of the acolyte and lector are termed “ministries” [Canon 230 §1], yet such ministries confer no right to exercise such service at any time, but only the suitability to do so at the request of the celebrant of a liturgical act. Therefore, ministeria are separable in right and being from munus. — Thus, in conclusion, it appears obvious that the entire argument is false, since a conclusion which is drawn from a false premise and a false minor is entirely falsified.
17. The peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope is caused by and is the effect of a valid papal election. Therefore, since 6 years have passed, even if the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI were invalid, his de facto silence at the usurpation of the Papal Office by Bergoglio is tantamount to a resignation. Therefore, whether the resignation was invalid or not, it now must be regarded as valid.
Ad obj. 17.: Though, in common law, possession is nine tenths of right, and thus, usurpation can lead to acquisition of right; and though in Roman Law usucapione can obtain legal right to property after a long time, such a principle is not valid for two reasons. First, it is not valid theologically in regard to an ecclesiastical office which was established by Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, by an immediate personal act. Of which kind is the office of Pope. The theological reason is this: that no one can snatch anything out of the Hand of the Living God (John 10:28). And thus, no usurpation of the papal office can constrain the Godhead, Who is Infinite Justice and Omnipotence Himself, to transfer the grace of the Papal munus to another. To hold otherwise, would be a theological impossibility and absurdity. — Second, it is not valid canonically, on account of Canon 359, which specifies that the College of Cardinals has authority to elect a Roman Pontiff only during a sede vacante. Therefore, if the resignation of Pope Benedict XVi was invalid, there was no sede vacante, and therefore the College had no authority to elect a successor. — As for tacit acquiescence: it is clear from Church History, that against the claims of an Anti-Pope no rightful claimant of the Apostolic See was considered to have relented merely for not prosecuting his right. Moreover, the argument of tacit acquiescence, however, has no application in the case under dispute, because that one acts on substantial error does not constitute tacit acquiescence, since tacit acquiescence requires the capacity of consent, a thing which is impossible through invincible ignorance in the case of substantial error. — Finally, as regards the universal and peaceful acceptance of a papal election: while this principle is certainly a valid reflex principle for troubled consciences in the case of a valid election, there is no possibility of a valid election when the College had no right to act, for it is contrary not only to Canon Law but to Divine Law to elect another Roman Pontiff while the Pope still lives and has not validly resigned. It is also not valid, as regards its implicit minor: namely, that there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the Papal resignation. There has not, as the preface to this disputed question demonstrates. Hence, the application of this reflex principle to the present case is at best praeter rem, and worse a subterfuge.
18. Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium validly effects a resignation of office, because, on account of Canon 10, which expressly says only those conditions of invalidity cause an act to be invalid, since canon 332 §2 speaks of invalidity only regard to liberty from coercion and due manifestation, not the naming of the office, since it was Benedict’s intention to name the papal office, as is evident from his accepting the title of Pope Emeritus, the naming of the ministerium instead of munus does not make the act of renunciation invalid. Furthermore, Benedict as pope is the supreme legislator, therefore he officially interprets the law (cf. Canon 16 §1), therefore he is able to resign the Petrine munus by resigning the Petrine miniserium.
Ad obj. 18.: While it is true that canon 332 §2 speaks of invalidity only in regard to the conditions of the act, nevertheless canon 188 speaks expressly of invalidity of resignations which are vitiated by a substantial error. Now, there is no more substantial of an error in resigning an ecclesiastical office, than to resign an accident of it or its second act of being (ministerium) and believe that in doing so one sufficiency signifies the office (munus). Furthermore, Canon 18 requires that the terms of canon 332 §2 be understood strictly, since the latter canon restricts the one who is renouncing. Therefore, the renunciation must explicitly regard the munus of the papal office, which in that canon and in canon 749 §1, like all episcopal offices (cf. Paul VI, Christus Dominus) in the entire Code, is referred to exclusively as a munus, because it is not merely an ecclesiastical office (officium) or service (ministerium) established by custom or the Church, but is a gift of graceand office (munus) established by the Living God by an immediate Personal Act (cf. Matthew 16:18 ff). That each such office (munus) can exercise one or more ministeria is not only NOT an argument for the validity of Benedict’s resignation, but nay rather an argument against the validity, on account of canon 188, canon 17 and canon 41 (in the Latin), the latter of which expressly associates ministerium with the mere execution of an ecclesiastical office; and this, because the execution of an office or its services can be renounced by the infirm, who still wishes to retain the dignity of the office, as the history of the Church demonstrates. Thus, in virtue of canon 17, which explicitly requires that the texts of each Canon be understood according to the proper meaning of the words they contain as the context of the Code of Canon Law uses them, the argument drawn from canon 10, here, is invalid because it is praeter rem, that is, applicable only to the conditions of invalidity in canon 332 §2, not canon 188. — If you say, yes, Canon 10 applies only to the terms of validity expressed in Canon 332 §2 and thus allows a broad interpretation of the conditional clause which speaks of a resignation of the petrine munus: then it must be responded, that such a reading of canon 10 would nullify the requirements of canon 17, that terms must be understood properly, or at least fails from insufficiency, since the broad meaning of munus in the Code of Canon Law is officium not ministerium; which sense of officium refers to office, not execution of a ministry. — Regarding Canon 16 §1, it must be said, that yes, Pope Benedict as Pope is the supreme legislator and interpreter of canon law. But he is only legislator, when he legislates; whereas Canon 332 §2 was legislated by Pope John Paul II. Furthermore, though any Pope can officially interpret Canon Law, he must do so by a papal act, not by a substantial error. Thus, canon 16 does not apply in such a case. Nay, rather, Canon 38 expressly rules in this case, when it says: An administrative act, even if it be enacted by a rescript given Motu Proprio, lacks effect to the extent that it harms the rights of another or is contrary to the law or proven custom, unless the competent authority expressly has added a derogating clause. — Finally, as regards the Pope’s manifest intention to resign the papal munus, I have responded to this above in the reply to objections 2, 3 and 4.
19. As Dr. Taylor Marshall sustains on his video, “The Resignation of Pope Benedict: an Analysis”, “ministerium” and “munus” name the same thing: the papal office, therefore to renounce the one is to renounce the other. Therefore, the resignation is valid.
Ad obj. 19.: To a gratuitous assertion, no reply need be made, because it is not an argument. However, against this assertion, one must respond, since it attacks the very nature of reality itself. For words have meaning, otherwise they would not be signs of communication. And different words can have different meaning, or there would be no reason to use them. Thus human language of necessity sustains the assertion that ministerium and munus can have different significations. Any dictionary of Latin also sustains this, as anyone can demonstrate who has one. But that ministerium and munus in Canon Law mean the same thing, is entirely false, as has been demonstrated above by referring, in accord with the requirements of canon 17, to the Code itself which in canon 41 associates “ministerium” with the mere exercise of office, and canon 145 §1 which defines an ecclesiastical office as a “munus,” not a ministerium. Thus, the Code of Canon Law itself uses the terms in different senses, and do not equate their significations as referring to an ecclesiastical office, in the sense that “bishopric” or “papacy” refer to an office. — This is a sufficient refutation according to the norm of Canon Law. But since the assertion conceals a grave error of the kind of Nominalism promoted at Tübingen, it merits to be refuted according to the science of philosophy. For just as there are 10 categories of being according to the Philosopher in his Praedicamenta, so words can be said in reference to one or more category of being. Now in canon 145 §1, the Supreme Legislator predicates munus of every ecclesiastical office. But no where in the Code does he predicate ministerium of any ecclesiastical office, only of roles or services rendered by one who holds an office or in his stead. Therefore it is clear from canon 17 that this represents in the mind of the Legislator that munus signifies the being of something real, namely an office, but ministerium signifies the action or service rendered by one who holds such an office. Therefore, munus is said to be a substance itself, and ministerium is said of a substance in act. But this is the distinction of being and act, of substance and accident, according to the Praedicamenta. Therefore, there is a real distinction between munus and ministerium, in the senses used in Canon 332 §2, 145 §1 and canon 41, just as there is a real distinction between any agent and the actions of the agent, though the latter inheres in the former. If this be denied, then the walking of Peter, which in Peter is Peter, when imitated perfectly by Paul would be just as much Peter in Paul as Peter in Peter, which is absurd. Therefore, the walking of Peter in Peter is not a substance but an accident, like the color of Peter’s skin or the accent of his voice, which can be duplicated in other things, without making them Peter. Likewise, the Petrine ministry, which is the action or service which the one who holds the Petrine Office should and can render, can be perfectly imitated in another, without making that other the Pope. This is the entire basis for the Roman Curia’s collaboration with every true Pope, when He delegates the execution of some part of his Petrine Munus to Cardinals and Bishops and priests at the Vatican or elsewhere. Therefore, to name the Petrine munus it does not suffice to name the Petrine Ministry (even if it be conceded that Benedict did this, which I have shown is not the case in the arguments of the first part), because just as when Peter renounces his walking, he remains Peter, so when the Pope renounces his ministry, he remains the pope. The semiotic rationale or ratio significandi for this is, that just as substance and accident are separable, so their unity is not necessary; therefore, the signification of the one which is the accident in the other signs no necessary or determinative reference to the one which is the substance. Therefore, in accord with canon 332 §2, which requires a manifestation of liberty and intention which is accord with the norm of law, such a manner of signification is invalid, because it requires an interpretation which the Law does not sustain as possible in accord with canon 17.
December 18, 2018 — A silent secret Coup d’Etat occured at the Vatican nearly 6 years ago, the facts of which case have only recently come to light. The leading figures in the takeover were Cardinals Sodano and Bergoglio. Sodano, the former, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, charged with calling a Conclave in the event of the death or valid resignation of the Roman Pontiff; the Latter, the head of the Saint Gallen Mafia, which had plotted since 2004 to take over the Church and transform the Catholic Religion into a hollow mockery of the Gospel.
The coup d’etat was put in motion by the decision by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to resign from active ministry on February, 11th, which he announced to the world in the Latin text, “Non solum propter”. (For the original text and English translation, see here). The carefully worded text, based on the distinction put forward by Karl Rahner in 1974, in his work, Vorfragen zu einem okumenischen Amtsverstandnis, that one could retain the munus petrinum and share the ministerium petrinum, renounced the latter and explicitly affirmed the holding of the former.
This very obscure distinction in the Latin text allowed a coup d’etat, that is an unlawful take over of the Vatican. Because, according to the norm of Canon Law, the Cardinal Deacon was NOT empowered by the act of resignation to call a Conclave. Nay, he was obliged to confer with his Holiness as to the nature of the Vicar he wanted to appoint to govern the Vatican in his retirement, and ask direction on how the institution of the College of Cardinals could accomplish this, since the rules of a Conclave only regard the election of a successor not a Vicar sharing the active ministry.
No sooner had Pope Benedict XVI read his text, that Cardinal Sodano began to play up the event, by saying out-loud in Italian: “‘Holiness, this news catches us like a lightning bolt in a clear blue sky.’” (source)
Then the Italian journalist, Giovanna Chirri, a pool reporter for the Italian News Cooperative, ANSA, after attempting to speak with Cardinal Sodano by phone, following the consistory, and receiving the go ahead from Fr. Lombardi, ran the fake news story that the Pope had resigned his office. She went to far in later reports to claim that she understands Latin perfectly, and that the renunciation was unequivocal!
Amazingly, Chirri announced this “news” via Twitter! Here is the historic tweet, upon which the entire Catholic world bases its idea that Benedict resigned the papacy!
B16 si e' dimesso. Lascia pontificato dal 28 febbraio
However, the full responsibility and liability for the decision to call a Conclave to elect another Pope — during the lifetime of a Pope who only retired from active ministry, but did not resign his office — must be laid at the feet of Cardinal Sodano. That he was urged to this by the Saint Gallen Mafia may be supposed, but the evidence from the Law of the Church is indisputable. As Canon 332 §2 reads in its official form, which in Latin — a Latin in which Cardinal Sodano is fluent, says:
CANON 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
The law of the Church is clear: a pope resigns when he resigns his Munus (muneri suo renuntiet). And the validity of such a resignation arises from the act itself when it is conform with the norm of law (rite manifestetur) and is free.
The crime of Sodano consists in the pretense he made, based on the common translations of that Canon into modern languages, that you could renounce the office of the papacy without renouncing the petrine munus.
Obviously, canonically speaking, its impossible to demonstrate that a renunciation of ministerium is a due and proper manifestation of a renunciation of munus according to the norm of law, when the law itself says that papal resignations regard only the munus.*
Cardinal Sodano was of an age in which he could not vote in any further Conclaves, but by summoning a Conclave to elect another pope AND omitting a conference with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, he set in motion a revolution which resulted in Jorge Mario Bergoglio seizing control of the Vatican government and presenting himself to the world as the Vicar of Christ.
How many of the Cardinals who attended the Conclave of 2013 raised questions about this is not yet publicly known. However, its not a question of any form of secrecy to which they were or are bound, since if any of them noticed the sleight of hand of Sodano, he would have spoken about it before the Conclave began.
Today it is evident to the whole Catholic world that Bergoglio is an Anti-Pope in the sense that he has not the Faith of the Church and daily attacks the Faith. May God grant that Catholics everywhere read the Latin text of Canon 332 §2 to see that a renunciation of active ministry does not renounce the papal office, and that therefore the Conclave of 2013 was illicity convened and uncanonical, and that Bergoglio was never the Pope, never the Bishop of Rome, never the Successor of Saint Peter.
* Can. 17 — Leges ecclesiasticae intellegendae sunt secundum propriam verborum significationem in textu et contextu consideratam; quae si dubia et obscura manserit, ad locos parallelos, si qui sint, ad legis finem ac circumstantias et ad mentem legislatoris est recurrendum.
Cardinal Sodano was obliged, by this canon, in the matter of any doubt concerning whether the act of Benedict XVI was valid per canon 322 §2, to look in the Code itself for the usage of ministerium and munus. However, in the Code there is no equation of these two terms. Not finding one, he would be obliged to look at the canonical history of the term munus in papal resignations, in which in previous resignations the word munus, not ministerium, has always been used. So he had no grounds to call a Conclave. (cf. Dos graves razones, by Juan Suárez Falcó, and Fr. Stefano Violi, The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience)
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church